Main Menu

New NBC commentary appears at Harvard Law Review

Image result for harvard law reviewNeal Katyal, former acting solicitor general for President Obama and Paul D. Clement, former solicitor general for President George W. Bush, agree on one thing, Ted Cruz has what it takes to be president, at least Constitutionally speaking. What is a “natural born citizen” is the question they address in an article titled, “On the Meaning of ‘Natural Born Citizen’” published yesterday (11 March, 2015) at the Harvard Law Review Forum.

image

They call “spurious” recent arguments that someone born a US citizen abroad, like Cruz, is ineligible. In their view:

…the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings.

Their argument is based on the emphasis that the courts have given the English Common Low and those statutes enacted by the First Congress. They point to various English statutes from the 1700s that refer to the children of English subjects born overseas as “natural born” and to the phrasing of the US Naturalization Act of 1790 that states that those children born to US parents (under most conditions) are natural born citizens.

I might quibble with some of the emphasis in this short piece, but I wholeheartedly agree with this:

The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

500 Responses to New NBC commentary appears at Harvard Law Review

  1. avatar
    Paul March 12, 2015 at 8:53 pm #

    EXACTLY what I’ve been telling my political foes for years. It’s one or the other.

    Were you naturalized to become a citizen? NO?!?! Then you were “Natural Born”.

    The End.

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 12, 2015 at 9:01 pm #

    Where their argument is a bit weak is when they conflate the English Common Law with certain 18th-century English statutes. I’m not saying that an argument relating the two is impossible, but that they left it hanging.

  3. avatar
    Jim March 12, 2015 at 9:21 pm #

    Well, let’s see…
    Doc’s written over a million* words on this…
    This article is 4 pages long…
    And the birthers understand none of it.

    *-rough guesstimate…probably low 😀

  4. avatar
    Arthur B. March 12, 2015 at 9:29 pm #

    The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better.

    Now, Doc, be fair. We’ve all had a great run at it. If others want to give it a go, they deserve a shot.

  5. avatar
    Joey March 12, 2015 at 9:32 pm #

    Freerepublic.com has an article up on the Harvard Law Review piece. Its interesting to read the birther point of view.

  6. avatar
    Reality Check March 12, 2015 at 10:50 pm #

    Somehow I immediately thought of a certain attorney from New Jersey when I read that sentence. 😆

    Arthur B.: The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better.

  7. avatar
    elmo March 12, 2015 at 11:31 pm #

    Well, sure. But Ted Cruz has not released the document that would prove he was a citizen at birth: his consular report of birth abroad.

    I don’t know why we should just take his word on it. If he runs for president he should release it.

  8. avatar
    Reality Check March 12, 2015 at 11:41 pm #

    Actually, I don’t care if he does or not release anything. I consider it a technicality. We know Cruz was probably a citizen at birth. That is what matters. I would rather he be judged on his woeful record as a politician which IMO renders him unfit to be considered for the presidency.

    elmo: I don’t know why we should just take his word on it. If he runs for president he should release it.

  9. avatar
    alg March 12, 2015 at 11:51 pm #

    Obviously, the authors and the Harvard Law Review editorial staff have committed high treason and deserve the punishment normally afforded to traitors.

    Off with their heads! Or at least take away their Walmart preferred customer status 🙂

  10. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 13, 2015 at 3:09 am #

    Neal Katyal, Rafael Cruz and Barack Obama are not natural born citizens. Natural born is a Kind, both parents and the child must be the same natural kind as the Founders.

    True natural born citizens cannot say to Obama, Cruz or Katyal…”you’re very kind”.

    Some of you were pouting about the Dred Scott decision. The ruling was not about right or wrong, it was about the law.

    My comment that the 39th and 40th Congress violated the Louisiana Purchase Treaty. Y’all had a hissy fit..

    Eric Holder and spurious born, illegal president said Treaties trump the Constitution. Based on article III, Louisiana Purchase Treaty Holder and Obama said they’re not citizens

  11. avatar
    Lupin March 13, 2015 at 3:58 am #

    ObligedFriend:
    Neal Katyal, Rafael Cruz and Barack Obama are not natural born citizens. Natural born is a Kind, both parents and the child must be the same natural kind as the Founders.

    True natural born citizens cannot say to Obama, Cruz or Katyal…”you’re very kind”.

    Some of you were pouting about the Dred Scott decision. The ruling was not about right or wrong, it was about the law.

    My comment that the 39th and 40th Congress violated the Louisiana Purchase Treaty. Y’all had a hissy fit..

    Eric Holder and spurious born, illegal president said Treaties trump the Constitution. Based on article III, Louisiana Purchase Treaty Holder and Obama said they’re not citizens

    Do we have to go through this again and again? This ill-educated imbecile has been shown multiple times how wrong & factually incorrect he is (in my case, with respect to the Louisiana Purchase treaty) and he simply keep repeating the same drivel.

  12. avatar
    Oblifedfriend March 13, 2015 at 4:29 am #

    Lupin: Do we have to go through this again and again? This ill-educated imbecile has been shown multiple times how wrong & factually incorrect he is (in my case, with respect to the Louisiana Purchase treaty) and he simply keep repeating the same drivel.

    You pointed out nothing.

  13. avatar
    Sam the Centipede March 13, 2015 at 5:41 am #

    Even in anti-birther articles there seems to be an assumption that somehow “natural born” or “natural born citizen” is a legal term or a “term of art”. I doubt that it is or ever has been in the U.S.A. or in England. It is a simple but slightly archaic phrase in the English language meaning “born with that nature”. Not naturally born, not natively born, it just means “born like that”. As in the film title “Natural Born Killers”. A natural born citizen is a person who was born a citizen, that’s it, simple, no need to invent new myths.

    Any birther objecting “well, why didn’t the authors just write ‘born’ instead of ‘natural born’?” would be an idiot, because (a) it was ordinary English usage at the time, (b) there is no rule saying every sentence should emply the bare minimum of words, and (c) all citizens are born whether or not they are born as citizens so specifying “natural born” rather than “born” is actually more precise.

    So all the constitutional, legal and Vattellite stuff is a red herring. The phrase means born with that nature, it’s English, learn the language!

    I see the only confusing issue (which is not at all relevant in these cases) is if a person is a citizen and permanent resident of a non-U.S. country which during their lifetime becomes a state in the U.S. and that person acquires citizenship automatically that way, would/should that be counted as natural born or not?

    I dislike the anti-democratic notions of birthers, like ObligedFool and Sven Moronssen. If a majority of the electorate affirms their wish that a particular person be President, it is absurd to deny them their wish. And certainly not because a few right-wing racists have a visceral prejudice against a black Democrat.

  14. avatar
    Lupin March 13, 2015 at 5:52 am #

    Sam the Centipede: So all the constitutional, legal and Vattellite stuff is a red herring.

    FWIW here (in France) we say “Vattelian” (Vattelien).

  15. avatar
    faceman March 13, 2015 at 7:55 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Ted must show his Certificate of Citizenship to prove he is a citizen. An oath of renunciation must be sworn before a Certificate of Citizenship is awarded. A Consular Report of a birth abroad does not indicate whether or not Ted stated an oath of renunciation to Canada.Since Ted only recently announced he sought to voluntarily renounce his Canadian citizenship, then it means Ted did not receive a Certificate of Citizenship or he voluntarily renounced his Canadian citizenship twice.

    Sven, you really need to see that doctor about your memory problems. You already conceded on the open thread that Cruz had received the Canadian equivalent of a CLN (They call it a CRCC), and that he was eligible to be president (not that the CRCC was necessary). Maybe you should have checked the date on that article you read.

    Oh, and the purpose of the Consular Report of Birth Abroad would be to establish that he was a US citizen. Duh.

  16. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 13, 2015 at 9:36 am #

    Dred Scott misstates the law, in particular when they said that blacks hadn’t been considered citizens in any of the colonies/states. (I may not be stating that precisely.)

    ObligedFriend: The ruling was not about right or wrong, it was about the law.

  17. avatar
    Reality Check March 13, 2015 at 10:14 am #

    I think the HLR article was coordinated by the High Supreme Obots at OARPA and the New World Order to embarrass Blovario Apuzzo as he blathers on and on over at the WFP article by Greg Contario. The timing was expertly coordinated to make Blovario look bad after he had spent long days and nights writing 000’s of words in comments there. How clever to have two former Solicitors General, one from each party, write that the mighty Blovario is wrong.

    Job well done!

    alg: Obviously, the authors and the Harvard Law Review editorial staff have committed high treason and deserve the punishment normally afforded to traitors.

    Off with their heads! Or at least take away their Walmart preferred customer status

  18. avatar
    y_p_w March 13, 2015 at 12:41 pm #

    elmo: Well, sure. But Ted Cruz has not released the document that would prove he was a citizen at birth: his consular report of birth abroad.

    Not everyone gets one who is born overseas to at least one US citizen parent. It requires some planning and an appointment at a US foreign mission.

    It’s possible to just get the Certificate of Citizenship in the US. I’ve even heard of that happening when someone was an immigrant to the US and sought out a long lost US citizen parent or perhaps even knew that ahead of time. I could see an unexpected birth overseas and an embassy or consulate issuing an emergency passport before they could process a Consular Report of Birth Abroad.

    As a Canadian citizenship at birth, Ted Cruz could have simply entered the US as a Canadian and then processed his N-600 while in the US. It wouldn’t have required that he renounce his Canadian citizenship either, even if he got it as an adult.

  19. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 13, 2015 at 12:57 pm #

    Oblifedfriend: You pointed out nothing.

    So you’re just going to cover your ears and say “lalala i can’t hear you”?

  20. avatar
    Curious George March 13, 2015 at 1:10 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
    March 13, 2015

    “So you’re just going to cover your ears and say “lalala i can’t hear you”?

    Funny, that reminds me of the fearless Reichsmarshal “Z” saying to the reporter ….. “because I don’t haaavve tooooo. ” They’re all in lala land. 🙂

  21. avatar
    Joey March 13, 2015 at 1:17 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    Neal Katyal, Rafael Cruz and Barack Obama are not natural born citizens. Natural born is a Kind, both parents and the child must be the same natural kind as the Founders.

    True natural born citizens cannot say to Obama, Cruz or Katyal…”you’re very kind”.

    Some of you were pouting about the Dred Scott decision. The ruling was not about right or wrong, it was about the law.

    My comment that the 39th and 40th Congress violated the Louisiana Purchase Treaty. Y’all had a hissy fit..

    Eric Holder and spurious born, illegal president said Treaties trump the Constitution. Based on article III, Louisiana Purchase Treaty Holder and Obama said they’re not citizens

    Now if ObligedFriend could just find one single judge, at any level of the judiciary, from traffic court to the Supreme Court to agree with the opinion expressed above.

    When adding up the nine judge state and federal Supreme Courts, the three judge state and federal appeals courts and the 230 original jurisdiction courts, plus the state Election Boards, close to 1,000 Triers of Fact have had the opportunity to review and rule on Barack Hussein Obama, II’s Article II, Section 1 eligibility over the last seven years. There has not been a single finding of ineligibility and many definitive statements of qualifying as a natural born citizen-kind!

    For example, when the Republican Governor of Indiana and former Bush Administration Budget Director Mitch Daniels was sued for allowing President Obama to receive Indiana’s Electoral votes, the state Appeals Court ruled in Ankeny v Daniels: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”–Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009
    The Indiana Supreme Court refused to review the Appeals Court’s ruling and it stands.

  22. avatar
    Arthur B. March 13, 2015 at 3:46 pm #

    Joey: The Indiana Supreme Court refused to review the Appeals Court’s ruling and it stands.

    And the plaintiffs let slide the opportunity to appeal to SCOTUS. I wonder why?

  23. avatar
    alg March 13, 2015 at 3:50 pm #

    Joey: Now if ObligedFriend could just find one single judge, at any level of the judiciary, from traffic court to the Supreme Court to agree with the opinion expressed above.

    Given that there are effectively 220 judicial decisions concluding exactly the opposite, I suspect that ObligedFriend is going to have a tough time finding that “one single judge” willing to find in his favor.

    ObligedFriend can hyperventilate all he wants about what he believes the term “natural born citizen” means, but until and unless he can find a court that agrees with him, all he can really do is suck wind while engaging in solo self-gratification..

  24. avatar
    Notorial Dissent March 13, 2015 at 3:57 pm #

    y_p_w: As a Canadian citizenship at birth, Ted Cruz could have simply entered the US as a Canadian and then processed his N-600 while in the US.It wouldn’t have required that he renounce his Canadian citizenship either, even if he got it as an adult.

    It’s equally and in fact probably more likely that he returned to the US as an infant listed on his mother’s passport, as even in those days the border crossings were a bit sticky about undocumented children. Since he would have been considered a US citizen at birth regardless of where he was born owing to his mother’s nationality.

  25. avatar
    y_p_w March 13, 2015 at 4:45 pm #

    Notorial Dissent: It’s equally and in fact probably more likely that he returned to the US as an infant listed on his mother’s passport, as even in those days the border crossings were a bit sticky about undocumented children. Since he would have been considered a US citizen at birth regardless of where he was born owing to his mother’s nationality.

    Possibly. These days minors aren’t listed on their parents’ passports, and I’m not sure when this practice was discontinued. Also – it can be hard to get a kid to sit still for a photo.

    I’m also pretty sure that if a Consular Report of Birth Abroad is issued, a Certificate of Citizenship isn’t supposed to be issued. It’s simply not needed as the Consular Report of Birth Abroad does everything. A new CRBA also can only be issued for someone who hasn’t turned 18. If a CRBA is lost, the person isn’t supposed to apply for a Certificate of Citizenship, but rather apply for a CRBA replacement.

  26. avatar
    Notorial Dissent March 13, 2015 at 5:17 pm #

    I am going to go out on a limb here, but IIRC it wasn’t until the mid to late 70’s when individual passports for minors became required. Prior to 1970 they only needed one if they were traveling on their own or with someone other than their parents. I still rather suspect that mama had her passport updated to include him since he would have been a babe in arms at the time.

  27. avatar
    y_p_w March 13, 2015 at 5:30 pm #

    I remember when I first began following all this, nobody was supposed to have more than one Consular Report of Birth Abroad. A replacement was supposed to be for one that was lost/stolen/destroyed, and the circumstances were supposed to be documented to the State Dept before they would issue one.

    These days they’ll actually send out multiple copies, so I suppose parents can have one or one could keep a backup copy.

    http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/abroad/events-and-records/birth/replace-or-amend-consular-report-of-birth-abroad.html

  28. avatar
    jdkinpa March 13, 2015 at 6:54 pm #

    I am going to go out on a limb here, but IIRC it wasn’t until the mid to late 70’s when individual passports for minors became required. Prior to 1970 they only needed one if they were traveling on their own or with someone other than their parents. I still rather suspect that mama had her passport updated to include him since he would have been a babe in arms at the time.

    You are correct. Our son was born in the Netherlands in 1986, I was in the Army, assigned to AFCENT. He was born in the local civilian hospital. It was pretty easy to register his birth through my HQ support office. They had the necessary form (Form 3-80, FS-240) and we had to provide supporting documents for the parents, my BC, the wife’s US Passport. Though he was just a baby we had to get a passport for him also. He was only a few weeks old and looked like all babies at that age, We were told to get one if we planned to travel anywhere in Europe and of course when we came back to the states. His Certificate of Birth Abroad has a raised seal of the Consular Service of the United States in Amsterdam and is signed by the Consul, at that time a Mr. Walter N. Davenport, Jr.

  29. avatar
    Joey March 13, 2015 at 7:24 pm #

    Ted Cruz has acted as if he did not know that he had Canadian citizenship which leaves me curious to know whether he actually has a CRBA.

  30. avatar
    JD Reed March 13, 2015 at 7:32 pm #

    Arthur B.: And the plaintiffs let slide the opportunity to appeal to SCOTUS. I wonder why?

    Me, too .. well, not actually.
    In regard to the Arkeny case, birthers acted a dog chasing a car. The pooch might put on a good show, but it knows not to get too close to a huge speeding object. Likewise, the birthers who were aware of the Arkeny case … and there must have been a few …logically would have l pushed, very aggressively, an appeal to SCOTUS, offering the original plaintiffs whatever assistance they needed to go forward. But some surely had a feeling in the pit of the stomach that the whole thing would have backfired big time, with the high court affirming the lower court’s ruling with a strong opinion that anyone in Obama’s particular birth circumstances is a natural born citizen. Much better to pursue keyboard combat!.

  31. avatar
    Bob March 13, 2015 at 7:46 pm #

    Cruz could easily end this controversy if he wanted to by releasing the long form, vault copy of his mother’s birth certificate.

  32. avatar
    gorefan March 13, 2015 at 8:02 pm #

    Mario has posted his response to the Harvard Review article – same old thing.

  33. avatar
    y_p_w March 13, 2015 at 8:15 pm #

    Joey:
    Ted Cruz has acted as if he did not know that he had Canadian citizenship which leaves me curious to know whether he actually has a CRBA.

    It’s not unusual for a kid to have little knowledge of where important documents are or where they exist. However, as a US Senator, I’d think he would have been vetted even if he wasn’t directly involved.

    Once you have a passport and a driver license there’s almost no need for a “foundational document” like a birth certificate, Certificate of Citizenship, or CRBA. Right now my kid has a passport and California ID, and that might be all that’s needed as long as they’re renewed on time.

    Strangely enough, Little League Baseball states that a birth certificate is required as a proof of age document, UNLESS the kid was born in another country outside the country of participation. In that case a US government document is acceptable if it’s filed within a year of birth. So that might include a Certificate of Citizenship or a CRBA.

    Outside of that, a “Statement in Lieu of Acceptable Proof of Birth” can be issued, and one track is to present a US passport or a naturalization document (they still say DOJ even though it’s now a DHS function).

    http://www.littleleague.org/Assets/forms_pubs/tournaments/Proof-of-Age-Requirement.pdf

    If you were born outside the country where one is playing, it’s pain to gather all the acceptable documents. If I read this correctly, it turns into requiring 6 documents.

  34. avatar
    donna March 13, 2015 at 8:44 pm #

    A Response to Neil Katyal and Paul Clement on the Meaning of a Natural Born Citizen

    – Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-response-to-neil-katyal-and-paul.html

    it end with: In short, Katyal and Clement’s article lacks any critical research and reasoning and is nothing more than an attempt to convince the reader that Senator Cruz is a natural born citizen because they said so and the reader has to believe that because they were former heads of the Office of Solicitor General of the United States.

  35. avatar
    bob March 13, 2015 at 8:44 pm #

    gorefan:
    Mario has posted his response to the Harvard Review article – same old thing.

    I think it is even lamer: Apuzzo essentially argues the authors appeal to authority, when at no point do they say, “we’re right because we’re big deals.”

  36. avatar
    Notorial Dissent March 13, 2015 at 9:00 pm #

    As y_p_w points out, most kids have very little awareness of when and where they were born, however, one would think that an allegedly intelligent, well educated affluent adult would have seen their birth certificate at least once or twice in their lives, like getting a driver’s license, passport, etc., but we are dealing with Cruz here, and quite frankly I’m not sure he even qualifies as not the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes right down to it. I’m really not sure what his obliviousness to his dual, or is it triple, citizenship says, but he’s always struck me as pretty clueless. I suspect the statement that he’s never really thought about it is probably pretty spot on.

    Joey:
    Ted Cruz has acted as if he did not know that he had Canadian citizenship which leaves me curious to know whether he actually has a CRBA.

  37. avatar
    Craig HS March 13, 2015 at 9:01 pm #

    Reality Check:
    Actually, I don’t care if he does or not release anything. I consider it a technicality. We know Cruz was probably a citizen at birth. That is what matters. I would rather he be judged on his woeful record as a politician which IMO renders him unfit to be considered for the presidency.

    At the same time, it will be hilarious if the reason he fails to get the Republican nomination for presidential candidate, is because half his teabagger base object that he hasn’t released his Consular Report of Birth Abroad.

  38. avatar
    Rickey March 13, 2015 at 9:55 pm #

    Oblifedfriend: You pointed out nothing.

    Wrong. He pointed out that you are a racist imbecile.

  39. avatar
    Joey March 13, 2015 at 10:17 pm #

    Notorial Dissent:
    As y_p_w points out, most kids have very little awareness of when and where they were born, however,one would think that an allegedly intelligent, well educated affluent adult would have seen their birth certificate at least once or twice in their lives, like getting a driver’s license, passport, etc., but we are dealing with Cruz here, and quite frankly I’m not sure he even qualifies as not the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes right down to it. I’m really not sure what his obliviousness to his dual, or is it triple, citizenship says, but he’s always struck me as pretty clueless. I suspect the statement that he’s never really thought about it is probably pretty spot on.

    Cruz attended high school at Faith West Academy in Katy, Texas, and later graduated from Second Baptist High School in Houston as valedictorian in 1988. During high school, Cruz participated in a Houston-based group called the Free Market Education Foundation where he learned about free-market economic philosophers such as Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Frédéric Bastiat and Ludwig von Mises. The program was run by Rolland Storey and Cruz entered the program at the age of 13. In 1987 when he was 17, authorities found an unopened case of beer in his vehicle, resulting in a ticket.

    Cruz graduated cum laude from Princeton University with a Bachelor of Arts in Public Policy from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs in 1992. While at Princeton, he competed for the American Whig-Cliosophic Society’s Debate Panel and won the top speaker award at both the 1992 U.S. National Debating Championship and the 1992 North American Debating Championship. In 1992, he was named U.S. National Speaker of the Year and Team of the Year (with his debate partner, David Panton). Cruz was also a semi-finalist at the 1995 World Universities Debating Championship, making him Princeton’s highest-ranked debater at the championship. Princeton’s debate team later named their annual novice championship after Cruz.

    Cruz’s senior thesis on the separation of powers, titled “Clipping the Wings of Angels,” draws its inspiration from a passage attributed to President James Madison: “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” Cruz argued that the drafters of the Constitution intended to protect the rights of their constituents, and the last two items in the Bill of Rights offered an explicit stop against an all-powerful state. Cruz wrote: “They simply do so from different directions. The Tenth stops new powers, and the Ninth fortifies all other rights, or non-powers.”

    After graduating from Princeton, Cruz attended Harvard Law School, graduating magna cum laude in 1995 with a Juris Doctor degree. While at Harvard Law, Cruz was a primary editor of the Harvard Law Review, and executive editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, and a founding editor of the Harvard Latino Law Review. Referring to Cruz’s time as a student at Harvard Law, Professor Alan Dershowitz said, “Cruz was off-the-charts brilliant.” At Harvard Law, Cruz was a John M. Olin Fellow in Law and Economics.

    Cruz currently serves on the Board of Advisors of the Texas Review of Law and Politics. –Wikipedia

  40. avatar
    James M March 14, 2015 at 1:02 am #

    I got frustrated from the start, when anyone would make any claim that President Obama was not a Natural Born Citizen. There are only two ways that such an assertion can be made:

    1. With evidence to show that President Obama is not a citizen at all (demonstrably untrue), or
    2. With evidence to show when and how President Obama became a Naturalized Citizen. (This would have persuaded me to join the birther movement — but there wouldn’t have needed to BE a birther movement if any such thing existed.)

    Seeing evidence of neither case, the matter has been settled since before President Obama even announced his candidacy for Senate.

  41. avatar
    James M March 14, 2015 at 1:15 am #

    Senator Cruz is much more intelligent than his affects would suggest. He is performing a role, and it appears to be quite a successful gambit.

    Pretending to be dumb is a rather good strategy in many areas of life. It would not surprise me in the least to learn that Ted Cruz has an IQ over 160 or that he has deep and genuine understanding of the legal matters that he ham-jowledly addresses when speaking about them.

    On the other hand, I am fairly certain that Sarah Palin is *genuinely* dumb. I don’t fear her, because she isn’t smart enough to play dumb for the purpose of getting anywhere in politics. Senator Cruz, on the other hand could manage it.

  42. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG March 14, 2015 at 2:51 am #

    James M: I am fairly certain that Sarah Palin is *genuinely* dumb.

    I wanna see her and Michelle Bachmann get into a “who’s dumber?” slap fight!

  43. avatar
    Craig HS March 14, 2015 at 7:54 am #

    I think part of the Republican’s hazing rituals involves whacking their candidates over the head repeatedly with baseball bats until they knock out all of that high falutin’ intelligence and learnin’.

    If Cruz was genuinely that smart, it’s the only thing I can think of that would explain green eggs and ham. He’s made some colossal screw-ups along the way.

    Either that or he’s had some short circuits from the conflicting desires to be smart and to cater to the tea-baggers who voted him in.

  44. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 14, 2015 at 8:41 am #

    Why was Moses an Israeli and not an Egyptian. Was Moses born in Egypt? How can Moses an Israeli. His parents were born in Egypt.

    It’s not the soil…as Vattel said..it’s merely a spot of land. Moses loyalty was not Egypt.

    What’s the difference with African slaves and their natural born posterity. They’re not natural to the United States. Moses was not natural to Egypt. Moses was a natural born Israeli.

    Benevolent. Generations not Jus Soli.

  45. avatar
    J.D. Reed March 14, 2015 at 8:44 am #

    ObligedFriend:
    Why was Moses an Israeli and not an Egyptian. Was Moses born in Egypt? How can Moses an Israeli. His parents were born in Egypt.

    It’s not the soil…as Vattel said..it’s merely a spot of land. Moses loyalty was not Egypt.

    What’s the difference with African slaves and their natural born posterity. They’re not natural to the United States. Moses was not natural to Egypt. Moses was a natural born Israeli.

    Benevolent. Generations not Jus Soli.

  46. avatar
    faceman March 14, 2015 at 8:48 am #

    There’s a difference between being ‘stupid’ and being ‘illiterate.’ And there’s a difference between being ‘smart’ and being ‘intelligent.’

    Some one could have the Encyclopedia Britannica memorized from cover to cover, but that doesn’t mean they have the analytical ability of a rock.

  47. avatar
    faceman March 14, 2015 at 9:01 am #

    ObligedFriend: Why was Moses an Israeli and not an Egyptian. Was Moses born in Egypt? How can Moses an Israeli. His parents were born in Egypt. It’s not the soil…as Vattel said..it’s merely a spot of land. Moses loyalty was not Egypt.What’s the difference with African slaves and their natural born posterity. They’re not natural to the United States. Moses was not natural to Egypt. Moses was a natural born Israeli. Benevolent. Generations not Jus Soli.

    Moses was an Egyptian. After his mother hid him by the river, he was found and raised by Pharaoh’s sister Bithia as a part of the royal family. It was only after he killed an Egyptian slavemaster and fled to the desert that he renounced his Egyptian heritage. There was no country of “Israel” during his lifetime.

    Moses was never an ‘Israeli.’ He was ‘Jewish.’
    And there are many citizens of the US who are Jewish, or black, or both.

  48. avatar
    Sluffy1 March 14, 2015 at 9:11 am #

    I go by what we were taught in 6th grade, “Anyone born in The United States can be President”, “Anyone born outside of The United States can’t become President” and “If you see a very bright flash of light, get under your desk”.

    …and that’s the way was. Cruz no. Obama yes

  49. avatar
    J.D. Reed March 14, 2015 at 9:13 am #

    Meant to reply to Obliged’s over the top racism. He can’t seem to distinguish between what is and what his slanted view of what should be. Nothing in the Bible makes mandatory the children of Israel’s experience in Egypt for other future nations. As for the idea that Africans’ descendants can’t be citizens because their race is not native to America, then we European Americans are disqualified for the very same reason.
    The reality is that the 14th Amendment has been part of American Constitutional law for a century and a half and will continue to be long after Obliged has departed the stage.
    And Mr. Obama will continue to serve as the country’s constitutionally elected president until Jan. 20, 2017, barring the unforeseen. Obliged’s fantasy world is no more real than J.R.R. Tolkien’s, although a lot less entertaining.

  50. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 14, 2015 at 9:21 am #

    ObligedFriend: Why was Moses an Israeli and not an Egyptian. Was Moses born in Egypt? How can Moses an Israeli. His parents were born in Egypt.

    Who gives a crap? What does Moses have to do with America?

  51. avatar
    alg March 14, 2015 at 10:36 am #

    ObligedFriend:
    Why was Moses an Israeli and not an Egyptian. Was Moses born in Egypt? How can Moses an Israeli. His parents were born in Egypt.

    It’s not the soil…as Vattel said..it’s merely a spot of land. Moses loyalty was not Egypt.

    What’s the difference with African slaves and their natural born posterity. They’re not natural to the United States. Moses was not natural to Egypt. Moses was a natural born Israeli.

    Benevolent. Generations not Jus Soli.

    Please show me where in the Constitution it refers to how to determine natural born citizenship in the Holy Land thousands of years ago? Good grief! Talk about grasping for straws!

    Actually using your logic, the only natural born citizens in the United States are Native Americans – Indians – since they were here first and carry the blood of their forefathers. I guess the proper thing to do would be to return the country to them.

  52. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG March 14, 2015 at 11:04 am #

    ObligedFriend: Why was Moses an Israeli and not an Egyptian.

    Considering that there wasn’t an Israel yet, that’s an impressive trick.

  53. avatar
    Joey March 14, 2015 at 2:19 pm #

    The first U.S. President to be a natural born citizen was Martin Van Buren who took office in 1837. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Jackson had no problems with allegiance even though they were born as British subjects.

  54. avatar
    Keith March 14, 2015 at 3:47 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    Why was Moses an Israeli and not an Egyptian. Was Moses born in Egypt? How can Moses an Israeli. His parents were born in Egypt.

    It’s not the soil…as Vattel said..it’s merely a spot of land. Moses loyalty was not Egypt.

    What’s the difference with African slaves and their natural born posterity. They’re not natural to the United States. Moses was not natural to Egypt. Moses was a natural born Israeli.

    Benevolent. Generations not Jus Soli.

    Moses was not an Israeli, he was Egyptian.

    Moses was a member of the Hebrew tribe, a tribe that passes its membership down through the MOTHER’s line, and a tribe which under his leadership began the development the Jewish religion.

    Israel did not exist at the time of Moses, and Moses never saw the promised land.

  55. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 14, 2015 at 4:28 pm #

    Unkind, unnatural, not of the same kindred, blood, race.

    Kind, natural, of the same blood, kindred, race.

    “Yearnings to be with her own natural kind” William Wordsworth, Does the poet mean she wants to be with people different races? Of course not.

    Did the Founders yearn to have a President their own natural kind? How can a President be the same natural kind as the Founders?

    He must be natural born. The same natural kind as the Founders.

    Every word in the Constitution has a specific meaning.. The Supreme Court said the meaning of natural born citizen is found outside the Constitution.

    Can it be found in writers, why not. writers like Shakespeare, Vattel, Chaucer.

    The Founders wrote the French “naturel” means “natural born” it’s in the Congressional Record. I’ve the link, the date is around 1781.

    i

  56. avatar
    faceman March 14, 2015 at 4:41 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    Unkind, unnatural, not of the same kindred, blood, race.

    Kind, natural, of the same blood, kindred, race.

    “Yearnings to be with her own natural kind” William Wordsworth, Does the poet mean she wants to be with people different races? Of course not.

    Did the Founders yearn to have a President their own natural kind? How can a President be the same natural kind as the Founders?

    He must be natural born. The same natural kind as the Founders.

    Every word in the Constitution has a specific meaning.. The Supreme Court said the meaning of natural born citizen is found outside the Constitution.

    Can it be found in writers, why not. writers like Shakespeare, Vattel, Chaucer.

    The Founders wrote the French “naturel”means “natural born” it’s in the Congressional Record. I’ve the link, the date is around 1781.

    i

    The Congressional Record from 1781? You do realize that predates the Constitution? But let’s see the link anyway. If it really exists.
    Are you saying that Vattel, like Shakespeare and Chaucer, wrote fiction?
    Please provide the link to where, in the Constitution, the meaning of ‘Natural Born’ is found.
    By the way, the founders themselves were not the same kind (i.e., ‘natural born citizens’). That’s why they had to grandfather themselves in.
    But they were of the same race. The Human Race, that is.

  57. avatar
    Rickey March 14, 2015 at 5:39 pm #

    ObligedFriend:

    The Founders wrote the French “naturel”means “natural born” it’s in the Congressional Record. I’ve the link, the date is around 1781.

    You really are an ignorant imbecile.

    The Congressional Record was first published in 1873.

  58. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 14, 2015 at 6:23 pm #

    ObligedFriend: The Founders wrote the French “naturel” means “natural born” it’s in the Congressional Record. I’ve the link, the date is around 1781.

    So not something under our constitution and before the role of a president was created in the constitution? You’re batspit crazy.

  59. avatar
    Notorial Dissent March 14, 2015 at 7:28 pm #

    Our obliging idiot did get one thing sort of right, by accident, and totally unintentionally, “Every word in the Constitution has a specific meaning.” In this case “natural born” had the meaning in/at common law that they all understood at the time of someone born within the confines of the country. Grammar lesson. Word’s meanings sometimes change based on context, in this context, it describes the condition of birth, since that is what it is referring to, as in born within the country/sovereignty. Many things within the Constitution are based on the common law of England. Natural Born in this case is also a legal as well as a general term, and the only place it can refer back to is the common law of England from which American Colonial and Post Independence jurisprudence sprang from. Civics Lesson. The Supreme Court gets to say what the law is and what it means, and their say is pretty much final, even when they are wrong, as in your favorite the Dred Scott decision, barring something major like a constitutional amendment, you know like the 13th, 14th, and 15th, which did just that. Don’t like it tough, you and Apuzzo has a sad, but it doesn’t make either of you any less wrong.

    ObligedFriend: Every word in the
    Constitution has a specific meaning.. The Supreme Court said the meaning of natural born citizen is found outside the Constitution.

  60. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 14, 2015 at 11:17 pm #

    Put the following in an online translator: English to French

    “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”

    You will get:

    “Les indigènes, ou les citoyens naturels, sont ceux nés dans le pays, des parents qui sont des citoyens”

    You guys say it’s imposdible.

  61. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 14, 2015 at 11:37 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    Put the following in an online translator: English to French

    “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”

    You will get:

    “Les indigènes, ou les citoyens naturels, sont ceux nés dans le pays, des parents qui sont des citoyens”

    You guys say it’s imposdible.

    You’re just completely confused by the double plural and that parents in french doesn’t normally refer to mother and father but blood relatives. There’s also the issue that there’s no proof the founders looked to Vatel on citizenship.

  62. avatar
    Rickey March 14, 2015 at 11:46 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    Put the following in an online translator: English to French

    “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”

    You will get:

    “Les indigènes, ou les citoyens naturels, sont ceux nés dans le pays, des parents qui sont des citoyens”

    You guys say it’s imposdible.

    Your translation is wrong. This is the correct French:

    “Les indigènes , ou des citoyens naturels – né , sont ceux qui sont nés dans le pays , des parents qui sont citoyens.”

    Your translation omits (deliberately?) the French word for “born,” which is né.”

    This is what Vattel wrote, in the original French: “Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.” He used the word “naturels” but he did not use the phrase “naturels – né,” so he was not saying “natural born.”

    I am sure that Lupin will correct me if I am mistaken.

  63. avatar
    James M March 15, 2015 at 12:24 am #

    ObligedFriend:
    Put the following in an online translator: English to French

    “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”

    You will get:

    “Les indigènes, ou les citoyens naturels, sont ceux nés dans le pays, des parents qui sont des citoyens”

    You guys say it’s imposdible.

    I cannot wait to see the exchange between you and the several native speakers of French on the forum, people with degrees in modern languages, etc.

    But I suspect that the entertainment value of engaging you has already waned, and seeing that is the only value that you bring, your time might be up already.

    Can’t say I will miss you.

  64. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 15, 2015 at 12:36 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: You’re just completely confused by the double plural and that parents in french doesn’t normally refer to mother and father but blood relatives.There’s also the issue that there’s no proof the founders looked to Vatel on citizenship.

    Constitutional Law Professor James Gimore writes in his Vattel Lecture the citizenship sec 212 is used in the Constitution.

    Judtice Daniel quotes Vattel, so does A.P. Morse, John Jay used natural, and the Founders agreed to use natural in Art2.

    Franklin wrote it’s “natural for our kind” America is clearing the woods for the white race.

    You want us to believe the Founders were clearing the woods for the Negro Race.

    The first naturalization act..was for the Founders natural kind.

    Natural born citizen is a kind, and Obama is not the same natural kind as the Founders.

    Is Obama the same natural kind as the Founders?

    You’re in denial.

  65. avatar
    alg March 15, 2015 at 1:10 am #

    ObligedFriend:
    Is Obama the same natural kind as the Founders?

    Yes. Prove me wrong.

  66. avatar
    ImaObot March 15, 2015 at 3:04 am #

    Joey:
    The first U.S. President to be a natural born citizen was Martin Van Buren who took officein 1837. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Jackson had no problems with allegiance even though they were born as British subjects.

    Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Jackson declared their independence from foreign state privileges, immunities and obligations on July 4, 1776 with the Declaration of Independence. The Founders declared they had a God-given right to terminate foreign state obligations after their objections to taxation without representation in the foreign state were ignored.

    The US government continues this tradition by allowing a native born person who had their citizenship revoked by a parent to return the US within 6 months after reaching the age of majority to assume the privileges, immunities and obligations of a natural born citizen because the age of majority is the first time the person can make a legally binding decision for themselves. They are a natural born citizen because the US has determined the 18 year old has a God-given right to terminate foreign state obligations imposed upon them by their parents until 6 months past their 18th birthday.

    A naturalized US citizen is required to renounce foreign state privileges and immunities, but is not authorized to terminate foreign state obligations. Only the foreign state can terminate foreign state obligations.

  67. avatar
    Lupin March 15, 2015 at 3:33 am #

    ObligedFriend: Put the following in an online translator: English to French

    “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”

    You will get:

    “Les indigènes, ou les citoyens naturels, sont ceux nés dans le pays, des parents qui sont des citoyens”

    You guys say it’s imposdible.

    I must protest against the constant reoccurrence of this argument, time after time, at last here.

    I wrote several very long posts in an earlier thread in which I re-translated line by line for this imbecile not this Article of Vattel but two others, and I explained how interpretation was not only unique in the history of Vattelian scholarship, but also obviously and totally mistaken.

    And now he starts again, as if he suffered from amnesia. I’m not going to do it again.

    This is pure trolling, plain and simple, and I think he should be kicked out.

  68. avatar
    Lupin March 15, 2015 at 3:35 am #

    ObligedFriend: It’s not the soil…as Vattel said..it’s merely a spot of land. Moses loyalty was not Egypt.

    Wrong. Totally wrong. As a French lawyer I confirm again that you’re totally mistaken, which I have already explained to you, and further you’re an imbecile.

  69. avatar
    Lupin March 15, 2015 at 3:37 am #

    ObligedFriend: The Founders wrote the French “naturel” means “natural born” it’s in the Congressional Record. I’ve the link, the date is around 1781.

    Wrong. Totally wrong. As a French lawyer I confirm again that you’re totally mistaken, which I have already explained to you, and further you’re an imbecile.

    ObligedFriend: Put the following in an online translator: English to French

    “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”

    You will get:

    “Les indigènes, ou les citoyens naturels, sont ceux nés dans le pays, des parents qui sont des citoyens”

    You guys say it’s imposdible.

    Wrong. Totally wrong. As a French lawyer I confirm again that you’re totally mistaken, which I have already explained to you, and further you’re an imbecile.

    ObligedFriend: Constitutional Law Professor James Gimore writes in his Vattel Lecture the citizenship sec 212 is used in the Constitution.

    Judtice Daniel quotes Vattel, so does A.P. Morse, John Jay used natural, and the Founders agreed to use natural in Art2.

    Wrong. Totally wrong. As a French lawyer I confirm again that you’re totally mistaken, which I have already explained to you, and further you’re an imbecile.

  70. avatar
    Lupin March 15, 2015 at 3:42 am #

    (I too can cut & paste like ObligedIdiot.)

    Seriously, the lawyer who write the Congressional Research memorandum (Maskell, I believe?) dealt with the Vattelian argument (as it were) very clearly and concisely. It is enough to read what he wrote, esp. in the footnotes, to dismiss that entirely bizarre theory.

    Beyond the syntax, how could one ever claim that Vattel required TWO parents who were citizens when two sentences later he twice states that one only needs ONE parent (the father). The birthers’ claim is almost Pythonesque.

  71. avatar
    Lupin March 15, 2015 at 3:44 am #

    And to be clear there has NEVER EVER been any source that i know of in French or German Law that required that both parents be citizens or anything really. I’m not even sure the Romans required it either, but I;d need to do some research.

    This has been entirely fabricated by imbeciles like ObligedKlansman.

  72. avatar
    Lupin March 15, 2015 at 3:48 am #

    ObligedFriend: Natural born citizen is a kind, and Obama is not the same natural kind as the Founders.

    Is Obama the same natural kind as the Founders?

    You know, this is not entertaining at all. Every day on Earth there are good people being murdered as a result of this vile thought-process. This is what led to the massacres in Rwanda or Bosnia, not to mention the lynchings in the South, etc. I’m actually nauseated by the presence of this loathsome idiot.

  73. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 15, 2015 at 3:59 am #

    http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28jc0216%29%29

    In French.

    ARTICLE III Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront être pris que parmi les sujets naturels de la puissance qui les nommera

    In English,

    The respective Consuls and Vice Consuls shall only be taken from among the natural born subjects of the power nominating them.

    journals of the continental congress 1781

    naturels = natural born

  74. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 15, 2015 at 4:29 am #

    Ok ..we know Obama is not a natural born citizen. Is he a 14th Amendment citize if he was born in the USA.

    Does he meet subject to jurisdiction.

    In the Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873), the Supreme Court stated, “The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” No

    What about Dredd Scott and Justice Daniel’s “natural born citizens are born to citizen parents” No

    Wong Kim Ark..both parents must be Domiciled and Permanent residents. Obama’s father was not a permanent resident. Not a citizen so far.

    Is Obama the same natural kind as the Founders. No

    The facts are Obama is not a citizen and he’s not natural born.

    thanks for playing.

  75. avatar
    Lupin March 15, 2015 at 4:57 am #

    ObligedFriend: Wrong. Totally wrong. As a French lawyer I confirm again that you’re totally mistaken, which I have already explained to you, and further you’re an imbecile.

    Wrong. Totally wrong. As a French lawyer I confirm again that you’re totally mistaken, which I have already explained to you, and further you’re an imbecile.

    ObligedFriend:
    Ok ..we know Obama is not a natural born citizen. Is he a 14th Amendment citize if he was born in the USA.

    Does he meet subject to jurisdiction.

    In the Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873), the Supreme Court stated, “The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”No

    What about Dredd Scott and Justice Daniel’s “natural born citizens are born to citizen parents” No

    Wong Kim Ark..both parents must be Domiciled and Permanent residents. Obama’s father was not a permanent resident. Not a citizen so far.

    Is Obama the same natural kind as the Founders. No

    The facts are Obama is not a citizen and he’s not natural born.

    thanks for playing.

    Wrong. Totally wrong. As a French lawyer I confirm again that you’re totally mistaken, which I have already explained to you, and further you’re an imbecile.

  76. avatar
    Keith March 15, 2015 at 5:40 am #

    ObligedFriend: You want us to believe the Founders were clearing the woods for the Negro Race.

    Very few of the Founders engaged in ‘clearing the woods’ for anybody.

    In many parts of early America, particularly the States that attempted to form a ‘Confederacy’ in the mid-19th century, the ‘clearing the woods’ was carried out by members of the ‘Negro Race’.

  77. avatar
    Keith March 15, 2015 at 5:56 am #

    ObligedFriend: Natural born citizen is a kind,

    Anyone can define the word ‘kind’ in such a way to distinguish any two objects from each other any way they want. So what?

    and Obama is not the same natural kind as the Founders.

    Any such division of people into one kind or another is, by definition absolutely UNNATURAL. There is no such thing as a ‘natural kind’. Any division of people into one ‘kind’ or another ‘kind’ is a human construction – in your case arbitrary, self-serving, and racist.

    Is Obama the same natural kind as the Founders?

    As I said, there is no such thing as a ‘natural kind’, however I can define lots and lots of criteria that classifies Obama as the same ‘kind’ as the Founders. For a starter, they are all of the kind of animal whose DNA arose in Africa. They are all members of the class of humans that speak English. They are all members of the class of humans that were born in the artificial geographic boundaries of the artificial political commonwealth known as the United States of America.

    Yes. Obama is the same ‘kind’ as the Founders. Absolutely.

  78. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund March 15, 2015 at 7:52 am #

    ObligedFriend:
    Unkind, unnatural, not of the same kindred, blood, race.

    Kind, natural, of the same blood, kindred, race.

    “Yearnings to be with her own natural kind” William Wordsworth, Does the poet mean she wants to be with people different races? Of course not.

    First off, stop mangling the good poet, you racist scum. Here’s the full stanza:

    Earth fills her lap with pleasures of her own;
    Yearnings she hath in her own natural kind,
    And, even with something of a Mother’s mind,
    And no unworthy aim,
    The homely Nurse doth all she can
    To make her Foster-child, her Inmate Man,
    Forget the glories he hath known,
    And that imperial palace whence he came.

    “Yearnings she hath in her own natural kind” means that the nurse (in the sense of a nanny) longs for children of her own. In the literal reading of the stanza, at least. However, Wordsworth’s poems reveal that his Nurse is Nature itself. What “kind” is Nature?

    Wordsworth is too worthy a poet to be so debased by your freakish fantasies.

  79. avatar
    Krosis March 15, 2015 at 8:04 am #

    I miss john.

  80. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund March 15, 2015 at 8:28 am #

    ObligedFriend:
    Franklin wrote it’s “natural for our kind” America is clearing the woods for the white race.

    Again a mangled quote. Here is the true quote (from 1755, by the by):

    Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.

    Much more nuanced than what the sewer scum claimed Franklin wrote, and note that it was some 30 years before the Constitution was written. Note also the acknowledgment that it is merely a bias

  81. avatar
    faceman March 15, 2015 at 8:34 am #

    ObligedFriend:
    Is Obama the same natural kind as the Founders. No

    In one sense, Obama is not the same kind as the founders: The Constitution says ‘Only a Natural Born Citizen, or a citizen at the time this Constitution is adopted’ (Or something like that, I forget the exact wording). Obama is a Natural Born Citizen. The founders were not.

  82. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 15, 2015 at 8:59 am #

    That dicta was made of no effect by the Supreme Court in US v. Wong.

    The Slaughterhouse Cases stand up there with Plessy v. Ferguson and Dred Scott on the list of the Supreme Court’s worst decisions.

    ObligedFriend: n the Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873), the Supreme Court stated, “The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” No

  83. avatar
    Dave B. March 15, 2015 at 2:11 pm #

    O.F. supposes erroneously.

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Considering that there wasn’t an Israel yet, that’s an impressive trick.

  84. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 15, 2015 at 2:13 pm #

    Ben Franklin 1751

    Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exlusive of the New Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.

  85. avatar
    Obligedfriend March 15, 2015 at 2:28 pm #

    The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

    WKA. Both parents must be permanent domicile and permanent resident to pass citizenship to a child born in the US.

    Obama’s dad was not. transient alien students are not permanent residents.

    Obama is not a citizen.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    That dicta was made of no effect by the Supreme Court in US v. Wong.

    The Slaughterhouse Cases stand up there with Plessy v. Ferguson and Dred Scott on the list of the Supreme Court’s worst decisions.

  86. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 15, 2015 at 2:45 pm #

    The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.”

    The questioned presented – by the first clause of the 14th Amendment…. is a child born to parents with a permanent domicile and residence is a citizen.

    This is nothing about Natural born citizen and Article 2.

    Obama senior was never an immigrant, never permanently domiciled. According to WKA Obama is not a 14th Amendment citizen.

  87. avatar
    Andy March 15, 2015 at 2:51 pm #

    Obligedfried:

    Find a current court ruling that quotes your sources and agrees with you.

    Post it here.

    Then you’ll win me over.

    Until then, research. You may have to scour for years. But do it. Don’t post again until you’re ready to convince me.

    Go forth!

  88. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 15, 2015 at 2:51 pm #

    Keith: Very few of the Founders engaged in ‘clearing the woods’ for anybody.

    In many parts of early America, particularly the States that attempted to form a ‘Confederacy’ in the mid-19th century, the ‘clearing the woods’ was carried out by members of the ‘Negro Race’.

    You should find another topic that you understand.

  89. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund March 15, 2015 at 2:53 pm #

    Obligedfriend:
    WKA. Both parents must be permanent domicile and permanent resident to pass citizenship to a child born in the US.

    Wrong. WKA never held that to be a necessary condition. Change “must” to “may”, and the statement is accurate (barring grammatical problems – as is usual for racist scum, this particular vile piece of filth is illiterate)

  90. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 15, 2015 at 3:02 pm #

    page 680 Wong Kim Ark:

    At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens”

  91. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 15, 2015 at 3:17 pm #

    W. Kevin Vicklund: Wrong.WKA never held that to be a necessary condition.Change “must” to “may”, and the statement is accurate (barring grammatical problems – as is usual for racist scum, this particular vile piece of filth is illiterate)

    The question presented in WKA was a child born in the USA to parents with a permanent domicile and residence was a citizen

    The Court affirmed he was a citizen.

    The court never affirmed he was a natural born citizen. Obama is not a citizen based on WKA.

  92. avatar
    dunstvangeet March 15, 2015 at 3:24 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    page 680 Wong Kim Ark:

    At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens”

    That was actually Minor v. Happerset who made that ruling. True, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark did quote it, but then ultimately rejected the fact that you needed 2 citizen parents. Furthermore, that quote from Minor v. Happerset actually states that it’s not even taking a look at the argument that others are citizens, because Ms. Minor had 2 citizen parents.

    U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark [p 662] also quoted U.S. v. Rhodes: “All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”

    It also said this: That all children born within the dominion of the United States of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office became citizens at the time of their birth does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship.

    It concluded that Mr. Wong was a Natural Born Citizen by virtue of being born on the soil.

  93. avatar
    Joey March 15, 2015 at 3:26 pm #

    ObligedFriend: The question presented in WKA was a child born in the USA to parents with a permanent domicile and residence was a citizen

    The Court affirmed he was a citizen.

    The court never affirmed he was a natural born citizen. Obama is not a citizen based on WKA.

    The following is from the government’s brief for the Supreme Court in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark: “”The district court, following as being stare decisis the ruling of Mr. Justice Field in the case of Look Tin Sing (10 Sawyer, 356), sustained the claim of the respondent, held him to be a citizen by birth, and permitted him to land. The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated: Is a person born within The United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen, and on that ground holding him exempt from the provisions of the Chinese exclusion act and permitting him to land.”

    “For the most persuasive reasons we have refused citizenship to Chinese subjects; and yet, as to their offspring, who are just as obnoxious, and to whom the same reasons for exclusion apply -with equal force, we are told that we must accept them as fellow-citizens, and that, too, because of the mere accident of birth. There certainly should be some honor and dignity in American citizenship that would be sacred from the foul and corrupting taint of a debasing alienage. Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?”

    “To hold that Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen within the ruling now quoted, is to ignore the fact that at his birth he became a subject of China by reason of the allegiance of his parents to the Chinese Emperor. That fact is not open to controversy, for the law of China demonstrates its existence. He was therefore born subject to a foreign power; and although born subject to the laws of the United States, in the sense of being entitled to and receiving protection while within the territorial limits of the nation—a right of all aliens—yet be was not born subject to the ‘political jurisdiction’ thereof, and for that reason is not a citizen. The judgment and order appealed from should be reversed, and the respondent remanded to the custody of the collector.”

  94. avatar
    Joey March 15, 2015 at 3:35 pm #

    Mr Justice Horace Gray, writing for the six Justice majority in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark addressed the issue of Wong Kim Ark being a natural born citizen: [An alien parent’s] “allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’

    “Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’”

    “…every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

    The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”

  95. avatar
    Obligedfriend March 15, 2015 at 3:39 pm #

    W. Kevin Vicklund: Wrong.WKA never held that to be a necessary condition.Change “must” to “may”, and the statement is accurate (barring grammatical problems – as is usual for racist scum, this particular vile piece of filth is illiterate)

    The court never said “may” have a permanent domicile and residence..I realize this must be devastating to you.

  96. avatar
    Obligedfriend March 15, 2015 at 3:55 pm #

    Joey:
    Mr Justice Horace Gray, writing for the six Justice majority in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark addressed the issue of Wong Kim Ark being a natural born citizen: [An alien parent’s] “allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’

    “Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’”

    “…every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

    The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”

    What was the question presented before the WKA court and what was the finding. Pay attention.

    The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution…

    “Parents ..who have a permanent domicile and residence”

    The question was answered here:

    The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”

    Parents have a permanent domicil and residence

    There’s a lot more to WKA and I will get to that later.

    We have an illegal president.

  97. avatar
    gorefan March 15, 2015 at 3:57 pm #

    Here we now have member of Congress in 1833 admitting that Cruz is eligible for the Presidency.

    https://archive.org/stream/briefexpositiono01baya#page/96/mode/2up

    “It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be ” a natural born citizen.” It is only requisite he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country.” ~ Congressman James Bayard

  98. avatar
    Reality Check March 15, 2015 at 4:26 pm #

    Ain’t it the truth.

    Krosis:
    I miss john.

  99. avatar
    ImaObot March 15, 2015 at 4:48 pm #

    gorefan March 15, 2015 at 3:57 pm

    Here we now have member of Congress in 1833 admitting that Cruz is eligible for the Presidency.

    Under the Separation of Powers doctrine, Congress and the Courts are entitled to analysis and formulation an expert opinion on current citizenship status, but it the President who has unilateral, final authority to determine current citizenship status. The President, by an through his federal officers of the Executive Branch, unilaterally issue or delegate authority to issue certificates of naturalization, certificates of citizenship and a certificate of loss of nationality.

    Opinions concerning current citizenship status from the Congress and the Courts are just that … opinions. Congress, the Courts and the states are not constitutionally authorized to determine current citizenship status and are not constitutionally authorized to enjoin the President or Executive Branch federal officers from executing valid orders of deportation, denial of entry into the US, and the cancellation of a previously issued certificate of naturalization or certificate of citizenship.

  100. avatar
    gorefan March 15, 2015 at 5:08 pm #

    ImaObot:
    gorefan March 15, 2015 at 3:57 pm

    Opinions concerning current citizenship status from the Congress and the Courts are just that … opinions.

    Right, I was just pointing out what was the opinion in 1833.

  101. avatar
    faceman March 15, 2015 at 5:12 pm #

    I can say “If a child has two parents who are citizens, then that child is a NBC.”
    And that is a true statement. (Minor v Happersett)

    But, as WKA demonstrated, that does not mean that one MUST have two citizen parents. It is sufficient, but not necessary.

    WKA indeed says that a child born in the US of parents who are ‘permanently domiciled’ is a citizen. But:

    Mr Justice Horace Gray, writing for the six Justice majority in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark addressed the issue of Wong Kim Ark being a natural born citizen: [An alien parent’s] “allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’

    Let me repeat and emphasize: ‘local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory’ Demonstrating that ‘permanently domiciled’ is something that is sufficient, but not necessary.

    What does the 14th Amendment say about the difference between ‘permanently domiciled aliens’ and ‘temporary aliens’? Absolutely NOTHING. Only that they must be ‘subject to the jurisdiction of…’ (i.e., not diplomats).

  102. avatar
    Joey March 15, 2015 at 5:14 pm #

    Obligedfriend: What was the question presented before the WKA court and what was the finding. Pay attention.

    The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution…

    “Parents ..who have a permanent domicile and residence”

    The question was answered here:

    The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”

    Parents have a permanent domicil and residence

    There’s a lot more to WKA and I will get to that later.

    We have an illegal president.

    Wong Kim Ark’s parents returned to China and never visited the United States again.

    Ankeny v. Daniels, Indiana (A three judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled unanimously): “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”–Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009
    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

    Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/80424508/Swensson-Powell-Farrar-Welden-vs-Obama-Judge-Michael-Malihi-s-Final-Order-Georgia-Ballot-Access-Challenge-2-3-12

    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

  103. avatar
    Joey March 15, 2015 at 5:35 pm #

    ObligedFriend opines: “We have an illegal president.”

    There have been nineteen court rulings finding that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. There has never been a ruling that he doesn’t qualify.
    Congress unanimously certified his Electoral votes and has sent him hundreds of bills to sign into law. The Senate has confirmed more than 300 federal judges appointed by President Obama, every ambassador and every cabinet member that he has nominated plus two Supreme Court Justices.

    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

    Taitz v. Obama (Quo Warranto) “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as is required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”– Chief U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, April 14, 2010

    Rhodes v MacDonald, U.S. District Court Judge Clay D. Land: “A spurious claim questioning the president’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”—U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, September 16, 2009.

    Voeltz v. Obama, Judge John C. Cooper, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—September 6, 2012

    Tisdale v. Obama, U.S. District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”– Tisdale v. Obama, U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.

  104. avatar
    john March 15, 2015 at 5:56 pm #

    “…every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”

    There is still the argument to be made on whether Obama Sr. could have actually been considered a diplomat or agent of a foreign state. If that is so, then Obama cannot be a NBC. Obama Sr. did represent Kenya Foreign interests as well US interests as Obama Sr. was part of joint Kenya/US Airlight to expose the African culture to the Western US Culture. Obama Sr. also returned to Kenya where is did work for the government of Kenya.

  105. avatar
    gorefan March 15, 2015 at 6:01 pm #

    john:
    “…every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”

    There is still the argument to be made on whether Obama Sr. could have actually been considered a diplomat or agent of a foreign state.If that is so, then Obama cannot be a NBC.Obama Sr.did represent Kenya Foreign interests as well US interests as Obama Sr. was part of joint Kenya/US Airlight to expose the African culture to the Western US Culture.Obama Sr. also returned to Kenya where is did work for the government of Kenya.

    Did Obama Sr. have diplomatic immunity? If not he was under the jurisdiction of the US.

    And the phrase was “diplomatic agent” not “diplomat or agent”.

  106. avatar
    Arthur B. March 15, 2015 at 6:11 pm #

    john: There is still the argument to be made…

    john, it is clear that you are convinced that Obama is not a legal President, and that you just have to find out what it is that makes him illegal.

    You’ve got the conclusion, but you don’t have the reasons for it? What is it that makes you so sure you’re right?

  107. avatar
    Keith March 15, 2015 at 6:13 pm #

    ImaObot:
    gorefan March 15, 2015 at 3:57 pm

    Under the Separation of Powers doctrine, Congress and the Courts are entitled to analysis and formulation an expert opinion on current citizenship status, but it the President who has unilateral, final authority to determine current citizenship status. The President, by an through his federal officers of the Executive Branch, unilaterally issue or delegate authority to issue certificates of naturalization, certificates of citizenship and a certificate of loss of nationality.

    That is not quite accurate. Certainly anyone can have an opinion on these matters.

    However, Legislative Branch has sole authority to MAKE law. Individual legislatures have opinions and provide explanations of the purpose of the law and the reasoning behind their votes either yea or nay.

    The Executive Branch has sole responsibility to EXECUTE the law that Congress makes. It is the Constitution that has delegated to the Executive Branch that authority. The President does not delegate that authority, he organizes the Executive Branch to ensure that Congressional Law is carried out.

    Opinions concerning current citizenship status from the Congress and the Courts are just that … opinions. Congress, the Courts and the states are not constitutionally authorized to determine current citizenship status and are not constitutionally authorizedto enjoin the President or Executive Branch federal officers from executing valid orders of deportation, denial of entry into the US, and the cancellation of a previously issued certificate of naturalization or certificate of citizenship.

    Most of that is quite wrong.

    Congress DEFINES what the law is with respect to what the citizenship criteria is for any foreign born individual – that criteria includes identifying who is and who is not in the United States legally or who should be denied entry. The certificates you mention are provided for in law passed by Congress.

    The Executive Branch executes that law, applying it to individual cases according to the understanding of that law.

    Congress can change that law whenever it deems necessary, and the Courts can decide that the Executive Branch’s interpretation of the law is wrong (or right) when the administration of the law is challenged.

  108. avatar
    john March 15, 2015 at 6:15 pm #

    gorefan: Did Obama Sr. have diplomatic immunity?If not he was under the jurisdiction of the US.

    And the phrase was “diplomatic agent” not “diplomat or agent”.

    Foreign Agent has extremely broad definition under US Law. It would depend how “Diplomatic” that agent is under the meaning of an NBC.

  109. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 15, 2015 at 6:20 pm #

    john: There is still the argument to be made on whether Obama Sr. could have actually been considered a diplomat or agent of a foreign state. If that is so, then Obama cannot be a NBC. Obama Sr. did represent Kenya Foreign interests as well US interests as Obama Sr. was part of joint Kenya/US Airlight to expose the African culture to the Western US Culture. Obama Sr. also returned to Kenya where is did work for the government of Kenya.

    How exactly could he have been considered a diplomat or foreign agent when Barack Obama Jr was born?

  110. avatar
    john March 15, 2015 at 6:27 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: How exactly could he have been considered a diplomat or foreign agent when Barack Obama Jr was born?

    Well, Obama Sr. was representative to Kenya’s Foreign interests in Education by a program sponsored by Joint Kenya/US Cooperation. In this case Obama Sr. could be considered a foreign agent in that respect. Whether or not the educational diplomatic relationship Obama SR. had with Kenya corrupted Obama’s Jr. NBC status is another legal question to consider.

  111. avatar
    Curious George March 15, 2015 at 6:28 pm #

    For those who have missed him, he’s back. What’s new with Corporal Zullo and his earth shattering, universe shattering big reveal, John? And where is the Reed Hayes’ report?Please tell us John.

  112. avatar
    Dave B. March 15, 2015 at 6:34 pm #

    Oh good grief.

    john:
    “…every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”

    There is still the argument to be made on whether Obama Sr. could have actually been considered a diplomat or agent of a foreign state.If that is so, then Obama cannot be a NBC.Obama Sr.did represent Kenya Foreign interests as well US interests as Obama Sr. was part of joint Kenya/US Airlight to expose the African culture to the Western US Culture.Obama Sr. also returned to Kenya where is did work for the government of Kenya.

  113. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 15, 2015 at 6:35 pm #

    john: Well, Obama Sr. was representative to Kenya’s Foreign interests in Education by a program sponsored by Joint Kenya/US Cooperation. In this case Obama Sr. could be considered a foreign agent in that respect. Whether or not the educational diplomatic relationship Obama SR. had with Kenya corrupted Obama’s Jr. NBC status is another legal question to consider.

    How does that make him a foreign agent or diplomat? Going to school because you were sent there doesn’t rise to the level of a foreign agent or diplomat. In that case he couldn’t be considered a foreign agent.

  114. avatar
    Keith March 15, 2015 at 6:41 pm #

    john: There is still the argument to be made on whether Obama Sr. could have actually been considered a diplomat or agent of a foreign state.

    False. There is no such argument. “Diplomatic Status” requires a SPECIFIC act by the foreign government and a SPECIFIC act by the United States Government for each and every individual potential diplomat.

    The foreign government must specifically nominate the diplomat who must present his credentials to the US Government and the US Government must accept those credentials.

    Foreign students in the US are not in the Diplomatic service of their country, even if they are on a government sponsored scholarship. Even if the students later return home and work for their government it changes nothing related to when they were students. If their government appoints them to a diplomatic station in the US and their credentials are accepted then, and only then, are they a ‘diplomat’ and entitled to ‘diplomatic immunity’ – and that fact still has no bearing on anything related to their student days – if they got a parking ticket as a student it would have to be paid when the law catches up to them.

  115. avatar
    john March 15, 2015 at 6:43 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: How does that make him a foreign agent or diplomat?Going to school because you were sent there doesn’t rise to the level of a foreign agent or diplomat.In that case he couldn’t be considered a foreign agent.

    Well, Obama Sr. was personally selected by Kenyan Foreign Poltians to advance the Kenyan Interests in Education. it was part of African Airlift Project. Obama Sr. was among the first 81 students who were selected. I would Obama Sr. to be diplomat or foreign agent in this respect.

  116. avatar
    gorefan March 15, 2015 at 6:46 pm #

    john: Foreign Agent has extremely broad definition under US Law.It would depend how “Diplomatic” that agent is under the meaning of an NBC.

    The quote is not foreign agent but diplomatic agent. Obama Sr. was under the jurisdiction of the United States, he did not have diplomatic immunity.

  117. avatar
    Joey March 15, 2015 at 6:51 pm #

    john:
    “…every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”

    There is still the argument to be made on whether Obama Sr. could have actually been considered a diplomat or agent of a foreign state.If that is so, then Obama cannot be a NBC.Obama Sr.did represent Kenya Foreign interests as well US interests as Obama Sr. was part of joint Kenya/US Airlight to expose the African culture to the Western US Culture.Obama Sr. also returned to Kenya where is did work for the government of Kenya.

    Barack Obama Senior was in the U.S. on an F-1 Student Visa. If he had been here on a diplomatic visa, you might have an argument.

  118. avatar
    Dave B. March 15, 2015 at 7:04 pm #

    Read the friggin’ Vienna Convention, for crying out loud:

    https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1964/06/19640624%2002-10%20AM/Ch_III_3p.pdf

    And read page 20 here:

    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/89585.pdf

    And just drop this STUPID argument.

    john: Well, Obama Sr. was representative to Kenya’s Foreign interests in Education by a program sponsored by Joint Kenya/US Cooperation.In this case Obama Sr. could be considered a foreign agent in that respect.Whether or not the educational diplomatic relationship Obama SR. had with Kenya corrupted Obama’s Jr. NBC status is another legal question to consider.

  119. avatar
    gorefan March 15, 2015 at 7:22 pm #

    john: Foreign Agent has extremely broad definition under US Law.It would depend how “Diplomatic” that agent is under the meaning of an NBC.

    “Diplomatic Immunity privileges extend directly from the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, or VCDR. The Convention deals with exemptions from criminal as well as civil laws of a host nation in most circumstances. Generally, embassy territory and communications, as well as a diplomatic agent’s person and personal property, are considered inviolable under the Convention. Article 31 of the Convention exempts diplomatic agents from the civil and criminal jurisdictions of host states, except for cases in which a diplomatic agent (1) is involved in a dispute over personal real property, (2) has an action involving private estate matters or (3) is in a dispute arising from commercial or professional business outside the scope of official functions.”

    Obama Sr. was not covered by the 1961 Vienna Convention. He was not a “diplomatic agent.”

  120. avatar
    gorefan March 15, 2015 at 7:51 pm #

    john: Foreign Agent has extremely broad definition under US Law.It would depend how “Diplomatic” that agent is under the meaning of an NBC.

    And John just to short circuit your arguing that the 1961 Convention did’t cover Obama Sr. The Convention merely codified the existing rules for diplomatic imunity.

    Obama Sr. Was not a diplomatic agent.

  121. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 15, 2015 at 8:04 pm #

    Joey: Wong Kim Ark’s parents returned to China and never visited the United States again.

    Ankeny v. Daniels, Indiana (A three judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled unanimously): “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”–Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009
    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

    Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/80424508/Swensson-Powell-Farrar-Welden-vs-Obama-Judge-Michael-Malihi-s-Final-Order-Georgia-Ballot-Access-Challenge-2-3-12

    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

    Cant you read WKA. The questioned was asked and answered.

    Can a child born in the USA to parents having a Permanent Domicile and Residence be a citizen.

    The court said Yes. The finding never mentions a transient alien student parent.

    What you posted does not trump the ruling in WKA.

    Obama is not a citizen. Period.

    He’s not a natural born citizen.

    This is the biggest fraud in history.

  122. avatar
    Northland10 March 15, 2015 at 8:10 pm #

    ObligedFriend: Obama is not a citizen. Period.

    He’s not a natural born citizen.

    This is the biggest fraud in history.

    Wrong. You just hate people of a different color. Too bad for you, your “kind” is dying away.

  123. avatar
    Northland10 March 15, 2015 at 8:12 pm #

    ImaObot: previously issued certificate of naturalization or certificate of citizenship.

    Hi Sven. Try using a new sock puppet.

  124. avatar
    Dave March 15, 2015 at 9:00 pm #

    At the risk of stating the obvious, the other flaw with John’s argument is that it ignores the fact that Obama’s mother was a US citizen, so she and her child were subject to US jurisdiction. So this whole “maybe his father was a diplomat” thing follows the usual birther pattern: both false and irrelevant.

  125. avatar
    Obligedfriend March 15, 2015 at 9:31 pm #

    Northland10: Wrong.You just hate people of a different color.Too bad for you, your “kind” is dying away.

    Do you ignore the question and finding in WKA due to Obama’s race, his political ideology?

  126. avatar
    Arthur B. March 15, 2015 at 9:45 pm #

    Obligedfriend: Do you ignore the question and finding in WKA due to Obama’s race, his political ideology?

    Have you noticed than a large number of judges of multiple races and political ideologies have, without exception, said that your interpretation of WKA is without merit?

    Simply blustering about it isn’t going to convince anyone that your opinion should trump theirs.

  127. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 15, 2015 at 9:52 pm #

    Dave:
    At the risk of stating the obvious, the other flaw with John’s argument is that it ignores the fact that Obama’s mother was a US citizen, so she and her child were subject to US jurisdiction. So this whole “maybe his father was a diplomat” thing follows the usual birther pattern: both false and irrelevant.

    WKA defined subject to jurisdiction. If a parent is an alien he must be permanently domiciled.

    Not long ago USA citizen females lost their citizenship if they married an alien. Was this law valid during the WKA decision.

    The fraudulently elected Obama invalidated the Constitution.

    Obama did what Hitler, the Japanese and the Soviets failed to do.

    Destroy the Federal Republic.

  128. avatar
    Rickey March 15, 2015 at 10:00 pm #

    ObligedFriend: Cant you read WKA. The questioned was asked and answered.

    Can a child born in the USA to parents having a Permanent Domicile and Residence be a citizen.

    You continue to confuse a recitation of the facts of the case with a finding that all of those facts are necessary conditions for the decision.

    Nowhere does Justice Gray’s majority decision say that it was necessary for Ark’s parents to be permanently domiciled in the United States. The facts of the case also say that Ark’s parents were of Chinese descent and were subjects of the Emperor of China, but nowhere does his decision say that those facts were necessary for Ark to be a U.S. citizen.

    It is abundantly clear that the only conditions required for Ark to be born a U.S. citizen were that he was born in the United States while subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, just as Barack Obama was born in the United States while subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

  129. avatar
    gorefan March 15, 2015 at 10:01 pm #

    Obligedfriend: Do you ignore the question and finding in WKA due to Obama’s race, his political ideology?

    No we ignore it because like your lies about Gilmore and Morse and mistakes about kind and natural you are wrong again.

    Here is how lawyers in 1898 understood the Wong decision.

    “Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.” Chief Justice Fuller in dissent in Wong Kim Ark

    Are you calling Chief Justice Fuller a liar?

  130. avatar
    Sluffy1 March 15, 2015 at 11:07 pm #

    ObligedFriend: The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent,

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark
    169 U.S. 649 (1898)
    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html

    IV. It was contended by one of the learned counsel for the United States that the rule of the Roman law, by which the citizenship of the child followed that of the parent, was the true rule of international law, as now recognized in most civilized countries, and had superseded the rule of the common law, depending on birth within the realm, originally founded on feudal considerations.

    But at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States in 1789, and long before, it would seem to have been the rule in Europe generally, as it certainly was in France, that, as said by Pothier, “citizens, true and native-born citizens, are those who are born within the extent of the dominion of France,” and

    “mere birth within the realm gives the rights of a native-born citizen, independently of the origin of the father or mother, and of their domicil;”

  131. avatar
    Joey March 15, 2015 at 11:49 pm #

    Rickey: You continue to confuse a recitation of the facts of the case with a finding that all of those facts are necessary conditions for the decision.

    Nowhere does Justice Gray’s majority decision say that it was necessary for Ark’s parents to be permanently domiciled in the United States. The facts of the case also say that Ark’s parents were of Chinese descent and were subjects of the Emperor of China, but nowhere does his decision say that those facts were necessary for Ark to be a U.S. citizen.

    It is abundantly clear that the only conditions required for Ark to be born a U.S. citizen were that he was born in the United States while subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, just as Barack Obama was born in the United States while subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

    Well stated, Rickey!

  132. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 16, 2015 at 12:00 am #

    Lots misinformation being spread this forum regarding WKA ., some of you are less than truthful. The holding is clear.

    Both parents must be permanently domiciled. It’s not my fault you guys cannot comprehend English.

  133. avatar
    James M March 16, 2015 at 12:20 am #

    ObligedFriend:
    Lots misinformation being spread this forum regarding WKA ., some of you are less than truthful. The holding is clear.

    Both parents must be permanently domiciled. It’s not my fault you guys cannot comprehend English.

    Your failed efforts to have Vice President Biden replace President Obama are duly noted.

  134. avatar
    Rickey March 16, 2015 at 1:00 am #

    ObligedFriend:
    It’s not my fault you guys cannot comprehend English.

    You’ll have to excuse me. You just shattered my irony meter.

    You are, however, correct that the holding is clear. You just don’t comprehend the clarity. From Justice Gray’s majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark:

    The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history…By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.

    I can comprehend English. Can you?

  135. avatar
    bookfiend75 March 16, 2015 at 1:52 am #

    ObligedFriend: WKA defined subject to jurisdiction. If a parent is an alien he must be permanently domiciled.

    Not long ago USA citizen females lost their citizenship if they married an alien. Was this law valid during the WKA decision.

    The fraudulently elected Obama invalidated the Constitution.

    Obama did what Hitler, the Japanese and the Soviets failed to do.

    Destroy the Federal Republic.

    So much to mock, so little time.
    Since WKA’s parents moved back to China, what is your definition of “permanently domiciled” (not that it will change the actual ruling of the case)?
    Please give the law that showed how a woman lost her citizenship upon marriage to a foreigner, specifically if she retained residency in the U.S.?
    Since when did you obtain the legal authority to declare the President ineligible and the Constitution invalidated?
    Please specifically explain what form of government we are currently operating if the Federal Republuc has been officially destroyed?
    As I have a degree in and teach English, please let me know if you need any help deciphering these strange characters and shape called words, let alone those tricky phrases and clauses that make up sentences.

  136. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 16, 2015 at 2:06 am #

    “The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.”

    No English born subjects..nothing about British Subjects.

    A child born in the US of parents having a permanent domicil and residence. can this child be a citizen.

    The question was answered in the holding..

    A child born in the USA to parents having a permanent domcil and residence is a citizen.

    Affirmed.

    WKA was affirmed a citizen, not a NBC

    Why was he affirmed a citizen. He was born in the USA having parents who had permanent domcil at his birth.

    You guys are not being honest. This is a problem. What is your real agenda.

    Do you want Obama to do what tyrants really do…cut throats..martial law…remain in the White House after his illegal terms are completed.

    Tell me…what’s your agenda..

  137. avatar
    ImaObot March 16, 2015 at 2:34 am #

    Keith March 15, 2015 at 6:13 pm

    However, Legislative Branch has sole authority to MAKE law. Individual legislatures have opinions and provide explanations of the purpose of the law and the reasoning behind their votes either yea or nay.

    The Executive Branch has sole responsibility to EXECUTE the law that Congress makes. It is the Constitution that has delegated to the Executive Branch that authority. The President does not delegate that authority, he organizes the Executive Branch to ensure that Congressional Law is carried out.

    Federal Laws

    Federal laws generally apply to people living in the United States and its territories.

    Congress creates and passes bills. The President then signs those bills into law. Federal courts may review these laws and strike them down if they think they do not agree with the U.S. Constitution.

    http://www.usa.gov/Topics/Reference-Shelf/Laws.shtml

    A congressman opining a person in a similar situation to Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen is an opinion. but not authoritative. The President issuing Ted Cruz a Certificate of Citizenship is authoritative. If Ted Cruz was issued a Certificate of Citizenship by the President, then he is a citizen of the US and everything else is an opinion. The President is the final, unilateral decision maker on current citizenship status.

    However, the Courts have interpreted unilateral actions by the President with respect to certificates of naturalization, citizenship, and loss of nationality is terminated once the certificate is issued. For example, a canceled certificate effects the proof and not the status of the citizen. “On February 14, 2001, a District Court issued a nationwide injunction based on a finding that USCIS has no statutory authority to administratively revoke naturalization.” See Order Granting Order for Permanent Injunction, ​Gorbach​ v. Reno​, ​2001 WL 34145464 (February 14, 2001) (Entering order pursuant to ​Gorbach​ v. Reno​, ​219 F.3d 1087 (​9th​ Cir. 2000)).

    For example, if President Obama canceled President-elect Ted Cruz’s certificate of citizenship on Jan. 19, 2017, then one form of proof Ted Cruz was a US citizen would be terminated, but not his status as a US citizen. The President unilaterally and authoritatively acted to issue Ted Cruz a certificate of citizenship (we think). Now that Ted Cruz is a citizen, SCOTUS has not opined as to whether or not a statutory citizen is a natural born citizen and Congress is not constitutionally authorized to enlarge or abridge the rights of a US citizen with respect to current citizenship status.

    The President and the Congress are not constitutionally authorized to elevate a foreign born person with at least one citizen parent to natural born citizen status. The Congress passes legislation to determine the naturalization process and the President enacts the legislation into US law and unilaterally executes US law to recognize a non-citizen as a US citizen on a certain date.

  138. avatar
    Lupin March 16, 2015 at 2:57 am #

    ObligedFriend: It’s not my fault you guys cannot comprehend English.

    Coming from someone who is by the evidence of his own writing presented here barely literate and does not seem to comprehend basic syntax, this is ironic instead.

  139. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 16, 2015 at 5:39 am #

    ObligedFriend: You guys are not being honest. This is a problem. What is your real agenda.

    Do you want Obama to do what tyrants really do…cut throats..martial law…remain in the White House after his illegal terms are completed.

    Tell me…what’s your agenda..

    *yawn* Your deranged rants continue to be funny. Do you even understand the basis of the government’s argument in the case? Did you ever read the briefs the government made prior to the case being decided in the supreme court? Never was there a requirement for permanent domicile. How exactly could you define that? Barack Obama Sr intended to stay permanently in the United states at the time his son was born. Where is this supposed martial law? We get it, you can’t stand that there is a black president in the United states. Your whining makes that clear. It’s going to be a long 22 months for you

  140. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) March 16, 2015 at 5:41 am #

    ImaObot: The President and the Congress are not constitutionally authorized to elevate a foreign born person with at least one citizen parent to natural born citizen status.

    So you’re saying the Naturalization Act of 1790 (adding foreign-born people to the NBC class under certain circumstances) was unconstitutional?

    I guess one could make a case that a modification (be it an expansion or something else) of a technical term in the Constitution would require an amendment (to prevent a circumvention of the amendment process by simply redefining terms).

    However you could also make a case that Congress has the authority to interpret terms in the Constitution (such as “cruel and unusual punishment”, Eighth Amendment), which can then be challenged before SCOTUS.

  141. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) March 16, 2015 at 5:47 am #

    ObligedFriend: The fraudulently elected Obama invalidated the Constitution.

    How come people like you always want the Constitution to be null and void? Do you love the enemies of the US so much? Or are you just looking for an excuse to jail/execute everyone who disagrees with you (“I can because there is no Constitution telling me I can’t”)?

    The Constitution clearly says what happens in the hypothetical situation that an actually ineligible person is elected President. “This Constitution is then void” is not among the options listed.

  142. avatar
    faceman March 16, 2015 at 6:21 am #

    john: <PThere is still the argument to be made on whether Obama Sr. could have actually been considered a diplomat or agent of a foreign state. If that is so, then Obama cannot be a NBC. Obama Sr. did represent Kenya Foreign interests as well US interests as Obama Sr. was part of joint Kenya/US Airlight to expose the African culture to the Western US Culture. Obama Sr. also returned to Kenya where is did work for the government of Kenya.

    Okay, now that you’ve made the argument – REJECTED.
    -Sr was here on a student visa, he could not have been considered a diplomat.
    -Regardless of Sr’s status, Obama’s mother could not, in any way, be considered a foreign diplomat.

    Next?

  143. avatar
    Keith March 16, 2015 at 6:22 am #

    ImaObot: A congressman opining a person in a similar situation to Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen is an opinion. but not authoritative.

    That is what I said. One Congressman has an opinion; Congress as a whole passes laws.

    The President issuing Ted Cruz a Certificate of Citizenship is authoritative.

    No. The President does not issue Ted Cruz a “Certificate of Citizenship”.

    Congress passes laws that stipulate the criteria whereby foreign born persons are either recognized as born citizens or subject to naturalization to become citizens. They have vested that task in an agency that was specifically set up to handle that process – it is called the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) which is part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The DHS is also a Department that was set up by Congressional action.

    When someone is issued a “Certificate of Citizenship” it is by authority of the United States Congress which has the sole Constitutional authority to do so.

    The Presidents role is to see that the law is administered as Congress intended.

    In actual fact, Cruz almost certainly does NOT have a “Certificate of Citizenship”. But he undoubtedly has a passport which is even better. The USCIS actually recommends against applying for a “Certificate of Citizenship” but to apply for a Passport instead. The CoC is more expensive, takes longer, and cannot be used for travel like a Passport. CoC’s are only for those who are over 18 and whose parents did not obtain a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA also known as form FS-240).

    On the other hand, Cruz’ mother should have obtained a CRBA or possibly a Certification of Report of Birth (form DS-1350) for him. These are the functional equivalent of a Birth Certificate as far as proof of citizenship goes. DS-1350’s are no longer issued (since 2010) but existing forms are remain valid. These forms are issued by the United States Department of State, another department whose functions are defined by Congressional legislation.

    If Ted Cruz was issued a Certificate of Citizenship by the President, then he is a citizen of the US and everything else is an opinion.

    The USCIS issues CofCs and the State Department issues CRBAs – not the President.

    The President is the final, unilateral decision maker on current citizenship status.

    No. Congress is the ONLY decision maker on citizenship status for those people born overseas. The President cannot ‘unilaterally decide’ to certify someone who does not meet the criteria specified by Congress.

    Your understanding of the scope and source of the President’s authority is flawed. Seriously flawed.

  144. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 16, 2015 at 7:07 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: *yawn* Your deranged rants continue to be funny.Do you even understand the basis of the government’s argument in the case?Did you ever read the briefs the government made prior to the case being decided in the supreme court?Never was there a requirement for permanent domicile.How exactly could you define that?Barack Obama Sr intended to stay permanently in the United states at the time his son was born.Where is this supposed martial law?We get it, you can’t stand that there is a black president in the United states.Your whining makes that clear.It’s going to be a long 22 months for you

    You said Obama Sr. intended to stay permanently in the United States after his son was born.

    He never listed Junior in his INS records, he never saw his new born son, they never lived together. Ann was in Seattle late August 1961.

    Do you home work before making moronic statements.

    Hawaii University wanted him deported and Harvard College finally succeeded.

    Obama is not a 14th Amendment citizen. He’s a perpetual inhabitant living a fraudulent life.

    Even his name is illegal under Hawaii law in 1961.

    According to Justice Daniel he’s not a citizen and not a natural born citizen.

    John Paul Jones warned us about a future President who will cut the throats of citizens.

    Islam is on the March, Obama is inciting the shooting of white LEO’s.

    He’s flooding the country illegal aliens, his naturals.

    There’s a tweet going around with Washington on a horse and Obama on a girls bike with a sissy helmet.
    Where it all began and where we ended up. Sad does not describe it.

    Most of you know he’s illegal. This is Misprision.

  145. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 16, 2015 at 7:17 am #

    Really he never listed his son in his ins file? I guess you missed the memo from August 31, 1961 in his ins file where it says he had a son Barack Hussein Obama II born August 4th, 1961 in Honolulu Hawaii. You also seemed to have missed the part in his ins file where he argued the reason for why he should stay was the son he had with Ann Dunham. I guess you didn’t bother to read the full ins file. Yes misprision of stupidity. He’s a natural born citizen. He isn’t inciting the shooting of white LEOs. But since you brought it up, how did you feel about the people at Bundy ranch targeting law enforcement officers? We already went through your claim about his name being illegal under Hawaii law. This was a false claim by you Christian name simply means his given first name which is allowed under Hawaii law. You’re nothing but a racist pos.

    ObligedFriend: You said Obama Sr. intended to stay permanently in the United States after his son was born.

    He never listed Junior in his INS records,he never saw his new born son, they never lived together. Ann was in Seattle late August 1961.

    Do you home work before making moronic statements.

    Hawaii University wanted him deported and Harvard College finally succeeded.

    Obama is not a 14th Amendment citizen. He’s a perpetual inhabitant living a fraudulent life.

    Even his name is illegal under Hawaii law in 1961.

    According to Justice Daniel he’s not a citizen and not a natural born citizen.

    John Paul Jones warned us about a future President who will cut the throats of citizens.

    Islam is on the March, Obama is inciting the shooting of white LEO’s.

    He’s flooding the country illegal aliens, his naturals.

    There’s a tweet going around with Washington on a horse and Obama on a girls bike with a sissy helmet.
    Where it all began and where we ended up. Sad does not describe it.

    Most of you know he’s illegal. This is Misprision.

  146. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) March 16, 2015 at 8:03 am #

    ObligedFriend: Even his name is illegal under Hawaii law in 1961.

    Oh noes, it’s the armchair lawyer cum English language professor misunderstanding the meaning of “Christian name” again.
    (BTW if that really meant what you claim it means, said Hawaiian law would violate the Establishment Clause and thus be null and void.)

  147. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 16, 2015 at 8:37 am #

    the spreading misinformation continues by some members this forum, will it ever cease.

    Obama senior never listed a son on his INS forms, there’s a note by an INS agent mentioning a son..There’s no proof Obama told the INS he has a son.

    Hawaii University wanted him deported.

    Every INS extension request is a temporary stay. He was never permanently Domiciled, There’s nothing in the INS records Obama wanted to stay permanently.

    Obama is not a citizen based on the ruling in WKA. The daddy was a transient alien student.

    I do enjoy how y’ll create something that does not exist. Misinformation is your game.

  148. avatar
    Lupin March 16, 2015 at 8:42 am #

    ObligedFriend: John Paul Jones warned us about a future President who will cut the throats of citizens.

    The Village Idiot (with apologies to Village idiots, many of which are not dumb racists) speaks again of what he doesn’t know.

    The exact quote from JPJ is here:

    http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=LeJ8NnY1AJUC&pg=PA301&lpg=PA301&dq=John+Paul+Jones+the+president+command+military+with+pen&source=bl&ots=LHpF1WsHFA&sig=7RrhQ5uy9o8Qv5CqKWhukfq_WZ4&hl=tl&ei=VKHPS6fmHpXk7AOA7I2nDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&#v=onepage&q&f=false

    And of course contextually very different from what ObligedKlansman suggests.

    The letters were published in 1913,but this bit taken out of context has recently surfaced, dredged up by the racist anti-Obama nutters.

    As for JPJ himself, let’s re,member that after the Revolutionary War he left the US to serve as an Admiral in the Russian Navy, and retired in Paris.

    This letter from Rear Admiral John Paul Jones, Russian Navy, to Prince Marshal Potemkin-Tauricien, 1788, will be of interest to ObligedCretin:

    I will sacrifice my own opinion, in every instance where the interests of Russia may render it necessary, and I shall esteem myself most happy in doing all that honor may require, to prove how sensible and how flattered I am at the goodness and kindness of the Empress, and how ambitious I am to merit the friendship of Your Highness, in contributing all in my power to advance the great views you entertain for the good of the country.”

    (bold mine)

  149. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 16, 2015 at 9:09 am #

    31 Aug 1961 Obama requests extension his temporary stay.. Ann is in Seattle.

    I bet junior never saw his father and Senior never saw or held his son. The airport pics are photoshopped.

    Thomas Jefferson warned us about letting certain races living in our communities.

  150. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 16, 2015 at 9:13 am #

    ObligedFriend: the spreading misinformation continues by some members this forum, will it ever cease.

    Obama senior never listed a son on his INS forms, there’s a note by an INS agent mentioning a son..There’s no proof Obama told the INS he has a son.

    Hawaii University wanted him deported.

    Every INS extension request is a temporary stay. He was never permanently Domiciled, There’s nothing in the INS records Obama wanted to stay permanently.

    Obama is not a citizen based on the ruling in WKA. The daddy was a transient alien student.

    I do enjoy how y’ll create something that does not exist. Misinformation is your game.

    So you’re thinking that the note about Barack Obama Sr having a son in his INS file just appeared out of nowhere? Seriously? That’s your argument?

    You’re the one intentionally misleading here.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/54015762/Barack-Hussein-Obama-Sr-Immigration-File#scribd

    What’s that on page 14? Application to extend time of temporary stay. Names and Addresses of Children: Barack Obama 2nd 2 yrs

    Whose signature is on that form? Barack H. Obama on April 21st 1964. Oops you were wrong. So he never listed his son?

    He intended to stay. There is no requirement for one to be permanently domiciled. Also WKA was about two parents who were not US citizens. Ann Dunham was a US citizen so your claim has no basis.

  151. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 16, 2015 at 9:19 am #

    ObligedFriend:
    31 Aug 1961 Obama requests extension his temporary stay.. Ann is in Seattle.

    I bet junior never saw his father and Senior never saw or held his son. The airport pics are photoshopped.

    Thomas Jefferson warned us about letting certain races living in our communities.

    Ann wasn’t in Seattle then kiddo. You seem to confuse correspondence courses which are done offsite through the mail with taking courses on campus. Since when is there a requirement for a dad to hold his son to meet your standards?

    The pictures are legit.

    Really you’re going to claim Jefferson was a racist like yourself despite having kids with Sally Hemings?

    But hey lets hear this quote from Jefferson

  152. avatar
    Obligedfriend March 16, 2015 at 9:28 am #

    The John Paul Jones letter specially mentions JPJ’s concerns a future President who on a pretext will cut the throats of fellow citizens.

    Obama has no fellow citizens and this is alarming. There’s a lot of American and Christian throat cutting going on already.

    Is Obama responsible for the rise of ISIS, damn right he is. His daddy would be proud his muslim Kenyan son.

  153. avatar
    Lupin March 16, 2015 at 9:35 am #

    Obligedfriend: The John Paul Jones letter specially mentions JPJ’s concerns a future President who on a pretext will cut the throats of fellow citizens.

    Read JPJ’s words at the link that I provided above and see how wrong you are.

    You didn’t expect someone here would be familiar with the source, eh? You thought that once again you could get away by claiming something totally taken out of context.

    Of course, I forget: you barely know how to read and understand a text in English, don’t you? Must be hard to live and breathe in your sea of ignorance and prejudice.

  154. avatar
    Lupin March 16, 2015 at 9:47 am #

    ObligedFriend: Thomas Jefferson warned us about letting certain races living in our communities.

    As usual, the context is far more complex than your simple-minded assertion.

    On the one hand, Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery his whole life, calling it a “moral depravity” and a “hideous blot.” He thought that slavery was contrary to the laws of nature, which decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty.

    OTOH, Jefferson was influenced by the bloody Haitian Revolution of 1791 and came to believe that American slaves’ deportation back to Africa would have to be the result of emancipation, because white Americans and enslaved blacks constituted two “separate nations” who could not live together peacefully. (This is what you allude to.)

    In fact, Jefferson wrote that slavery was like holding “a wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go” and would result in a civil war.

    He was sadly right, but I think he would also be very very proud of president Obama, as the proof that his cherished federal union, the world’s first democratic experiment, was able to assimilate (let’s say for the most part) its African-American population.

    (Of course Obama himself is not the descendent on enslaved African-Americans so that line of reasoning is somewhat arguable.)

  155. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 16, 2015 at 9:53 am #

    Obligedfriend: The John Paul Jones letter specially mentions JPJ’s concerns a future President who on a pretext will cut the throats of fellow citizens.

    Obama has no fellow citizens and this is alarming. There’s a lot of American and Christian throat cutting going on already.

    Lol Obama has no fellow citizens? What do you call the whole of American citizens?

    Obligedfriend: Is Obama responsible for the rise of ISIS, damn right he is. His daddy would be proud his muslim Kenyan son.

    You seem quite confused since ISIS was spawned from the fallout from our invasion of Iraq and the power vacuum that was created from that.

    Why would he be proud since his dad was an atheist? His son is an American citizen and christian.

  156. avatar
    Bob March 16, 2015 at 10:00 am #

    ObligedFiend,

    Have you written to your Congressperson with your concern?

  157. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 16, 2015 at 10:04 am #

    One of the problems with birthers, so far as I know, is that there is no birther repository of information, where it is easy to look up things, and where errors are corrected. That is in contradistinction to this blog where considerable effort has gone into making things easy to find, and in correcting errors in older material.

    Your comment quoted below is an example of a false statement I presume you got from some uncorrected birther source. As noted by Dr. Ken, Obama Sr. listed his son on a signed 1963 INS document obtained by FOIA. Birtherism is a slander rather than a fact finding enterprise, so I guess there is no reason for them to correct their record.

    ObligedFriend: Obama senior never listed a son on his INS forms, there’s a note by an INS agent mentioning a son..There’s no proof Obama told the INS he has a son.

  158. avatar
    gorefan March 16, 2015 at 10:18 am #

    The Magic M (not logged in): However you could also make a case that Congress has the authority to interpret terms in the Constitution (such as “cruel and unusual punishment”, Eighth Amendment), which can then be challenged before SCOTUS.

    Same thing with “high crimes and misdemeanor”.

  159. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 16, 2015 at 1:01 pm #

    gorefan: Same thing with “high crimes and misdemeanor”.

    Those are things you do while under marijuana right?

  160. avatar
    bookfiend75 March 16, 2015 at 1:43 pm #

    Lupin: As usual, the context is far more complex than your simple-minded assertion.

    On the one hand, Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery his whole life, calling it a “moral depravity” and a “hideous blot.” He thought that slavery was contrary to the laws of nature, which decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty.

    OTOH, Jefferson was influenced by the bloody Haitian Revolution of 1791 and came to believe that American slaves’ deportation back to Africa would have to be the result of emancipation, because white Americans and enslaved blacks constituted two “separate nations” who could not live together peacefully. (This is what you allude to.)

    In fact, Jefferson wrote that slavery was like holding “a wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go” and would result in a civil war.

    He was sadly right, but I think he would also be very very proud of president Obama, as the proof that his cherished federal union, the world’s first democratic experiment, was able to assimilate (let’s say for the most part) its African-American population.

    (Of course Obama himself is not the descendent on enslaved African-Americans so that line of reasoning is somewhat arguable.)

    Indeed, Jefferson’s views on slavery and race were complex as he was a complex man himself. Regardless of what he may have said about letting certain races live in our communities, that didn’t stop him from fathering six children with Sally Hemings.

    Relying on the founding fathers for absolute moral authority is problematic since they were all human beings, and as such, they were flawed individuals; as we all are. This is why the Constitution is not a “perfect” document and was enabled to be changed through the amendment process.

    Obligedfriend writes: “Thomas Jefferson warned us about letting certain races living in our communities,” since I believe this is the closest he will come to admitting his true intentions and beliefs for fear of being banned if he stated them more directly. He also believes that merely repeating his claims will answer questions posed directly towards him.

  161. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 16, 2015 at 1:58 pm #

    bookfiend75: since I believe this is the closest he will come to admitting his true intentions and beliefs for fear of being banned if he stated them more directly. He also believes that merely repeating his claims will answer questions posed directly towards him.

    Oh I think he’s stated pretty clearly in past rants that he doesn’t believe that black people should be allowed citizenship let alone being able to hold office.

  162. avatar
    JD Reed March 16, 2015 at 1:59 pm #

    ObligedFriend: You said Obama Sr. intended to stay permanently in the United States after his son was born.He never listed Junior in his INS records, he never saw his new born son, they never lived together. Ann was in Seattle late August 1961. Do you home work before making moronic statements.Hawaii University wanted him deported and Harvard College finally succeeded.Obama is not a 14th Amendment citizen. He’s a perpetual inhabitant living a fraudulent life. Even his name is illegal under Hawaii law in 1961.According to Justice Daniel he’s not a citizen and not a natural born citizen.John Paul Jones warned us about a future President who will cut the throats of citizens.Islam is on the March, Obama is inciting the shooting of white LEO’s.He’s flooding the country illegal aliens, his naturals.There’s a tweet going around with Washington on a horse and Obama on a girls bike with a sissy helmet.Where it all began and where we ended up. Sad does not describe it.Most of you know he’s illegal. This is Misprision.

    This is not for Obliged’s edification, for at this point in his life I don’t see him as willing or able to view facts objectively.
    But he used the legal term misprision, implying that Obots in general are guilty of misprision because they (well,we) make assertions of fact to support Mr. Obama’s status as a natural born citizen, and to dispute whatever the flavor-of-the-day thoery is among birthers who vehemently insist he is not an NBC.
    18 U.S.C. § 4 : US Code – Section 4: Misprision of felony –
    “Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.” – See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/1/4#sthash.v7rbvseW.dpuf
    The key word here is “CONCEALS.” But any theory underpinning birthers’ belief that the president is not legit has been widely publicized, ad nauseum. So how can disputing these birther “facts” be concealing anything?
    Can anyone be guilty of concealing what just about everyone has heard or read?
    Assume for a moment the birthers are right. (Sorry to take you to this dark place.) If I make mistaken statements to the contrary, I’m not concealing anything, I’m just wrong.
    Let’s take a hypothetical. Suppose I passionately believe (I don’t) that Jody Arias was railroaded. I write newspapers, blog sites, etc., to flog this belief. Now in fact I have no direct knowledge whatsoever of the Arias case. What I know (or believe I know) is second-hand at best, and is out there before millions of people. Yet under Obliged’s theory in this hypothetical, I would be guilty of misprision of a felony.
    What his theory if made reality would do is criminalize the act of trying to shape public opinion – more to the point, criminalize it for people who make assertions he disagrees with.
    He has to be joking about Obama’s name being illegal under Hawaiian law. I feel certain that none of the 50 states nor the United States has arrogated the authority to decide what parents may not name their children.
    Finally, Obliged doubles down on his assertion that the Wong Kim Ark decision applies only to the offspring of aliens who have been permanently domiciled in the United States. No, the opinion merely states that Wong’s parents had been so domiciled, not that this was a necessary condition for Wong to qualify as a citizen.
    Then there’s the false notion that the country has three types of citizens, naturalized, natural born and born-a-citizen-though-not-natural-born.
    I do have a question for Obliged, however. Did I, with this post, commit misprision of a felony?

  163. avatar
    bookfiend75 March 16, 2015 at 2:33 pm #

    JD Reed:

    He has to be joking about Obama’s name being illegal under Hawaiian law. I feel certain that none of the 50 states nor the United States has arrogated the authority to decide what parents may not name their children.

    He is referencing a part of Hawaiian law which he states requires a newborn to be named with a Christian name. Whether that requirement was actual or not, he is confused with the idea of a Christian name, which we normally now call a first name. His claim is that Barack and Obama are not “Christian” in origin. He is also confused about the idea that there is no such thing as a Christian language, and popular English names from the Bible (David, Abraham, Isaac) are Hebrew in origin. Even Jesus’s name wasn’t Christian; it was Jeshua/Joshua (Hebrew).

  164. avatar
    Obligedfriend March 16, 2015 at 2:45 pm #

    Obama Sr.. INS Application to extend temporary stay dated 6 June 1963

    Name and address of children is left blank.

    INS application to extend temporary stay dated 17 August 1962

    Name and address of children

    Roy Obama

    INS application extend temporary stay dated 31 Aug 1961

    Name and address of children

    Left blank

  165. avatar
    J.D. Reed March 16, 2015 at 2:58 pm #

    Another analogy concerning misprision:
    If I assert that the sun revolves around the earth, I am not “concealing” the fact that the opposite is true.

  166. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 16, 2015 at 3:00 pm #

    Obligedfriend:
    Obama Sr.. INS Application to extend temporary stay dated 6 June 1963

    Name and address of children is left blank.

    INS application to extend temporary stay dated 17 August 1962

    Name and address of children

    Roy Obama

    INS application extend temporary stay dated 31 Aug 1961

    Name and address of children

    Left blank

    I gave you which page it was on. You said he never claimed Obama I proved you wrong page 14 of the scribd link i sent you.

    April 21st 1964

  167. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 16, 2015 at 3:03 pm #

    The INS memo August 1961 was drafted by INS agent Woods not BHO Sr.

    I

  168. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 16, 2015 at 3:13 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    The INS memo August 1961 was drafted by INS agent Woods not BHO Sr.

    I

    You seem completely confused that was just one instance of Obama being named as his son and being born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4th 1961. Do you think the INS agent just pulled that out of thin air?

    I told you about page 14 which was an application for stay with his son listed.

  169. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 16, 2015 at 3:24 pm #

    1961 no son
    1962 Roy Obama
    1963 no son
    1964 INS agent writes Barack Obama 2 or instructs BHO Sr. To fill in the blanks. he’s about to be deported.

    Son’s address C/O University of Hawaii

    It was claimed Barack Obama planned to stay in the USA permanently due birth of a son…Really. This makes him permanently Domiciled to meet WKA’s requirement both parents must be permanently domiciled. Really.

    Please note the INS application form….Extension Temporary Stay. This alone shows Obama Sr was not permanently Domiciled and fails WKA.

  170. avatar
    Joey March 16, 2015 at 3:29 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    Lots misinformation being spread this forum regarding WKA ., some of you are less than truthful. The holding is clear.

    Both parents must be permanently domiciled. It’s not my fault you guys cannot comprehend English.

    Wong Kim Ark’s parents were permanently domiciled, until they returned to China. The term “permenently domiciled” means having a U.S. address and not being a tourist,

  171. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 16, 2015 at 3:34 pm #

    ObligedFriend: 1961 no son
    1962 Roy Obama
    1963 no son
    1964 INS agent writes Barack Obama 2 or instructs BHO Sr. To fill in the blanks. he’s about to be deported.

    Son’s address C/O University of Hawaii

    It was claimed Barack Obama planned to stay in the USA permanently due birth of a son…Really. This makes him permanently Domiciled to meet WKA’s requirement both parents must be permanently domiciled. Really.

    Please note the INS application form….Extension Temporary Stay. This alone shows Obama Sr was not permanently Domiciled and fails WKA.

    I love how you keep making excuses. He claimed his son on the 1964 form. He signed and dated it which was contrary to what you previously claimed. There was no need for him to be permanently domiciled nor both parents. His mom was a US citizen.

    It’s not our fault you can’t understand english. Since WKA didn’t require what you claimed.

  172. avatar
    Joey March 16, 2015 at 3:39 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    1961 no son
    1962 Roy Obama
    1963 no son
    1964 INS agent writes Barack Obama 2 or instructs BHO Sr. To fill in the blanks. he’s about to be deported.

    Son’s address C/O University of Hawaii

    It was claimed Barack Obama planned to stay in the USA permanently due birth of a son…Really. This makes him permanently Domiciled to meet WKA’s requirement both parents must be permanently domiciled. Really.

    Please note the INS application form….Extension Temporary Stay. This alone shows Obama Sr was not permanently Domiciled and fails WKA.

    When Barack Obama Senior applied for an extension of his student visa on August 31st, 1961, three weeks after the birth of his son, INS officer William Woods recorded in his notes of the interview that Senior had a son born on August 4, 1961 and a US citizen wife.
    http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/07/INS-6.jpg

  173. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 16, 2015 at 3:42 pm #

    Joey: When Barack Obama Senior applied for an extension of his student visa on August 31st, 1961, three weeks after the birth of his son, INS officer William Woods recorded in his notes of the interview that Senior had a son born on August 4, 1961 and a US citizen wife.
    http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/07/INS-6.jpg

    I already showed him that. He seems to believe the INS agent pulled the information out of thin air.

  174. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 16, 2015 at 3:42 pm #

    al-Baghdadi was released from prison by Obama in 2009. He has a PHD in Islamic Studies. He founded ISIS after his release.

    Obama gave him funding and weapons to…allegedly fight Assad. Soon after the massive throat cutting began…children included.

    Spurious born Barack Hussein Obama created ISIS.

  175. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 16, 2015 at 3:49 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: I already showed him that.He seems to believe the INS agent pulled the information out of thin air.

    Woods wrote the memo not Obama, read the temporary stay application dtd 31 Aug 1961 signed by Obama.
    Names of Children is left blank.

    Obama Jr. continues to fail WKA.

  176. avatar
    bookfiend75 March 16, 2015 at 4:01 pm #

    Joey: Wong Kim Ark’s parents were permanently domiciled, until they returned to China. The term “permenently domiciled” means having a U.S. address and not being a tourist,

    I’ve already asked ObligedFriend this question about “permanently domiciled” and his definition for it. He won’t answer the question.

  177. avatar
    JD Reed March 16, 2015 at 4:11 pm #

    bookfiend75: He is referencing a part of Hawaiian law which he states requires a newborn to be named with a Christian name. Whether that requirement was actual or not, he is confused with the idea of a Christian name, which we normally now call a first name. His claim is that Barack and Obama are not “Christian” in origin. He is also confused about the idea that there is no such thing as a Christian language, and popular English names from the Bible (David, Abraham, Isaac) are Hebrew in origin. Even Jesus’s name wasn’t Christian; it was Jeshua/Joshua (Hebrew).

    But Barak — note it’s spelled without a c — was also an Old Testament Hebrew name. Barak was in fact a general who led a Hebrew army to a total wipeout of a Canaanite army. He was a bit bloodthirsty, accoring to the fourth and fifth chapters of Judges. So according to Obliged’s logic, an Old Testament Hebrew name was illegal in Hawaii back in the day. Glad I didn’t live there then. Both my children have OT Hebrew names.

  178. avatar
    faceman March 16, 2015 at 4:13 pm #

    ObligedFriend: al-Baghdadi

    No, he was released from detention in Dec 2004.
    No, he became leader of ISIL after it’s founder was killed in 2010.
    No, the US did not give ISIL any funding or weapons.
    No, Obama did not ‘create’ ISIS.

    Yes, you are a lying racist.

  179. avatar
    J.D. Reed March 16, 2015 at 4:20 pm #

    bookfiend75: He is referencing a part of Hawaiian law which he states requires a newborn to be named with a Christian name.Whether that requirement was actual or not, he is confused with the idea of a Christian name, which we normally now call a first name.His claim is that Barack and Obama are not “Christian” in origin.He is also confused about the idea that there is no such thing as a Christian language, and popular English names from the Bible (David, Abraham, Isaac) are Hebrew in origin.Even Jesus’s name wasn’t Christian; it was Jeshua/Joshua (Hebrew).

  180. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 16, 2015 at 4:25 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    al-Baghdadi was released from prison by Obama in 2009. He has a PHD in Islamic Studies. He founded ISIS after his release.

    Obama gave him funding and weapons to…allegedly fight Assad. Soon after the massive throat cutting began…children included.

    Spurious born Barack Hussein Obama created ISIS.

    Any proof that Obama gave him funding or weapons?

    It was Bush’s signed Status of Forces agreement which lead to Al-Baghdadi’s release: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20081119_SOFA_FINAL_AGREED_TEXT.pdf

    So there you go again unlawful invasion of Iraq lead directly to ISIS. Obama had nothing to do with the creation.

  181. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 16, 2015 at 4:26 pm #

    ObligedFriend: Woods wrote the memo not Obama, read the temporary stay application dtd 31 Aug 1961 signed by Obama.
    Names of Children is left blank.

    Obama Jr. continues to fail WKA.

    So you’re saying that Woods pulled this out of thin air with no input from Obama Sr. or Ann Dunham?

  182. avatar
    J.D. Reed March 16, 2015 at 4:27 pm #

    Barak without the C was a general whose exploits were told in the 4th and 5th chapters of judges. Thus Hebrew general wss a bit bloodthirsty, annihilating the Campsite foe. So an Old Testament Hebrew name could have been disallowed back in the day. Glad I wasn’t there then
    Both my children have Old Testament Hebrew names.

  183. avatar
    Joey March 16, 2015 at 4:33 pm #

    ObligedFriend: Woods wrote the memo not Obama, read the temporary stay application dtd 31 Aug 1961 signed by Obama.
    Names of Children is left blank.

    Obama Jr. continues to fail WKA.

    Strange then that not a singlle judge anywhere in the nation agrees with your opinion.

  184. avatar
    Joey March 16, 2015 at 4:37 pm #

    bookfiend75: I’ve already asked ObligedFriend this question about “permanently domiciled” and his definition for it.He won’t answer the question.

    I can answer for him: “permanently domiciled” means having an address in the United States where one acutally resides.

  185. avatar
    Rickey March 16, 2015 at 5:00 pm #

    Joey: Wong Kim Ark’s parents were permanently domiciled, until they returned to China. The term “permenently domiciled” means having a U.S. address and not being a tourist,

    That’s true, but irrelevant. As Justice Gray noted, for a definition of Natural Born Citizen we have to look to the English Common Law, and under the English Common Law a child born of foreign parents while in the domain of the King was a natural born subject “whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning.” (citing Lord Chief Justice Cockburn)

  186. avatar
    JD Reed March 16, 2015 at 5:16 pm #

    bookfiend75: I’ve already asked ObligedFriend this question about “permanently domiciled” and his definition for it. He won’t answer the question.

    Nor will he answer the question about how can we obots be committing misprision of a felony when the language of the law clearly does not fit.

  187. avatar
    James M March 16, 2015 at 5:42 pm #

    Joey: Strange then that not a singlle judge anywhere in the nation agrees with your opinion.

    His opinion begins (and for me, ends) with the idea that descendants of slaves are not citizens. Really no point in engaging O. F. for any purpose other than ridicule, and I am not a cyber bully.

  188. avatar
    Keith March 16, 2015 at 6:01 pm #

    Lupin: As for JPJ himself, let’s re,member that after the Revolutionary War he left the US to serve as an Admiral in the Russian Navy, and retired in Paris.

    I didn’t know that. Isn’t it great to learn new things! Pity some refuse.

  189. avatar
    Rickey March 16, 2015 at 8:24 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater:
    It was Bush’s signed Status of Forces agreement which lead to Al-Baghdadi’s release:

    Actually, Al-Baghdadi was released by the Bush Administration in 2004. Obama had nothing to do with it. Obviously, ObligedKlanman gets he news from Fox.

    http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jun/19/jeanine-pirro/foxs-pirro-obama-set-isis-leader-free-2009/

  190. avatar
    Rickey March 16, 2015 at 8:31 pm #

    That should be “ObligedKlansman gets his news from Fox.”

  191. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 16, 2015 at 8:42 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: So you’re saying that Woods pulled this out of thin air with no input from Obama Sr. or Ann Dunham?

    Is it your claim Obama prepared the Wood memo? Is it your claim University of Hawaii officials were not in contact with the INS regarding Obama’s sexual harassment of teen students and numerous marriages.

    I

  192. avatar
    James M March 16, 2015 at 8:48 pm #

    Rickey:
    That should be “ObligedKlansman gets his news from Fox.”

    Not to be the one to defend Fox News, but this line of disinformation doesn’t originate there. Fox goes nowhere near this subject. O. F. likely considers Fox to be supportive of the President, and complicit in the conspiracy to prevent him from being removed from office.
    He definitely doesn’t get his legal theories from there.

  193. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 16, 2015 at 8:50 pm #

    Joey: I can answer for him: “permanently domiciled” means having an address in the United States where one acutally resides.

    The Supreme Court used Vattel’s definition of domicile. The SC court ruled foreign students are not domiciled or permanent residents.

  194. avatar
    Sluffy1 March 16, 2015 at 8:55 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: It’s not our fault you can’t understand english. Since WKA didn’t require what you claimed.

    That makes me think of “A Fish Called Wanda”.

    Otto West: Apes don’t read philosophy.

    Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don’t understand it

  195. avatar
    James M March 16, 2015 at 9:00 pm #

    I would ask O. F. if, since he is the only person who understands that they President is not legitimately serving in office, he has any personal plans to act on this information.

  196. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 16, 2015 at 9:10 pm #

    ObligedFriend: Is it your claim Obama prepared the Wood memo? Is it your claim University of Hawaii officials were not in contact with the INS regarding Obama’s sexual harassment of teen students and numerous marriages.

    I

    Is it your claim that Wood had no input from Obama or Ann Dunham? What does Obama’s harassment have to do with your claim that he never put his son on any of those documents in the INS file?

  197. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 16, 2015 at 9:12 pm #

    ObligedFriend: The Supreme Court used Vattel’s definition of domicile. The SC court ruled foreign students are not domiciled or permanent residents.

    No they simply stated the parents were domiciled. There was no requirement for them to be in order for WKA to be born a citizen.

  198. avatar
    bookfiend75 March 16, 2015 at 9:24 pm #

    ObligedFriend: The Supreme Court used Vattel’s definition of domicile. The SC court ruled foreign students are not domiciled or permanent residents.

    Great. Can you please cite the SC case or ruling where they use that particular definition as well as the finding that international students are not domiciled within the U.S.; and/or can you please cite or quote the actual definition used by Vattel?

  199. avatar
    Rickey March 16, 2015 at 10:57 pm #

    James M: Not to be the one to defend Fox News, but this line of disinformation doesn’t originate there. Fox goes nowhere near this subject. O. F.likely considers Fox to be supportive of the President, and complicit in the conspiracy to prevent him from being removed from office.
    He definitely doesn’t get his legal theories from there.

    I was referring to his claim that Obama released Al-Baghdadi.

  200. avatar
    Rickey March 16, 2015 at 11:15 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: No they simply stated the parents were domiciled.There was no requirement for them to be in order for WKA to be born a citizen.

    It’s been pointed out several times to ObligedKlansman that Justice Gray’s decision does not say that Wong Kim Ark’s parents had to be domiciled in the U.S. for him to be a U.S. citizen. On the contrary, Justice Gray cites Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, who noted that under English Common Law, even children born of foreigners who were “merely temporarily sojourning” within the dominions of the Crown were natural born subjects.

  201. avatar
    James M March 16, 2015 at 11:44 pm #

    Rickey: 37

    O. F. has me so outraged I’m being hasty. Apologies.

  202. avatar
    Obligedfriend March 17, 2015 at 12:15 am #

    Y’ll aren’t as well researched as you think you are.

  203. avatar
    Rickey March 17, 2015 at 12:30 am #

    ObligedKlansman:
    Y’ll aren’t as well researched as you think you are.

    Justice Scalia, during oral arguments in Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS (No. 99-2071):

    “I’m just referring to the meaning of natural born within the Constitution. I don’t think you’re disagreeing. It requires jus soli, doesn’t it?”

    Why aren’t you trying to convince Justice Scalia that he is wrong?

  204. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG March 17, 2015 at 1:03 am #

    Obligedfriend:
    Y’ll aren’t as well researched as you think you are.

    You’re a world class bigoted dumb ass, that’s not up for debate, but did you seriously just misspell “y’all”?!

  205. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 17, 2015 at 1:04 am #

    Vattel and Domcile: The Venus

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/12/253/case.html

  206. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 17, 2015 at 1:12 am #

    You Guys like to discredit through insinuation.

  207. avatar
    slash2k March 17, 2015 at 1:30 am #

    O.F.: what in the Venus decision says anything at all about foreign students, much less the domicile thereof?

  208. avatar
    bookfiend75 March 17, 2015 at 1:45 am #

    slash2k:
    O.F.: what in the Venus decision says anything at all about foreign students, much less the domicile thereof?

    It doesn’t say anything about foreign students as it is a case about seized goods from the War of 1812. There is a mention of the word domicile and the author of the opinion uses Vattel as a source for a definition of the word. Doc wrote about it a couple of years ago.

    The Venus by Dr. Conspiracy on June 18, 2012 in Citizenship, Lawsuits, Supreme Court

  209. avatar
    Rickey March 17, 2015 at 1:48 am #

    ObligedFriend:
    You Guys like to discredit through insinuation.

    Wrong.

    We discredit through facts, case law, and the opinions of the people who count. We understand the difference between a mere recitation of facts and a holding about which of those facts are essential to a court’s decision.

    You discredit yourself through your blatant racism, your ignorance, and your inability to learn from people who much smarter and more highly educated than you.

    If you wish to spend the rest of your life wallowing in hatred, that is your choice. But you are delusional if you believe that your bigoted interpretation of the Constitution is ever going to carry the day in the United States. President Obama is going to finish out his second term and his successor is likely to be a woman, and there is nothing that you can do about it.

  210. avatar
    Benji Franklin March 17, 2015 at 2:01 am #

    Obligedfriend: Y’ll aren’t as well researched as you think you are.

    After years of being blessed by the credible information and many fact-respecting, thoughtful contributors, including real lawyers, that frequent Doc’s blog here, seeing hate-filled trolls like you wander in and spew your carelessly contrived novel legal theories, is like seeing a mole disappear down a flame-belching fireplace chimney!

  211. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 17, 2015 at 3:12 am #

    A.R. Nash only claims to have written over a quarter million words (and that’s about the only claim of his that I believe), so I doubt Doc is anywhere near 1 million.

    Jim:
    Well, let’s see…
    Doc’s written over a million* words on this…
    This article is 4 pages long…
    And the birthers understand none of it.

    *-rough guesstimate…probably low

  212. avatar
    Lupin March 17, 2015 at 3:15 am #

    ObligedFriend:
    You Guys like to discredit through insinuation.

    I don’t think that word means what you think it means. But then, you not understanding English is not news here.

    When I call you an imbecile, it is an insult, not an insinuation. An insinuation would be something like, “I don’t think ObligedBigot is very smart.” Vis à vis yourself, we’ve passed “insinuations” many moons ago and are now into full-fledged abuse.

  213. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 17, 2015 at 4:11 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Any proof that Obama gave him funding or weapons?

    It was Bush’s signed Status of Forces agreement which lead to Al-Baghdadi’s release: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20081119_SOFA_FINAL_AGREED_TEXT.pdf

    So there you go again unlawful invasion of Iraq lead directly to ISIS.Obama had nothing to do with the creation.

    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/06/14/isis-leaders-words-when-released-in-2009/

  214. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 17, 2015 at 5:25 am #

    ObligedFriend: http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/06/14/isis-leaders-words-when-released-in-2009/

    So the answer is no, no proof that he was given weapons or funding by the US

  215. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 17, 2015 at 5:29 am #

    ObligedFriend:
    Vattel and Domcile: The Venus

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/12/253/case.html

    Ah yes the Venus another case the birthers don’t actually read and comprehend. It’s a property rights case and is not even germane to the discussion.

  216. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 17, 2015 at 5:31 am #

    Obligedfriend:
    Y’ll aren’t as well researched as you think you are.

    No we’re actually more well researched than that. and wtf is “y’ll”. somebody bring out the y’ll tide logs

  217. avatar
    Lupin March 17, 2015 at 5:37 am #

    ObligedFriend: http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/06/14/isis-leaders-words-when-released-in-2009/

    It may surprise you, but I have many substantive disagreements with President Obama’s foreign policy. Obviously, you do too.

    But that’s why every four years, you guys vote and elect your President. So do we (every 5 years). It’s called democracy.

    That said, I read with great interest the article at the link you provided and I saw absolutely nothing in there that would indicate that your government either funded or gave weapons to ISIS, although I’m pretty sure that because of president Bush’s unlawful and insane military invasion of Iraq, many weapons (and perhaps even funds) currently used by ISIS did originate with the U.S. Government’s previous administration.

    I still recall your lunatic Senator McCain praising those same people that became part of ISIS a few years ago. On this issue, it would be more sensible for you to turn your wrath towards former President Bush or Senator McCain. But i digress.

    The point is, you provided a link to an article with ZERO relevance to the issue being discussed. I know English is like a second language to you, but make an effort to stay on topic.

  218. avatar
    Lupin March 17, 2015 at 5:39 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: No we’re actually more well researched than that.and wtf is “y’ll”. somebody bring out the y’ll tide logs

    You’ll have to read it aloud with the hillbilly accent.

  219. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) March 17, 2015 at 6:07 am #

    Lupin: I still recall your lunatic Senator McCain praising those same people that became part of ISIS a few years ago.

    Pretty much like when Reagan invited those who later became the Taliban to the White House and compared them to the Founders, back when they were still “freedom fighters” trying to fend off the Soviet Union. Classical “enemy of my enemy” fallacy.

  220. avatar
    Lupin March 17, 2015 at 7:31 am #

    The Magic M (not logged in): Pretty much like when Reagan invited those who later became the Taliban to the White House and compared them to the Founders, back when they were still “freedom fighters” trying to fend off the Soviet Union. Classical “enemy of my enemy” fallacy.

    Although I do not like McCain and think he is now an opportunistic, doddering fool, I do understand of concept of changing alliances, but to blame Obama for the situation — as obliged Nutcase is doing — instead of the other side, responsible for the whole friggin’ mess on Iraq, is truly delusional.

  221. avatar
    Lupin March 17, 2015 at 7:32 am #

    Oh, and weren’t the people Reagan compared to the Founders the right wing deathsquads from Nicaragua?

  222. avatar
    Phil March 17, 2015 at 7:46 am #

    ObligedFriend:

    The fraudulently elected Obama invalidated the Constitution.

    True.

  223. avatar
    Northland10 March 17, 2015 at 7:55 am #

    Lupin:
    Oh, and weren’t the people Reagan compared to the Founders the right wing deathsquads from Nicaragua?

    I believe you are correct that Reagan referred to the Contras as “the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers.” Not to worry though. His administration did heavily support the mujahideen in Afghanistan and that group contained one organizer and financier named Osama bin Laden along with other future Taliban members.

  224. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 17, 2015 at 8:23 am #

    Lupin:
    Oh, and weren’t the people Reagan compared to the Founders the right wing deathsquads from Nicaragua?

    Actually that was the mujahideen

  225. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) March 17, 2015 at 10:35 am #

    Northland10: For the record.

    My bad. So I fell for a leftist version of the false quote attribution game.

    Still I don’t think Saint Ronnie lured them into the Oval Office to serve them poisoned tea. 😉

  226. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 17, 2015 at 10:36 am #

    Northland10:
    For the record.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/reagan-freedom-fighters–foreign-policy-2013-2

    I’m getting a page not found error

  227. avatar
    James M March 17, 2015 at 11:43 am #

    john:

    If Barack Obama Sr. is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, is his marriage lawfully binding?

  228. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 17, 2015 at 11:46 am #

    Rickey:
    Try this link.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/reagan-freedom-fighters-taliban-foreign-policy-2013-2

    ah okay. Well he did make overwrought claims like when he dedicated the Columbia shuttle to the fighters in Afghanistan.

  229. avatar
    Lupin March 17, 2015 at 12:23 pm #

    And for history’s sake, let’s remember Kissinger calling General Pinochet a “great friend to the West” in 1976.

  230. avatar
    slash2k March 17, 2015 at 12:25 pm #

    James M: If Barack Obama Sr. is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, is his marriage lawfully binding?

    In the first place, what is the basis for your premise that Sr was not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.? (I.e., if he had been accused of a crime while in Hawai’i, would he have had diplomatic immunity or would he have been subject to arrest? Diplomats are not subject to arrest; foreign students are, which means they are subject to the jurisdiction.)

    In the second place, lawfully binding on whom, and for what purpose? (Per the Vienna Convention, e.g., the spouse of a diplomat generally has diplomatic immunity as well, and the host country accepts as “spouse” whoever the sending nation accredits.)

    (Is this john or james m?)

  231. avatar
    Northland10 March 17, 2015 at 12:51 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: ah okay.Well he did make overwrought claims like when he dedicated the Columbia shuttle to the fighters in Afghanistan.

    To circle back to the original point on which we all agree (well, except for Obliged), even if his claim that Obama had any communication with the founders of ISIS, it is no different than Reagan doing the same with the future Taliban or Saddam Hussein.

  232. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 17, 2015 at 1:01 pm #

    slash2k: In the first place, what is the basis for your premise that Sr was not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.? (I.e., if he had been accused of a crime while in Hawai’i, would he have had diplomatic immunity or would he have been subject to arrest? Diplomats are not subject to arrest; foreign students are, which means they are subject to the jurisdiction.)

    In the second place, lawfully binding on whom, and for what purpose? (Per the Vienna Convention, e.g., the spouse of a diplomat generally has diplomatic immunity as well, and the host country accepts as “spouse” whoever the sending nation accredits.)

    (Is this john or james m?)

    The key word was If. He was asking John the question

  233. avatar
    James M March 17, 2015 at 1:10 pm #

    slash2k: In the first place, what is the basis for your premise that Sr was not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.? (I.e., if he had been accused of a crime while in Hawai’i, would he have had diplomatic immunity or would he have been subject to arrest? Diplomats are not subject to arrest; foreign students are, which means they are subject to the jurisdiction.)

    In the second place, lawfully binding on whom, and for what purpose? (Per the Vienna Convention, e.g., the spouse of a diplomat generally has diplomatic immunity as well, and the host country accepts as “spouse” whoever the sending nation accredits.)

    (Is this john or james m?)

    Clearly I consider the entire line of reasoning to be nonsense, but I am amused by the idea that the claim of Obama Sr. being a foreign diplomat might actually strengthen Obama Jr’s citizenship.

  234. avatar
    y_p_w March 17, 2015 at 1:39 pm #

    slash2k:

    In the second place, lawfully binding on whom, and for what purpose? (Per the Vienna Convention, e.g., the spouse of a diplomat generally has diplomatic immunity as well, and the host country accepts as “spouse” whoever the sending nation accredits.)

    The minefield of “diplomatic status” can be tricky. I’ve been following recent diplomatic brouhahas, and I suppose the most understood thing (especially from those who remember Lethal Weapon 2) is that consular immunity is extremely limited. There was a case of a Japanese consular officer in San Francisco who was arrested for attacking his spouse. The main question was whether or not he had immunity from prosecution (he did not). Then there was the case of the Indian consular officer in NY who was arrested and then later placed in a holding cell after a standard body cavity search. That was intriguing because her husband was a US-born Indian American US citizen and her kids were US citizens by birth and through their father. Apparently in India they were upset about her accepting dual-nationality for her kids, which India doesn’t recognize. There was also something about her husband getting naturalized as an Indian citizen.

    Now it does get tricky even with real diplomats accredited in the US. There have been many who were/are married to US citizens or at the least had children with a US citizen parent. I’ve brought up Prince Albert of Monaco, who had a child born out of wedlock in California. I think he had diplomatic status (or at least that of a duly recognized “foreign representative”) as a guest in the US. His daughter lives in the US, and I’d think it would be difficult to deny her US citizenship on the basis that Prince Albert is her father.

    I’ve seen specifics for Canada that state that one parent being a citizen or permanent resident of Canada will confer Canadian citizenship for the child even if the other parent is a diplomat:

    http://www.international.gc.ca/protocol-protocole/policies-politiques/births-naissances.aspx?lang=eng

    1. Mandatory Notification of Births by Bilateral Missions and International Organizations

    When a child of a foreign representative is born in Canada, the mission or international organization is required to notify his/her name in writing to the Office of Protocol, along with a copy of the Live Statement of Birth or other relevant documentation. This should be done within thirty (30) days of the birth. It is not necessary to notify the birth when the father or mother is a Canadian citizen or Permanent Resident of Canada at moment of birth as the child is himself or herself Canadian.

    http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-29/page-2.html#h-3

    (2) Paragraph (1)(a) does not apply to a person if, at the time of his birth, neither of his parents was a citizen or lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence and either of his parents was

    (a) a diplomatic or consular officer or other representative or employee in Canada of a foreign government;

    (b) an employee in the service of a person referred to in paragraph (a); or

    (c) an officer or employee in Canada of a specialized agency of the United Nations or an officer or employee in Canada of any other international organization to whom there are granted, by or under any Act of Parliament, diplomatic privileges and immunities certified by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to be equivalent to those granted to a person or persons referred to in paragraph (a).

  235. avatar
    y_p_w March 17, 2015 at 1:44 pm #

    The US is a little more fuzzy.

    http://www.uscis.gov/green-card/other-ways-get-green-card/green-card-person-born-foreign-diplomat-united-states/green-card-person-born-united-states-foreign-diplomat

    There’s also a special consular status in the US for those who have equivalent protections as a true diplomat via bilateral agreements.

  236. avatar
    Rickey March 17, 2015 at 2:10 pm #

    I don’t believe that I’ve seen anything which specifically addresses the scenario of a foreign diplomat marrying a U.S. citizen and having a child born in the United States.

    It is difficult for me to believe that the child would be denied natural born citizenship under such a scenario, but if anyone can cite a rule which would apply I’d like to see it.

  237. avatar
    Rickey March 17, 2015 at 2:16 pm #

    y_p_w:

    Now it does get tricky even with real diplomats accredited in the US.There have been many who were/are married to US citizens or at the least had children with a US citizen parent.I’ve brought up Prince Albert of Monaco, who had a child born out of wedlock in California.I think he had diplomatic status (or at least that of a duly recognized “foreign representative”) as a guest in the US.His daughter lives in the US, and I’d think it would be difficult to deny her US citizenship on the basis that Prince Albert is her father.

    She currently lives in New York City and she is registered to vote, so she definitely is a U.S. citizen.

  238. avatar
    Dave B. March 17, 2015 at 2:21 pm #

    The Vienna Convention provides for immunities for the family members of a diplomat “if they are not nationals of the receiving State.”

    slash2k: (Per the Vienna Convention, e.g., the spouse of a diplomat generally has diplomatic immunity as well, and the host country accepts as “spouse” whoever the sending nation accredits.)

  239. avatar
    Dave B. March 17, 2015 at 2:36 pm #

    The Foreign Affairs Manual (as available here, at 7 FAM 1116.2-2:
    http://famguardian.org/taxfreedom/Evidence/Citizenship/7FAM1100,1110,1111-DeptOfState.pdf )
    used to include a reference to “Diplomatic agents who have the children in question with U.S. citizens capable of transmitting U.S. citizenship to children born abroad”; I seem to recall an old court case in regard to that question. I’ll see if I can dig it up.

  240. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 17, 2015 at 2:47 pm #

    What I can say is that the total length in characters of posts and articles by me on this blog is approximately 11 million characters, and comments made by me are about the same.

    select sum(length(comment_content)) from wp_comments
    where comment_author = ‘Dr. Conspiracy’

    select sum(length(post_content)) from wp_posts
    where (post_author = [redacted]) and (post_status = ‘publish’)

    Slartibartfast: A.R. Nash only claims to have written over a quarter million words (and that’s about the only claim of his that I believe), so I doubt Doc is anywhere near 1 million.

  241. avatar
    James M March 17, 2015 at 3:01 pm #

    Rickey:
    I don’t believe that I’ve seen anything which specifically addresses the scenario of a foreign diplomat marrying a U.S. citizen and having a child born in the United States.

    It is difficult for me to believe that the child would be denied natural born citizenship under such a scenario, but if anyone can cite a rule which would apply I’d like to see it.

    If my interest were genuine, I would be wondering if a person not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (not necessarily a diplomat) may enter into civil contracts to begin with. So if we were to allow O. F. ‘s hypothesis that B. O. Sr. was somehow not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in 1961, could we conclude that Stanley Ann Dunham was actually a single parent? What I am getting at here is that O. F. may have inadvertently established yet another situation whereby President Obama has clear Natural Born Citizenship. Obviously the whole discussion is ridiculous : the marriage is no less official than the birth record.

  242. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 17, 2015 at 3:09 pm #

    Well then, I guess I was wrong. That sounds like about 2 million words (not including comments). And, of course, while Adrien might be able to outpace you with quantity, one never need worry about finding quality in his writing…

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    What I can say is that the total length in characters of posts and articles by me on this blog is approximately 11 million characters, and comments made by me are about the same.

    select sum(length(comment_content)) from wp_comments
    where comment_author = ‘Dr. Conspiracy’

    select sum(length(post_content)) from wp_posts
    where (post_author = [redacted]) and (post_status = ‘publish’)

  243. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 17, 2015 at 3:23 pm #

    I think that the stronger case that Dr. Dunham was technically unmarried (and was thus old enough to pass citizenship to her son wheresoever born) is that Obama Sr. was already married.

    James M: If my interest were genuine, I would be wondering if a person not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (not necessarily a diplomat) may enter into civil contracts to begin with. So if we were to allow O. F. ‘s hypothesis that B. O. Sr.was somehow not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in 1961, could we conclude that Stanley Ann Dunham was actually a single parent? What I am getting at here is that O. F.may have inadvertently established yet another situation whereby President Obama has clear Natural Born Citizenship. Obviously the whole discussion is ridiculous :the marriage is no less official than the birth record.

  244. avatar
    y_p_w March 17, 2015 at 3:24 pm #

    Dave B.:
    The Foreign Affairs Manual (as available here, at 7 FAM 1116.2-2:
    http://famguardian.org/taxfreedom/Evidence/Citizenship/7FAM1100,1110,1111-DeptOfState.pdf )
    used to include a reference to “Diplomatic agents who have the children in question with U.S. citizens capable of transmitting U.S. citizenship to children born abroad”; I seem to recall an old court case in regard to that question.I’ll see if I can dig it up.

    I’ve looked through the most recent version of 7 FAM 1100 and didn’t see any reference to diplomatic status, so I thought it was kind of fuzzy. A little internet research dug up this:

    http://cis.org/birthright-citizenship-diplomats

    Despite the clarity of this guideline, the Obama administration is developing new rules on the issue of children born to foreign diplomats. The most recent FAM has eliminated the language above and replaced it with a promise of new guidelines:

    “Children of Foreign Diplomats: 7 FAM 1100 Appendix J (under development) provides extensive guidance on the issue of children born in the United States to parents serving as foreign diplomats, consuls, or administrative and technical staff accredited to the United States, the United Nations, and specific international organizations, and whether such children are born ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’

    An inquiry into the status of Appendix J revealed that the State Department is expecting to publish the changes by the end of 2011.

    If you take a look at the available documents for 7 FAM 1100, Appendix J is not available yet.

    http://www.state.gov/m/a/dir/regs/fam/07fam/c22712.htm

  245. avatar
    Phil March 17, 2015 at 4:11 pm #

    y_p_w March 17, 2015 at 3:24 pm

    If you take a look at the available documents for 7 FAM 1100, Appendix J is not available yet.

    The State Department was humiliated by the Circuit Court, Fox v. Clinton, 2012. Appendix will not be updated.


    The Judgment Reached in the Betancourt Letter Is Neither Logical Nor Rational

    The same flaws that lead us to conclude that the Betancourt Letter lacks the power to persuade also demonstrate that the process by which the agency reached its judgment was neither “logical” nor “rational.” Tripoli Rocketry Ass’n, Inc. , 437 F.3d at 77 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). As we have explained,“the [Department’s] judgment” denying Appellant’s CLN request under Section 1 of the INA, as expressed in the Betancourt Letter , “was neither adequately explained . . . nor supported by agency precedent.” Siegel , 592 F.3d at 164. We therefore find that judgment to be arbitrary and capricious for want of reasoned decisionmaking.

    http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/0E0B84A6A298A92385257A1B004EF146/$file/11-5010-1378147.pdf

    And from what I can tell, Sven wrote in his First Amended Complaint …

    “The Betancourt Letter is a reference to a letter from Edward A. Betancourt to Jack L. B. Gohn (Nov. 2, 2009) citing Department of State, Board of Appellate Review; Review of Loss of Nationality, Final Rule, 73 Fed Reg. 62,196, 62,196 (Oct. 20, 2008), and identifying the Bureau of Consular Affairs as the sub-agency responsible for final determinations as to decisions on the issuance of a certificate of loss of nationality. The Chevron deference the circuit court ruled the State Department was not entitled to with respect to statutory interpretation of Section 1 of the INA as rendered in the Betancourt Letter is Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc, et al., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). The Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs revocation of the certificate of loss of nationality issued to Barack Hussein Obama, II, (formerly Barry Soetoro) in 1968 is contrary to law and voided. President Obama’s certificate of loss of nationality was illegally cancelled by the U.S. State Department, Bureau of Consular Affairs prior to a national election to determine the next President of the United States in November, 2008.”

  246. avatar
    y_p_w March 17, 2015 at 4:22 pm #

    Phil:
    y_p_w March 17, 2015 at 3:24 pm

    The State Department was humiliated by the Circuit Court, Fox v. Clinton, 2012. Appendix will not be updated.

    What relevance is that ruling to 7 FAM 1100 Appendix J? I don’t see it.

  247. avatar
    Rickey March 17, 2015 at 4:43 pm #

    Phil:

    And from what I can tell, Sven wrote in his First Amended Complaint …

    Really? Do you have a link to that First Amended Complaint?

  248. avatar
    gorefan March 17, 2015 at 8:47 pm #

    Rickey: Really? Do you have a link to that First Amended Complaint?

    Are Phil and Sven the same person?

  249. avatar
    Northland10 March 17, 2015 at 9:19 pm #

    gorefan: Are Phil and Sven the same person?

    Since Sven/ImaObot has never provided enough information to find his alleged case, the only way Phil would be able to quote from the FAC is for Phil to be Sven.

    I guess Doc may need to consider adding Phil to the list of Sven Sockpuppets:

    Dan Draper
    Det. Cliff Hanger
    Dick Whitman
    Sven Magnussen
    BadAssMoFoTooOld4Arguendo
    Bob’sNewFriend
    CousinBill
    CousinEsther
    DrunkenObot(s)
    FlameThrower Extraordinaire
    FTE
    IcanChangeMyScreenName?
    IcanChangeMyScreenNameCousinBill
    InfloriousBuzzard
    IngloriousBasterd
    IngloriousBasturd
    IngloriousBusterd
    IngloriousBuzzard
    IngloriusBasterd
    kerok
    LikeDaTerminatorDaStoryWon’tDie
    MarvelousMarvAlbert
    MuhommadMcLovin
    MysteryMessiahTheatre
    Not Enough Hugs as a Child
    ObotsRCruel
    ObotsREvil
    Pretty in Pink
    Second to the Last Samurai
    SixToeMoe
    Ima Obot
    SwampMop
    IheArtObots
    Dick Whitman II
    PennsylvaniaAvenue

  250. avatar
    Rickey March 17, 2015 at 9:34 pm #

    gorefan: Are Phil and Sven the same person?

    That was my assumption.

  251. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 17, 2015 at 10:06 pm #

    If StanleyAnn was a single mom…and her biological son is a mullatto, the presumed father a transient alien, not permanently Domiciled can the child be a 14th Amendment citizen.

    The Romans considered this child spurious born and could not be a Roman citizen.

    If you research spurious born you will find it matches with unnatural born.

    I suppose the Roman citizen father could pass citizenship but not the mother.

    Reading Roman historian Livy..came across the word Black/Blacks…it was the term for African thieves with dark skin and difficult to see at night.

    Now we have Black Americans. Is there a USA city with major Black population with low crime rate.
    A bit of trivia.

  252. avatar
    James M March 17, 2015 at 10:19 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    If StanleyAnn was a single mom…and her biological son is a mullatto

    In polite company, if such a thing were to be discussed at all, the expression “mixed race” might be received slightly better.

  253. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 17, 2015 at 11:23 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    If StanleyAnn was a single mom…and her biological son is a mullatto, the presumed father a transient alien, not permanently Domiciled can the child be a 14th Amendment citizen.

    The Romans considered this child spurious born and could not be a Roman citizen.

    If you research spurious born you will find it matches with unnatural born.

    I suppose the Roman citizen father could pass citizenship but not the mother.

    Reading Roman historian Livy..came across the word Black/Blacks…it was the term for African thieves with dark skin and difficult to see at night.

    Now we have Black Americans. Is there a USA city with major Black population with low crime rate.
    A bit of trivia.

    That’s really going to be your angle now? That he was illegitimate?

    Wow and your racism shines through again.

  254. avatar
    John Reilly March 18, 2015 at 12:37 am #

    Northland10: Since Sven/ImaObot has never provided enough information to find his alleged case,the only way Phil would be able to quote from the FAC is for Phil to be Sven.

    I guess Doc may need to consider adding Phil to the list of Sven Sockpuppets:

    Dan Draper
    Det. Cliff Hanger
    Dick Whitman
    Sven Magnussen
    BadAssMoFoTooOld4Arguendo
    Bob’sNewFriend
    CousinBill
    CousinEsther
    DrunkenObot(s)
    FlameThrower Extraordinaire
    FTE
    IcanChangeMyScreenName?
    IcanChangeMyScreenNameCousinBill
    InfloriousBuzzard
    IngloriousBasterd
    IngloriousBasturd
    IngloriousBusterd
    IngloriousBuzzard
    IngloriusBasterd
    kerok
    LikeDaTerminatorDaStoryWon’tDie
    MarvelousMarvAlbert
    MuhommadMcLovin
    MysteryMessiahTheatre
    Not Enough Hugs as a Child
    ObotsRCruel
    ObotsREvil
    Pretty in Pink
    Second to the Last Samurai
    SixToeMoe
    Ima Obot
    SwampMop
    IheArtObots
    Dick Whitman II
    PennsylvaniaAvenue

    Doc: Phil and his other sock puppets ought be banned until they produce a link to the actual case filing. We did not endure years of being accused of forgeries to have this garbage spouted.

  255. avatar
    Notorial Dissent March 18, 2015 at 1:13 am #

    Obliging Idiot, no one, particularly and including the courts gives a damn about what the Roman’s did or didn’t do as far as their laws is concerned. American nationality is determined by American Constitutional and Statute law and precedent. All of which disagree with you.

  256. avatar
    Dave B. March 18, 2015 at 1:19 am #

    I found this in the 2005 Digest of United States Practice in International Law:

    “Citizenship Status of Child of Foreign Diplomat with U.S. Citizen Mother
    In response to a request from a U.S. embassy abroad for guidance in determining the citizenship of a child born in the United States to a foreign diplomat father with full privileges and immunities and to an American citizen mother, the Department stated in a telegram that the child’s “citizenship determination has to be made based on the same rules as if he had been born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent.” Therefore, if the mother “can document sufficient physical presence in the U.S.,” her children “can be documented as U.S. citizens.””

    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/138677.pdf

    Chapter 1, page 1.
    Which is of course of no relevance to the Obamas.
    I hope no bystanders are injured by John’s exploding head.

    y_p_w: I’ve looked through the most recent version of 7 FAM 1100 and didn’t see any reference to diplomatic status, so I thought it was kind of fuzzy.A little internet research dug up this:

    If you take a look at the available documents for 7 FAM 1100, Appendix J is not available yet.

    http://www.state.gov/m/a/dir/regs/fam/07fam/c22712.htm

  257. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) March 18, 2015 at 5:32 am #

    ObligedFriend: If you research spurious born you will find it matches with unnatural born.

    No, it matches with “born out of wedlock”. So we’re back to the 2009 “fallback of fallback of fallback of fallback” argument that only a person born of married parents can be Prez? Ridiculous.
    (Originally there was an argument about Obama being born out of wedlock because racists were looking for an excuse to call Obama a “bastard” – so they could claim they mean “born out of wedlock” and were not using a slur for “mixed-race”.)

  258. avatar
    Notorial Dissent March 18, 2015 at 7:08 am #

    And again, Obliging idiot argues matters not contemplated, or cared about, by the constitution. There is nothing in the NBC requirement about marital status of parents either.

  259. avatar
    Phil March 18, 2015 at 8:52 am #

    y_p_w March 17, 2015 at 4:22 pm (Quote) #

    What relevance is that ruling to 7 FAM 1100 Appendix J? I don’t see it.

    Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, Gorbach v. Reno, and Fox v. Clinton (2012) are important case for the State Department.

    In Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, a person ruled a natural born citizen in the District Court and affirmed by SCOTUS was deported under the Separation of Powers Doctrine by the Attorney General after the Attorney General opined the the order of deportation was valid. The Attorney General speaks on behalf of the President. The President opined Mendoza-Martinez had been issued a CLN for reasons other than draft evasion while he was in Mexico.

    The President is the unilateral and final authority for the issuance of a CLN that is not punitive in nature.

    In Gorbach v. Reno, the Circuit Court opined the cancellation of a Certificate of Naturalization by the Attorney General after the AG alleges the certificate was obtained fraudulently only effect the certificate and not the subject’s citizenship.

    The President is the unilateral and final authority for the issuance of a Certificate of Naturalization, but not the cancellation of the subject’s citizenship allegedly obtained through fraud.

    In Fox v. Clinton (2012), the Circuit Court advised the State Department its determinations with respect to the immigration status of a US citizen in a foreign state is arbitrary and capricious.

    Appendix J updates are delayed because the Court has repeatedly opined the President is the unilateral and final authority for the issuance of a Certificate of Naturalization, Certificate of Citizenship or a Certificate of Loss of Nationality, but not the unilateral and final authority with respect to the consequence of the issuance of these certificates.

    [Phil is Svan. Doc]

  260. avatar
    Lupin March 18, 2015 at 9:48 am #

    Should he be referred to as “Svil”?

  261. avatar
    Rickey March 18, 2015 at 9:57 am #

    Phil:

    In Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, a person ruled a natural born citizen in the District Court and affirmed by SCOTUS was deported under the Separation of Powers Doctrine by the Attorney General after the Attorney General opined the the order of deportation was valid. The Attorney General speaks on behalf of the President. The President opined Mendoza-Martinez had been issued a CLN for reasons other than draft evasion while he was in Mexico.

    Sven, you are such a liar.

    You were previously informed that Mendoza-Martinez was never deported. He could not have been deported because SCOTUS affirmed the District Court ruling that he never lost his U.S. citizenship. A natural-born U.S. citizen cannot be deported.

    Continually repeating your lies does not suddenly make them come true.

  262. avatar
    gorefan March 18, 2015 at 10:21 am #

    Rickey: Sven, you are such a liar.

    Continually repeating your lies does not suddenly make them come true.

    Change sockpuppets does help either.

  263. avatar
    Phil March 18, 2015 at 10:41 am #

    Rickey March 18, 2015 at 9:57 am (Quote) #

    “You were previously informed that Mendoza-Martinez was never deported. He could not have been deported because SCOTUS affirmed the District Court ruling that he never lost his U.S. citizenship. A natural-born U.S. citizen cannot be deported.”

    Actually, SCOTUS affirmed the District Court’s opinion Mendoza-Martinez was a natural born citizen and refused to issue an injunction against deportation. Under the Separation of Powers Doctrine, SCOTUS opinion is not more equal than the President’s opinion. The President, by an through the Attorney General, opined the Mendoza-Martinez deportation order was valid and enforceable because the CLN issued was not punitive. The CLN was issued for reasons other than draft evasion.

    The President is the unilateral and final authority for the issuance of a CLN, Certificate of Naturalization or Certificate of Citizenship. Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, Gorbach v. Reno and Fox v. Clinton (2012) are important cases because they articulate the opportunity for adverse consequences of issuing these certificates. Career professionals in the State Department realize this. Executive Branch opportunists and SCOTUS apologists don’t have a clue about this.

  264. avatar
    Rickey March 18, 2015 at 10:42 am #

    ObligedKlansman:

    Now we have Black Americans. Is there a USA city with major Black population with low crime rate.

    A bit of trivia.

    Yes, a bit of trivia from a trivial and hate-filled mind.

    But to answer your question, New York City, with blacks making up 25% of the population, has a lower crime rate than San Francisco, which has a black population of 6%.

    Stockton, California, which has a black population of only 12.2%, has a higher violent crime rate than Newark, New Jersey, which is 52% black.

    Raleigh, North Carolina, where blacks make up 29% of the population, has a lower violent crime rate than Seattle, which is 8% black.

    I could go on, but that would fill up your head with facts, and we all know that facts are anathema to racist bigots.

  265. avatar
    Rickey March 18, 2015 at 10:50 am #

    Phil:
    Rickey March 18, 2015 at 9:57 am(Quote) #

    Actually, SCOTUS affirmed the District Court’s opinion Mendoza-Martinez was a natural born citizen and refused to issue an injunction against deportation. Under the Separation of Powers Doctrine, SCOTUS opinion is not more equal than the President’s opinion. The President, by an through the Attorney General, opined the Mendoza-Martinez deportation order was valid and enforceable because the CLN issued was not punitive. The CLN was issued for reasons other than draft evasion.

    You are a lying, ignorant fool.

    You previously admitted that you assumed that Mendoza-Martinez through a “leap of faith.” Now you are absurdly asserting that the President has the authority to deport a natural-born United States citizen.

    You can’t even read a Supreme Court decision properly. SCOTUS didn’t issue an injunction because the parties stipulated that the issues as framed did not contemplate an injunction. Once it was established that Mendoza-Martinez had not lost his U.S. citizenship, no injunction was needed.

  266. avatar
    Lupin March 18, 2015 at 10:52 am #

    Rickey: Yes, a bit of trivia from a trivial and hate-filled mind.

    But to answer your question, New York City, with blacks making up 25% of the population, has a lower crime rate than San Francisco, which has a black population of 6%.

    Stockton, California, which has a black population of only 12.2%, has a higher violent crime rate than Newark, New Jersey, which is 52% black.

    Raleigh, North Carolina, where blacks make up 29% of the population, has a lower violent crime rate than Seattle, which is 8% black.

    I could go on, but that would fill up your head with facts, and we all know that facts are anathema to racist bigots.

    Bravo!

  267. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 18, 2015 at 11:39 am #

    ObligedFriend: Now we have Black Americans. Is there a USA city with major Black population with low crime rate.
    A bit of trivia.

    Gee that’s rather dumb. Here are cities with a major white population that have high crime rates

    Buffalo (50.2%)
    Kansas City, MO (54.9%)
    Nashville (56.3%)
    Indianapolis (58%)
    Tulsa (57.9%)
    Toledo (64.8%)
    Minneapolis (63.8%)
    Oklahoma City (56.7%)
    Anchorage (62.6%)
    Pittsburgh (64.8%)

    So what are you trying to say with your claim?

  268. avatar
    faceman March 18, 2015 at 11:48 am #

    Lupin:
    Should he be referred to as “Svil”?

    I vote for ‘Shill’

  269. avatar
    Northland10 March 18, 2015 at 2:45 pm #

    Rickey: You are a lying, ignorant fool.

    You previously admitted that you assumed that Mendoza-Martinez through a “leap of faith.” Now you are absurdly asserting that the President has the authority to deport a natural-born United States citizen.

    You can’t even read a Supreme Court decision properly. SCOTUS didn’t issue an injunction because the parties stipulated that the issues as framed did not contemplate an injunction. Once it was established that Mendoza-Martinez had not lost his U.S. citizenship, no injunction was needed.

    Afroyim v Rusk says Sven is completely wrong.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroyim_v._Rusk

  270. avatar
    Phil March 18, 2015 at 5:45 pm #

    Northland10 March 18, 2015 at 2:45 pm (Quote) #

    Afroyim v Rusk says Sven is completely wrong.

    Afroyim v. Rusk (1967) was a response to Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez (1963) and overturned precedent set in Perez v. Brownell (1958).

    After the District Court in Mendoza-Martinez acknowledged the Trop v. Dulles (1958) opinion where Trop was a natural born born citizen who fled the United States to avoid the draft but did not become a citizen of a foreign nation, the District Court opined Mendoza-Martinez was a natural born citizen with dual US/Mexico citizenship and the Trop decision applied to Mendoza-Martinez as well. AG Kennedy took the case directly to SCOTUS because the President, by and through his AG, found the Mendoza-Martinez order of deportation to be valid and enforceable.

    SCOTUS upheld the District Court’s decision, but refused to issue an injunction against deportation. Under a Separation of Powers Doctrine, the opinion of the Supreme Court does not trump the opinion of the President.

  271. avatar
    Northland10 March 18, 2015 at 6:21 pm #

    Sven, show proof or is this just another lie.

  272. avatar
    Northland10 March 18, 2015 at 7:34 pm #

    Phil: AG Kennedy took the case directly to SCOTUS because the President, by and through his AG, found the Mendoza-Martinez order of deportation to be valid and enforceable.

    1. Proof?
    2. Mendoza-Martinez died on 16 Feb 1997 in Kern County, California.

    Unlike Sven, I will show my work:

    A case that establishes birth date and location.

    192 F.Supp. 1 (1960)
    Francisco MENDOZA-MARTINEZ, Plaintiff, v. William P. ROGERS, Attorney General of the United States, Defendant.
    United States District Court S. D. California, N. D.
    October 18, 1960.
    FINDINGS OF FACT
    I.
    The plaintiff, Francisco Mendoza-Martinez, is a resident of the City of Delano, County of Kern, State of California, and is within the jurisdiction of this Court.

    …snip…

    III.
    Plaintiff was born in the United States on March 3, 1922, and thus was a citizen and national of the United States at birth.

    And information regarding his death:

    Name: Francisco Martinez Mendoza
    Event Type: Death
    Event Date: 16 Feb 1997
    Event Place: Kern, California, United States
    Birth Date: 03 Mar 1922
    Birthplace: California
    Gender: Male
    Mother’s Name: Martinez

    Doesn’t look like NBC Francisco was ever deported.

  273. avatar
    Rickey March 18, 2015 at 10:31 pm #

    Phil:
    AG Kennedy took the case directly to SCOTUS because the President, by and through his AG, found the Mendoza-Martinez order of deportation to be valid and enforceable.

    Nonsense. The case was taken to SCOTUS because the Justice Department disagreed with the District Court ruling that Mendoza-Martinez had not lost his U.S. citizenship.

    Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez was only tangentially related to the deportation order. A United States citizen cannot be deported unless his or her citizenship is revoked or renounced. Since SCOTUS affirmed that Mendoza-Martinez was still a U.S. citizen, he could not have been deported.

    Read the decision and do your best to comprehend what it says.

  274. avatar
    Rickey March 18, 2015 at 10:33 pm #

    Northland10:

    Doesn’t look like NBC Francisco was ever deported.

    Well played!

  275. avatar
    Joey March 18, 2015 at 11:45 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    If StanleyAnn was a single mom…and her biological son is a mullatto, the presumed father a transient alien, not permanently Domiciled can the child be a 14th Amendment citizen.

    The Romans considered this child spurious born and could not be a Roman citizen.

    If you research spurious born you will find it matches with unnatural born.

    I suppose the Roman citizen father could pass citizenship but not the mother.

    Reading Roman historian Livy..came across the word Black/Blacks…it was the term for African thieves with dark skin and difficult to see at night.

    Now we have Black Americans. Is there a USA city with major Black population with low crime rate.
    A bit of trivia.

    Single mothers don’t get divorced three years later like the Dunham-Obama divorce. In most major American cities there are significant African American populations and the current violent crime rates are at all-time lows.
    New York City, for example, recorded 2,245 homicides in 1990 and in 2014 there were 385 murders in New York City, a drop of 85%.
    New York City is 26% African-American.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/01/02/in-major-cities-murder-rates-drop-precipitously/

  276. avatar
    John Reilly March 19, 2015 at 2:40 am #

    Phil: SCOTUS upheld the District Court’s decision, but refused to issue an injunction against deportation. Under a Separation of Powers Doctrine, the opinion of the Supreme Court does not trump the opinion of the President.

    So what do we call Sven/Phil? OK, let’s try Syphilis.

    OK, I read the Mendoza case. IANAL, but what I got from it is that Congress passed a law criminalizing draft evasion, as well as a law revoking citizenship to draft dodgers. Mendoza left the country to avoid WWII, came back, was prosecuted, and then the government separately sought to deport him. The federal court in Los Angeles said that the citizenship revoking law was unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court upheld that ruling.

    But so what? Had the Court ruled 9-0 that Congress can pass a law revoking citizenship of draft dodgers (which most likely includes the yellow-belied coward that is Syphilis), it has no relevance here. Obama did not leave the country to avoid the draft. As best I can tell he left to avoid seeing re-runs of Sesame Street. And that’s not a crime or otherwise punishable by law.

    That some adult can lose his citizenship by virtue of some wilful and undisputed act can’t possibly have relevance to a little boy who leaves home with his Mom.

  277. avatar
    Lupin March 19, 2015 at 4:56 am #

    John Reilly: So what do we call Sven/Phil? OK, let’s try Syphilis.

    Sven/Phil, ObligedRacist, Adrian Nash and for that matter Mario Apuzzo f*ck*ng esquire represent the constituency of gas huffing, mayonnaise sandwich eating, confederate flag waving, racist, ignorant, tea-bagging, sibling buggering backwoods inbred redneck imbeciles that makes the South proud.

  278. avatar
    Sluffy1 March 19, 2015 at 5:41 am #

    Lupin: Sven/Phil, ObligedRacist, Adrian Nash and for that matter Mario Apuzzo f*ck*ng esquire represent the constituency of gas huffing, mayonnaise sandwich eating, confederate flag waving, racist, ignorant, tea-bagging, sibling buggering backwoods inbred redneck imbeciles that makes the South proud.

    Good Old Boys….. yee haw .. they make their Uncle Daddy’s proud too.

  279. avatar
    faceman March 19, 2015 at 10:13 am #

    Phil:
    Rickey March 18, 2015 at 9:57 am(Quote) #

    Actually, SCOTUS affirmed the District Court’s opinion Mendoza-Martinez was a natural born citizen and refused to issue an injunction against deportation. Under the Separation of Powers Doctrine, SCOTUS opinion is not more equal than the President’s opinion. The President, by an through the Attorney General, opined the Mendoza-Martinez deportation order was valid and enforceable because the CLN issued was not punitive. The CLN was issued for reasons other than draft evasion.

    The President is the unilateral and final authority for the issuance of a CLN, Certificate of Naturalization or Certificate of Citizenship. Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, Gorbach v. Reno and Fox v. Clinton (2012) are important cases because they articulate the opportunity for adverse consequences of issuing these certificates. Career professionals in the State Department realize this. Executive Branch opportunists and SCOTUS apologists don’t have a clue about this.

    Sven:
    -The Constitution gives the Congress the authority to set a uniform rule of naturalization.
    -The president does not ‘issue’ a CLN, and even if he did, he cannot issue a CLN to someone who is not a citizen.
    -The various agencies, even though under the direction of the president, cannot act contrary to laws promulgated by Congress.
    -The CFR, a compilation of various regulations issued by the various agencies to translate the laws of Congress into everyday procedures, is subservient to the USC.
    -The president cannot act contrary to laws promulgated by Congress.
    -The Supreme Court, as interpreter of the Constitution, can find actions of Congress and the President unconstitutional. (Hint: Checks and Balances)

    Really, Sven, have you been so trounced by the truth that you feel the need to resort to a new sockpuppet to try and argue your ridiculous fantasies?

  280. avatar
    Rickey March 19, 2015 at 11:43 am #

    John Reilly:

    But so what?Had the Court ruled 9-0 that Congress can pass a law revoking citizenship of draft dodgers (which most likely includes the yellow-belied coward that is Syphilis), it has no relevance here.Obama did not leave the country to avoid the draft.As best I can tell he left to avoid seeing re-runs of Sesame Street.And that’s not a crime or otherwise punishable by law.

    This came up in the now-closed open thread, where Sven made the evidence-free claim that draft dodgers who went to Canada during the Vietnam War had to naturalize when returning the U.S. after President Carter pardoned them. While it’ true that some draft dodgers formally renounced their U.S. citizenship and became citizens of Canada, the overwhelming majority did not and those men did not lose their U.S. citizenship.

    I suspect that Sven was trying to make the case that it is possible to lose one’s U.S. citizenship without formally renouncing it. I doubt that he had ever heard of Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez until he read about it here. Then through a “leap of faith” he decided that Mendoza-Martinez was deported despite the fact that SCOTUS affirmed that he never lost his U.S. citizenship.

    And where does Sven get the idea that the opinions of the President and the opinions of the Supreme Court have equal weight? Is he suggesting that the President can ignore Supreme Court rulings?

  281. avatar
    faceman March 19, 2015 at 1:32 pm #

    Phil:
    John Reilly March 19, 2015 at 2:40 am(Quote) #

    Mendoza-Martinez filed suit in the District Court seeking a declaration he was a US citizen, section 401j was unconstitutional

    On remand, the District Court found section 401j unconstitutional.

    In his second amended complaint, Mendoza-Martinez alleged the US government admitted he was a US citizen by charging him and convicting him of draft evasion.

    Section 401j became effective on September 27, 1944. Mendoza-Martinez departed the US on or about November 2, 1942 which resulted in the loss of his US citizenship before section 401j was in effect.

    This issue is applicable to Obama because a career professional in the State Department advised Sec. Rice, VP Cheney, AG Mukasey, CJ Roberts, Sen. Biden,Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations, Sen. Kerry, Sen. Hagel, and other co-conspirators that cancelling Obama’s CLN would only effect the proof the certificate existed and the fact Obama was denaturalized in 1968. The career professional was given the opportunity to resign or be fired. The career professional was replaced by a zealot who craves affirmation by those in power. Obama’s CLN was cancelled in 2008.

    Actually, the SCOTUS ruled that Mendoza-Martinez had never lost his US citizenship.

    And I don’t suppose you’d care to disclose the name of the ‘career professional’? Or is he one of your alleged whistleblowers?

    Actually, this might be applicable to Obama in that the SCOTUS decided that Mendoza-Martinez was STILL a US citizen, because a citizen cannot have his citizenship taken away. In 1968 Obama was too young to voluntarily renounce his citizenship, and so any CLN (not that such a thing ever existed except in your delusions) would be invalid. Obama could not have lost his citizenship, just as Mendoza-Martinez never lost his citizenship.

    John Reilly: The federal court in Los Angeles said that the citizenship revoking law was unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court upheld that ruling.

    Really, Sven, we all know it’s you. Why keep up this ‘Phil’ charade? Don’t want us quoting your own SvenM blogsite to you like we did on the other thread?

  282. avatar
    Phil March 19, 2015 at 2:33 pm #

    The Facts

    [paragraph 5 at the link below]

    On direct appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1252, this Court noted probable jurisdiction, Mackey v. Mendoza-Martinez, 359 U.S. 933, 79 S.Ct. 648, 3 L.Ed.2d 635, and then of its own motion remanded the cause, this time with permission to the parties to amend the pleadings to put in issue the question of whether the facts as determined on the draft-evasion conviction in 1947 collaterally estopped the Attorney General from now claiming that Mendoza-Martinez had lost his American citizenship while in Mexico. Mackey v. Mendoza-Martinez, 362 U.S. 384, 80 S.Ct. 785, 4 L.Ed.2d 812.

    [paragraph 6 at the link below]

    The District Court on remand held that the Government was not collaterally estopped because the 1947 criminal proceedings entailed no determination of Mendoza-Martinez’ citizenship.

    https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/372/372.US.144.2.3.html

    The final SCOTUS ruling was the US government was not enjoined from executing its order of deportation for Mendoza-Martinez. Rickey said he/she/it looked for an order of deportation that was executed and couldn’t find one. Rickey then challenged me to find an executed order of deportation and I responded with a leap of faith comment that the order for deportation was executed after SCOTUS finally ruled the government was not collaterally estopped from claiming Mendoza-Martinez lost his US citizenship while living in Mexico.

  283. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 19, 2015 at 2:47 pm #

    Phil: The final SCOTUS ruling was the US government was not enjoined from executing its order of deportation for Mendoza-Martinez. Rickey said he/she/it looked for an order of deportation that was executed and couldn’t find one. Rickey then challenged me to find an executed order of deportation and I responded with a leap of faith comment that the order for deportation was executed after SCOTUS finally ruled the government was not collaterally estopped from claiming Mendoza-Martinez lost his US citizenship while living in Mexico.

    Wrong again there was no order for deportation executed after Scotus ruled. You were wrong you’re always wrong.

  284. avatar
    Rickey March 19, 2015 at 4:04 pm #

    Phil:

    The final SCOTUS ruling was the US government was not enjoined from executing its order of deportation for Mendoza-Martinez.

    Wrong yet again. The SCOTUS ruling says nothing about the order of deportation, because the order of deportation was not at issue. This is the SCOTUS ruling, word for word:

    CONCLUSION

    It is argued that our holding today will have the unfortunate result of immunizing the draft evader who has left the United States from having to suffer any sanction against his conduct, since he must return to this country before he can be apprehended and tried for his crime. The compelling answer to this is that the Bill of Rights which we guard so jealously and the procedures it guarantees are not to be abrogated merely because a guilty man may escape prosecution or for any other expedient reason. Moreover, the truth is that, even without being expatriated, the evader living abroad is not in a position to assert the vast majority of his component rights as an American citizen. If he wishes to assert those rights in any real sense, he must return to this country, and, by doing that, he will subject himself to prosecution. In fact, while he is outside the country evading prosecution, the United States may, by proper refusal to exercise its largely discretionary power to afford him diplomatic protection, decline to invoke its sovereign power on his behalf. Since the substantial benefits of American citizenship only come into play upon return to face prosecution, the draft evader who wishes to exercise his citizenship rights will inevitably come home and pay his debt, which within constitutional limits Congress has the power to define. This is what Mendoza-Martinez did, what Cort says he is willing to do, and what others have done.Thus, our holding today does not frustrate the effective handling of the problem of draft evaders who leave the United States.

    We conclude, for the reasons stated, that §§ 401(j) and 349(a)(10) are punitive, and, as such, cannot constitutionally stand, lacking as they do the procedural safeguards which the Constitution commands. [Footnote 43] We recognize that draft evasion, particularly in time of war, is a heinous offense, and should and can be properly punished. Dating back to Magna Carta, however, it has been an abiding principle governing the lives of civilized men that “no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled . . . without the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. . . .” What we hold is only that, in keeping with this cherished tradition, punishment cannot be imposed “without due process of law.” Any lesser holding would ignore the constitutional mandate upon which our essential liberties depend. Therefore, the judgments of the District Courts in these cases are affirmed.

    The Supreme Court’s only ruling was to uphold the District Court ruling that Mendoza-Martinez had never lost his U.S. citizenship. Since he was still a U.S citizen, he could not be deported.

    Why is it so difficult for you to grasp such a simple concept? If Mendoza-Martinez could have been deported regardless of his U.S. citizenship, why did the Justice Department bother to appeal the District Court ruling?

  285. avatar
    Rickey March 19, 2015 at 4:07 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Wrong again there was no order for deportation executed after Scotus ruled.You were wrong you’re always wrong.

    Sven keeps doubling down on his stupidity and obtuseness.

    He has yet to explain how the United States can deport a U.S. citizen.

  286. avatar
    Northland10 March 19, 2015 at 4:17 pm #

    The citizen who died in California.

  287. avatar
    Rickey March 19, 2015 at 4:22 pm #

    Phil:

    After a third trial in the District Court, the District Court “held that the Government was not collaterally estopped because the 1947 criminal proceedings entailed no determination of Mendoza-Martinez’ citizenship.”

    In his second amended complaint, Mendoza-Martinez alleged the US government admitted he was a US citizen by charging him and convicting him of draft evasion.

    Justice Goldberg delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court wrote, “Thus, the conviction entailed no actual or necessary finding about Mendoza-Martinez’ citizenship status between September 27, 1944, and November 1, 1946, and the Government was not estopped from denying his citizenship in the present proceedings.

    Do you even understand what collateral estoppel is? It was just one of the arguments that Mendoza-Martinez’ attorneys made, namely that he could not have been charged with draft evasion unless he was still a U.S. citizen. SCOTUS disagreed with that argument, but nevertheless ruled that he was still a U.S. citizen because Section 401(j) was unconstitutional. Cherry-picking one part of the decision while ignoring the rest does noting to enhance your credibility.

    Section 401j became effective on September 27, 1944. Mendoza-Martinez departed the US on or about November 2, 1942 which resulted in the loss of his US citizenship before section 401j was in effect.

    So what? Section 401(j) was found to be unconstitutional, so the “loss of his citizenship” was not valid. The date of passage is irrelevant because Mendoza-Martinez continued to evade the draft by remaining in Mexico until November, 1946, more than a year after World War II ended, which means that 401(j) applied to him regardless on when he first departed the U.S.

  288. avatar
    Rickey March 19, 2015 at 4:36 pm #

    Getting back to the separation of powers, it is worth noting that nowhere in the Constitution does is say that the three branches of government are co-equal. In fact, a plausible argument can be made that Congress is the superior branch of government, because Congress can overrule the President (by overriding a veto) and Congress can initiate overruling a Supreme Court decision (by passing an amendment to the Constitution and sending it to the states for ratification). It was Congress which invalidated Scott v. Sandford by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment.

    The Supreme Court cannot overrule a Constitutional Amendment, and the President cannot enforce a veto which has been overridden by Congress.

  289. avatar
    Rickey March 19, 2015 at 4:39 pm #

    Northland10:
    The citizen who died in California.

    Sven has been noticeably silent on that point.

  290. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 19, 2015 at 6:20 pm #

    Where is Barack Hussein in the Bible?

  291. avatar
    Joey March 19, 2015 at 6:23 pm #

    Rickey:
    Getting back to the separation of powers, it is worth noting that nowhere in the Constitution does is say that the three branches of government are co-equal. In fact, a plausible argument can be made that Congress is the superior branch of government, because Congress can overrule the President (by overriding a veto) and Congress can initiate overruling a Supreme Court decision (by passing an amendment to the Constitution and sending it to the states for ratification). It was Congress which invalidated Scott v. Sandford by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment.

    The Supreme Court cannot overrule a Constitutional Amendment, and the President cannot enforce a veto which has been overridden by Congress.

    Another relevant example: President Truman vetoed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 on which most of current day citizenship law is based. Congress overrode Truman’s veto and Truman then signed the Bill into law

  292. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 19, 2015 at 6:27 pm #

    Who was the British Consulate in 1960-1961 Did he give an already married Obama permission to marry Stanley Ann Dunham?

  293. avatar
    Northland10 March 19, 2015 at 6:28 pm #

    Rickey: Sven has been noticeably silent on that point.

    He also likes to ignore what I had explained earlier. The court only said that the trial and conviction for evading service did not involve determining citizenship status so it did not estop a future attempt to revoke citizenship. However, they found the law the government tried to use unconstitutional so his citizenship could not be revoked.

    For the government to be able to deport him, they would have to find another law to use that allowed for due process, conduct the proceedings, have it survive legal challenges and then deport him before the court ruled in 1967 that you cannot revoke citizenship involuntarily.

    Oh, and he died in California.

  294. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 19, 2015 at 6:42 pm #

    This blog has provided no proof Barack Hussein Obama is a Christian English name. All children born in Hawaii 1961 must, by law, have a Christian name.

    Barack is not spelled Barak.. Hussein is his grandfather’s name.

    Barack and Hussein are not Christian names.

    The name Barack Hussein Obama placed on a Hawaii Birth Certificate dated 1961 was illegal under the Hawaii Christian Name Law.

    No spin, misinformation and insinuations can alter this fact.

  295. avatar
    bookfiend75 March 19, 2015 at 6:52 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    This blog has provided no proof Barack Hussein Obama is a Christian English name. All children born in Hawaii 1961 must, by law, have a Christian name.

    Barack is not spelled Barak.. Hussein is his grandfather’s name.

    Barack and Hussein are not Christian names.

    The name Barack Hussein Obama placed on a Hawaii Birth Certificate dated 1961 was illegal under the Hawaii Christian Name Law.

    No spin, misinformation and insinuations can alter this fact.

    Please define what you think a “Christian” name means, because I can guarantee no other person will agree with your definition. I’ll give you a hint: it does NOT mean a name that appears in the Bible. Please remember that the Bible was originally not even written down but was instead memorized. By the time it was written down, it was in languages other than English.

  296. avatar
    bookfiend75 March 19, 2015 at 6:54 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    Who was the British Consulate in 1960-1961Did he give an already married Obama permission to marry Stanley Ann Dunham?

    Who cares? It doesn’t alter President Obama’s citizenship in any way, shape, or form.

  297. avatar
    bookfiend75 March 19, 2015 at 6:59 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    This blog has provided no proof Barack Hussein Obama is a Christian English name. All children born in Hawaii 1961 must, by law, have a Christian name.

    Barack is not spelled Barak.. Hussein is his grandfather’s name.

    Barack and Hussein are not Christian names.

    The name Barack Hussein Obama placed on a Hawaii Birth Certificate dated 1961 was illegal under the Hawaii Christian Name Law.

    No spin, misinformation and insinuations can alter this fact.

    What did they do with the native Hawaiian’s who wanted to name their children with names from the Hawaiian language? What about the children of Japanese descendants? Of Chinese descendants? Of other Islander descendants? Did every single child have to have a name that came from the Bible? You know this is ridiculous. Please stop.

  298. avatar
    gorefan March 19, 2015 at 7:15 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    This blog has provided no proof Barack Hussein Obama is a Christian English name. All children born in Hawaii 1961 must, by law, have a Christian name.

    Barack is not spelled Barak.. Hussein is his grandfather’s name.

    Barack and Hussein are not Christian names.

    The name Barack Hussein Obama placed on a Hawaii Birth Certificate dated 1961 was illegal under the Hawaii Christian Name Law.

    No spin, misinformation and insinuations can alter this fact.

    Are these Christian names – Saichi, Saadia, Rezondala, and Fern?

    All are first names of children born in Hawaii in 1961.

    No spin, misinformation or your lies can alter these names.

  299. avatar
    bob March 19, 2015 at 7:33 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    All children born in Hawaii 1961 must, by law, have a Christian name.
    Please cite the Hawaiin law in existence in 1961 that required this.

    Thanks in advance.

  300. avatar
    faceman March 19, 2015 at 7:42 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    This blog has provided no proof Barack Hussein Obama is a Christian English name. All children born in Hawaii 1961 must, by law, have a Christian name.

    Barack is not spelled Barak.. Hussein is his grandfather’s name.

    Barack and Hussein are not Christian names.

    The name Barack Hussein Obama placed on a Hawaii Birth Certificate dated 1961 was illegal under the Hawaii Christian Name Law.

    No spin, misinformation and insinuations can alter this fact.

    No, your spin, misinformation and outright lies cannot alter the fact that there was no such law. It would violate the Constitution’s establishment of religion clause.

  301. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 19, 2015 at 8:04 pm #

    ObligedFriend: This blog has provided no proof Barack Hussein Obama is a Christian English name. All children born in Hawaii 1961 must, by law, have a Christian name.

    You’ve provided no proof that you understand what words mean in the english language. You still have provided no proof to support your claim of this law.

    A christian name is simply a formal name.

    ObligedFriend: The name Barack Hussein Obama placed on a Hawaii Birth Certificate dated 1961 was illegal under the Hawaii Christian Name Law.

    Incorrect. Christian name is simply a given name.

  302. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 19, 2015 at 8:04 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    Who was the British Consulate in 1960-1961Did he give an already married Obama permission to marry Stanley Ann Dunham?

    He was married in Kenya originally. He didn’t need the permission of the consulate to marry in America.

  303. avatar
    Keith March 19, 2015 at 8:27 pm #

    faceman: No, your spin, misinformation and outright lies cannot alter the fact that there was no such law.It would violate the Constitution’s establishment of religion clause.

    And freedom of speech.

    And right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

    And insult the intelligence of every sentient being in the universe.

  304. avatar
    James M March 19, 2015 at 8:45 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    Who was the British Consulate in 1960-1961Did he give an already married Obama permission to marry Stanley Ann Dunham?

    This line of reasoning takes us into territory where Dunham is not legally married, thereby further destroying birther arguments. Please proceed.

  305. avatar
    James M March 19, 2015 at 8:47 pm #

    “Barack” and “Hussein” are certainly Christian names *now* as many Christian parents choose to name their children after our auspicious and ever-popular sitting President.

  306. avatar
    James M March 19, 2015 at 8:49 pm #

    bookfiend75: Who cares?It doesn’t alter President Obama’s citizenship in any way, shape, or form.

    It would further weaken all birther claims against his citizenship, as if such a thing were possible. If Dunham is a single parent, both the Berg and Donofrio lines become irrelevant.

  307. avatar
    James M March 19, 2015 at 9:01 pm #

    I would be interested in seeing any court document addressing a citizenship concern based on a non-Christian first name like “Leilani” or “Kamealoha”, massively popular in the 60s.

  308. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 19, 2015 at 9:41 pm #

    Traditional Hawaiian names on Hawaii birth certificates were illegal1960/1961.

  309. avatar
    gorefan March 19, 2015 at 9:54 pm #

    ObligedFriend: Are these Christian names – Saichi, Saadia, Rezondala, and Fern?

    Still avoiding the question.

    Are these Christian names – Saichi, Saadia, Rezondala, and Fern?

  310. avatar
    Keith March 19, 2015 at 9:56 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    Traditional Hawaiian names on Hawaii birth certificates were illegal1960/1961.

    Unilateral assertions are irrelevant. Prove it.

  311. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 19, 2015 at 10:04 pm #

    Christian name originally refers to the name given at christening. It’s second definition is one’s “personal name” in contrast to a “family name.” This from the Oxford English Dictionary. In the case of the President his Christian name is “Barack Hussein” and his family name (or surname) is Obama. A particular name is neither Christian or not. It’s how it is used.

    I looked at the Hawaii revised statutes in effect in 1961, and I didn’t see the phrase “Christian name” in it. Perhaps you could provide a citation to verify your claim, even though misapplied.

    ObligedFriend: This blog has provided no proof Barack Hussein Obama is a Christian English name. All children born in Hawaii 1961 must, by law, have a Christian name.

  312. avatar
    gorefan March 19, 2015 at 10:09 pm #

    ObligedFriend:

    I will enjoy the spin, misinformation and insinuations and…racism rants.

    I realize you enjoy your racism but you still avoid the question.

    Are these Christian names – Saichi, Saadia, Rezondala, and Fern?

    How about Raynette

  313. avatar
    Arthur B. March 19, 2015 at 10:15 pm #

    ObligedFriend: I will enjoy the spin

    Good, enjoy this spin.

    Your claim was “Traditional Hawaiian names on Hawaii birth certificates were illegal1960/1961.”

    And to support it, you provided a link to “Act to Regulate Names” — which, it turns out, was enacted by the King (among others) in 1860.

  314. avatar
    Rickey March 19, 2015 at 10:23 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    Where is Barack Hussein in the Bible?

    Where are these names in the Bible?

    George
    Martin
    William
    Zachary
    Millard
    Franklin
    Ulysses
    Rutherford
    Chester
    Grover
    Theodore
    Woodrow
    Warren
    Calvin
    Herbert
    Harry
    Dwight
    Lyndon
    Richard
    Gerald
    Ronald

  315. avatar
    Rickey March 19, 2015 at 10:30 pm #

    ObligedKlansman:
    Traditional Hawaiian names on Hawaii birth certificates were illegal1960/1961.

    Nonsense. I know a Hawaiian woman who was born in Honolulu in 1960. Her birth name is Haleloke Rapozo.

    You are not just a racist. You are a lying racist.

  316. avatar
    Phil March 19, 2015 at 10:35 pm #

    “It was just one of the arguments that Mendoza-Martinez’ attorneys made, namely that he could not have been charged with draft evasion unless he was still a U.S. citizen. SCOTUS disagreed with that argument, but nevertheless ruled …”

    I completely agree with you on that portion of your statement.

    “… that he was still a U.S. citizen because Section 401(j) was unconstitutional.”

    Initially, the District Court and the Circuit affirmed that M-M lost his US citizenship due to the enactment of section 401j as US law. SCOTUS vacated the judgment and remanded. Next, the District Court found in favor of M-M in light of Trop v. Dulles. SCOTUS, on its own motion, remanded the case back to the District Court so that the US government could amend the pleadings alleging M-M lost his US citizenship while living in Mexico “to put in issue the question of whether the facts as determined on the draft-evasion conviction in 1947 collaterally estopped the Attorney General from now claiming that Mendoza-Martinez had lost his American citizenship while in Mexico..”

    M-M’s amended complaint “added a prayer asking the court to adjudge ‘that defendants herein are enjoined and restrained henceforth from enforcing’ all deportation orders against him.” However, M-M stipulated and the judge approved that the final trial would involve injunctive relief as a triable issue.

    “The conclusion that no request for injunctive relief nor even any contemplation of it attended the case as it went to trial is borne out by the total lack of reference to injunctive relief in the District Court’s memorandum opinion, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and judgment.” – SCOTUS.

    M-M alleged the US government admitted he was a US citizen after trial and conviction for draft evasion. The District Court and SCOTUS rejected this argument.

    SCOTUS, J. Goldberg opined:

    “The District Court on remand held that the Government was not collaterally estopped because the 1947 criminal proceedings entailed no determination of Mendoza-Martinez’ citizenship.”

    “Thus, the conviction entailed no actual or necessary finding about Mendoza-Martinez’ citizenship status between September 27, 1944, and November 1, 1946, and the Government was not estopped from denying his citizenship in the present proceedings.

    “We hold §§ 401(j) and 349(a)(10) invalid because in them Congress has plainly employed the sanction of deprivation of nationality as a punishment—for the offense of leaving or remaining outside the country to evade military service—without affording the procedural safeguards guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.”

    “We conclude, for the reasons stated, that §§ 401(j) and 349(a)(10) are punitive and as such cannot constitutionally stand, lacking as they do the procedural safeguards which the Constitution commands.”

    “Affirmed.”

    What did SCOTUS affirm? SCOTUS affirmed sections 401j and 349a(10) were unconstitutional because they were punitive measures imposed without due process.

    – and –

    The US government was not collaterally estopped from denying M-M was a US citizen in the present proceedings.

    Mr. Justice Brennan concurring:

    “We have recognized the entanglements which may stem from dual allegiance, and have twice sustained statutes which provided for loss of American citizenship upon the deliberate assumption of a foreign attachment. Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299, 36 S.Ct. 106, 60 L.Ed. 297; Savorgnan v. United States, 338 U.S. 491, 70 S.Ct. 292, 94 L.Ed. 287.”

    “We have recognized that participation by American nationals in the internal politics of foreign states could dangerously prejudice our diplomacy, and have allowed the use of expatriation as a uniquely potent corrective which precludes recriminations by disowning, at the moment of his provocative act, him who might otherwise be taken as our spokesman or our operative. Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44, 78 S.Ct. 568, 2 L.Ed.2d 603.”

    Why did AG Kennedy appeal after the District Court found section 401j unconstitutional in the light of Trop v. Dulles and the US government was not collaterally estopped from denying M-M was a US citizen in the current proceedings?

    Because AG Kennedy believed M-M’s case was distinguishable from Trop after an administrative hearing at the Immigration Service provided for the due process rights of the accused and section 401j should not be held unconstitutional when an administrative hearing takes place. Trop was provided a hearing at his courts martial and SCOTUS held Trop’s due process rights were not protected when section 401j was utilized to denaturalize him.

  317. avatar
    gorefan March 19, 2015 at 10:37 pm #

    ObligedFriend: I will enjoy the spin, misinformation and insinuations and…racism rants.

    In the 1955 – 1959 Hawaii birth index are the first names

    Braulio and Gaynon

    Are those Chirstian names?

  318. avatar
    Northland10 March 19, 2015 at 10:59 pm #

    Phil: Because AG Kennedy believed M-M’s case was distinguishable from Trop after an administrative hearing at the Immigration Service provided for the due process rights of the accused and section 401j should not be held unconstitutional when an administrative hearing takes place.

    You have not shown any proof that said hearing ever took place (which M-M would have almost certainly appealed in court).

    Oh, M-M died in California.

    M-M died in California.

    M-M died in California.

  319. avatar
    J.D. Reed March 19, 2015 at 11:01 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    Where is Barack Hussein in the Bible?

    I didn’t say Barack Hussein is in the Bible; I said Barak is in the book off Judges. Is your assertion that last mames without an identifiable Christian origin were (are) not legal in Hawaii? Besides such an alleged law being blatantly unconstitutional, why would a society hugely influenced by its large Asian American population (Hint: very unlikely to have “Christian” names) allow that to happen?
    And really — the presence or absence of a c before a k in a name a crucial difference? A slight variance in spelling over the millennia? If that’s the case then Jesus is not a biblical name.His name was the same as the Old Testament Joshua although the name did not start with J sound but more like a Y sound.
    Can you stop insulting eveyone’s intelligence?

    ObligedFriend:
    This blog has provided no proof Barack Hussein Obama is a Christian English name. All children born in Hawaii 1961 must, by law, have a Christian name.

    Barack is not spelled Barak.. Hussein is his grandfather’s name.

    Barack and Hussein are not Christian names.

    The name Barack Hussein Obama placed on a Hawaii Birth Certificate dated 1961 was illegal under the Hawaii Christian Name Law.

    No spin, misinformation and insinuations can alter this fact.

    ObligedFriend:
    This blog has provided no proof Barack Hussein Obama is a Christian English name. All children born in Hawaii 1961 must, by law, have a Christian name.

    Barack is not spelled Barak.. Hussein is his grandfather’s name.

    Barack and Hussein are not Christian names.

    The name Barack Hussein Obama placed on a Hawaii Birth Certificate dated 1961 was illegal under the Hawaii Christian Name Law.

    No spin, misinformation and insinuations can alter this fact.

  320. avatar
    Rickey March 19, 2015 at 11:04 pm #

    Phil:

    The US government was not collaterally estopped from denying M-M was a US citizen in the present proceedings.

    Are you really that dense? Apparently you are. All the SCOTUS decision says is that the government committed no act which estopped it from asserting that Mendoza-Martinez was not a U.S. citizen. The District Court ruled that Mendoza-Martinez had been and still was a U.S citizen since birth.

    The underlying case which Kennedy appealed was Mendoza-Martinez v. Rogers, No. 1314-ND, 192 F.Supp. 1 (1960). This was the court’s ruling:

    The plaintiff is now, and ever since the date of his birth has been, a national and citizen of the United States; and judgment should be entered accordingly.

    That is the ruling which was affirmed by the Supreme Court.

    Mendoza-Martinez never lost his U.S. citizenship. He was never deported. He was born in Kern County, California in 1922 and he died in Kern County, California in 1997.

  321. avatar
    Phil March 19, 2015 at 11:08 pm #

    Northland10:

    “The citizen who died in California. ”

    M-M probably did exactly what Obama has done. Whenever anyone ask him if he’s a US citizen, he’d say, “I was born in America. Do you want to see my birth certificate?”

  322. avatar
    bookfiend75 March 19, 2015 at 11:11 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    Traditional Hawaiian names on Hawaii birth certificates were illegal1960/1961.

    Bwahahahahahaha!
    No. Just, no.

  323. avatar
    John Reilly March 19, 2015 at 11:33 pm #

    Here are some non Christian names:

    Sven
    ObligedRacist

  324. avatar
    Northland10 March 20, 2015 at 12:15 am #

    Phil:
    Northland10:

    M-M probably did exactly what Obama has done. Whenever anyone ask him if he’s a US citizen, he’d say, “I was born in America. Do you want to see my birth certificate?”

    Ah, so now, you will just claim the M-M is lying. Did he lie about where he died?

    The 1940 Census has 18 year old Francisco, also known as Frank, living in Kern County with his father (Frank Mendoza). It states that young Frank was born in California (his father was born in Mexico) and was, at the time a laborer at a farm. He also had 6 siblings at the time and mother was Dina Martinez, I think (handwriting is a little rough).

    When he died, he had the Social Security number, 571-XX-XXXX. He once had the phone number 725-0192 in Delano, where he was born and died.

    He Died in Delano.

    No record of him every being deported or losing his citizenship.

  325. avatar
    Phil March 20, 2015 at 1:07 am #

    In his second amended complaint, 1960, M-M claimed that ‘the government of the United States has admitted the fact of his United States citizenship by virtue of the indictment and judgment of conviction (in 1947 for draft evasion) * * * and is therefore collaterally estopped now to deny such citizenship * * *.’

    The District Court rejected this assertion. Mendoza-Martinez renews it here [SCOTUS] as an alternative ground for upholding the judgment entered below ‘That the plaintiff is now, and ever since the date of his birth has been, a national and citizen of the United States.’ 192 F.Supp., at 3.

    The next sentence SCOTUS writes: “We too reject Mendoza-Martinez’ contention on this point.”

    SCOTUS continues with, “[M-M] was in fact charged with a violation ‘on or about November 15, 1942,’ because he ‘did knowingly evade service * * * in that he did knowingly depart from the United States and go to a foreign county, namely: Mexico, for the purpose of evading service * * *.’ This constituted the alleged violation [nearly two years before section 401j became U.S. law. ]

    SCOTUS closes section III with, ” …and the Government was not estopped from denying his citizenship in the present proceedings [1960].”

    The confusion lies in the fact I stated M-M was issued a CLN in Mexico. In fact, M-M was issued a deportation order in a 1955 administrative proceeding for expatriating acts committed in 1942. M-M’s CLN issued in 1955 is considered to be effective since 1942. The District Court ruled M-M was a US citizen since birth because the determination made in M-M’s deportation hearing was not before the court.

    Deportation proceedings are civil matters and not considered punitive. M-M was entitled to seek injunctive relief in the District Court for procedural violations at his deportation hearing, but he did not do that. The District Court only considered M-M’s request for declarative relief even though M-M requested injunctive relief in his second amended complaint.

    “We hold §§ 401(j) and 349(a)(10) invalid because in them Congress has plainly employed the sanction of deprivation of nationality as a punishment—for the offense of leaving or remaining outside the country to evade military service—without affording the procedural safeguards guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.”

  326. avatar
    y_p_w March 20, 2015 at 1:23 am #

    James M:
    I would be interested in seeing any court document addressing a citizenship concern based on a non-Christian first name like “Leilani”or “Kamealoha”, massively popular in the 60s.

    In Hawaii? Strangely enough, back then and even now it’s pretty common in Hawaii for someone of Hawaiian ancestry to have parents give a common name in America and use a Hawaiian language name as the legal middle name. Many would simply go by their middle names, or at least a shortened version since some are pretty long.

    However, I’m pretty sure the whole “Christian name” thing has been done to death, as anyone who understands the relevance of the “Act to Regulate Names” will know that it was supposed to mean a “given name” as opposed to the tradition of giving a single name. A single name is still used in most of Indonesia. Of course we’ve seen all sorts of Japanese/Chinese/hippy names that clearly are not the “Christian origin” names but still would be given names as in the law.

    Not that I believe that the law would have ever been enforceable if it foisted a name approved by a specific religion.

  327. avatar
    John Reilly March 20, 2015 at 2:03 am #

    So let’s sum up for Obliged Racist and SyPHILis:

    Obama was born in Kenya.
    He is of mixed race.
    He is a Muslim.
    He renounced his American citizenship, if indeed he ever had it.
    He is a citizen of Indonesia.
    He doesn’t have a Christian name.
    He is not of our kind.
    In fact, he might be a shape shifting reptile.
    His middle name is Hussein, the second most common terrorist name.
    He’s a communist.
    His “wife” had a sex change.
    His daughters are props.
    He has cancelled our Constitution.
    He’s going to take away our guns.

    I’m sure I left stuff out. Oh, yeah, his Father was a Commie anti-colonialist from a foreign country. You know. Like Ted Cruz’s Father.

    Yet there he is, Obama’s still the President. His two biggest concerns today are that Netanyahu was re-elected and his brackets are busted. He can’t wait for The Donald to run for President. Or dogcatcher. He is looking forward to ESPN having a new contest for the Sweet Sixteen.

    For SyPHILis and Obliged Racist, you still live in your mothers’ basements while that Black man lives in our White House. And no one believes you. It’s like a bad dream where you keep running but can’t catch what you are chasing. Like a dog chasing a car, although there we are dealing with a life form significantly smarter than you. And the dog is smarter than you, too.

    Your life sucks, doesn’t it? Are your brackets still live, or did you blow that too? Did you only pick schools with Christian names (does Notre Dame count?) or did you limit yourself to schools which don’t have any Black players.

  328. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 20, 2015 at 5:07 am #

    Arthur B.: Good, enjoy this spin.

    Your claim was “Traditional Hawaiian names on Hawaii birth certificates were illegal1960/1961.”

    And to support it, you provided a link to “Act to Regulate Names” — which, it turns out, was enacted by the King (among others) in 1860.

    The US Constitution is older.

  329. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 20, 2015 at 5:14 am #

    J.D. Reed: I didn’t say Barack Hussein is in theBible; I said Barak is in thebook off Judges. Is your assertion that last mames without an identifiable Christian origin were (are) not legal in Hawaii?Besides such an alleged law being blatantly unconstitutional, why woulda society hugely influenced by its largeAsian Americanpopulation(Hint: very unlikely to have “Christian” names) allow that to happen?
    And really — the presence or absence of ac before ak in a name a crucial difference? A slight variance in spelling over the millennia? If that’s the case then Jesus is nota biblical name.His name was the same as theOld Testament Joshua although the name did not start with J sound but more likea Y sound.
    Can you stop insulting eveyone’s intelligence?

    Barack is not Barak. You tried to claim it was.

  330. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 20, 2015 at 5:37 am #

    ObligedFriend:
    Traditional Hawaiian names on Hawaii birth certificates were illegal1960/1961.

    That’s a complete lie

  331. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 20, 2015 at 5:41 am #

    bookfiend75: Bwahahahahahaha!
    No. Just, no.

    Yes they were. The lHawaii name aw was valid until 1967. 1860-1967. Team Obama should have researched the law before they fabrcated the birth certificate.

  332. avatar
    Keith March 20, 2015 at 6:13 am #

    ObligedFriend:
    Act to Regulate Names.

    https://books.google.com.mx/books?continue=https%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.com%2Fbooks%2Fdownload%2FNa_kanawai_o_ka_repubalika_o_Hawaii.pdf%3Fid%3DOBY4AAAAIAAJ%26output%3Dpdf%26hl%3Den&id=OBY4AAAAIAAJ&q=Act+regulate+names#v=snippet&q=Act%20regulate%20names&f=false

    I will enjoy the spin, misinformation and insinuations and…racism rants.

    A law enacted by King Kamehameha in 1800 (before he had even completed the union) is your go to proof for rules about names in 1961 after 3 complete governmental regime changes?

    Really?

    I won’t even bother to ask if you are insane.

    EDIT: it was an 1860 law not 1800. I misread the text. Sorry.

  333. avatar
    faceman March 20, 2015 at 6:17 am #

    Phil:
    In his second amended complaint, 1960, M-M claimed that ‘the government of the United States has admitted the fact of his United States citizenship by virtue of the indictment and judgment of conviction (in 1947 for draft evasion) * * * and is therefore collaterally estopped now to deny such citizenship * * *.’

    I am not a lawyer. You say you are not a lawyer. So let’s stop quoting all the legal mumbo jumbo like ‘collaterally estopped’ and translate into plain English:

    MM fled to Mexico to avoid the draft.
    Congress passed a law to strip citizenship from draft dodgers.
    MM returned to the US after the war.
    The US issued a deportation order, saying he was not a citizen.
    MM argued that he was still a citizen.
    SCOTUS agreed that the law was unconstitutional, and that MM had never lost his citizenship.
    SCOTUS said nothing about the deportation order, since the US cannot deport a citizen.
    MM lived out the rest of his life in the US.

    Gee, Sven/Phil, the way you like to throw around selective quotes from obscure court cases, and totally misrepresent what the courts said while doing so, one might almost think you’re a sockpuppet for Mario.

  334. avatar
    Keith March 20, 2015 at 6:32 am #

    John Reilly: Like a dog chasing a car…

    Or perhaps more modern social medialy friendly:

    Puppy

    “Oh this is cruel”

    Cat and Dog

  335. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 20, 2015 at 6:35 am #

    ObligedFriend: https://books.google.com.mx/books?continue=https%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.com%2Fbooks%2Fdownload%2FNa_kanawai_o_ka_repubalika_o_Hawaii.pdf%3Fid%3DOBY4AAAAIAAJ%26output%3Dpdf%26hl%3Den&id=OBY4AAAAIAAJ&q=Act+regulate+names#v=snippet&q=Act%20regulate%20names&f=false

    You love for a spurious born, perpetual inhabitant,con man with a non Christian name is an embarrassment.

    You confuse saying that he’s legally and lawfully the president with outright love. a law from three Hawaii governments ago which you don’t understand didn’t back up your claim about 1961. Any proof the law was still in effect in 1961? There’s also your problem that Christian name simply means having a given name at birth and not that it has to be in the bible. many Hawaii names in the birth index from 1961 don’t fit your claims. All you have is racism.

  336. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 20, 2015 at 6:40 am #

    ObligedFriend: Yes they were. The lHawaii name aw was valid until 1967. 1860-1967. Team Obama should have researched the law before they fabrcated the birth certificate.

    using your illogic half the bcs during that time period would be fabricated. stig isn’t in the bible yet that was stig wadelich’s “Christian” name at birth. Gretchen isn’t in the bible yet birthers hold Gretchen and Susan nordykes certificates as proof. Obliged racist just made something up again.

  337. avatar
    Northland10 March 20, 2015 at 7:24 am #

    Phil: In his second amended complaint, 1960,

    Sorry, you are making that up.

    He Died in Delano.

    No record of him every being deported or losing his citizenship.

  338. avatar
    Lupin March 20, 2015 at 9:48 am #

    I honestly think we’ve reached a complete dead end here.

    As faceman pointed out at 6:17 am above, Sven/Phil is plainly making up sh*t, lying and obfuscating, His posts are now so far removed the anything connected to Obama in real life that it’s become surreal. We’re a smidgen away from him purposefully misquoting a 1950s EC comic and claiming it’s evidence of something.

    As for ObligedRacist, I still think that my labeling him a gas huffing, mayonnaise sandwich eating, confederate flag waving, racist, ignorant, tea-bagging, sibling buggering, backwoods inbred redneck imbecile is correct: the man appears to live in some weird Captain Confederacy dystopia and somehow thinks its rule should apply to all of us on this Earth.

    This is no longer a sane discussion, it’s a Philip K. Dick novel.

  339. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 20, 2015 at 9:50 am #

    Lupin: This is no longer a sane discussion, it’s a Philip K. Dick novel.

    No not even that. I think it’s the film Conservative States of America.

  340. avatar
    Phil March 20, 2015 at 10:08 am #

    Faceman:

    M-M fled the US two years before the law making it legal to strip the US citizenship of a draft dodger became effective. M-M came back to America and pled guilty to draft evasion and served time in federal prison.

    Years after he was released from prison, he was served with a warrant for deportation because he was an alien living in America without authorization. M-M defended himself against the allegation he was an alien by claiming the US admitted he was a US citizen when it imprisoned him for draft evasion. M-M incorrectly assumed non-citizens could not be imprisoned for draft evasion. Initially, the District Court and the Circuit agreed with the US government that M-M was an alien living in America illegally.

    SCOTUS vacated and remanded those judgments because Trop v. Dulles was decided in favor of Trop. Trop was a drafter dodger who left America and did not naturalize in a foreign state. Trop was convicted in a court martial proceeding and stripped of his US citizenship as part of his punishment for draft evasion. Since Trop was not a dual citizen, he was stateless. SCOTUS held Trop was denied his due process rights in the court martial proceeding and the law authorizing the stripping Trop of his citizenship was unconstitutional.

    On remand in the M-M case, the District Court declared M-M to be a US citizen since birth. Declaratory judgments are not injunctive. This means the District Court is declaring that if the US government executes its warrant for deportation, then the District Court will be inclined to find M-M is a US citizen not subject to deportation. SCOTUS affirmed the District Court’s ruling the law stripping a US citizen of his citizenship without due process was unconstitutional and the US government was not collaterally estopped from determining M-M is not a US citizen. That means that there haven’t been any District Court rulings with a finding of fact with respect to the current status of M-M’s citizenship and the US government is free to proceed with its determination M-M is a deportable alien.

    Rickey and Northland are contending the US government cancelled its order of deportation because SCOTUS affirmed the District Court’s declaratory judgment. Declaratory judgments are not injunctive nor are they findings of fact.

    The District Court refused to consider M-M forfeited his US citizenship for reasons other than the draft evasion statute found unconstitutional. Until 1967, the US government could denaturalize a dual national US citizen who moved out of the US and was politically active. M-M’s case began in 1950 and ended in 1963.

    Rickey searched for a deportation order and challenged me to find one. I said I took a leap of faith the deportation order was executed. Rickey and Northland are contending the District Court’s declaratory judgment intimidated the US government and forced them to cancel the deportation order. Further, Northland contends M-M died in America, so that means he never lost his US citizenship. I believe M-M was deported and then moved back to America. He used his status as a native born person to fool anyone who questioned his US citizenship into to thinking he was a US citizen.

    It’s a flaw in the system. Any native born person who has been issued a CLN in their lifetime can move back to America to use their birth certificate to fool anyone who challenges their current citizenship status. Biden, Kerry and Hagel were made aware of Obama’s status as a permanent resident alien from 1971 to 1983 as members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Instead of exposing Obama, they parlayed it into promotions.

    Here’s what Sven wrote in his First Amended Complaint:

    Judge Mukasey, U.S. Attorney General, notified the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations that Senator Obama was not eligible to hold the Office of the President of the United States in a report appended to the Office of Inspector General’s report on a investigation with respect to the breach of Sen. Obama’s records maintained by the U.S. State Department, Washington, D.C., in 2008. The U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 2008, was chaired by U.S. Senator Joe Biden, currently Vice President of the U.S. The Vice President, SoS and SecDef were members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 2008.

    U.S. Senators on the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations became aware of President Obama’s ineligibility to hold the Office of the President of the United States after reviewing the briefing by Judge Mukasey detailing the fact that President Obama lived in the U.S. as a legal, permanent resident alien from 1971 to 1983, 8 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq.

  341. avatar
    John Reilly March 20, 2015 at 10:11 am #

    ObligedFriend: Barack is not Barak. You tried to claim it was.

    And you know that because the Bible was written in English using the Latin alphabet, right?

  342. avatar
    Arthur B. March 20, 2015 at 10:41 am #

    ObligedFriend: The US Constitution is older.

    LOL, so it is.

    Now explain how the age of the Constitution supports your claim that a law enacted by the King of Hawaii in 1860 was still in effect in 1961 — and that it has any relevance to the President’s eligibility under Article II.

  343. avatar
    Rickey March 20, 2015 at 10:46 am #

    Phil:
    That means that there haven’t been any District Court rulings with a finding of fact with respect to the current status of M-M’s citizenship and the US government is free to proceed with its determination M-M is a deportable alien.

    Your inability to comprehend what you read comes to the fore once again.

    You claim that there was no finding of fact by the District Court with respect to the current status of Mendoza-Martinez’ citizenship. Well, here it is for you:

    Judgment

    In accordance with foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed:

    1. That the within action be, and the same is hereby dismissed as to the defendant, Argyle R. Mackey, The Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, only; [The Commissioner was ruled to not be a proper party to the action]

    2. That Section 401(j) of the Nationality Act of 1940, a 1944 Amendment, is unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to the plaintiff herein;

    3. That the plaintiff is now, and ever since the date of his birth has been, a national and citizen of the United States.

    The District Court ruling was handed down on October 18, 1960. It states clearly and unambiguously that Mendoza-Martinez never lost his U.S. citizenship. Not when he moved to Mexico, not when he came back to the U.S., not when he was convicted of draft evasion. NEVER.

    http://www.leagle.com/decision/1960193192FSupp1_1193.xml/MENDOZA-MARTINEZ%20v.%20ROGERS

  344. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 20, 2015 at 10:48 am #

    Phil: Years after he was released from prison, he was served with a warrant for deportation because he was an alien living in America without authorization. M-M defended himself against the allegation he was an alien by claiming the US admitted he was a US citizen when it imprisoned him for draft evasion. M-M incorrectly assumed non-citizens could not be imprisoned for draft evasion. Initially, the District Court and the Circuit agreed with the US government that M-M was an alien living in America illegally.

    Except he wasn’t actually stripped of his citizenship and thus wasn’t an alien living in America illegally. Also your bad reading of the case has no relevance to the President.

  345. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 20, 2015 at 10:49 am #

    Phil: Here’s what Sven wrote in his First Amended Complaint:

    Also no need to talk in the third person Sven. We know it’s you.

  346. avatar
    gorefan March 20, 2015 at 11:38 am #

    ObligedFriend: Barack is not Barak. You tried to claim it was.

    Barack in Arabic means blessed

    Barak in Hebrew means blessed

  347. avatar
    Dave B. March 20, 2015 at 11:56 am #

    That case was In re Thenault:

    http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=1&xmldoc=194299947FSupp952_1754.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985&SizeDisp=7

    and of course Doc, leaver of few unturned stones, has discussed it here:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/11/birther-publishes-obama-accomplice-list/

    on Morrison Waite’s 196th birthday, which was also Ann Dunham’s 71st. Fun little fact.

    Dave B.:
    The Foreign Affairs Manual (as available here, at 7 FAM 1116.2-2:
    http://famguardian.org/taxfreedom/Evidence/Citizenship/7FAM1100,1110,1111-DeptOfState.pdf )
    used to include a reference to “Diplomatic agents who have the children in question with U.S. citizens capable of transmitting U.S. citizenship to children born abroad”; I seem to recall an old court case in regard to that question.I’ll see if I can dig it up.

  348. avatar
    Dave B. March 20, 2015 at 12:28 pm #

    Sally H. Jacobs says Barack Obama, Sr.’s “parents named him Baraka, meaning ‘blessed’ in Arabic.” Jacobs says his sister Hawa Auma recalls that he “converted to Christianity when he was about six years old and changed his name to the more Christiansounding Barack because the Christian missionaries at the early schools he attended insisted that he do so.”
    Jacobs, “The Other Barack” pp. 24, 25.

    gorefan: Barack in Arabic means blessed

    Barak in Hebrew means blessed

  349. avatar
    Rickey March 20, 2015 at 1:11 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Also no need to talk in the third person Sven.We know it’s you.

    I’m pretty sure that Sven’s “whistleblowers” are voices in his head.

  350. avatar
    Northland10 March 20, 2015 at 1:24 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Except he wasn’t actually stripped of his citizenship and thus wasn’t an alien living in America illegally.Also your bad reading of the case has no relevance to the President.

    Oh, but Sven is now claiming that Mendoza was deported and then returned. He made his leap of faith in Francisco San Citizenship, so he now needs a new story to deal with He Died With His NBC On.

    This is why courts require more than just a accusation without evidence.

  351. avatar
    Phil March 20, 2015 at 2:07 pm #

    And we know the order of deportation for Francisco Mendoza-Martinez was cancelled because he changed his name to Frank Martinez, had a phone number, social security number, brothers and sisters, and he died not to far from where he was born.

    Yeah, that’s definitive.

  352. avatar
    Daniel March 20, 2015 at 3:03 pm #

    Rickey: I’m pretty sure that Sven’s “whistleblowers” are voices in his head.

    Or just the air whistling in the space between his ears.

  353. avatar
    Phil March 20, 2015 at 3:43 pm #

    “This is why courts require more than just a accusation without evidence.”

    I noticed Orly posted the US government’s disclosure of people whom they believe to have discoverable information pursuant to FRCP Rule 26. Doesn’t the US government know that Orly is supposed to have all the evidence and sworn testimony in hand before she filed the lawsuit?

    ——————————-

    Rule 26. Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    (a) Required Disclosures.

    (1) Initial Disclosure.

    (A) In General. Except as exempted by Rule 26(a)(1)(B) or as otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to the other parties:

    (i) the name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely to have discoverable information—along with the subjects of that information—that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment;

    (ii) a copy—or a description by category and location—of all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that the disclosing party has in its possession, custody, or control and may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment;

    (iii) a computation of each category of damages claimed by the disclosing party—who must also make available for inspection and copying as under Rule 34 the documents or other evidentiary material, unless privileged or protected from disclosure, on which each computation is based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered; and

    (iv) for inspection and copying as under Rule 34, any insurance agreement under which an insurance business may be liable to satisfy all or part of a possible judgment in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment.

    (B) Proceedings Exempt from Initial Disclosure. The following proceedings are exempt from initial disclosure:

    (i) an action for review on an administrative record;

    (ii) a forfeiture action in rem arising from a federal statute;

    (iii) a petition for habeas corpus or any other proceeding to challenge a criminal conviction or sentence;

    (iv) an action brought without an attorney by a person in the custody of the United States, a state, or a state subdivision;

    (v) an action to enforce or quash an administrative summons or subpoena;

    (vi) an action by the United States to recover benefit payments;

    (vii) an action by the United States to collect on a student loan guaranteed by the United States;

    (viii) a proceeding ancillary to a proceeding in another court; and

    (ix) an action to enforce an arbitration award.

    ————————–

    Of course, I objected to the laws, rules, and regulations enacted into US Law by Obama, his appointees, or assignees and FRCP Rule 26 was amended Dec. 1, 2010. If my objection was overruled, I sought an evidentiary hearing to determine the eligibility of the current sitting President of the United States.

    I’m still waiting for a response.

  354. avatar
    faceman March 20, 2015 at 3:52 pm #

    Phil:
    Faceman:

    On remand in the M-M case, the District Court declared M-M to be a US citizen since birth. Declaratory judgments are not injunctive. This means the District Court is declaring that if the US government executes its warrant for deportation, then the District Court will be inclined to find M-M is a US citizen not subject to deportation. SCOTUS affirmed the District Court’s ruling the law stripping a US citizen of his citizenship without due process was unconstitutional and the US government was not collaterally estopped from determining M-M is not a US citizen. That means that there haven’t been any District Court rulings with a finding of fact with respect to the current status of M-M’s citizenship and the US government is free to proceed with its determination M-M is a deportable alien.

    It’s a flaw in the system. Any native born person who has been issued a CLN in their lifetime can move back to America to use their birth certificate to fool anyone who challenges their current citizenship status.

    If you are not a lawyer, then why are you using terms like ‘injunctive’ and then explaining what it means?

    SCOTUS found that the law stripping MM of his citizenship was unconstitutional.

    (This is an act of the purist optimism to think that Sven would actually listen to reason, but I’ll give it a try)

    For the sake of argument, suppose someone is convicted of a crime and sent to prison, He appeals to the SCOTUS that the law under which he was convicted is unconstitutional. The SCOTUS agrees. Does the individual remain in jail to serve out his sentence? Of course not. I don’t know the proper legal term (vacated? set aside?), but he is released from prison.

    If the SCOTUS found that the law was unconstitutional, then it restored his citizenship as if it had never been taken away. If the SCOTUS determined that he was still a citizen, then the district court doesn’t have to separately determine the same thing.

    Once more you’re just throwing out legal terms to try to obfuscate the issue, as if the mere usage of a term like ‘collateral estoppage’ is supposed to prove your point.

    There’s an old saying, ‘If you can’t dazzle with brilliance, baffle with bull***t.’

    Are you sure you’re not Mario? You talk exactly like him, You even plagiarize his ideas. (On your blogsite you have an article attributed to him, from 2013, where he talks about Obama receiving a CLN in 1968.)

  355. avatar
    Rickey March 20, 2015 at 4:02 pm #

    Phil:
    And we know the order of deportation for Francisco Mendoza-Martinez was cancelled because he changed his name to Frank Martinez, had a phone number, social security number, brothers and sisters, and he died not to far from where he was born.

    Yeah, that’s definitive.

    Wow. Every time you post here you prove that you are dumber than a rock.

  356. avatar
    faceman March 20, 2015 at 4:20 pm #

    Phil:
    And we know the order of deportation for Francisco Mendoza-Martinez was cancelled because he changed his name to Frank Martinez, had a phone number, social security number, brothers and sisters, and he died not to far from where he was born.

    Yeah, that’s definitive.

    NO, the deportation order was cancelled because it was determined that he was a citizen.

  357. avatar
    faceman March 20, 2015 at 4:40 pm #

    Phil:
    “This is why courts require more than just a accusation without evidence.”

    I noticed Orly posted the US government’s disclosure of people whom they believe to have discoverable information pursuant to FRCP Rule 26. Doesn’t the US government know that Orly is supposed to have all the evidence and sworn testimony in hand before she filed the lawsuit?

    (meaningless drivel deleted)

    Of course, I objected to the laws, rules, and regulations enacted into US Law by Obama, his appointees, or assignees and FRCP Rule 26 was amended Dec. 1, 2010. If my objection was overruled, I sought an evidentiary hearing to determine the eligibility of the current sitting President of the United States.

    I’m still waiting for a response.

    Of course the government knows that. Does Orly? Are you taking legal advice from Orly, now? (You know, I can’t believe I’m saying this, but considering some of the ridiculous ideas you have espoused here, maybe that would be an improvement. At least we know that she, somehow, passed the bar. And has really filed lawsuits.)

    As for ‘waiting for a response’ – Hope you brought a book to read, because its going to be a long wait. Wasn’t your suit denied ‘with prejudice.’

    Or did you try to deceive the government by filing it under a different name, like you try to do here, ‘Phil.’ I’m not sure, IANAL, but wouldn’t that be illegal? But then, ‘Sven’ isn’t your real name, either, is it?

    “This is why courts require more than just a accusation without evidence.”
    Aren’t you the one who claims that you don’t have to produce any evidence unless Obama denies the allegations, in which case you are allowed to call surprise rebuttal witnesses?

    Irony meters exploding. Cats and dogs living together. The Man in the High Castle.

  358. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 20, 2015 at 4:54 pm #

    Phil:
    And we know the order of deportation for Francisco Mendoza-Martinez was cancelled because he changed his name to Frank Martinez, had a phone number, social security number, brothers and sisters, and he died not to far from where he was born.

    Yeah, that’s definitive.

    That’s really your next move? That he changed his name? As if they couldn’t track that. It was cancelled simply because natural born citizens couldn’t be deported and the ruling killed any chance at a deportation. You were wrong, you lied.

  359. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG March 20, 2015 at 5:21 pm #

    Phil:
    …because he changed his name to Frank Martinez…

    That was the lamest attempt at goal post moving, EVER! You even managed to out-stupid john with that one!

  360. avatar
    Northland10 March 20, 2015 at 5:29 pm #

    faceman: NO, the deportation order was cancelled because it was determined that he was a citizen.

    One issue. Sven has never shown there was a deportation order to cancel.

  361. avatar
    Northland10 March 20, 2015 at 5:35 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: That’s really your next move?That he changed his name?As if they couldn’t track that.It was cancelled simply because natural born citizens couldn’t be deported and the ruling killed any chance at a deportation.You were wrong, you lied.

    He was listed as Frank Mendoza on the 1940 census, as was his father. I figure his full name would be Francisco Mendoza-Martinez as his father was Mendoza and mother was Martinez.

  362. avatar
    Phil March 20, 2015 at 5:38 pm #

    The US government was not estopped from determining M-M is not a citizen for a reason other than section 401j. M-M filed an amicus curie brief in Perez v. Brownell. SCOTUS found section 401e constitutional in Perez v. Brownell near the time it found section 401j unconstitutional in Trop v. Dulles. Filing as an amicus tells me M-M was worried he was at risk to a deportation order under section 401e.

    Obots and I agree that M-M’s deportation order wasn’t executed for a 401j violation after it was found unconstitutional in Trop v. Dulles. We disagree on whether M-M was deported for a reason other than section 401j, such as 401e. Rickey searched for a deportation order and challenged me to find the order. I figured that if Rickey couldn’t it or a cancellation of the order, then I will probably not be able to find it.

    So, Rickey and others jump on the opportunity to demand I prove an order was executed and state they don’t have to prove the order was cancelled because the US government was not estopped from an order for M-M to be deported for a reason other than 401j. The bullying and the name calling indicate I’m right.

  363. avatar
    Phil March 20, 2015 at 5:52 pm #

    “That was the lamest attempt at goal post moving, EVER!”

    You are correct! I withdraw the previous comment M-M changed his name to Frank Martinez. There is no evidence Francisco Mendoza-Martinez was in the United States after SCOTUS affirmed the District Court’s ruling the US government was not estopped from deporting M-M for a reason other than 401j, such as 401e.

    Thank you. I was about to admit I was wrong. You’ve breathed new life into an expended argument.

  364. avatar
    James M March 20, 2015 at 6:03 pm #

    Phil: The bullying and the name calling indicate I’m right.

    All one needs to do to win any argument is to be ridiculous enough to engender name-calling, then use the name-calling as evidence to support one’s ridiculous claim? That doesn’t actually work here. You will be happier on a forum with less critical standards.

  365. avatar
    Northland10 March 20, 2015 at 6:13 pm #

    On a related note, 8 U.S. Code § 1481

    Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1481

  366. avatar
    Northland10 March 20, 2015 at 6:23 pm #

    Phil:
    “That was the lamest attempt at goal post moving, EVER!”

    You are correct! I withdraw the previous comment M-M changed his name to Frank Martinez. There is no evidence Francisco Mendoza-Martinez was in the United States after SCOTUS affirmed the District Court’s ruling the US government was not estopped from deporting M-M for a reason other than 401j, such as 401e.

    Thank you. I was about to admit I was wrong. You’ve breathed new life into an expended argument.

    Btw, the reference to estoppel was on revoking citizenship, not deportation.

    The conviction did not estopp a possible revocation of citizenship. However the law they tried to use to revoke was ruled unconstitutional. They would thus need another law that could survive a challenge. You have not stated which law and how they accomplished a long task in the 4 years before It would have been unconstitutional.

  367. avatar
    Rickey March 20, 2015 at 6:52 pm #

    Northland10: You have not stated which law and how they accomplished a long task in the 4 years before It would have been unconstitutional.

    Note that Sven has yet to address the unambiguous ruling by the District Court, and affirmed by the Supreme Count, that Mendoza-Martinez was a U.S. citizen in 1960 and always had been one since birth.

    He has to explain to us under which statute a U.S. citizen can be deported.

  368. avatar
    Rickey March 20, 2015 at 7:01 pm #

    Phil:
    Filing as an amicus tells me M-M was worried he was at risk to a deportation order under section 401e.

    Section 401(e) was repealed in 1952. Why would Mendoza-Martinez have been concerned about a statute which had been repealed? The government didn’t begin deportation proceedings against him until 1953, so 401(e) had no application to his situation.

    You’re just making things up again.

  369. avatar
    faceman March 20, 2015 at 7:02 pm #

    Phil:
    So, Rickey and others jump on the opportunity to demand I prove an order was executed and state they don’t have to prove the order was cancelled because the US government was not estopped from an order for M-M to bedeported for a reason other than 401j. The bullying and the name calling indicate I’m right.

    Mario-wanna-be: Try to visualize – The SCOTUS declared that MM was a citizen. You cannot deport a citizen. You cannot take away someone’s citizenship. He can only lose it by renouncing it.

    IF (Really bit ‘if’) MM voluntarily renounced his citizenship, then, and only then, the US could deport him. But that didn’t happen. Ergo, he was never deported.

    If you claim that he was deported – Prove it – Show me.
    If you claim that the US used some other law to strip him of his citizenship – Prove it. Show me.
    If you claim that he voluntarily renounced his citizenship – Prove it. Show me.
    If you claim that the US is able to deport a citizen (MM or otherwise)- Prove it. Show me.

    You want us to prove he was a citizen – Been there, done that.

    Rickey:
    You claim that there was no finding of fact by the District Court with respect to the current status of Mendoza-Martinez’ citizenship. Well, here it is for you:

    Judgment

    In accordance with foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed:

    1. That the within action be, and the same is hereby dismissed as to the defendant, Argyle R. Mackey, The Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, only; [The Commissioner was ruled to not be a proper party to the action]

    2. That Section 401(j) of the Nationality Act of 1940, a 1944 Amendment, is unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to the plaintiff herein;

    3. That the plaintiff is now, and ever since the date of his birth has been, a national and citizen of the United States.

    The District Court ruling was handed down on October 18, 1960. It states clearly and unambiguously that Mendoza-Martinez never lost his U.S. citizenship. Not when he moved to Mexico, not when he came back to the U.S., not when he was convicted of draft evasion. NEVER.

    http://www.leagle.com/decision/1960193192FSupp1_1193.xml/MENDOZA-MARTINEZ%20v.%20ROGERS

  370. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 20, 2015 at 7:25 pm #

    The spurious born, illegal President can be legally deported, He’s lucky his daddy deserted him. If Obama was living with his dad…both would be deported.

  371. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 20, 2015 at 8:28 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    The spurious born, illegal President can be legally deported, He’s lucky his daddy deserted him. If Obama was living with his dad…both would be deported.

    Repeating the same nonsense as you have doesn’t make it so. He was born in Hawaii. He is legally and lawfully the President. Even if he was living with Barack Obama Sr. he couldn’t be deported as has been explained to Sven.

  372. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 20, 2015 at 8:29 pm #

    ObligedFriend: The Founders were very clever. They wanted a homogeneous country.

    What? So why did they allow non-whites to fight in their wars and be their citizens?

  373. avatar
    faceman March 20, 2015 at 8:48 pm #

    ObligedFriend: Naturalization is a Kind. The first Naturalization Act established this rule. Congress is limited by the Constitution to naturalize white settlers only.

    The Founders were very clever. They wanted a homogeneous country.

    I wasn’t talking to you. But:
    If Naturalization is a ‘Kind’, as established by the first Naturalization Act (since repealed), then it is not in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution do the words ‘White People Only’ appear. On the other hand, the 14th Amendment specifies ‘all persons.’ It doesn’t say ‘White,’ and it doesn’t say ‘Kind.’

    Congress is authorized, by the Constitution, to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. If they chose to allow blacks, or orientals, or martians, to naturalize, so be it.

    INA: ACT 301 – NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH

    Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

    (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

    Hmm, I don’t see ‘White Person’ or ‘Our kind only’ in there anywhere.

    Now why don’t you go away, you racist troll, and stick to your own kind. I may be white, of English descent, but I’m not your ‘Kind.’

  374. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 20, 2015 at 11:32 pm #

    If the Founders used unnatural born citizen; spurious born Obama could be President.

  375. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 20, 2015 at 11:45 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    If the Founders used unnatural born citizen; spurious born Obama could be President.

    Except he is President and is a natural born citizen. I’ve seen no proof that you are a natural born citizen.

  376. avatar
    Obligedfriend March 20, 2015 at 11:48 pm #

    During Operation Wet Back many aliens born in the US to non immigrant parents. Many children born to citizen mothers and transient alien fathers like Obama Sr. were deported.

    it’s a fact Obama could be legally deported today if the laws were strictly followed.

    He’s the first perpetual inhabitant to become President. If Gibbon were living today he could pen The Decline and Fall of the United States and it began with the 1860’s illegal acts of Congress and escalated with Obama’s illegal election.

  377. avatar
    bookfiend75 March 21, 2015 at 12:10 am #

    Obligedfriend:
    During Operation Wet Back many aliens born in the US to non immigrant parents. Many children born to citizen mothers and transient alien fathers like Obama Sr. were deported.

    it’s a fact Obama could be legally deported today if the laws were strictly followed.

    He’s the first perpetual inhabitant to become President. If Gibbon were living today he could pen The Decline and Fall of the United States and it began with the 1860’s illegal acts of Congress and escalated with Obama’s illegal election.

    More like “Operation Bigot”.

  378. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG March 21, 2015 at 12:43 am #

    Obligedfriend: During Operation Wet Back…

    Wow, and Doc lets a scrummy piece of crap like you continue to post here. He’s got the patience of a saint or something!

  379. avatar
    Rickey March 21, 2015 at 1:01 am #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Wow, and Doc lets a scrummy piece of crap like you continue to post here. He’s got the patience of a saint or something!

    If Doc is reading this thread, it’s clear to me that ObligedKlansman’s racism has gone far over the top and Doc needs to put a stop to it.

  380. avatar
    Keith March 21, 2015 at 1:11 am #

    Obligedfriend: During Operation Wet Back many aliens born in the US to non immigrant parents.

    Children born in the US are not aliens. Period. They are, in fact, natural born citizens – every last one of them (excluding diplomats and invading armies of course).

    Children born in the US of undocumented immigrants are not ‘deported’; though they will, of course, go with their parents when they return home, however that happens, whether by deportation or voluntarily. The children do not lose their US citizenship and are entitled to return to the United States if and when they choose. If they return and meet the other eligibility requirements (age and residency) they could even be elected and hold the office of President of the United States.

    The KEY TAKEAWAY is this: children born in the US of undocumented immigrants are NOT ‘deported’ – but they do remain with their natural parents if those parents are deported.

  381. avatar
    Lupin March 21, 2015 at 3:22 am #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Wow, and Doc lets a scrummy piece of crap like you continue to post here. He’s got the patience of a saint or something!

    I agree — I have said it before: at this point, that ill-educated imbecile is bringing absolutely not a smidgen of original thought (right or wrong) but just a weird delusional rant that, as someone pointed out, is straight out of the movie CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA.

    Even he, ill-equipped as his brain may be, must realize that’s not how things work in our world. Therefore it’s trolling pure and simple.

  382. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 21, 2015 at 4:23 am #

    Keith: Children born in the US are not aliens. Period. They are, in fact, natural born citizens – every last one of them (excluding diplomats and invading armies of course).

    Children born in the US of undocumented immigrants are not ‘deported’; though they will, of course, go with their parents when they return home, however that happens, whether by deportation or voluntarily. The children do not lose their US citizenship and are entitled to return to the United States if and when they choose. If they return and meet the other eligibility requirements (age and residency) they could even be elected and hold the office of President of the United States.

    The KEY TAKEAWAY is this: children born in the US of undocumented immigrants are NOT ‘deported’ – but they do remain with their natural parents if those parents are deported.

    they were deported..on the bus..they were born here..to non resident aliens or citizen mother and illegal alien dad..
    It in the record..

    Obama can be deported if the laws were followed. He’s very lucky daddy abandoned him. Obama would be living in a mud hut in Kenya.

  383. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 21, 2015 at 4:32 am #

    Keith: Children born in the US are not aliens. Period. They are, in fact, natural born citizens – every last one of them (excluding diplomats and invading armies of course).

    Children born in the US of undocumented immigrants are not ‘deported’; though they will, of course, go with their parents when they return home, however that happens, whether by deportation or voluntarily. The children do not lose their US citizenship and are entitled to return to the United States if and when they choose. If they return and meet the other eligibility requirements (age and residency) they could even be elected and hold the office of President of the United States.

    The KEY TAKEAWAY is this: children born in the US of undocumented immigrants are NOT ‘deported’ – but they do remain with their natural parents if those parents are deported.

    WKA: Both parents must be permanent residents and Domiciled, to pass citizenship to the child born here.

    Illegal aliens are not permanent residents, Their children are not citizens.

  384. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 21, 2015 at 4:43 am #

    bookfiend75: More like “Operation Bigot”.

    Complain to General Eisenhower, it was his administration used the term Operation Wet Back.

  385. avatar
    Lupin March 21, 2015 at 4:59 am #

    I probably don’t need to make the point here, but the notion that Africans live in “mud huts” is not unlike claiming native americans live in teepees.

    Kenya, in particular, is a very modern country and while there is poverty (as indeed there is in the South of the US) the poor are more likely to live in the kind of slums one sadly sees everywhere than in mud huts. And of course the middle class and upper class live in perfectly comparable conditions to ours.

    In an alternate Earth, had Obama grown up in Kenya and become a barrister there, he would probably enjoy a beachfront property in Mombasa.

    Obliged Klansman’s racism is increasingly nauseating, but what stuns me the most (says he again) is his stupidity and general lack of education. Of course the two often go together. But one doesn’t often come across such brutish, dimwittedness in one’s daily life.

  386. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 21, 2015 at 5:09 am #

    Lupin,

    I suppose that we should be grateful that such extreme levels of racism and stupidity often occur together. I think smart racists would be much, much worse. The stupidity of the arguments doesn’t make their contents any less disgusting, though.

  387. avatar
    Lupin March 21, 2015 at 5:27 am #

    Slartibartfast:
    Lupin,

    I suppose that we should be grateful that such extreme levels of racism and stupidity often occur together.I think smart racists would be much, much worse.The stupidity of the arguments doesn’t make their contents any less disgusting, though.

    I can’t imagine what this guy’s life must be like, in today’s multicultural world. No wonder he takes refuge in delusional thought constructs and harks back to the “enlightened” times (not!) of the17th century or the Roman empire!

  388. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 21, 2015 at 8:50 am #

    Obligedfriend:
    During Operation Wet Back many aliens born in the US to non immigrant parents. Many children born to citizen mothers and transient alien fathers like Obama Sr. were deported.

    it’s a fact Obama could be legally deported today if the laws were strictly followed.

    He’s the first perpetual inhabitant to become President. If Gibbon were living today he could pen The Decline and Fall of the United States and it began with the 1860’s illegal acts of Congress and escalated with Obama’s illegal election.

    Umm no he couldn’t have been since Obama was a natural born citizen. You’re wrong as usual.

  389. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 21, 2015 at 8:55 am #

    ObligedFriend: WKA: Both parents must be permanent residents and Domiciled, to pass citizenship to the child born here.

    Illegal aliens are not permanent residents,Their children are not citizens.

    That’s not what WKA claimed. There was no requirement for both parents to be permanent residents and domiciled. How could Wong Kim Ark’s parents pass citizenship to Wong Kim Ark? They themselves could never be American Citizens.

  390. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 21, 2015 at 9:04 am #

    “Yes, Obama’s father was Kenyan, and yes, it’s mildly diverting that a man who has a better than reasonable shot of living in the White House has about 30 relatives living in a village of mud huts and fishermen.”

    http://blogs.mcclatchydc.com/nairobi/obama/page/3/

  391. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund March 21, 2015 at 10:27 am #

    Phil: The US government was not estopped from determining M-M is not a citizen for a reason other than section 401j. M-M filed an amicus curie brief in Perez v. Brownell. SCOTUS found section 401e constitutional in Perez v. Brownell near the time it found section 401j unconstitutional in Trop v. Dulles. Filing as an amicus tells me M-M was worried he was at risk to a deportation order under section 401e.

    Perez v. Brownell challenged the constitutionality of both 401(e) and 401(j). A person subject to deportation only under 401(j) would still be quite motivated to file an amicus brief in Perez v. Brownell, even though he had no concerns about 401(e). In fact, it’s quite possible that by filing a brief only dealing with 401(j), M-M convinced the Supreme Court to consider 401(e) first, leaving 401(j) for another day when they found 401(e) to be constitutional. And by the time they started prosecuting M-M, 401(e) had been repealed, so they couldn’t charge him under that provision of the law.

    Once again, your baseless assumptions wilt under the harsh light of the facts.

  392. avatar
    Phil March 21, 2015 at 11:06 am #

    “And by the time they started prosecuting M-M, 401(e) had been repealed, so they couldn’t charge him under that provision of the law.”

    Section 401e was found constitutional in Perez and unconstitutional in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967).

    Native born persons deported under section 401e had their privileges, immunities and obligations to the US restored in 1967. This would explain how M-M could return to the US after deportation, obtain a SSN, telephone number and live until his death in the US.

    For example:

    On the question: Where the deceased worker, who was born in the United States, was deported in 1956 on the ground that he lost his United States citizenship as a result of voting in Mexican presidential election in 1946, and where under section 202(n)(1) of the Act payment of benefits to certain survivors of such deceased worker are precluded, held, following the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), (which found that expatriation on the ground of having voted in a foreign election is invalid) the expatriation and deportation of the worker were invalid and accordingly, section 202(n)(1) of the Social Security Act cannot be applied to prevent payment of benefits to his survivors otherwise entitled.

    H, the deceased worker, was born in the United States and was taken to Mexico by his parents in 1937. He returned to the United States in 1955. In 1956 he was deported to Mexico, under section 241(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(1)). His deportation resulted from a finding that he had voted in the 1946 presidential election of Mexico and that he had thereby expatriated himself under the provisions of section 401(e) of the Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1168. After his death, his survivors who were aliens residing in Mexico led application for social security benefits based on his earnings record.

    Section 202(n)(1) of the Social Security Act, as pertinent here, provides:

    If any individual is * * * deported under paragraph (1) * * * of section 241(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, then, notwithstanding any other provisions of this title —

    (A) no monthly benefit * * * shall be paid to such individual, on the basis of his wages and self-employment income, for any month occurring (i) after the month in which the Secretary is notified by the Attorney General that such individual has been so deported, and (ii) before the month in which such individual is thereafter lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence,
    (B) if no benefit could be paid to such individual (or if no benefit could be paid to him if he were alive) for any month by reason of subparagraph (A), no monthly benefit under this section shall be paid, on the basis of his wages and self-employment income, for such month to any other person who is not a citizen of the United States and is outside the United States for any part of such month, and
    (C) no lump-sum death payment shall be made on the basis of such individual’s wages and self-employment income if he dies (i) in or after the month in which such notice is received, (ii) before the month in which he is thereafter lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence.

    Thus under the facts here, section 202(n)(1) would, because of H’s deportation, preclude payment of benefits under title II of the Social Security Act to the survivors of H, based on his earnings record. However, the question has been raised as to whether H could be considered not to have been expatriated and hence not subject to deportation, in view of the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967).

    In the Afroyim case, supra, Mr. Afroyim, who was born in Poland, emigrated to the United States and became a naturalized citizen in 1926. He went to Israel in 1950 and in 1951 he voluntarily voted in an election for the Israeli Knesset, the legislative body of Israel. In 1960, when he applied for renewal of his United States passport, the Department of State refused to grant it. It was held that he had lost his American citizenship, as required by section 401(e) of the Nationality Act of 1940, (reenacted as section 349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C. section 1431(a)(5)), which states that a United States citizen shall lose his nationality by “voting in a political election in a foreign state.” Mr. Afroyim claimed that section 401(e), supra, violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and section 1, clause 1, of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.[1] On the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court held that the Government did not have the power to deprive an individual of his citizenship as a result of his voting in a foreign political election and that section 401(e), supra, insofar as it attempted to do so, was unconstitutional.

    The question presented therefore is what effect does the Afroyim decision have on the expatriation and deportation of the worker herein. In Norton v. County of Shelby, 118 U.S. 425 (1886), the Supreme Court held that “an unconstitutional Act is not a law. . . [I]t is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” See also, Chicago, Indianapolis and Louisville Railway Company v. Hackett, 228 U.S. 559 (1913). Absent special exigencies (for instance, those involved in certain aspects of the enforcement of the criminal law), we believe the Supreme Court would continue to apply the doctrine of Norton. In Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923), the Supreme Court held that the minimum wage law of the District of Columbia was unconstitutional. In West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937), the court upheld the constitutionality of the minimum wage law of the State of Washington and specifically overruled Adkins. In considering the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parish, supra, on the District of Columbia minimum wage law, the Attorney General, in 39 Op. Atty. Gen. (1937) pp. 22, 23, stated that “if a statute be declared unconstitutional and the decision so declaring it be subsequently overruled the statute will then be held valid from the date it became effective.” In West Coast Hotel Co., the Supreme Court overruled a prior decision which held a statute to be unconstitutional, and the statute was applied as if the prior (overruled) decision had never existed. While the converse of this situation is involved in Afroyim, the result would be comparable. Afroyim overruled a prior decision, Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958), which had upheld the constitutionality of section 401(e) of the Nationality Act. When Afroyim later declared that section 401(e) was unconstitutional, it would follow that that provision should be considered “as inoperative as though it had never been passed” and the prior decision finding it constitutional as though it had never existed.

    In the light of the foregoing, H’s expatriation and deportation must be considered invalid. Accordingly, section 202(n)(1), supra, is not applicable and benefits may be paid to his survivors, provided they otherwise meet the requirements for entitlement under the Act.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/socsec/rulings/ssr/SSR68-45.html

  393. avatar
    bookfiend75 March 21, 2015 at 11:32 am #

    ObligedFriend: Complain to General Eisenhower, it was his administration used the term Operation Wet Back.

    I’m actually referring to you and your obviously bigoted views of American history and the application of non-existent or seriously misunderstood American laws.

  394. avatar
    Lupin March 21, 2015 at 12:07 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    “Yes, Obama’s father was Kenyan, and yes, it’s mildly diverting that a man who has a better than reasonable shot of living in the White House has about 30 relatives living in a village of mud huts and fishermen.”

    http://blogs.mcclatchydc.com/nairobi/obama/page/3/

    Journalistic hyperbole, that frankly ought to have been reexamined the editor. Falling standards again. (You must feel at home.)

    For those who want facts, not the “Tarzan” version of Africa:

    http://afronet-afronet.blogspot.fr/2013/09/nyangoma-kogelo-village-in-kenya.html

  395. avatar
    Northland10 March 21, 2015 at 1:11 pm #

    Phil: M-M filed an amicus curie brief in Perez v. Brownell. SCOTUS found section 401e constitutional in Perez v. Brownell near the time it found section 401j unconstitutional in Trop v. Dulles. Filing as an amicus tells me M-M was worried he was at risk to a deportation order under section 401e.

    Have your seen the brief? Was there any mention of 401(e) in the brief? The issue in Perez v. Brownell covered both 401(e) and 401(j) but the court did not express an opinion as to the constitutionality of 401(j). Since 401(j) was at issue in the case, by your method of assumption, we could just as easily assume he was concerned about 401(j).

    There does not appear to be any claim that Mendoza-Martinez voted in any foreign election. It is odd that the government would completely ignore that and only focus on 401(j) when they might still be able to use 401(e). The opinion in Kennedy v Mendoza-Martinez makes no mention of M-M being accused of voting in a foreign election.

    Once again, you are assuming based on absolutely no facts.

  396. avatar
    Northland10 March 21, 2015 at 1:55 pm #

    faceman: Just another case of you changing your story again. You really should see a doctor about those memory problems in order to avoid continually contradicting yourself.

    He makes assumptions without evidence, and when evidence is provided that contradicts his assumption, he has to change his story so it still works, at least in his mind. Now he has assumed M-M was deported under 401(e), despite the lack of any evidence or even a claim from the government that M-M ever voted in a foreign election.

  397. avatar
    Rickey March 21, 2015 at 2:50 pm #

    ObligedFriend: WKA: Both parents must be permanent residents and Domiciled, to pass citizenship to the child born here.

    You are once again embarrassing yourself with your ignorance. The only citizenship which Wong Kim Ark’s parents “passed” to him was Chinese citizenship, because they were not U.S. citizens. Wong Kim Ark was a natural-born citizen of the United States because he was born in the United States while subject to its jurisdiction. And it was not necessary for his parents to be domiciled here, as has been explained to you many times.

    Illegal aliens are not permanent residents,Their children are not citizens.

    Wrong again. Their children are U.S. citizens if they are born in the United States. None of your racist protestations will change that. Even Sen. Lindsay Graham agrees: “If you come across the border illegally and you have a child in America, automatically, that child becomes an American citizen. Under the 14th Amendment, three court cases says there’s a constitutional right to that.” (Lindsay Graham Interview by Greta Van Susteren, July 28, 2010)

  398. avatar
    Keith March 21, 2015 at 8:34 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    “Yes, Obama’s father was Kenyan, and yes, it’s mildly diverting that a man who has a better than reasonable shot of living in the White House has about 30 relatives living in a village of mud huts and fishermen.”

    http://blogs.mcclatchydc.com/nairobi/obama/page/3/

    It is mildly diverting that American’s celebrate the life of its greatest President, and are proud that he could grow up to be that great President, after being famously born in the American equivalent of a mud-hut – a log-cabin.

  399. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 21, 2015 at 9:54 pm #

    Rickey: You are once again embarrassing yourself with your ignorance. The only citizenship which Wong Kim Ark’s parents “passed” to him was Chinese citizenship, because they were not U.S. citizens. Wong Kim Ark was a natural-born citizen of the United States because he was born in the United States while subject to its jurisdiction. And it was not necessary for his parents to be domiciled here, as has been explained to you many times.

    Wrong again. Their children are U.S. citizens if they are born in the United States. None of your racist protestations will change that. Even Sen. Lindsay Graham agrees: “If you come across the border illegally and you have a child in America, automatically, that child becomes an American citizen. Under the 14th Amendment, three court cases says there’s a constitutional right to that.” (Lindsay Graham Interview by Greta Van Susteren, July 28, 2010)

    Ricky…time to play with rabbits… eg. Of Mice and Men

    You’re distorting the truth regarding the holding in WKA. It’s you purpose, attack the truth to support an illegal President.

  400. avatar
    y_p_w March 21, 2015 at 10:15 pm #

    Rickey: You are once again embarrassing yourself with your ignorance. The only citizenship which Wong Kim Ark’s parents “passed” to him was Chinese citizenship, because they were not U.S. citizens. Wong Kim Ark was a natural-born citizen of the United States because he was born in the United States while subject to its jurisdiction. And it was not necessary for his parents to be domiciled here, as has been explained to you many times.

    I’ve brought up Bruce Lee. He was born in San Francisco to parents who were temporarily in the US on a performing tour of the US. From what I understand, he was never considered a citizen of Hong Kong when his parents moved him there. but was eligible for services as the child of Hong Kong citizens.

    I’m not sure about back then, but right now the PRC government cares about whether or not one uses another nationality. It’s either/or. I work with a few people from China who still maintain that citizenship. If your parents do anything like obtain a US passport, the PRC government isn’t going to be accepting. That’s totally unlike what the US does, which is assume that a child can’t affirmatively make such a decision and the parents can’t legally make the decision on behalf of the child.

    Fortunately we have different standards in this country. For the most part someone born here under such circumstances can come back to the US regardless of what another country thinks. And perhaps that’s what many parents arriving as birth tourists know – that the US laws on citizenship aren’t affected by the actions of another country.

  401. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 21, 2015 at 11:42 pm #

    ObligedFriend: Ricky…time to play with rabbits… eg. Of Mice and Men

    You’re distorting the truth regarding the holding in WKA. It’s you purpose, attack the truth to support an illegal President.

    It’s almost as if you look in the mirror while saying these things. You’re the only one distorting the truth regarding the holding in WKA. You’re the one lying about the President being illegal.

  402. avatar
    Rickey March 22, 2015 at 12:21 am #

    ObligedKlansman:

    You’re distorting the truth regarding the holding in WKA. It’s you purpose, attack the truth to support an illegal President.

    Who are we going to believe, ObligedKlansman or a Justice of the Supreme Court?

    President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, and so is clearly a natural born citizen. – Sandra Day O’Connor

    I’m just referring to the meaning of natural born within the Constitution.
    I don’t think you’re disagreeing. It requires jus soli, doesn’t it?
    – Antonin Scalia

  403. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 22, 2015 at 2:15 am #

    “In their view:
    …the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “born citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings.”

    Donald Trump has 10 million dollars for anyone who can find a flaw in that statement. Any takers? I thought not. Oh, by the way, adding an additional word to “born citizen” could only have a constitutionally significant effect to narrow, not expand, the criteria of who is eligible to be President.
    The framers could have added “adult”, or “white”, or “male”, or “Protestant”, or “Anglo-Saxon” born citizen. Let’s see… ”
    No person except an adult male white Protestant Anglo-Saxon shall be eligible to the office of President.”

    That was the universally accepted reality in that era. What was also understood was that only a natural citizen could be President, and that excluded all alien-fathered US born persons who were citizens by mere common law permission and not by nature, -by blood lineage, by Right of Descent, by political inheritance, by birthright.

    No alien-fathered baby had a right to citizenship or membership in any nation other than his father’s since natural national membership flowed from the head of the family to its other members, meaning wife and children (extensions of the man of the house).
    And even more restricting and exclusionary was the fact that no citizen with African blood in him could be considered electable by anyone. No African descendant could be naturalized into citizenship, nor serve as President. How very inclusionary is that?

    So the founders and framers were soooooo very egalitarian regarding citizenship and the presidency that they restricted the office to people only like themselves, natural members of their State and country, and that did not include those born of aliens, although it should have, but it could not have since the word “natural” precluded them, just as the opposite was true in Britain where even Parliament could produce a “natural-born subject” by its own fiat since the bastardized term came to be nothing more than a fiction of law, a term of legal artifice, and not a term derived from the Natural order of life.

  404. avatar
    Obligedfriend March 22, 2015 at 5:02 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: It’s almost as if you look in the mirror while saying these things.You’re the only one distorting the truth regarding the holding in WKA.You’re the one lying about the President being illegal.

    All you’re doing is admitting you don’t understand the holding in WKA. You’re embarrassing yourself.

  405. avatar
    Lupin March 22, 2015 at 6:04 am #

    Obligedfriend: All you’re doing is admitting you don’t understand the holding in WKA. You’re embarrassing yourself.

    Coming from an imbecile who keeps proclaiming things that have been contradicted by 300 years of history and jurisprudence, this is rich indeed. But then again, idiots like yourself tend to lack that self-awareness that stop ordinary folks from making fools of themselves.

  406. avatar
    Obligedfriend March 22, 2015 at 6:43 am #

    The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution…

    ” at the time of his birth.becomes..a citizen….parents who have a permanent domicil and residence” it’s very clear the question before the court.

    Let’s see the courts answer….

    The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

    Parents have a permanent domcil and residence..is a citizen…

    WKA is a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment because he was born in the US to both parents had a permanent domcil and residence,

    WKA was never ruled a natural born citizen by the Supreme Court.

    Obama is not a citizen based on the ruling in WKA and he’s not a 14th Amendment citizen.

    He’s an illegal alien, he should be removed from office by impeachment, the crime treason, if found guilty by Congress, then executed, and his body returned to Kenya.

  407. avatar
    Lupin March 22, 2015 at 6:59 am #

    Obligedfriend: He’s an illegal alien, he should be removed from office by impeachment, the crime treason, if found guilty by Congress, then executed, and his body returned to Kenya.

    In addition to the imbecile exhibiting again his inability to properly understand English by not understanding WKA, and writing a somewhat incoherent response in broken English (e,g. “Parents have a permanent domcil and residence..is a citizen…”), he now proffers what might be interpreted as death threats against your president.

    I think you should report him to your Secret service.

  408. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 22, 2015 at 10:31 am #

    Obligedfriend: All you’re doing is admitting you don’t understand the holding in WKA. You’re embarrassing yourself.

    What I’m admitting is that you’re a crazy racist fool who doesn’t know how to read case law and continues to be caught in lies.

  409. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 22, 2015 at 10:38 am #

    Obligedfriend: He’s an illegal alien, he should be removed from office by impeachment, the crime treason, if found guilty by Congress, then executed, and his body returned to Kenya.

    Doc if there was any line left to cross our racist friend here just crossed it.

    as for the racist are you seriously claiming that wka was some non existent third type of citizen since he couldn’t be a naturalized citizen under us law. WKA was born a citizen. The circuit court determined he was a natural born citizen. The government on appeal to the supreme court argued that the lower court was in error calling him a natural born citizen. The government lost its case and the supreme court upheld the circuit court’s decision.

  410. avatar
    Rickey March 22, 2015 at 1:26 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Doc if there was any line left to cross our racist friend here just crossed it.

    I agree. There is no reason why this blog should continue to give the racist ignoramus a platform to express his hateful, repugnant, and imbecilic views.

  411. avatar
    Joey March 22, 2015 at 3:01 pm #

    ObligedFriend says: “He’s an illegal alien, he should be removed from office by impeachment, the crime treason, if found guilty by Congress, then executed, and his body returned to Kenya.”
    ————
    In the eight years since Barack Hussein Obama, II first announced his intention to run for president, Congress has never held a single minute of hearings on his eligibility as a natural born citizen. Indeed Congress has sent him hundreds of bills to sign into law and the Senate has confirmed hundreds of his appointees, including every member of his cabinet, every US ambassador, two Supreme Court Justices and more than 300 federal judges.
    Congress does not prosecute crimes, including treason. That would be the job of the Justice Department under current Attorney General Eric Holder.
    The Senate would need 13 Democrats plus every Republican to remove the president via impeachment. There is no way to get 13 Democrats to vote guilty to get to 67 required votes.
    “The state of Hawai’i has said that the President was born there, that’s good enough for me.”–Speaker of the House John Boehner

  412. avatar
    Joey March 22, 2015 at 3:56 pm #

    I neglected in my previous post to teach ObligedFriend a little about the United States Constitution. The Constitution states that the ONLY penalty for conviction after an impeachment trial shall be removal from office.
    If there was to be a further legal proceeding, it would be prosecuted by the Department of Justice.
    Which thirteen Democratic Party Senators does ObligedFriend think would vote the President to be guilty of treason in order to get to 67 votes?

    Article I, Section 3:
    “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

    Judgment in Cases of Impeachments shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States, but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishmnet, according to Law.”

  413. avatar
    Keith March 22, 2015 at 5:38 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: What I’m admitting is that you’re a crazy racist fool who doesn’t know how to read case law and continues to be caught in lies.

    While I agree with everything you said here, I have to admit that the racist may just have accidentally come up with a kernel of truth too – we are all embarrassing ourselves by continuing to responding to him.

  414. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 22, 2015 at 6:03 pm #

    WKA was affirmed a citizen because BOTH his parents had a permanent domcil and residence.

    WKA was affirmed a citizen by the 14th Amendment. Obama need the 14th Amendment to be a citizen if he’s born in the US.

    The catch is and this is very important, both parents must be permanent residents.

    Virgina Minor did not need the 14th Amendment to be a citizen. Why? She’s a natural born citizen.

  415. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 22, 2015 at 6:14 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    WKA was affirmed a citizen because BOTH his parents had a permanent domcil and residence.

    WKA was affirmed a citizen by the 14th Amendment. Obama need the 14th Amendment to be a citizen if he’s born in the US.

    The catch is and this is very important, both parents must be permanent residents.

    Virgina Minor did not need the 14th Amendment to be a citizen. Why? She’s a natural born citizen.

    Once again you’re misreading the case. That’s not why he was affirmed a citizen at birth but rather because he was born on US soil.

    He wasn’t a citizen by the 14th. Obama didn’t need the 14th. He was born a citizen. Once again there is no requirement for both parents to be permanent residents.

    The citizenship status of both of Virginia Minor’s parents was never mentioned in Minor V Happersett and notice they never actually called her a natural born citizen.

  416. avatar
    Obligedfriend March 22, 2015 at 7:06 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Once again you’re misreading the case.That’s not why he was affirmed a citizen at birth but rather because he was born on US soil.

    He wasn’t a citizen by the 14th.Obama didn’t need the 14th.He was born a citizen.Once again there is no requirement for both parents to be permanent residents.

    The citizenship status of both of Virginia Minor’s parents was never mentioned in Minor V Happersett and notice they never actually called her a natural born citizen.

    Your rules are very simple. Distort and mangle the truth. Do you even remember the last time you made an honest statement regarding Obama.

  417. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 22, 2015 at 7:19 pm #

    Obligedfriend: Your rules are very simple. Distort and mangle the truth.Do you even remember the last time you made an honest statement regarding Obama.

    The problem is that you’re projecting. The truth is Obama is legally and lawfully the President. Reality doesn’t support your racist fantasies. It’s amazing how you say this nonsense without realizing you’re speaking about yourself. Not once have you made an honest statement here other than you hate minorities.

  418. avatar
    OnligedFriend March 22, 2015 at 8:50 pm #

    Racism is a code word to silence the truth.

    You want readers this forum to believe your delusions Obama is a citizen based on WKA and the 14th Amendment.

    You want to remove the words “parents” must be “permanent domicil” by saying, you’re a racist.

    Obama Sr. was never a permanent resident or Domiciled in the US.

    Based on the holding in WKA Obama is not a citizen and he’s not a NBC.

    Take a moment, gather your distortions, fabricate something to claim the words permanent domicil and residence of parents are not written in the holding WKA.

  419. avatar
    Rickey March 22, 2015 at 9:07 pm #

    ObligedKlansmar:

    The catch is and this is very important, both parents must be permanent residents.

    Apparently you forgot to read this part of the Wong Kim Ark decision:

    The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,”
    contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.

    Note that there is no requirement that the person’s parents be domiciled in the United States or be permanent residents.

  420. avatar
    faceman March 22, 2015 at 9:11 pm #

    OnligedFriend:
    You want readers this forum to believe your delusions Obama is a citizen based on WKA and the 14th Amendment.

    And he is. 14th amendment:
    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.

    Doesn’t say anything about citizen parents, doesn’t say anything about parent’s residence, doesn’t say anything about ‘permanently domiciled.’

    WKA observed that his parents were permanently domiciled, but nowhere did it say it was a requirement.

    You say: ‘Obama need (sic) the 14th Amendment to be a citizen if he’s born in the US.’ In light of the Dred Scott decision, there is some grain of truth to that. Good thing for him that the 14th Amendment exists, then. If he’s only a citizen because of the 14th amendment, then according to the Constitution he IS a citizen. And citizen at birth equals Natural Born Citizen.

    As far as being a racist, saying that blacks are ‘not my kind’ is kind of the definition of being a racist. What’s that line from the movie? ‘You can’t handle the truth!’

  421. avatar
    Northland10 March 22, 2015 at 9:38 pm #

    OnligedFriend: Racism is a code word to silence the truth.

    Your racism does prevent you from seeing and hearing the truth, so I guess you are correct on that point.

  422. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 22, 2015 at 9:44 pm #

    faceman: Moses was an Egyptian. After his mother hid him by the river, he was found and raised by Pharaoh’s sister Bithia as a part of the royal family. It was only after he killed an Egyptian slavemaster and fled to the desert that he renounced his Egyptian heritage. There was no country of “Israel” during his lifetime.

    Moses was never an ‘Israeli.’ He was ‘Jewish.’

    Moses was an Egyptian…Obama is an American. Moses was not a natural born Egyptian, Obama is not a natural born American. See there? There is a difference, like it or not.

    Moses was an Egyptian by royal adoption. Obama is an American citizen by naturalization adoption. Are you really too dense to readily grasp such an obvious fact?

    Moses had no Egyptian “heritage” to renounce since one’s heritage is purely acquired via blood lineage and his was not Israeli, nor Jewish, but Hebrew. He was not a Jew unless he was born of parents who were members of the tribe of Judah, one of 12 tribes descended from the 12 sons of Israel, aka; Jacob, grandson of Abraham.

    No citizen by legal adoption, by legal allowance, by legal permission, is eligible to be President because their national membership is not natural membership.

    He was not a citizen by the 14th Amendment because it only applied to children of members of American society, and only citizens and immigrants are legal members, -not foreign guests or illegals.

    But even if his father had been an immigrant, his son would have only been a citizen by permission of American common law, and common law is human law, not natural law, nor based on it and the blood relationship of natural relatedness,… i.e., Blood lineage. Citizenship by right of descent, by the law of blood.
    Only blood is natural, -soil, borders, law, amendments, court opinions, none of that crap is natural.
    We are talking about a PRIMAL PRINCIPLE OF THE NATURAL WORLD, PEOPLE! STOP PLAYING DUMB AND PERVERTING THE MEANING OF “NATURAL”! Thanks. obama–nation.com

  423. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 22, 2015 at 9:56 pm #

    faceman: And citizen at birth equals Natural Born Citizen.

    That is the statement of a moronic intelligence. “A legal child at birth equals a natural born child of the parents.” STUPID!
    A child adopted at birth is NOT a natural born child of the parents. TIME is irrelevant to nature. At birth, a month after birth, a year after birth, a decade after birth are all irrelevant criteria in determining what is a natural relationship. Duh!!!!

    A real natural born child is such even before it is born, but an adopted-at-birth child only becomes legally attached to the adoptive parents following delivery. It is the same with nationality and common law citizenship.

    The natural born child is naturally bound to it parents from conception, and if in the case of citizenship, it is surgically removed prematurely by a kidnapper, or fatally injured in the womb, a crime against an unborn American citizen has occurred.
    Not so for an unborn child of aliens. in their case, a crime against an alien baby has occurred because it if not yet a citizen since it has not yet been born.

    It’s about time you grew up and smelled the real world. In it, the word “natural” actually means natural. who’d have thunk it?
    obama–nation.com

  424. avatar
    bob March 22, 2015 at 10:00 pm #

    Obligedfriend: Your rules are very simple. Distort and mangle the truth.Do you even remember the last time you made an honest statement regarding Obama.

    Do you?

  425. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 22, 2015 at 10:32 pm #

    Rickey: But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.

    Note that there is no requirement that the person’s parents be domiciled in the United States or be permanent residents.

    First, it is fallacious and stupid to say that the circumstances are “defined” in the Constitution. Nothing is defined in the 14th A. citizenship clause. That is why is it still debated. It is undefined and unadjudicated as to its actual historical meaning.

    And WKA did not define what jurisdiction encompassed nor what subjection encompassed. It remains undefined to this day, except by yours truly. Do you want to know what it all means?

    I’ve already explained it a dozen times or more: it refers to the historical, philosophical category of those who are responsible for the survival of the nation. That is the male-members-of-society category. If one is not a member of that class, then they are outside of the category of parents who are fully subject to the full jurisdiction of the national and state governments.
    Who is outside of that jurisdiction, -the one by which a state or the national government could have drafted a man into the military for state or national defense? It was those who were subject, as stated by the civil rights act of 1866, to a foreign power, meaning foreign guests.
    Parents did not need to be mentioned because everyone understood that subjection was determined by the subjection of one’s father. If one was born of a slave, they were subject to the master of their father. If one was born a subject of a foreign power, and retained domicile in their homeland, and thus obedience to its government, then neither they nor a child born to them in America was subject to American national authority related to citizenship responsibilities.
    If one was not born subject to citizenship responsibilities, then one was not born as a common law 14th Amendment citizen. Marco Rubio, Jindal, and others were born of fathers fully subject to that authority and responsibility so their children were born with US citizenship.
    That cannot be said of Obama Sr. since he remained subject to the authority of Great Britain. He could not have been drafted by the US, tried for treason, required to pay taxes on foreign income, barred from trading with Cuba while living in Kenya because he was neither a citizen nor an immigrant.
    Therefore his son was not born as an American citizen.

    Under US law, by living in the US as the child of an American citizen, having a Green Card and thus legal permission for permanent residence, US law would deem him to be a US citizen by the time he reached adulthood. By that allowance of naturalization law, he is a quasi-naturalized citizen and a semi-natural born citizen (having an American mother).

    But for a couple hundred years of American history, only the citizenship of the father determined the nationality of his children with the exception of the allowance of citizenship for the native-born of immigrants.
    That exception was not allowed at the national level once the first Uniform Rule of Naturalization was passed because it allowed the rejected and reviled dual-allegiance and dual nationality which were quintessentially unAmerican in theory. Britain did not and never did recognize such a thing, and neither did the American national government.

    But it remained as established law within the States. Thus a conflict and divergence was in place until permanently settled by WKA in favor of the historical policy, custom, law, and tradition of the colonies / States.

  426. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 22, 2015 at 10:58 pm #

    bob: Do you?

    I’m sorry, but my poor eye-sight was unable to find any refutation of anything in that statement. Did you have some point that you wished to refute or do you in fact agree with everything I wrote? I have to assume it is the latter or else you naturally would have shot-down my obvious “errors”, which you didn’t seem to do? Gee, I wonder why???

  427. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 22, 2015 at 11:11 pm #

    faceman: And he is.14th amendment:
    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.

    Doesn’t say anything about citizen parents, doesn’t say anything about parent’s residence, doesn’t say anything about ‘permanently domiciled.’

    WKA observed that his parents were permanently domiciled, but nowhere did it say it was a requirement.

    You say:‘Obama need (sic) the 14th Amendment to be a citizen if he’s born in the US.’In light of the Dred Scott decision, there is some grain of truth to that.Good thing for him that the 14th Amendment exists, then.If he’s only a citizen because of the 14th amendment, then according to the Constitution he IS a citizen.And citizen at birth equals Natural Born Citizen.

    As far as being a racist, saying that blacks are ‘not my kind’ is kind of the definition of being a racist.What’s that line from the movie?‘You can’t handle the truth!’

    Professor Brainerd Kellogg, a Yankee, penned “Kind and natural children” is a kind/race. He said natural is a Kind/Race.

    Kind and Natural children was written by Shakespeare, Thomas Jefferson wrote to his nephew to study Shakespeare to know English in its purest form.

    The kindly fruits of the earth = The natural fruits of the earth.

    The naturals were the Founders and their natural kind.

    It’s not my fault you guys are not enlightened.

  428. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 22, 2015 at 11:18 pm #

    OnligedFriend: Racism is a code word to silence the truth.

    No it’s a word that describes your hatred of minorities. The truth is you
    have some imagined superiority complex with it comes to other races that causes you to throw aside reason and go straight to bigotry. It simply has no place on this site.

  429. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 22, 2015 at 11:20 pm #

    OnligedFriend: You want to remove the words “parents” must be “permanent domicil” by saying, you’re a racist.

    nowhere in the ruling does it say parents must be permanently domiciled. ah the typical calling of someone a racist for calling you out for being a racist. Your tactics are stale.

  430. avatar
    Joey March 23, 2015 at 12:11 am #

    ObligedFriend:
    WKA was affirmed a citizen because BOTH his parents had a permanent domcil and residence.

    WKA was affirmed a citizen by the 14th Amendment. Obama need the 14th Amendment to be a citizen if he’s born in the US.

    The catch is and this is very important, both parents must be permanent residents.

    Virgina Minor did not need the 14th Amendment to be a citizen. Why? She’s a natural born citizen.

    The most cited ruling on Barack Obama’s eligibility is Ankeny v Daniels from Indiana.
    The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”–Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009
    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
    No other court ruling has refuted Ankeny v Daniels

  431. avatar
    Joey March 23, 2015 at 12:20 am #

    In Tisdale v Obama, U.S. District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr ruled that.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”– Tisdale v. Obama, U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.

    And in Voeltz v Obama, Judge John C. Cooper of Leon County, Florida Circuit Court ruled that: “…to the extent that the complaint alledges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—September 6, 2012
    http://judicial.clerk.leon.fl.us/image_orders.asp?caseid=77182640&jiscaseid=&defseq=&chargeseq=&dktid=57485906&dktsource=CRTV

  432. avatar
    Obligedfriend March 23, 2015 at 1:16 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: nowhere in the ruling does it say parents must be permanently domiciled.ah the typical calling of someone a racist for calling you out for being a racist.Your tactics are stale.

    Your comments are disputed with actual facts,

  433. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 23, 2015 at 1:55 am #

    Adrien,

    This, like the rest of your comment, is completely dishonest. Trump made an offer that he never substantiated (i.e. putting the money in escrow with clear and specific conditions under which it would be awarded) and almost certainly never intended to give out, if, indeed, he had it in the first place.

    As for your “natural law” nonsense, we are only bound by those laws which we implicitly agreed to follow: i.e. the Constitution, statutes enacted by Congress and case law. Under the Constitution as originally written by the method of interpretation laid out by the SCOTUS, President Obama is a natural born citizen. The only thing that can be concluded from your ravings on “natural law” is that you are a looney.

    Adrien Nash: “In their view:
    …the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “born citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings.”

    Donald Trump has 10 million dollars for anyone who can find a flaw in that statement.

  434. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 23, 2015 at 2:01 am #

    y_p_w: Fortunately we have different standards in this country. For the most part someone born here under such circumstances can come back to the US regardless of what another country thinks. And perhaps that’s what many parents arriving as birth tourists know – that the US laws on citizenship aren’t affected by the actions of another country.

    Yes, we have different “standards” but they are NOT “laws” as you erroneously labeled them. You are speaking of an entrenched institutionalized error which has few opponents, and has had about zero since it was first introduced by A.G. Griggs back in 1898-99 until recent years when its was discovered by foreigners. They saw a chance to take advantage of our ignorance of our own actual LAW which is the 14th Amendment with its subjection requirement.
    The pertains to the class of persons who are totally subject to the fullest degree, not some half degree, or quarter degree, or lesser degree. In other words it pertained to the class of persons who were male and could be relied upon to “BEAR ARMS, TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE” in battle during times of national threat. CITIZENS who could fight and die for their country.

    Foreign guests were not and are not members of that class, an neither are their children since they are subject to the authority of a foreign nation.

    consider: the child of naturalized parents, like the citizen Boston bomber, who could have said: “The United States is now my nation.”

    and… the America-loving newly naturalized citizen who might say: “The United States is now my country.”

    and… the native-born citizen who might say: “America is my homeland.” (note, the previous could not have said that)

    and… the child of American citizens who could say: “America is my homeland and that of my father and mother as well. I am a natural American because I was produced by Americans.” (note: none of the previous could say that)

  435. avatar
    y_p_w March 23, 2015 at 2:13 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater:
    He wasn’t a citizen by the 14th.Obama didn’t need the 14th.He was born a citizen.Once again there is no requirement for both parents to be permanent residents.

    There were legitimate questions about whether those of African ancestry (and most notably descendants of slaves) were considered US citizens at birth. That was the primary impetus for the Citizenship Clause. Obama unequivocally qualifies as a natural born citizen under the 14th Amendment. Interpretation was kind of a slippery slope, such as the Dred Scott decision.

    There also wasn’t much of an issue of whether or not one was “lawfully” in the United States at the time of the 14th Amendment. There were basically no restrictions on entry to the US at the time, and later restrictions were basically about health or education (save the Chinese Exclusion Act). Nobody was really consider immigration as legal or illegal.

  436. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 23, 2015 at 2:18 am #

    Slartibartfast: Under the Constitution as originally written by the method of interpretation laid out by the SCOTUS, President Obama is a natural born citizen.

    Have you had too much to drink or snort? That is the lamest excuse for a logical thought that I’ve read in ages. 1. Under the Constitution, no definition of natural born citizen exists. 2. The Constitution was not “originally written by the method of….” It was written by hand! It was composed with consideration and analysis, and avoidance of known situations that facilitate tyranny.
    3. SCOTUS did not exist when it was written so there was no possibility of writing it in accordance with its method of interpretation.

    Consequently, Obama was born, as was true in 1789, as a citizen of Great Britain, as his own election website made clear. A supposed dual-citizen due to the British Nationality Act of 1948.
    But in fact he was ONLY a British citizen since his father was not an American nor an immigrant, and therefore the 14th Amendment did not apply to him.

    Worse still, he probably was not even a British citizen because his father had no impetus to register him since he presumed that he had American citizenship.
    As a result, he would have been born as a stateless person. The First World Citizen President! All Hail King Obama!

  437. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 23, 2015 at 5:31 am #

    Obligedfriend: Your comments are disputed with actual facts,

    If they’re disputed with actual facts you would have brought some by now. Thus far you’ve only brought supposition and bigotry. The ruling simply doesn’t say what you claim it does.

  438. avatar
    faceman March 23, 2015 at 6:22 am #

    ObligedFriend: Professor Brainerd Kellogg, a Yankee, penned “Kind and natural children” is a kind/race.He said natural is a Kind/Race.

    Kind and Natural children was written by Shakespeare, Thomas Jefferson wrote to his nephew to study Shakespeare to know English in its purest form.

    The kindly fruits of the earth = The natural fruits of the earth.

    The naturals were the Founders and their natural kind.

    It’s not my fault you guys are not enlightened.

    Who has more legal weight in the courtroom – Professor Kellogg, William Shakespeare, or the US Constitution.

    I repeat (14th Amendment)

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.

    Doesn’t say ‘kind’ or ‘race’ in there either. Whatever you think the founders may have actually meant, regardless of what some obscure professor or William Shakespeare wrote, everything else must defer to the Constitution.

    If you don’t like it, try to repeal it. They did that to Prohibition. Until then it is the supreme law of the land.

    Hey, yankees can be bigots, too. Your first sentence makes no sense. Your second paragraph contradicts the first. We don’t speak Shakespearian English anymore. And we are all of the same race – the Human Race.

    KIndly: of an agreeable or beneficial nature : pleasant ‘a kindly climate’
    Natural: No preservatives or additives. ‘naturally grown fruit’

    “All alone, or in twos, the ones who really love you
    Walk up and down outside the wall
    Some hand in hand, some gather together in bands
    The bleeding hearts and the artists make their stand
    And when they’ve given you their all some stagger and fall
    After all, its not easy beating your head against some mad bugger’s wall”

  439. avatar
    faceman March 23, 2015 at 6:30 am #

    What is the meaning of ‘Were all thy children kind and natural’

    http://www.city-data.com/forum/history/1419433-meaning-were-all-thy-children-kind.html

    Looks like you’re misquoting Shakespeare, too.

  440. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth noisewater March 23, 2015 at 6:50 am #

    faceman:
    What is the meaning of ‘Were all thy children kind and natural’

    http://www.city-data.com/forum/history/1419433-meaning-were-all-thy-children-kind.html

    Looks like you’re misquoting Shakespeare, too.

    I assume dragging canoe/dancing rabbit/etc is our racist friend here. So it asked the question about the meaning several years ago, got an answer it didn’t like and abandoned the thread only to continue making the dishonest claim. Yep racist troll is definitely a troll.

  441. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund March 23, 2015 at 7:31 am #

    ObligedFriend:
    WKA was affirmed a citizen because BOTH his parents had a permanent domcil[sic] and residence.

    No, WKA was affirmed a citizen DESPITE BOTH his parents ONLY having a permanent domicile and residence.

  442. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 23, 2015 at 9:27 am #

    I find it hard to believe that you are so totally ignorant of the arguments against you that you don’t understand, even if you don’t agree with, Slartibartfast’s comment.

    I think perhaps that the reason you get things so terribly wrong is that you don’t listen.

    Adrien Nash: Have you had too much to drink or snort? That is the lamest excuse for a logical thought that I’ve read in ages. 1. Under the Constitution, no definition of natural born citizen exists.

  443. avatar
    Dave B. March 23, 2015 at 10:42 am #

    I’ve kind of gotten used to it. Adrien’s ignorance, while still remarkable, is no longer so incredible to me. You live by the Grand Canyon, after a while you stop staring at it.

    Dr. Conspiracy: I find it hard to believe that you are so totally ignorant of the arguments against you that you don’t understand, even if you don’t agree with, Slartibartfast’s comment.

    I think perhaps that the reason you get things so terribly wrong is that you don’t listen.

    Adrien Nash: Have you had too much to drink or snort? That is the lamest excuse for a logical thought that I’ve read in ages. 1. Under the Constitution, no definition of natural born citizen exists.

  444. avatar
    Rickey March 23, 2015 at 11:22 am #

    Adrien Nash: First, it is fallacious and stupid to say that the circumstances are “defined” in the Constitution.Nothing is defined in the 14th A. citizenship clause.That is why is it still debated.It is undefined and unadjudicated as to its actual historical meaning.

    Actually, it is quite well defined. Born in the United States while subject to its jurisdiction = citizen at birth. It’s so simple that a 5-year-old child can understand it. If you still can’t comprehend it, I’ll see if I can find a 5-year-old child to explain it to you.

  445. avatar
    Arthur B. March 23, 2015 at 11:23 am #

    Adrien Nash: 2. The Constitution was not “originally written by the method of….” It was written by hand!

    Read Slarti’s comment once more — you’ve thoroughly embarrassed yourself once again through your ludicrous misunderstanding of what he wrote.

  446. avatar
    faceman March 23, 2015 at 12:27 pm #

    Adrien Nash: I’m sorry, but my poor eye-sight was unable to find any refutation of anything in that statement.Did you have some point that you wished to refute or do you in fact agree with everything I wrote?I have to assume it is the latter or else you naturally would have shot-down my obvious “errors”, which you didn’t seem to do?Gee, I wonder why???

    So you admit your ‘obvious errors.’

  447. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 23, 2015 at 2:30 pm #

    Adrien,

    It appears that there was a slight flaw in my statement (which I have discreetly noted below) in that I forgot a comma. While no one else had a problem figuring out my meaning, I understand that your sub-par reading comprehension (typical of birthers) leaves you disadvantaged in just about every aspect of life, so I thought I would explain the meaning of the comment for you:

    The Constitution, as originally written, contained the term “natural born citizen” without providing a definition. This implicitly meant that there was an accepted definition of the term which was understood by the Framers. The SCOTUS tells us that the Constitution was written in the language of the common law (“…at common law, the nomenclature of which the Founders were familiar…“) and is to be interpreted in that context. Note that they didn’t say “American common law” or “English common law”, but just common law. The “nomenclature of the common law” is thus the language and definitions used in courts, both English and American (it must be both because there is absolutely no distinction between the two nomenclatures—no term that is used differently in US courts than it was in British courts). Furthermore, in the holding in Minor v. Happersett, the SCOTUS made it clear that, for the purpose of interpreting the Constitution, the terms “subject” and “citizen” were identical in meaning (a member of the nation).

    Putting this all together, we find that the definition of “natural born subject” was defined in the common law by Calvin’s case (it was also later modified by English statutory law, but this was never adopted by the US, instead, we extended the definition via our own statutory law with the Naturalization Act of 1790). Looking at the holdings of American courts (both before and after the Revolution), we find that the terms “natural born citizen”, “native citizen”, “natural born subject” and “native subject” are all used interchangeably, which leaves us with the inescapable conclusion that they all mean the same damn thing. Since there is only one candidate—the definition that is known to hold in English courts—we are forced to conclude that all birthers are either ignorant of the Constitution, don’t understand the Constitution, or are lying about what the Constitution says.

    So which is it Adrien? My guess is that you’ve so brainwashed yourself with the first two that you completely believe the vindictive falsehoods you utter, but, having exchanged arguments with you in the past, I know that dishonesty is an integral part of your debating strategy so you are probably guilty of all three.

    Slartibartfast: Under the Constitution as originally written[INSERT COMMA HERE] by the method of interpretation laid out by the SCOTUS, President Obama is a natural born citizen.

  448. avatar
    Rickey March 23, 2015 at 2:49 pm #

    faceman:

    Looks like you’re misquoting Shakespeare, too.

    ObligedKlansman repeatedly conflates the adjective “kind” with the noun “kind.”

    In fact “kind,” as our resident racist is using it, is an adjective which describes the affection and kindness which one naturally has for a close relative. It is an anachronism, but that it what it meant hundreds of years ago.

    ObligedKlansman has been using an anachronistic definition of an adjective and claiming that it is a definition of a noun. He should change his name to Humpty Dumpty, who told Alice, “When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

  449. avatar
    Atticus Finch March 23, 2015 at 3:24 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    Adrien,

    It appears that there was a slight flaw in my statement (which I have discreetly noted below) in that I forgot a comma.While no one else had a problem figuring out my meaning, I understand that your sub-par reading comprehension (typical of birthers) leaves you disadvantaged in just about every aspect of life, so I thought I would explain the meaning of the comment for you:

    The Constitution, as originally written, contained the term “natural born citizen” without providing a definition.This implicitly meant that there was an accepted definition of the term which was understood by the Framers.The SCOTUS tells us that the Constitution was written in the language of the common law (“…at common law, the nomenclature of which the Founders were familiar…“) and is to be interpreted in that context.Note that they didn’t say “American common law” or “English common law”, but just common law.The “nomenclature of the common law” is thus the language and definitions used in courts, both English and American (it must be both because there is absolutely no distinction between the two nomenclatures—no term that is used differently in US courts than it was in British courts).Furthermore, in the holding in Minor v. Happersett, the SCOTUS made it clear that, for the purpose of interpreting the Constitution, the terms “subject” and “citizen” were identical in meaning (a member of the nation).

    Putting this all together, we find that the definition of “natural born subject” was defined in the common law by Calvin’s case (it was also later modified by English statutory law, but this was never adopted by the US, instead, we extended the definition via our own statutory law with the Naturalization Act of 1790).Looking at the holdings of American courts (both before and after the Revolution), we find that the terms “natural born citizen”, “native citizen”, “natural born subject” and “native subject” are all used interchangeably, which leaves us with the inescapable conclusion that they all mean the same damn thing. Since there is only one candidate—the definition that is known to hold in English courts—we are forced to conclude that all birthers are either ignorant of the Constitution, don’t understand the Constitution, or are lying about what the Constitution says.

    So which is it Adrien?My guess is that you’ve so brainwashed yourself with the first two that you completely believe the vindictive falsehoods you utter, but, having exchanged arguments with you in the past, I know that dishonesty is an integral part of your debating strategy so you are probably guilty of all three.

    The problem with Vattelians in their argument that the term Natural Born Citizen was founded on Roman or Civil Law instead of English Common Law is that their argument demonstrate their ignorance that the Constitution provisions were framed in the language of the English Common Law and their argument ignore the historical development of Anglo-American jurisprudence that is rooted in the English Common Law.

    Courts have recognized that the drafters of the constitution of who most were lawyers were influenced by the principles and history of the common law that we inherited from the English. “The principles and history of the common law were well known to the framers of the Constitution and the members of the First Congress; it was from that system that their terminology was derived; and the provisions of the Constitution and contemporaneous legislation must be interpreted accordingly.” Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 US 205, 230 (1917) (Pitney, J. dissenting); See also Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 478 (1888) (“The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”)

    Likewise, Chief Justice, Holmes in Gompers v. United States, 233 US 604 (1914) noted that courts must considered to common law origin of the provisions of the Constitution when he observed: “[T]the provisions of the Constitution are not mathematical formulas having their essence in their form; they are organic living institutions transplanted from English soil. Their significance is vital not formal; it is to be gathered not simply by taking the words and a dictionary, but by considering their origin and the line of their growth.” Id at 610

    Moreover, Chief Justice Taft stated in Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 76, 108-09 (1925): “The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted.”

    Since the drafters of the Constitution wrote it in the language of the English common law then according to statutory construction that unless otherwise defined in the Constitution, words are to be taken at their ordinary and contemporary meaning. “A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.” Perrin v. United States, 444 US 37, 42 (1979).

    Moreover, if the use of words in the Constitution have a common law meaning
    then the courts must infer the incorporation of this common law meaning unless the language of the Constitution compels a different meaning.” [G]uided by the principle that where words are employed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning at common law or in the law of this country they are presumed to have been used in that sense unless the context compels to the contrary.” Standard Oil Co. of NJ v. United Sates, 221 US 1, 59 (1911); Neder v. United States, 527 US 1, 21 (1999) (It is a well-established rule of construction that “` [w]here Congress uses terms that have accumulated settled meaning under . . . the common law, a court must infer, unless the statute otherwise dictates, that Congress means to incorporate the established meaning of these terms.’) (internal citations omitted)

    Furthermore, if words were created not by positive law but rather by judicially created concept then any interpretation of those words other than their common law meaning must be specific and clear. “The normal rule of statutory construction is that if Congress intends for legislation to change the interpretation of a judicially created concept, it makes that intent specific.” Stillians v. Iowa, 843 F.2d 276, 280 (8th Cir.1988) (quoting Midlantic Nat’l Bank v. New Jersey Dep’t of Envtl. Protection, 474 U.S. 494, 106 S.Ct. 755, 88 L.Ed.2d 859 (1986)). Thus, it is proper to consider that Congress acts with knowledge of existing law, and that “absent a clear manifestation of contrary intent, a newly-enacted or revised statute is presumed to be harmonious with existing law and its judicial construction.” Johnson v. First Nat’l Bank of Montevideo, 719 F.2d 270, 277 (8th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1012, 104 S.Ct. 1015, 79 L.Ed.2d 245 (1984). Estate of Wood v. CIR, 909 F. 2d 1155,1160 (8th Cir. 1990)

    In other words, If drafters of the Constitution used words in the Constitution that have a common law meaning then it is PRESUMED that drafters intended common law application of the words UNLESS there is language in the Constitution that intended a contrary interpretation of the words.

    As such, the term natural born citizen is a derivation of the term natural born subject that was a judicially created concept as articulated by Blackstone in his Commentaries of the Laws of England (1765) then UNLESS the founding fathers intended a different meaning other than the common law rule meaning of natural born citizen it was the responsibility of drafters to incorporate this different meaning.

    The failure of the drafters to indicate a different meaning other than the common law meaning of natural born citizen in the Constitution demonstrated that the drafters intended to incorporate the established common law meaning of natural born citizen.

  450. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 23, 2015 at 6:06 pm #

    It is my opinion that saying Calvin’s Case defines “natural born subject” invokes the same fallacy that the birthers use when claiming Minor v. Happersett defines “natural born citizen” (the confusion of necessary and sufficient conditions).

    One might reasonably infer that the Constitution intended that everyone born in the country be a natural born citizen, as they would have been natural born subjects if born in England under English common law. However, if “natural born” does mean “at birth” then they also intended that anyone subsequently a citizen at birth by any other mechanism was equally a natural born citizen.

    Slartibartfast: we find that the definition of “natural born subject” was defined in the common law by Calvin’s case

  451. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 23, 2015 at 6:24 pm #

    You’re absolutely right — Calvin’s case gives a sufficient condition, not a necessary one.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    It is my opinion that saying Calvin’s Case defines “natural born subject” invokes the same fallacy that the birthers use when claiming Minor v. Happersett defines “natural born citizen” (the confusion of necessary and sufficient conditions).

    One might reasonably infer that the Constitution intended that everyone born in the country be a natural born citizen, as they would have been natural born subjects if born in England under English common law. However, if “natural born” does mean “at birth” then they also intended that anyone subsequently a citizen at birth by any other mechanism was equally a natural born citizen.

  452. avatar
    Obligedfriend March 23, 2015 at 6:26 pm #

    Is ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ in the 14th Amendment restrictive or non restrictive.?

  453. avatar
    faceman March 23, 2015 at 6:51 pm #

    Obligedfriend: Is ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ in the 14th Amendment restrictive or non restrictive.?

    Let’s put it this way: If an accredited diplomat to the UN gets a parking ticket in NYC, he doesn’t have to pay it. At most, the US could declare the individual ‘persona non grata’ and he would have to go home. But it would take an awful lot of parking tickets. Or getting drunk and running over and killing a pedestrian. The US could take him into custody for the sole purpose of preventing further incidents and expeditiously return him to his embassy, but he would not be subject to civil or criminal prosecution.

    That’s what it means to be ‘not subject to the jurisdiction.’

  454. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 23, 2015 at 6:58 pm #

    “And this court did in Minor v Happersett look to the common law to ascertain from its nomenclature who were meant by “natural born citizens” and they found just what the Government is contending for here, that is was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, citizens also.”

  455. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 23, 2015 at 7:16 pm #

    This forum wants us to believe there’s no restrictions on “subject to jurisdiction” in the 14th Amendment.

    Why use the term?

    The Civil Rights Act: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, are declared to be citizens of the United States”

    Is this a restriction?

  456. avatar
    Obligedfriend March 23, 2015 at 7:38 pm #

    Are Rafael Cruz Jr. and Barack Obama citizens by blood? How do they compare with Moses?

  457. avatar
    faceman March 23, 2015 at 7:40 pm #

    I’m not sure exactly what you mean by ‘no restrictions on “subject to jurisdiction.”‘ I just gave you an example of someone who is not ‘subject to the jurisdiction.’

    Why use the term? Because it means exactly what it says. Some people are not subject to the jurisdiction.

    A tourist, or an illegal alien, or someone on a student visa, IS subject to the jurisdiction. If they get a parking ticket, they have to pay it. If they kill someone, they can get thrown in jail (as long as they get due process).

    But, then, you are not subject to the rules of rational thought, so go ahead and bloviate.

  458. avatar
    Atticus Finch March 23, 2015 at 7:40 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    This forum wants us to believe there’s no restrictions on “subject to jurisdiction” in the 14th Amendment.

    Why use the term?

    The Civil Rights Act: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, are declared to be citizens of the United States”

    Is this a restriction?

    The rationale of having the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment wherein it set forth who is a citizen of the United States is to EXCLUDE Indians who were members of tribes that existed within the boundaries of the United States. Congress acknowledged that INDIANS were not citizens despite the fact that they lived with the borders of the United States.

    That is why the Civil Rights Act of 1866 had language that excluding INDIANS as citizens:

    “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, EXCLUDING INDIANS NOT TAXED, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States”

    In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), Justice Gray noted the legal status of Indians tribes and their members:

    The Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign States; but they were ALIEN NATIONS, DISTINCT POLITICAL COMMUNITIES, with whom the United States might and habitually did deal, as they thought fit, either through treaties made by the President and Senate, or through acts of Congress in the ordinary forms of legislation. The members of those tribes OWED IMMEDIATE ALLEGIANCE TO THEIR SEVERAL TRIBES. and were not part of the people of the United States. Id at 99

    The drafters of the 14th Amendment understood that Indians were not citizens of the United States and as such incorporated “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language in the 14th Amendment to EXCLUDE them in setting forth who is a citizen of the United States.

  459. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 23, 2015 at 7:43 pm #

    It had a very specific and narrow purpose that a racist like yourself should appreciate: to deny citizenship to Native Americans.

    ObligedFriend:
    This forum wants us to believe there’s no restrictions on “subject to jurisdiction” in the 14th Amendment.

    Why use the term?

    The Civil Rights Act: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, are declared to be citizens of the United States”

    Is this a restriction?

  460. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 23, 2015 at 7:51 pm #

    ObligedFriend: This forum wants us to believe there’s no restrictions on “subject to jurisdiction” in the 14th Amendment.

    No one on this forum has claimed there’s no restrictions. Children of foreign diplomats and invading armies are excluded.

  461. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 23, 2015 at 7:54 pm #

    Obligedfriend: Are Rafael Cruz Jr. and Barack Obama citizens by blood? How do they compare with Moses?

    Our system primarily operates on Jus soli and secondarily on jus sanguinis.

  462. avatar
    Northland10 March 23, 2015 at 8:51 pm #

    Obligedfriend:
    Are Rafael Cruz Jr. and Barack Obama citizens by blood? How do they compare with Moses?

    Moses could not run for President in the US. He was never a citizen of the US and he’s been dead for thousands of years.

  463. avatar
    Dave B. March 23, 2015 at 8:54 pm #

    “The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it deriving validity from an external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction.

    All exceptions, therefore, to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can flow from no other legitimate source.” –Chief Justice John Marshall, in The Exchange v. McFadden, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116 (1812).

    Why do you hate America so much?

    ObligedFriend: This forum wants us to believe there’s no restrictions on “subject to jurisdiction” in the 14th Amendment.

  464. avatar
    ballantine March 23, 2015 at 9:04 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    This forum wants us to believe there’s no restrictions on “subject to jurisdiction” in the 14th Amendment.

    Why use the term?

    The Civil Rights Act: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, are declared to be citizens of the United States”

    Is this a restriction?

    Not that it matters to an idiot like you, but the Supreme Court has expressly stated the restrictions under the 14th Amendment:

    “The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.”

    Tell us which words are too difficult for you to understand. Can you read English? On the Civil Rights Act, let’s ask the author of such Act:

    “That amendment in its first clause is but a copy of the civil rights act, declaring that all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States. This had been previously declared by act of Congress, and it was so without any act of Congress. Every person born within the jurisdiction of a nation must be a citizen of that country. Such persons are called subjects of the Crown in Great Britain, in this country citizens of the United States. It is an entire mistake to suppose that there was no such thing as an American citizen until the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. American citizenship existed from the moment that the Government of the United States was formed. The Constitution itself prohibits any person from sitting in this body who has not been nine years a citizen of the United States, not a citizen of a particular State. By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born. That had been frequently decided in the United States. It has been acted upon by the executive department of the Government in protecting the rights of native-born persons of this country as citizens of the United States. It has been held in the judicial tribunals of the country that persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States. I read from Paschal’s Annotated Constitution, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1871)

    It excludes persons subject to a foreign jurisdiction which does not mean children of aliens which no one with any legal education would claim is subject to a foreign jurisdiction. How many times does Trumbull have to say we adopted the English common law before Birther idiots can understand? Really doesn’t matter as the opinion of people who matter are unanimous on the issue.

  465. avatar
    ObligedFriend March 23, 2015 at 9:14 pm #

    Was obama born subject to a foreign power if he was born in Hawaii?

  466. avatar
    ballantine March 23, 2015 at 9:18 pm #

    Adrien Nash: Have you had too much to drink or snort?That is the lamest excuse for a logical thought that I’ve read in ages.1. Under the Constitution, no definition of natural born citizen exists.2.The Constitution was not “originally written by the method of….”It was written by hand!It was composed with consideration and analysis, and avoidance of known situations that facilitate tyranny.
    3. SCOTUS did not exist when it was written so there was no possibility of writing it in accordance with its method of interpretation.

    Consequently, Obama was born, as was true in 1789, as a citizen of Great Britain, as his own election website made clear.A supposed dual-citizen due to the British Nationality Act of 1948.
    But in fact he was ONLY a British citizen since his father was not an American nor an immigrant, and therefore the 14th Amendment did not apply to him.

    Worse still, he probably was not even a British citizen because his father had no impetus to register him since he presumed that he had American citizenship.
    As a result, he would have been born as a stateless person.The First World Citizen President!All Hail King Obama!

    Gee, Adrien is back claiming he is right without citing any authority as he always says he is right because he says so because it is obvious because he says so. He doesn’t realize how sad these arguments are. Cite a supreme court opinion saying he is wrong and he says they are idiots without making any argument. Cite an attorney general or secretary of state and he’ll say they are morons because he says so. The funniest thing is his interpretation of the 14th Amendment when I pointed out the people who drafted the amendment pretty much all said he was wrong, and, of course, Adrien called them all stupid. Yes, the people who drafted the Constitution don’t count if they conflict with Adrien’s devine interpretation. It is kind of sad he has spent so much time writing so many gibberish articles on a topic which he clearly doesn’t understand and never will.

  467. avatar
    Atticus Finch March 23, 2015 at 9:22 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    Was obama born subject to a foreign power if he was born in Hawaii?

    Obama was never subject to a foreign power when he was born in Hawaii.

    A child born in the United States has only one allegiance and that allegiance is the United States. To have a “dual allegiance ” at birth a child must be under the jurisdiction and control of TWO sovereignties at birth in the United States which is a legal impossibility since the United States doesn’t share its jurisdiction of its citizens with another country.

    Unlike hair color or eye color, a child doesn’t inherit a parent’s allegiance at birth. “[I]t has consistently been held judicially that one born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is, from birth, a citizen of the United States; that such citizenship does not depend upon like citizenship of his or her parents, or of either of them (except in the case of the children of ambassadors etc.). United States v. Richmond, 274 F. Supp. 43, 56 (CD Ca 1967). See also Von Schwerdtner v. Piper, 23 F. 2d 862 (D. MD 1928) (child born in the United States to German nationals)
    “A person who is born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, becomes an American citizen not by gift of Congress but by force of the Constitution. U.S.C.A., Constitutional Amendment 14, Section 1.” In re Gogal, 75 F. Supp. 268, 271 (WD Pa 1947)

    As such, the allegiance of parents whatever their situation is irrelevant in determining the citizenship status of a child born in the United States. “ At common law, a native is a person born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of a country, irrespective of the allegiance of his parents, except the child of an ambassador. Ex parte Palo, 3 F. 2d 44, 45 (W.D. Wa 1925) (internal citation omitted)

  468. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 23, 2015 at 9:26 pm #

    I completely agree. His blog represents an enormous investment of effort in a completely useless endeavor.

    ballantine: It is kind of sad he has spent so much time writing so many gibberish articles on a topic which he clearly doesn’t understand and never will.

  469. avatar
    ballantine March 23, 2015 at 9:31 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    Was obama born subject to a foreign power if he was born in Hawaii?

    Take of a course in International Law idiot. No one born on Us soil is subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign power unless the child of an Ambassador.

    “From the definition of a sovereign state it follows that “the jurisdiction of a nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it deriving validity from any external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction.’ This jurisdiction extends to all subjects and over all persons within its territorial limits, it matters not whether those persons be native-born, or naturalized citizens, or aliens.” George Breckinridge Davis, Elements of International Law, pg. 39 (1900)

    “One of the fundamental rules of international law is that an independent State has absolute and exclusive jurisdiction over all persons and property within its boundaries.” Freedman Snow, International Law, pg. 31 (1898).

    “Every nation has the right to territory within defined boundaries and to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over its territory, and all persons whether native or foreign found therein.” Otfried Nippold, The Development of International Law After the World War, pg. 194 (1923)

    “Territorial jurisdiction attached (with special exceptions) upon all persons either permanently or temporarily resident within the territory while they were within it, but it did not follow them after they had withdrawn from it and when they were living in another independent country.” Sir William Henry Rattigan. Private International Law, pg. 228 (1895).

    “All persons found within the limits of a Government (unless specially excepted by the law of nations), whether their residence is permanent or temporary, are subject to its jurisdiction; but it may, or may not, as it chooses, exercise it in cases of dispute between foreigners. But this is a matter of mere municipal policy and convenience, and does not result from any principles of international law.” Sir Sherst

    “All persons found within the limits of a government, (unless specially excepted by the law of nations,) whether their residence is permanent or temporary, are subject to its jurisdiction; but it may or may not, as it chooses, exercise it in cases of dispute between foreigners.” Henry Halleck, Elements of International Law and Laws of War, pg. 92 (1885)

    “A Nation cannot by its Laws directly bind real property which is beyond the limits of its territory, nor directly control persons who are not resident therein. This is a necessary consequence of the proposition advanced in the preceding section; for it would be inconsistent with the absolute character of Territorial Empire, if the Laws of a Nation could bind persons or property within the territory of another Nation, and so control the operation of the Laws of the latter Nation within its own territory.” Travers Twiss, The Law of Nations, pg. 258 (1863)

    “Another maxim or proposition is, that no state or nation can, by its laws, directly affect or bind property out of its own territory, or bind persons not resident therein, whether they are natural-born subjects or others. This is a natural consequence of the first proposition; for it would be wholly incompatible with the’ equality and exclusiveness of the sovereignty of all nations, that any one nation should be at liberty to regulate either persons or things not within its own territory.” Joseph Story, Conflict of Laws, pg. 23 (1841)

  470. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 23, 2015 at 9:44 pm #

    ~National Survival and Questions about the Presidency

    The future survival of the United States (as we have always known it) will be determined by the person who is elected to be President. That makes the choice of the electorate crucial to insuring that the present and future are what they want them to be and need them to be. So up-front in their determination, before even examining the politics of the candidates, is the issue of their qualification. Are they physically qualified, and psychologically qualified, morally qualified, and last but first, are they constitutionally qualified.

    That is the first question that needs to be asked and answered. So what does the Constitution require? Second and third it requires an age of 35 years and U.S. residency of 14 years, but first it requires that “no person except a natural born citizen” be allowed to serve as President.

    Okay, so he must be a natural born citizen. So what does that mean? That seems like a legitimate question, right? But in fact in the real world it is a totally illegitimate question. The correct question is “What did that mean when it was written?”

    [This comment was edited for length. Doc]

    continued at: https://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2015/03/19/national-survival-and-questions-about-the-presidency/

  471. avatar
    Thrill March 23, 2015 at 9:48 pm #

    ObligedFriend:

    Was obama born subject to a foreign power if he was born in Hawaii?

    Yes. Obama Sr. registered the birth of a son, 1961, with the British National Archives (BNA).

    “The books containing hand written line records of vital events attributed to Obama are contained in Series RG36 of the Family Records section in the Kew branch of the BNA. The hand written line records first discovered in 2009, indicate several events were registered to the name Barack Obama (appears to be handwritten and spelled “Burack” and “Biraq”) beginning in 1953 and include two births recorded in 1958 and 1960, a marriage license registration in 1954 and a birth in 1961.”

    http://mrconservative.com/2013/05/16165-british-national-archives-confirm-obama-sr-had-a-child-in-1961-kenya/

  472. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 23, 2015 at 9:59 pm #

    I went to the website Thrill linked. It was a story about how the POSFKBC (which was confused with the Bomford BC) was not fake after all because it was corroborated by hand-written records in the British National Archive. If you like a good birther mash-up, check it out—plenty of crazy there… competence? Not so much.

    Thrill: Yes. Obama Sr. registered the birth of a son, 1961, with the British National Archives (BNA).

    “The books containing hand written line records of vital events attributed to Obama are contained in Series RG36 of the Family Records section in the Kew branch of the BNA. The hand written line records first discovered in 2009, indicate several events were registered to the name Barack Obama (appears to be handwritten and spelled “Burack” and “Biraq”) beginning in 1953 and include two births recorded in 1958 and 1960, a marriage license registration in 1954 and a birth in 1961.”

    http://mrconservative.com/2013/05/16165-british-national-archives-confirm-obama-sr-had-a-child-in-1961-kenya/

  473. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 23, 2015 at 10:02 pm #

    A claim for which no evidence has ever appeared. I consider it spurious.

    Thrill: Yes. Obama Sr. registered the birth of a son, 1961, with the British National Archives (BNA).

  474. avatar
    Northland10 March 23, 2015 at 10:07 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    I went to the website Thrill linked.It was a story about how the POSFKBC (which was confused with the Bomford BC) was not fake after all because it was corroborated by hand-written records in the British National Archive.If you like a good birther mash-up, check it out—plenty of crazy there… competence?Not so much.

    I remember when some Birthers got all breathless because they claim they found evidence of Barack Obama, Sr. having a son born in Kenya. They just forget about the part that the sons were named things like Malik, Abo and Bernard, but not Barack.

  475. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 23, 2015 at 10:12 pm #

    Sure, the claim is spurious, but using it to corroborate the POSFKBC is hilarious and confusing the POSFKBC with the Bomford BC is making Poe’s law into an art.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    A claim for which no evidence has ever appeared. I consider it spurious.

  476. avatar
    Northland10 March 23, 2015 at 10:12 pm #

    ObligedFriend:
    Was obama born subject to a foreign power if he was born in Hawaii?

    No.

  477. avatar
    Thrill March 23, 2015 at 10:14 pm #

    Slartibartfast March 23, 2015 at 9:59 pm (Quote)

    I went to the website Thrill linked. It was a story about how the POSFKBC (which was confused with the Bomford BC) was not fake after all because it was corroborated by hand-written records in the British National Archive.

    Ted Cruz’s mom registers Ted with the INS under the Immigration and Nationality Act and suddenly Obots think Ted is a US natural born citizen. Obama Sr. registers Obama II with the British Registar under the British Registration Service Act of 1953 in 1961 and the Obots call it a whole lot of crazy.

  478. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 23, 2015 at 10:15 pm #

    Thrill: Yes. Obama Sr. registered the birth of a son, 1961, with the British National Archives (BNA).

    There is no proof to support that claim. Mr. Conservative makes the claim but fails to back it up with you know actual evidence from the british national archives.

  479. avatar
    Northland10 March 23, 2015 at 10:17 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: There is no proof to support that claim.Mr. Conservative makes the claim but fails to back it up with you know actual evidence from the british national archives.

    Sven, Proof? ROTFL.

  480. avatar
    Thrill March 23, 2015 at 10:21 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy March 23, 2015 at 10:02 pm (Quote) #

    A claim for which no evidence has ever appeared. I consider it spurious.

    Obama’s Fight the Smears website admitted Obama was a British subject at birth. :

    “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

  481. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 23, 2015 at 10:26 pm #

    Thrill: Obama Sr. registers Obama II with the British Registar under the British Registration Service Act of 1953 in 1961 and the Obots call it a whole lot of crazy.

    There is no proof to support that claim of a birth regisration with the british registrar

  482. avatar
    Reality Check March 23, 2015 at 10:28 pm #

    Thank you Doc. I notice all 4 comments at the article are by Adrien. He must be lonely.

    Adrien Nash: [This comment was edited for length. Doc]

  483. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 23, 2015 at 10:31 pm #

    ““One of the fundamental rules of international law is that an independent State has absolute and exclusive jurisdiction over all persons and property within its boundaries.” Freedman Snow, International Law, pg. 31 (1898).

    Understand this; everything written about sovereignty by a Brit is probably pure nonsense in America, and contrary to American fundamental organic law principles. They wrote of unlimited power of the government, represented by the Crown and the Parliament, with Parliament having no statutory or covenant limitation on its power. It was said to be unlimited, and that is why they were so damn arrogant toward their American brethren. They thought they could do anything, and they therefore did even though the colonial charters did not include Parliament at all. They were strictly between the settlers and the Crown (in whose name the North American lands were claimed).

    That is the opposite of the power of the American Congress. It is bound by the chains of the Constitution. It is NOT “absolute” or unlimited. Congress is highly limited by the Constitution, which it ignores routinely. Its jurisdiction only extends are far as is civilly allowed, which includes the restrictions of the Bill of Rights. But it is also limited by unwritten factors, and they are found only in international law or the law of nations.

    Civilized governments of free democratic republics do not possess full authority over foreign guests and ambassadors because they are covered and exempted by international law as well as national policy. No civilized government in the world claims it has the legal authority to draft foreign tourists into its military and send them to their death in battle, nor to tax them wherever in the world they live, nor try them for treason and execute them, nor forbid them from trading with sanctioned nations.

    Those things represent the full reach of national authority over all citizens and all immigrants. That reach does not extend to foreign guests and government ministers, and yet the ignoranti believe that federal power is unlimited by anything except an ambassadorship. What could be more blind than that?

    No one, except myself, has yet begun to discuss the full reach and meaning of “subjection” and “jurisdiction” because no one wants to acknowledge the duty that they have never been forced to respond to, and that is the call to war.
    Foreign immigrants heard that call during WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, and were expected to serve their adopted nation by surrendering themselves for induction into the Army. If they refused they found themselves in a federal penitentiary even though they were seemingly still subject to their own government.
    What made the difference in the eyes of the American government? Domicile. Permanent Residency. Membership in American society.
    Foreign guest have no such membership. Foreign students are merely temporary guests of the US government. They are not subject to its authority over citizens and immigrants. For that reason, any child born subject to them is not subject through them to the American government because they both are under the jurisdiction and protection of their own government, and shielded by international law.
    Why would any sane law-makers extend the high gift of citizenship to such people when such temporary visitors will raise their child back in their own nation as a foreigner?

    Nothing in any civilized nation could be more insane than that. And yet that is exactly what the brain-dead American government has been doing ever since Attorney General John Griggs bastardized the meaning of the Wong Kim Ark opinion back in 1898-99.
    The status quo is not one of the sane rule of law, but the insane rule of a baseless interpretation that has NEVER been codified as U.S. Law. By the unwritten law Obama is considered to be a US citizen at birth. But by the actual law he is merely a statutory citizen who gained his citizenship only after having lived in the US throughout his teen years as a Green Card permanent resident non-citizen child of an American citizen.

    The reason he was a non-citizen was due to lack of proof of place of birth. Presuming that he was born in Hawaii did not provide him with the needed birth certificate that could not be obtained since he was not born in any Hawaiian hospital. He was either born at home in Hawaii with no non-family witnesses, or he was born in Vancouver… or in Seattle unattended by any licensed medical practitioner and thus no acceptable witnesses and thus no birth certificate.
    Only witnesses can validate a claim of place of birth, and Obama’s mother had none for him. Thus he was born as a stateless person without a country.
    Counterfeit birth documents and your ideological twin brother’s alibi for you do not pass the smell test of certification. But then, as we’ve seen, nobody in the government or MSM is doing any sniffing, so….

  484. avatar
    Arthur B. March 23, 2015 at 10:33 pm #

    Thrill: Obama’s Fight the Smears website admitted Obama was a British subject at birth.

    Yes. This fact is not in dispute.

    It is also irrelevant to his Constitutional eligibility.

  485. avatar
    Rickey March 23, 2015 at 10:34 pm #

    Thrill: Obama’s Fight the Smears website admitted Obama was a British subject at birth. :

    “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

    That’s not evidence that his birth was ever registered with the British Registrar.

    You obviously have difficulty differentiating between conjecture and evidence.

  486. avatar
    faceman March 23, 2015 at 10:35 pm #

    Adrien Nash: Moses was an Egyptian…Obama is an American. Moses was not a natural born Egyptian, Obama is not a natural born American. See there? There is a difference, like it or not.

    The difference is that Obama IS a NBC, having been born in the US. The fact that his mother was an American Citizen is just icing on the cake. He is a citizen by both jus sanguinis AND jus soli.

    Are you so dense…., well, actually you are.

  487. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 23, 2015 at 10:45 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: There is no proof to support that claim of a birth regisration with the british registrar

    Sr. had no reason to register Jr. since he was not going to raise him, his marriage was not real, the child was never going to live in Kenya, and he was presumed to already have American citizenship. Thus his son was born as simply a potential provisional citizen of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth, -not as an actual recognized British citizen.

    That fact, along with his mother not being able to convey her citizenship to her child, and no proof of an American birth location, we was born without any citizenship at all. A stateless person.

  488. avatar
    faceman March 23, 2015 at 10:47 pm #

    Adrien Nash: A child adopted at birth is NOT a natural born child of the parents.

    Adopted at birth. Hmm, what a concept. And you’re prepared to show us the adoption papers? Didn’t think so. Because he wasn’t.

    The only thing I smell here is the horsepocky coming out of your mouth. Must be getting desperate, to start with the insults. I mean, most of what you say is total BS, and racially offensive. But you haven’t been doing the personal insults like your ‘kind’ over at the gerbil report. Now, apparently, you think you’re on Jerry Springer. And, or course, resorting to the fallacy of bald assertion. Go back to your own kind.

  489. avatar
    Rickey March 23, 2015 at 10:47 pm #

    ObligedKlansman:
    Was obama born subject to a foreign power if he was born in Hawaii?

    No. Neither Kenya nor Great Britain nor any country other than the United States had any authority over him when he was born.

    He was subject to the jurisdiction of Indonesia while he lived there (just like any other American living or visiting there), but he was never a citizen of Indonesia.

  490. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 23, 2015 at 10:48 pm #

    Adrien Nash: Moses was an Egyptian…Obama is an American. Moses was not a natural born Egyptian, Obama is not a natural born American. See there? There is a difference, like it or not.

    You’re assuming Moses actually existed and was not just a work of fiction.

  491. avatar
    bookfiend75 March 23, 2015 at 10:58 pm #

    Adrien Nash: Sr. had no reason to register Jr. since he was not going to raise him, his marriage was not real, the child was never going to live in Kenya, and he was presumed to already have American citizenship.Thus his son was born as simply a potential provisional citizen of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth, -not as an actual recognized British citizen.

    That fact, along with his mother not being able to convey her citizenship to her child, and no proof of an American birth location, we was born without any citizenship at all.A stateless person.

    I’m sorry. How is it his mother could not pass citizenship onto him? Not that it matters; having been born on US soil, our current President has always been an NBC. But I’m really confused, unless you are a sexist as well as a bigot.

  492. avatar
    Dave B. March 23, 2015 at 11:01 pm #

    So you’re a Brit now, are you, Adrien?

    Adrien Nash: Understand this; everything written about sovereignty by a Brit is probably pure nonsense in America, and contrary to American fundamental organic law principles.

  493. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 23, 2015 at 11:05 pm #

    Look at the next post after the one doc linked Nash’s truncated comment to. He is massively sexist.

    No Person, NO person, NO PERSON, -EXCEPT…. A NATURAL CITIZEN BY BIRTH. -Not by common law, not by royal law, not by State law, not by congressional law, not by court opinion, but by NATURAL LAW. That means by blood lineage. By Rig