Main Menu

“Bull Moose Republican” Obot candidate

imageThe Chamblee Post reports the first Republican candidate to qualify for the July 14th special election for District 80 State Representative in Georgia. The noted author and blogger, Loren Collins, describes himself as a “Bull Moose” Republican, presumably after the progressive political faction that nominated Theodore Roosevelt for President in 1912.

Readers of this blog will remember insightful comments made here by Collins, as well as the careful research and powerful arguments he brought forward on his blog Barackryphal. I had the pleasure of meeting Loren on the occasion of the Farrar hearing in Georgia in 2012 and participating in a pre-dinner bull session he attended. He was a fascinating raconteur with a keen interest in his state and its history.  His politics, as I understand them, are libertarian, but without the craziness that sometimes associates with that label.

For more information on his candidacy, or to make a campaign contribution, check out VoteLoren.com.

180 Responses to “Bull Moose Republican” Obot candidate

  1. avatar
    wrecking ball June 3, 2015 at 3:46 pm #

    his complete slaughtering of joel gilbert’s claims is what won my vote ( …. if i had one ).

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 3, 2015 at 9:13 pm #

    How can one man have so much hair?

  3. avatar
    Steve June 3, 2015 at 11:17 pm #

    I must move to his district.

  4. avatar
    David Farrar June 4, 2015 at 11:48 am #

    Congratulations Loren. I wish you the best of luck in your new political career. Since you helped me to set up my lawsuit against Obama qualifications in 2012, I can truthfully say if the voters in District 80 want a man who knows the difference between a proven fact and an assumed truth; Loren Collins is your man.

    I have but one suggestion…change you campaign photo. No one is going to vote for a politician who has a know-it-all, condescending smirk on their face.

  5. avatar
    Suranis June 4, 2015 at 2:02 pm #

    Well, that’s true. For example the Judges didn’t rule in favour of you.

    Oh you weren’t talking about yourself! I’m so sorry.

    David Farrar: No one is going to vote for a politician who has a know-it-all, condescending smirk on their face.

  6. avatar
    David Farrar June 4, 2015 at 2:57 pm #

    IMHO, the judge used an incorrect level of judicial notice when he made this dispositive statement: “The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs’ allegations.”

    He did so for two reasons: One, we were trying to prove a positive, not a negative. Secondly, “… little, if any”… is a whole universe more than “no probative value”, which is how much “proof” contained in Obama’s prima facie evidence.

  7. avatar
    Joey June 4, 2015 at 3:08 pm #

    David Farrar:
    IMHO, the judge used an incorrect level of judicial notice when he made this dispositive statement: “The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs’ allegations.”

    He did so for two reasons: One, we were trying to prove a positive, not a negative. Secondly, “… little, if any”… is a whole universe more than “no probative value”, which is how much “proof” contained in Obama’s prima facie evidence.

    That’s why we have appellate courts.
    How’d you do with the Superior Court? How’d you do with the state Supreme Court?
    How’d you do at the Supreme Court of the United States? I’m certain that they must have reversed Judge Mahili? No? Not so much?

  8. avatar
    Suranis June 4, 2015 at 3:10 pm #

    Pity the humble opinion of the Appeals court didn’t think so. Your humble opinion is worth little or nothing, just like the value of your promise to accept the opinion of the court if it went against you.

    But at least your name is on the legal opinion that confirmed that Barack Obama was eligible for the presidency. Think of the precedent you have created, and no doubt others will cite your case in the future.

    David Farrar: IMHO

  9. avatar
    Dave B. June 4, 2015 at 3:15 pm #

    He was being generous.

    David Farrar: Secondly, “… little, if any”… is a whole universe more than “no probative value”, which is how much “proof” contained in Obama’s prima facie evidence.

  10. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG June 4, 2015 at 3:18 pm #

    David Farrar: IMHO

    Literally the ONLY thing birthers have in their arsenal. Opinion.
    Well, opinion and slander.

  11. avatar
    Suranis June 4, 2015 at 3:19 pm #

    Yeah, and as I pointed out to you before, 2 or 3 paragraphs later he said your evidence had “no probative value”.

    Funny you don’t ever remember that.

    David Farrar: Secondly, “… little, if any”… is a whole universe more than “no probative value”, which is how much “proof” contained in Obama’s prima facie evidence.

  12. avatar
    Jim June 4, 2015 at 3:25 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: “How can one man have so much hair?”

    Ah yes, the hair of our youth. Wonder how many of those 60’s hippies are bald now? 😀

  13. avatar
    Arthur B. June 4, 2015 at 3:31 pm #

    David Farrar: which is how much “proof” contained in Obama’s prima facie evidence

    You seem to acknowledge that there was prima facie evidence before the Court that the President was born in Hawaii, and you have also acknowledged the Court’s conclusion that what you presented failed to refute it.

    By what logic are you concluding that unrebutted prima facie evidence does not constitute proof?

  14. avatar
    Jim June 4, 2015 at 3:44 pm #

    David Farrar: “IMHO, the judge used an incorrect level of judicial notice…:

    David, David, David, you lost. It’s been over 2 years now, get over it. You were wrong, you continue to be wrong, and blaming the judge for you being wrong is not going to change it. Get over yourself and move on, it’s really not healthy.

  15. avatar
    Bonsall Obot June 4, 2015 at 4:31 pm #

    Ex-Animal David Farrar:
    No one is going to vote for a politician who has a know-it-all,condescending smirk on their face.

    It’s worth considering, Loren; Ex-Animal David Farrar is kind of an expert on know-it-all and condescending.

  16. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 4, 2015 at 4:33 pm #

    Yes two, no three, three things. Opinion, slander and minority opinions.

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Well, opinion and slander.

  17. avatar
    bob June 4, 2015 at 5:41 pm #

    David Farrar:
    IMHO

    Your opinion also led you to selecting Taitz to represent you at the hearing.

    That alone tells me to always act in a manner opposite of your opinion.

  18. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 4, 2015 at 6:35 pm #

    First, let me say, belatedly, that I am glad that Mr. Farrar feels that it is to his advantage to comment here.

    In response to the particular remark below, I have a couple of things to say.

    There were two arguments in Georgia, one exclusively argued by Taitz that Obama was ineligible because of where he was born (or the lack of evidence in support of it), and the other argument based on a putative parental requirement for natural born citizens.

    The first did rely on proving a negative, namely: no legitimate birth certificates has the characteristics of the one Obama released. To make that assertion takes a tremendous level of expertise and no one who testified on your side remotely approached that level. Taitz blundered badly when she submitted a copy of Obama’s birth certificate and then failed to impeach it. I might add that there were other 1961 documents confirming Obama’s birth in Hawaii in the INS files submitted in the case from Mr. Allen. Even granted that Taitz is an awful lawyer, I can’t see any attorney getting a better result from what Taitz had to work with. The only thing that could have been done differently was to accept the offer of a default judgment.

    An administrative law judge in Georgia uses a different standard of evidence than a judge in Superior Court. An ALJ often hears “unqualified” testimony that would be inadmissible in the other court. He is empowered to judge what is useful and reliable, and what is not.

    No authorities testified on the definition of natural born citizen, and Judge Malihi relied on the logic of previous court decisions to determine that based on the law and the evidence before him, Barack Obama was a natural born citizen.

    David Farrar:
    IMHO, the judge used an incorrect level of judicial notice when he made this dispositive statement: “The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs’ allegations.”

    He did so for two reasons: One, we were trying to prove a positive, not a negative. Secondly, “… little, if any”… is a whole universe more than “no probative value”, which is how much “proof” contained in Obama’s prima facie evidence.

  19. avatar
    Keith June 5, 2015 at 2:28 am #

    Jim:
    Dr. Conspiracy: “How can one man have so much hair?”

    Ah yes, the hair of our youth.Wonder how many of those 60’s hippies are bald now?😀

    I resemble that remark.

  20. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG June 5, 2015 at 3:34 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Yes two, no three, three things. Opinion, slander and minority opinions.

    Yes three, no four! Four things. Opinion, slander, minority opinions and the element of surprise!
    Wait. No. Getting them confused with those Spanish Inquisition fellows again.

  21. avatar
    Craig HS June 5, 2015 at 4:43 am #

    Did they at least get a comfy chair?

  22. avatar
    john June 5, 2015 at 5:20 am #

    “No authorities testified on the definition of natural born citizen, and Judge Malihi relied on the logic of previous court decisions to determine that based on the law and the evidence before him, Barack Obama was a natural born citizen.”

    Judge Malihi used persuasive precedent in the case to reach his decision. It was highly improper. First, the precedent established by the Indiana case was not binding so Judge Malihi was not bound by it. Additionally, Judge Malihi never provided independent reasoning for the meaning of NBC but merely cited Indiana. Finally, it was specifically stressed by the lawyers in the case, that the record be closed and that the law and facts be determined by the motions and record in front of Judge Mahihi. The Indiana case was never submitted to the court and since it was not binding, it should be rejected. Further, it should have been argued that if Obama had responded or shown up, he would have used this case as his “Best Legal Argument” for arguing the meaning of NBC. Since, Obama did not show up, I think it was unfair to allow Obama to use his “Best Legal Argument” of that of a nonbinding legal decision not part of the record.

  23. avatar
    faceman June 5, 2015 at 7:16 am #

    David Farrar: IMHO, the judge used an incorrect level of judicial notice when he made this dispositive statement: “The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs’ allegations.”He did so for two reasons: One, we were trying to prove a positive, not a negative. Secondly, “… little, if any”… is a whole universe more than “no probative value”, which is how much “proof” contained in Obama’s prima facie evidence.

    Still having trouble with the definition of ‘prima facie’, I see. Prima facie evidence is evidence that, in the absence of any contrary evidence, is sufficient to prove the case. Evidence that is of little, if any, probative value is not sufficient to overcome a certified birth certificate, especially one that has been the subject of several official press conferences and public statements. As well as being authenticated to several states in the last election who questioned Obama’s eligibility.

    And, John, since when is using ‘persuasive precedent’ improper. Even if he wasn’t ‘bound’ by it, that does not mean he can’t consider it.

  24. avatar
    john June 5, 2015 at 7:40 am #

    faceman: Still having trouble with the definition of ‘prima facie’, I see.Prima facie evidence is evidence that, in the absence of any contrary evidence, is sufficient to prove the case.Evidence that is of little, if any, probative value is not sufficient to overcome a certified birth certificate, especially one that has been the subject of several official press conferences and public statements.As well as being authenticated to several states in the last election who questioned Obama’s eligibility.

    And, John, since when is using ‘persuasive precedent’ improper. Even if he wasn’t ‘bound’ by it, that does not mean he can’t consider it.

    Judge Malihi explained his decision was based entirely on the Law, as well as evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing. The Indiana case was not a binding case and was not part of the record and therefore it should not have been even considered. Regarding, it would have been same idea if Judge Malihi used the INS document Doc C mentions to refute the expert witnesses that were put forward by Orly. (Her witness weren’t expert, so apparently he never got that far.) Further, I think it would been very fair to reject a case supporting Obama due to fact that Obama was in contempt for failing to show. (Judge Malihi ignored the contempt and essentially advocated for the Defense, basically he played Obama’s lawyer).

  25. avatar
    realist June 5, 2015 at 7:56 am #

    john: Judge Malihi used persuasive precedent in the case to reach his decision. It was highly improper.

    Actually, what was improper was holding the hearing at all, for which he had no authority.

  26. avatar
    realist June 5, 2015 at 8:01 am #

    john: Further, I think it would been very fair to reject a case supporting Obama due to fact that Obama was in contempt for failing to show. (Judge Malihi ignored the contempt and essentially advocated for the Defense, basically he played Obama’s lawyer).

    Also BS. He didn’t have to show at all, and so didn’t. Why? Well, many reasons but the main one was that Malihi had no authority to hold the hearing in the first place. If he’d ruled otherwise it would have been reversed on those grounds alone, much less many other reasons for which it would have been reversed.

    There was never, ever any Order to show nor any show cause for any contempt. Now was he in contempt. Birthers just keep making that up.

  27. avatar
    J.D. Sue June 5, 2015 at 10:40 am #

    john: Judge Malihi used persuasive precedent in the case to reach his decision. It was highly improper.


    Since when is a judge limited to only case law cited by the parties? Since never.

  28. avatar
    David Farrar June 5, 2015 at 11:43 am #

    @Dr. Conspiracy

    The record will reflect, this is not the first time I have addressed your errors and omissions via you own webpage.

    As I point out, “We (all) assume Obama is/was qualified to take the oath of office; do we not? We were gathered there to prove this assumption by the preponderance of evidence. The hearing was, in effect, an evidentiary hearing, to allow full discovery of Obama’s natal records — something to this day he has steadfastly refused to allow. We were there to prove a positive, not the negative.

    In regards to the rest of the chatter here; I find it extraordinary difficult to understand just why it is so hard to accept the fact that, in light of Jay’s “hint” to G. Washington, chairmen of the 1789 constitutional convention then in session, that the command in chief of the nation’s armed forces should not devolve on any person born subject to a foreign sovereignty.

    The “natural born Citizen” clause pertains to the civic status required to be eligible to take the oath of office of the president of the United States: that is, how one obtained their citizenship, and not simply citizenship itself, as reflected in Art. I §8 cl. 4. Simply put: “natural citizenship” is citizenship acquired by natural right, without the need of statutory law.

    Beyond this point it eludes me to find any possible way to acquire natural citizenship free from foreign sovereignties at birth other than to require a person born of a US citizen father subject to the jurisdiction. Later, when the Doctrine of Couverture was abandoned, requiring both parents to be US citizens subject to the jurisdiction when the issue occurred would be necessary to fulfill this requirement.

  29. avatar
    realist June 5, 2015 at 11:59 am #

    Jay’s letter says nothing about one “born subject to a foreign sovereignty”.

    What it says is: …Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

  30. avatar
    Crustacean June 5, 2015 at 12:16 pm #

    Sorry, realist, that can’t be right. I know for a fact that David Farrar is incapable of lying.

    I also know for a fact that I am the true and legal chancellor of the Fourth Reich, and my beagle is the Queen of England…

    realist: Jay’s letter says nothing about one “born subject to a foreign sovereignty”.
    What it says is: …Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

  31. avatar
    HistorianDude June 5, 2015 at 1:29 pm #

    john
    First, the precedent established by the Indiana case was not binding so Judge Malihi was not bound by it.

    What an odd argument. To assert he “was not bound it” is a rather far cry from any argument that it was neither proper nor compelling precedent. As we have seen, Ankeny has also been cited as precedent by subsequent courts in Maryland, New Jersey, Washington, Vermont, and Florida. This alone speaks to the precedential value of the Indiana decision and its propriety in these case.

    Additionally, Judge Malihi never provided independent reasoning for the meaning of NBC but merely cited Indiana.

    Among the uses of precedent, one is to eliminate the need to slay again the already slain. There is no “independent reasoning” for the very good reason that no independent reasoning is necessary.

    Finally, it was specifically stressed by the lawyers in the case, that the record be closed and that the law and facts be determined by the motions and record in front of Judge Mahihi. The Indiana case was never submitted to the court and since it was not binding, it should be rejected.

    This is an absurd “requirement” that no advocates should, in their right minds, ever have the presumption to even pretend to impose. It is among the most well established of legal maxims that “iura novit curia”; the court knows the law. The court alone is responsible for determining which law applies to a particular case, and how. The court applies the law “ex officio,” i.e. without being limited to the legal arguments advanced by the parties.

    Further, it should have been argued that if Obama had responded or shown up, he would have used this case as his “Best Legal Argument” for arguing the meaning of NBC.

    You can have no possible way of knowing that.

    Since, Obama did not show up, I think it was unfair to allow Obama to use his “Best Legal Argument” of that of a nonbinding legal decision not part of the record.

    Obama did not use it. As you noted, he did not show up.

    But that’s okay, because “iura novit curia.”

  32. avatar
    HistorianDude June 5, 2015 at 1:55 pm #

    David Farrar: In regards to the rest of the chatter here; I find it extraordinary difficult to understand just why it is so hard to accept the fact that, in light of Jay’s “hint” to G. Washington, chairmen of the 1789 constitutional convention then in session, that the command in chief of the nation’s armed forces should not devolve on any person born subject to a foreign sovereignty.

    Speaking only for myself, I find it droll that what Jay himself called a “hint” is elevated by birthers into some sort of controlling authority since 1) Jay was not a framer at all, and 2) “hints” are by definition ambiguous.

    You yourself take full advantage of that ambiguity when your offered paraphrase (“the command in chief of the nation’s armed forces should not devolve on any person born subject to a foreign sovereignty”) cannot defensibly be derived from Jay’s actual words of “a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government.” The US Code even has an explicit definition of “foreigner” (well, “alien” actually, since only aliens are specifically under US jurisdiction, while most foreigners are not). It is anyone who is not a US citizen or US national. Obviously, any of those who are naturalized were “born subject to a foreign sovereignty,” and they are still allowed “admission … into the administration of our national Government.”

    Had Jay meant what you claim he meant, he certainly could have said that. Jay was after all a highly experienced lawyer steeped in the English common law, and certainly he knew the meaning of “natural born” citizen/subject; a legal term of art that existed under no other system of jurisprudence.

    What is “so hard to accept” is the assertion that the framers in general (and Jay in particular) would insert a well known common law term into the Constitution with a completely different meaning… and then forget to tell anybody.

  33. avatar
    HistorianDude June 5, 2015 at 2:13 pm #

    David Farrar: Simply put: “natural citizenship” is citizenship acquired by natural right, without the need of statutory law.

    Completely wrong. Your bastardization of “natural born citizenship” to “natural citizenship” is worse than equivocation, it is deliberate sleight of hand.

    First, there is actually no such thing as “natural citizenship.” Citizenship is a purely human convention, a legal invention with no natural equivalent whatsoever. It is governed by law, only by law, and means only and exactly what we as humans choose it to mean.

    Second, the use of the word “natural” cannot be contextually ripped from the common law term of art “natural born” without doing violence to its meaning. It derives not from any conception of citizenship as a “right,” natural or otherwise. It derives from the concept of allegiance (or originally “ligeance”) as a set of reciprocal obligations between subject and sovereign, governed and government. Blackstone described it thusly:

    Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject.

    The “natural” designation comes not from “natural law,” but by the use of the term to distinguish between that allegiance established at birth due to birth within the jurisdiction of a nation or sovereign, and that owed temporarily by those present in that jurisdiction, but not having been born to it. Blackstone again:

    Allegiance, both express and implied, is however distinguished by the law into two sorts or species, the one natural, the other local; the former being also perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king’s protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themselves.

    Even Blackstone makes no effort to assign any useful other etymology to the use of “natural.” Tacitly admitting that there was none, he simply acknowledges that “the name and the form are derived to us from our Gothic ancestors.”

  34. avatar
    Arthur B. June 5, 2015 at 2:19 pm #

    David Farrar: We were there to prove a positive, not the negative.

    So, in retrospect, what is your conclusion — do you believe that Orly’s evidentiary presentation should have been considered sufficient to prove your case?

  35. avatar
    bob June 5, 2015 at 2:41 pm #

    John would have us believe that if Mahihi had only said “Wong Kim Ark leads to the conclusion that President Obama is a natural-born citizen,” instead of citing the Indiana case saying exactly that, birthers would have accepted that conclusion.

    And John’s version of the law where judges can only rule based on the law that the parties present to the court would be a scary Through-the-Looking-Glass place.

  36. avatar
    OllieOxenFree June 5, 2015 at 4:35 pm #

    David Farrar: Simply put: “natural citizenship” is citizenship acquired by natural right, without the need of statutory law.

    IANAL, but I have been trying to understand this particular argument as it pertains to the use of the word “natural,” and borders.

    Borders are not necessarily recognized by nature. Surely there are natural borders, such as coastlines. But, the borders between Canada and Mexico are determined by treaty. They are man made constructs and therefor not natural by definition, nor determined by God for those who go for a more extreme definition of “natural.” (an argument that I have often seen used at GR, that natural born citizenship is under God’s law of nature and not man’s)

    As U.S. astronaut José Hernández was once quoted as saying, “What surprised me is when I saw the world as one. There were no borders. You couldn’t distinguish between the United States and Mexico.”

    Therefore, any argument that “natural born,” is subject to no law other than that of, “natural law,” seems to be misleading. If borders that determine the territory of a country are artificially constructed through treaty, then a person’s place of birth is determined by those borders, and hence subject to the treaties that determine them, right?

    I should point out that I am highly dubious that the founders were so rigid on this definition of “natural born,” being born on soil of two citizen parents, then would also add that qualifications would also include a residency of only 14 years in the United States and an age of 35. By those qualifications, a person could be born here and then spend nearly 3/5’s of his life abroad, return at the age of 21, establish residency for 14 years, and run for presidency without the “presumption of foreign influence.”

  37. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG June 5, 2015 at 5:06 pm #

    Farrar and john, in the same thread, and still not a working brain cell between them.

  38. avatar
    Jim June 5, 2015 at 5:46 pm #

    David, you keep on telling about this “natural citizenship” yet you have shown us nothing that proves it…except your opinion. Can you show us examples of your “natural citizenship”? In other words, citizenship without legal backing?

  39. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 5, 2015 at 6:29 pm #

    If my count is correct, you have to date left 64 comments on this web site, going back at least to 2012.

    If you did find a legitimate error or omission, I hope I corrected it at the time. I haven’t found anything to correct based on your most recent comments.

    David Farrar: The record will reflect, this is not the first time I have addressed your errors and omissions via you own webpage.

  40. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 5, 2015 at 6:31 pm #

    I grant you that one.

    David Farrar: No one is going to vote for a politician who has a know-it-all, condescending smirk on their face.

  41. avatar
    Bonsall Obot June 5, 2015 at 8:25 pm #

    Once again, john mistakenly believes that the rules applying to a common juror also apply, and must apply, to any and every judge, everywhere, at all times. A dumber argument would be difficult to formulate.

    You don’t get to choose what judges use to decide cases, john. That simple.

  42. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 5, 2015 at 8:26 pm #

    It’s simple: David has no idea what the term “prima facie” means. They are just magic words to him. He intones them like a “cargo cult” priest signaling planes to land through his bamboo radio, hoping that the legal gods (or John Frum) will hear him and smile on his argument while willfully ignoring that something that has “little to no probative value” MAY have “no probative value” and even if that is not the case it still has little value.

    Arthur B.: You seem to acknowledge that there was prima facie evidence before the Court that the President was born in Hawaii, and you have also acknowledged the Court’s conclusion that what you presented failed to refute it.

    By what logic are you concluding that unrebutted prima facie evidence does not constitute proof?

  43. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 5, 2015 at 8:27 pm #

    OllieOxenFree: By those qualifications, a person could be born here and then spend nearly 3/5’s of his life abroad, return at the age of 21, establish residency for 14 years, and run for presidency without the “presumption of foreign influence.”

    What’s even worse…

    According to the birthers…

    Two people:

    PERSON 1: born in the United States, to parents who naturalized one day after son was born. He never leaves the United States, and grows up in this country, knowing no other country.

    PERSON 2: born in the Untited States to citizen parents. One day after the person was born, their parents take them to a foreign country, and renounce their citizenship. On his 21st Birthday, the person returns to the United States, and resumes the duties of citizenship.

    Which one has more foreign influence on their 35th birthday? Person 1, or Person 2. According to the birthers, person one, because they were born to 2 foreigners (even though they grew up all but one day with 2 United States Citizen parents) has too much foreign influence to be trusted with the Presidency. However, person 2 (who spent all but one day in a foreign country, raised by foreign parents) doesn’t have too much foreign influence and would still be eligible for the Presidency.

    That’s what birthers don’t seem to understand. If the founders did this as a protection against “foreign influence”, then wouldn’t it make more sense to have a requirement that requies them to have resided in the United States their entire lives, instead of the supposed birther requirement?

  44. avatar
    Dave B. June 5, 2015 at 8:40 pm #

    At least he’s dropped that “Ex animo” schtick. I haven’t seen him bring up that “l’esprit” stuff lately, either; but then who bothers to look any more?

    Slartibartfast:
    It’s simple: David has no idea what the term “prima facie” means.They are just magic words to him.He intones them like a “cargo cult” priest signaling planes to land through his bamboo radio, hoping that the legal gods (or John Frum) will hear him and smile on his argument while willfully ignoring that something that has “little to no probative value” MAY have “no probative value” and even if that is not the case it still has little value.

  45. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 5, 2015 at 8:43 pm #

    I used to try to remind David as often as possible that he (although we all know that Orly probably didn’t give a rat’s ass about what David wanted and likely didn’t even consult him) turned down what would have been far and away the greatest triumph of the birther movement ever. It wouldn’t have mattered that the SoS would have ignored the ALJ’s recommendation and left President Obama on the ballot anyway—it would have been the birther holy grail: a contemporary court finding President Obama ineligible. After that, it would have been much harder to portray the birthers as cranks, con men and smear merchants and it would have enabled a whole new wave of ODS sufferers to build a birther-level confirmation bias. I have plenty of regrets, but not the whopper that David must deal with if he understands the opportunity that was missed (which admittedly is a big “if”).

    Dr. Conspiracy: The only thing that could have been done differently was to accept the offer of a default judgment.

  46. avatar
    Dave B. June 5, 2015 at 8:49 pm #

    Anybody who pulls out that “The record will reflect” on the guy who has the record at his fingertips without having a specific record in mind is a damn fool.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    If my count is correct, you have to date left 64 comments on this web site, going back at least to 2012.

    If you did find a legitimate error or omission, I hope I corrected it at the time. I haven’t found anything to correct based on your most recent comments.

    David Farrar: The record will reflect, this is not the first time I have addressed your errors and omissions via you own webpage.

  47. avatar
    Reality Check June 5, 2015 at 9:40 pm #

    To repeat something I just said to Mario Apuzzo at the Western Free Press ongoing and never ending comment thread my two favorite courtroom moments are Mario getting schooled by Alexandra Hill in the NJ ballot challenge hearing and Orly calling herself to the witness stand in David’s case in Georgia. We have David to thank for the latter.

  48. avatar
    David Farrar June 5, 2015 at 9:50 pm #

    Arthur B.: So, in retrospect, what is your conclusion — do you believe that Orly’s evidentiary presentation should have been considered sufficient to prove your case?

    Yes. Judge Mahili had before him a simple decision to make: was the “little, if any” prima facie impeachment evidence set before him sufficient enough to overcome Obama’s prima facie evidence that had absolutely no probative value whatsoever? In hindsight, it was probably too much to ask Judge Mahili to put aside the peripheral issues involved in this particular case, but had he been able to do so, and just looked at the evidence set before him; he should have said, “You know what; there is so little actual evidence either way to base my decision on, let’s let Obama’s actual natal records speak for itself, and ordered “Discovery” of Obama’s natal records. Since we all assumed Obama actual natal record would support his claim, we would simply be proving a positive and not the negative. In this respect, the level of judicial notice should have been much lower than Judge Mahili actually used to arrive at his decision.

  49. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 5, 2015 at 9:56 pm #

    I actually don’t think that the default would have been any better for the birthers except to allow them to say that they got “something.”

    Malihi wrote in his decision:

    Ordinarily, the Court would enter a default order against a party that fails to participate in any stage of a proceeding. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 616-1-2-.30(1) and (5). Nonetheless, despite the Defendant’s failure to appear, Plaintiffs asked this Court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ request.

    “Default order” has a specific meaning in Georgia, as spelled out on the “Administrative Rules of procedure..”

    (1) A default order may be entered against a party that fails to participate in any stage of a proceeding, a party that fails to file any required pleading, or a party that fails to comply with an order issued by the Administrative Law Judge. Any default order shall specify the grounds for the order.

    (2) Any default order may provide for a default as to all issues, a default as to specific issues, or other limitations, including limitations on the presentation of evidence and on the defaulting party’s continued participation in the proceeding. After issuing a default order, the Administrative Law Judge shall proceed as necessary to resolve the case without the participation of the defaulting party, or with such limited participation as the Administrative Law Judge deems appropriate, and shall determine all issues in the proceeding, including those affecting the party in default. …

    (5) If a party fails to attend an evidentiary hearing after having been given written notice, the Administrative Law Judge may proceed with the hearing in the absence of the party unless the absent party is the party who requested the hearing, in which case the Administrative Law Judge may dismiss the action. Failure of a party to appear at the time set for hearing shall constitute a failure to appear, unless excused for good cause.

    What I hear is that Judge Malihi said that the usual procedure would be to cancel the hearing, and enter a default order, one that restricts the defaulting party from presenting his case. But the plaintiffs wanted to hold the hearing anyway, which the law allows. I don’t see any reason to conclude that Judge Malihi would have entered a judgment against Obama if plaintiffs had accepted the default order.

    Remember, Taitz was not the only attorney involved; there was Mark Hatfield and Van Irion. None of them took the default. It seems to me that they did the right thing, being able to get their witnesses’ statements into the record–giving them a stronger case than if they had accepted the default order. Of course, plaintiffs DID submit Obama’s birth certificate and failed to impeach it–a big mistake.

    Slartibartfast: I used to try to remind David as often as possible that he (although we all know that Orly probably didn’t give a rat’s ass about what David wanted and likely didn’t even consult him) turned down what would have been far and away the greatest triumph of the birther movement ever.

  50. avatar
    Arthur B. June 5, 2015 at 9:58 pm #

    David Farrar: was the “little, if any” prima facie impeachment evidence set before him sufficient enough to overcome Obama’s prima facie evidence that had absolutely no probative value whatsoever?

    Ah, David, David…

    1) You had no prima facie evidence whatsoever. You do not understand what prima facie means.

    2) The other side did, and it is not possible for prima facie evidence to have no probative value. You do not understand what prima facie means.

    David, you are in way over your head.

  51. avatar
    Arthur B. June 5, 2015 at 10:00 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: That tells me that if the default order had been entered, then Judge Malihi would have resolved the case with whatever he already had. Well, what he would have had is basically what he had before the hearing because this stuff had been briefed previously. So I don’t see any different outcome.

    You know, Doc, that’s been my understanding of it from the time it happened, but I’ve heard very few express that view.

  52. avatar
    Dave B. June 5, 2015 at 10:34 pm #

    Oh for crying out loud.

    David Farrar: Yes. Judge Mahili had before him a simple decision to make: was the “little, if any” prima facie impeachment evidence set before him sufficient enough to overcome Obama’s prima facie evidence that had absolutely no probative value whatsoever?In hindsight, it was probably too much to ask Judge Mahili to put aside the peripheral issues involved in this particular case, but had he been able to do so, and just looked at the evidence set before him; he should have said, “You know what; there is so little actual evidence either way to base my decision on, let’s let Obama’s actual natal records speak for itself,and ordered “Discovery” of Obama’s natal records. Since we all assumed Obama actual natal record would support his claim, we would simply be proving a positive and not the negative. In this respect, the level of judicial notice should have been much lower than Judge Mahili actually used to arrive at his decision.

    Now about that question you ran away from on the other thread– and I do hate to go even farther astray than we’ve gone here, but when you said,
    “It is nice to know 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23); INA 101(a)(23)) defines naturalization as “the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth by any means whatsoever,” which includes by birth and at birth,”
    what, exactly, were you saying includes “by birth and at birth”?

  53. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 5, 2015 at 10:54 pm #

    I always translated that as “out of breath”.

    If someone birfs and no Obot cares did it really happen? Sooner or later the birther movement is going to face an existential crisis because no one is paying attention anymore.

    Dave B.:
    At least he’s dropped that “Ex animo” schtick.I haven’t seen him bring up that “l’esprit” stuff lately, either; but then who bothers to look any more?

  54. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 5, 2015 at 10:58 pm #

    Which, compared to the “victories” the birthers have had so far, would be like winning the Super Bowl, the World Series, the NBA Championship, the Stanley Cup, grand slams in golf and tennis and an Olympic goal medal all at the same time. Seriously, how many “usurpathons” do you think that would be worth?

    Dr. Conspiracy: I actually don’t think that the default would have been any better for the birthers except to allow them to say that they got “something.”

  55. avatar
    realist June 6, 2015 at 7:39 am #

    David Farrar: Judge Mahili had before him a simple decision to make: was the “little, if any” prima facie impeachment evidence set before him sufficient enough to overcome Obama’s prima facie evidence that had absolutely no probative value whatsoever?

    You know, David, I’ve read a lot of your nonsensical ramblings over the years, but that has to be the dumbest most nonsensical thing I’ve read to date. Yes, as others have stated, you obviously have no idea what prima facie means, but that glop goes way beyond not understand that term. And goes way beyond the fact that you also have no idea what evidence means, much less prima facie evidence.

    Nevertheless, whatever decision Malihi would have made against Obama, does not mean the SoS would have to accept his recommendation, and even if he did, the fact remains it would have been very short-lived on appeal, as Malihi did not have the authority to hold the hearing in the first place.

  56. avatar
    Benji Franklin June 6, 2015 at 9:05 am #

    David Farrar: Beyond this point it eludes me to find any possible way to acquire natural citizenship free from foreign sovereignties at birth other than to require a person born of a US citizen father subject to the jurisdiction.

    Oh, what a deep thinker you are! Let’s change our official interpretation of the Constitution to accommodate every legal concept which you can’t imagine!

    If two stateless persons sneak into the United States and have a child, that child fills the bill.

  57. avatar
    dr. kenneth noisewater June 6, 2015 at 9:55 am #

    David Farrar: Yes. Judge Mahili had before him a simple decision to make: was the “little, if any” prima facie impeachment evidence set before him sufficient enough to overcome Obama’s prima facie evidence that had absolutely no probative value whatsoever?

    You guys presented nothing which could be considered evidence

  58. avatar
    bob June 6, 2015 at 11:46 am #

    dr. kenneth noisewater: You guys presented nothing which could be considered evidence

    Exactly.

    David: What evidence did your attorney in Georgia present that showed President Obama was not born in the United States?

  59. avatar
    Rickey June 6, 2015 at 1:59 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I actually don’t think that the default would have been any better for the birthers except to allow them to say that they got “something.”

    As I recall, many birthers mistakenly believed that a default judgment automatically meant that the prevailing party would get what they were asking for. But even if Farrar, et al. had accepted a default judgment, they still would have had to establish that they were entitled to relief and that Judge Mahili had the authority to grant that relief.

    It’s obvious that Farrar still hasn’t come to grips with the fact that he lost to an empty chair.

  60. avatar
    Arthur B. June 6, 2015 at 2:25 pm #

    Rickey: As I recall, many birthers mistakenly believed that a default judgment automatically meant that the prevailing party would get what they were asking for.

    But remember, as Doc points out, what was most likely in play was not even a default judgment but rather a default order, which is a very different animal.

    It appears that the birthers’ enthusiasm for it reflected an inflated notion of its very limited significance.

  61. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 6, 2015 at 3:54 pm #

    My recollection is that no such claim was made. What they claimed was that the evidence supporting Obama’s eligibility was questionable, and therefore required an official investigation before Obama could appear on the ballot. (It’s been a while.)

    What birthers have yet to realize that if they ever did get their day in court with Obama as a participating party, all of their “fear, uncertainty and doubt” evidence would be dispelled. They would be the usurper with no clothes.

    bob: David: What evidence did your attorney in Georgia present that showed President Obama was not born in the United States?

  62. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 6, 2015 at 4:04 pm #

    I don’t know that Judge Malihi had the jurisdiction to compel presentation of those records.

    However, Mr. Allen provided what I believe was proper foundation for the introduction of the Obama and Soetoro immigration files, which are government documents. In those files, we have a contemporary state department report that Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961. Nothing was presented to impugn that report. While I am not a lawyer, I think that evidence was admissible and probative, and it says Obama was born in Hawaii. Nothing else presented in the case points to him being born anywhere else. So how could Judge Malihi have ruled, based on the evidence submitted in the case, that Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii?

    David Farrar: In hindsight, it was probably too much to ask Judge Mahili to put aside the peripheral issues involved in this particular case, but had he been able to do so, and just looked at the evidence set before him; he should have said, “You know what; there is so little actual evidence either way to base my decision on, let’s let Obama’s actual natal records speak for itself, and ordered “Discovery” of Obama’s natal records.

  63. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 6, 2015 at 4:40 pm #

    I had never looked at the precise language of Malihi’s order and the Administrative Rules before (or if I did, I forgot it). In forming my reply, I looked at a little of the discussion at The Fogbow about the difference between “default judgment and a declaration of default. When I went to Mahili’s order, it was immediately apparent that he used other terms, and then I found the definition. That’s what lead to my comment, which for me was an improved understanding.

    Arthur B.: You know, Doc, that’s been my understanding of it from the time it happened, but I’ve heard very few express that view.

  64. avatar
    bob June 6, 2015 at 5:17 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    My recollection is that no such claim was made. What they claimed was that the evidence supporting Obama’s eligibility was questionable, and therefore required an official investigation before Obama could appear on the ballot. (It’s been a while.)

    Farrar, etc., alleged that President Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery, that he has no valid identification documents, etc. None of which are eligibility qualifications.

    Farrar freely admits he hoped the court would grant discovery — in other words, the plaintiffs did not possess and did not present any evidence showing that President Obama was not born in the United States.

    That Farrar’s attorney did not know how to propagate discovery is his attorney’s fault, not the court’s.

  65. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 6, 2015 at 5:54 pm #

    And the other two attorneys tried to make a case that Obama was ineligible based on the undisputed fact that his father was an alien. They never touched Obama’s documents. No discovery was needed for that determination.

    According to the Georgia rules for Administrative Law Courts:

    “Discovery shall not be available in any proceeding before an Administrative Law Judge except to the extent specifically authorized by law. Nothing in this Rule is intended to limit the provisions of Article 4 of Chapter 18 of Title 50 or Rule 37. ”

    The statute says:

    “(e) In a pending proceeding under Chapter 13 of this title, the “Georgia Administrative Procedure Act,” or under any other administrative proceeding authorized under Georgia law, a party may not access public records pertaining to the subject of the proceeding pursuant to this article without the prior approval of the presiding administrative law judge, who shall consider such open record request in the same manner as any other request for information put forth by a party in such a proceeding. This subsection shall not apply to any proceeding under Chapter 13 of this title, relating to the revocation, suspension, annulment, withdrawal, or denial of a professional education certificate, as defined in Code Section 20-2-200, or any personnel proceeding authorized under Part 7 and Part 11 of Article 17 and Article 25 of Chapter 2 of Title 20.”

    Rule 37 also refers to public records that are “open records.”
    (continued).

    bob: That Farrar’s attorney did not know how to propagate discovery is his attorney’s fault, not the court’s.

  66. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 6, 2015 at 6:26 pm #

    There is a Georgia statute, § 34-9-102 – Hearing before administrative law judge, that says:

    “(d) Discovery procedures.

    (1) Discovery procedures shall be governed and controlled by Chapter 11 of Title 9, the “Georgia Civil Practice Act.”

    (2) The term “administrative law judge” shall be substituted for the word “court” when construing any procedural rule, provided that any administrative law judge shall seek enforcement of orders as stated in subsection (h) of this Code section.

    (3) The administrative law judge may admit as evidence at the hearing and at all future hearings evidence obtained by depositions, interrogatories, or admissions of fact, whether or not the deponent is available to testify in person at the hearing and whether or not the evidence was taken originally for the purpose of discovery or evidence, or both.”

    Chapter 11 of Title 9, the “Georgia Civil Practice Act.” is here: http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-9/chapter-11/article-5/9-11-26

    So I am now thinking that discovery is no different before an ALJ, as the referenced Chapter doesn’t make any special provision for Administrative Law Judges. It talks about the scope of discovery:

    “(1) In general. Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence;”

    I would think that anything from Hawaii would be privileged, and not subject to discovery.

  67. avatar
    Joey June 6, 2015 at 6:45 pm #

    Birthers have always incorrectly assumed that Barack Obama controls access to his birth vital records. He doesn’t. They are the property of the state of Hawaii. “Discovery” in a lawsuit with Barack Obama as defendant would not yield access to the vault copy birth certificate.

  68. avatar
    Rickey June 6, 2015 at 8:58 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    I would think that anything from Hawaii would be privileged, and not subject to discovery.

    Even if it were not privileged, a state court in Georgia has no authority to demand production of another state’s records. A Georgia court would fail Hawaii’s “tangible interest” rule because Georgia has no jurisdiction over Hawaii.

    However, presumably Obama could sign a HIPAA authorization allowing Kapiʻolani Medical Center to release his hospital birth records, if they still exist. However, a Georgia court would be powerless to require the hospital to release the records, even with a proper authorization.

    In New York we run into that problem frequently in cases where plaintiffs in personal injury cases get their medical treatment in New Jersey, Connecticut, etc. Out of state medical providers cannot be required to honor medical authorizations and they cannot be compelled to comply with New York State court subpoenas.

  69. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 6, 2015 at 9:22 pm #

    While Kapi’olani COULD still have a medical record, it is very unlikely. All they likely have is a birth registry. The problem with a waiver from the President is that he cannot waive his mother’s rights under HIPAA, and the last I checked (and it could have changed), death doesn’t end those rights.

    Rickey: However, presumably Obama could sign a HIPAA authorization allowing Kapiʻolani Medical Center to release his hospital birth records, if they still exist. However, a Georgia court would be powerless to require the hospital to release the records, even with a proper authorization.

  70. avatar
    MN-Skeptic June 6, 2015 at 10:34 pm #

    Jim: Ah yes, the hair of our youth. Wonder how many of those 60’s hippies are bald now?

    Or how are compensating for the loss of hair by having a little ponytail?

  71. avatar
    HistorianDude June 7, 2015 at 12:14 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: the last I checked (and it could have changed), death doesn’t end those rights.

    It has not changed. Protected medical information remains protected even after death.

  72. avatar
    HistorianDude June 7, 2015 at 12:35 am #

    David Farrar: Yes. Judge Mahili had before him a simple decision to make: was the “little, if any” prima facie impeachment evidence set before him sufficient enough to overcome Obama’s prima facie evidence that had absolutely no probative value whatsoever?

    In point of fact, no. In any civil case, the plaintiff must produce enough evidence on all elements of the claim to support the claim and shift the burden of evidence production to the respondent. Evidence of “little, if any” probative value does not generate an obvious requirement to respond.

    In hindsight, it was probably too much to ask Judge Mahili to put aside the peripheral issues involved in this particular case, but had he been able to do so, and just looked at the evidence set before him; he should have said, “You know what; there is so little actual evidence either way to base my decision on, let’s let Obama’s actual natal records speak for itself,and ordered “Discovery” of Obama’s natal records.

    You seem shockingly unclear on the concept even after all this time. When plaintiffs fail to make their case, then a sua sponte initiative by the court of the sort you describe here would be quite illegitimate. The Supreme Court has interpreted the “Case or Controversy Clause” of Article III of the Constitution to prohibit precisely that sort of judicial activism.

    Since we all assumed Obama actual natal record would support his claim, we would simply be proving a positive and not the negative.

    You would actually be proving nothing. Obama would. And as we have established above, there was no requirement for him to prove anything absent the ability of the several birther lawyers to present a case worthy of response.

    In this respect, the level of judicial notice should have been much lower than Judge Mahili actually used to arrive at his decision.

    I’ve read that four times. I can make neither heads nor tails of what you were trying to say.

  73. avatar
    Keith June 7, 2015 at 12:44 am #

    MN-Skeptic: Or how are compensating for the loss of hair by having a little ponytail?

    I repeat, I resemble that remark.

    You are getting very silly

  74. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 7, 2015 at 12:47 am #

    Forget everything you know about the law. Drink four pan-galactic gargle blasters and have a rugby team dance on your head. Then take a list of legal terms, a simulated intelligence that can fail a Turing test before it speaks and complete and unshakable belief in the tenets of David’s cargo cult. Season with dishonesty, stupidity and ignorance to taste and toss.

    Serves 4… David’s brain.

    HistorianDude: I’ve read that four times. I can make neither heads nor tails of what you were trying to say.

  75. avatar
    Joey June 7, 2015 at 1:17 am #

    David Farrar fails to comprehnd that if he wanted discovery of Obama birth vital records, he needed to file suit against the state of Hawaii, in Hawaii.

  76. avatar
    Rickey June 7, 2015 at 3:56 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    While Kapi’olani COULD still have a medical record, it is very unlikely. All they likely have is a birth registry. The problem with a waiver from the President is that he cannot waive his mother’s rights under HIPAA, and the last I checked (and it could have changed), death doesn’t end those rights.

    I’ve never seen a hospital’s birth records, so I’m not sure if they are exclusively the records of the mother or if hospitals keep a second set of records for the infant.

    You are correct that Obama probably could not authorize the release of his mother’s records, unless he holds a Power of Attorney for her which did not expire upon her death. He could authorize the release of his own medical records, of course. I agree that it is unlikely that those records exist, other than a listing in the hospital’s birth registry.

  77. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 7, 2015 at 4:03 am #

    Um… Wouldn’t President Obama have the power to order the release of his mother’s records as a person with a tangible interest in them? Dr. Dunham’s records are restricted from the general public, they have never been restricted to her son.

    Rickey: I’ve never seen a hospital’s birth records, so I’m not sure if they are exclusively the records of the mother or if hospitals keep a second set of records for the infant.

    You are correct that Obama probably could not authorize the release of his mother’s records, unless he holds a Power of Attorney for her which did not expire upon her death. He could authorize the release of his own medical records, of course. I agree that it is unlikely that those records exist, other than a listing in the hospital’s birth registry.

  78. avatar
    Rickey June 7, 2015 at 4:10 am #

    Slartibartfast:
    Um… Wouldn’t President Obama have the power to order the release of his mother’s records as a person with a tangible interest in them?Dr. Dunham’s records are restricted from the general public, they have never been restricted to her son.

    He’s entitled to see his mother’s vital records (Hawaii has her death certificate), but not her medical records. The “tangible interest” rule only applies to vital records held by the State.

  79. avatar
    Rickey June 7, 2015 at 4:14 am #

    Joey:
    David Farrar fails to comprehnd that if he wanted discovery of Obama birth vital records, he needed to file suit against the state of Hawaii, in Hawaii.

    But he would lose. Andy Martin tried it, and his lawsuit was dismissed because he could not show that he had a tangible interest in Obama’s birth records. Farrar would suffer the same fate.

  80. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 7, 2015 at 4:27 am #

    I don’t know what the applicable HIPAA rules are, but I would be surprised if he doesn’t have access to his mother’s medical records under HIPAA.

    Rickey: He’s entitled to see his mother’s vital records (Hawaii has her death certificate), but not her medical records. The “tangible interest” rule only applies to vital records held by the State.

  81. avatar
    john June 7, 2015 at 9:07 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    While Kapi’olani COULD still have a medical record, it is very unlikely. All they likely have is a birth registry. The problem with a waiver from the President is that he cannot waive his mother’s rights under HIPAA, and the last I checked (and it could have changed), death doesn’t end those rights.

    </blockquote

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    While Kapi’olani COULD still have a medical record, it is very unlikely. All they likely have is a birth registry. The problem with a waiver from the President is that he cannot waive his mother’s rights under HIPAA, and the last I checked (and it could have changed), death doesn’t end those rights.

    That’s interesting. You mean someone couldn’t access medical records about Abe Lincoln. (Or anyone else for that matter from that time period.) I want to access the medical records of a man named charles johnson. He was born around 1820.

  82. avatar
    gorefan June 7, 2015 at 9:37 am #

    Slartibartfast:
    I don’t know what the applicable HIPAA rules are, but I would be surprised if he doesn’t have access to his mother’s medical records under HIPAA.

    “(i) A covered entity may, in accordance with paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), or (b)(5) of this section, disclose to a family member, other relative, or a close personal friend of the individual, or any other person identified by the individual, the protected health information directly relevant to such person’s involvement with the individual’s health care or payment related to the individual’s health care.”

    [skip]

    “(5) Uses and disclosures when the individual is deceased. If the individual is deceased, a covered entity may disclose to a family member, or other persons identified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section who were involved in the individual’s care or payment for health care prior to the individual’s death, protected health information of the individual that is relevant to such person’s involvement, unless doing so is inconsistent with any prior expressed preference of the individual that is known to the covered entity.”

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/45/164.510

    FAQ on HIPAA

    http://journal.ahima.org/2013/04/01/accessing-deceased-patient-health-records-faq/

  83. avatar
    Notorial Dissent June 7, 2015 at 9:48 am #

    What Farrar still hasn’t figured out, or accepted, is that any fool can go to court and file a law suit, as witness Farrar, but in order for something to happen they actually have to have something to back their claim(s). Farrar et all DIDN’T have anything to back their fantasies in GA, except that they really really wanted to believe them, and that isn’t/wasn’t sufficient grounds to grant a court authority to go poking around, or more to the point letting them go poking around. That has been the hallmark of every birfer case to date, they really really believe what they want to believe, but are really really short on anything resembling proof of any of it, and there is unfortunately, for them, a great deal of real, certified proof to the contrary already out there. There are contemporary State Department records which contradict their fantasies, and then there is that set of really inconvenient HI Dept of Vital Stats certifications of the birth date, time, and place, and other go to court and slap Farrar up information on the birth certificate, that actually do constitute real go in to court and slap Farrar et all up the side of the head legal proof of the contrary of what they want to believe.

  84. avatar
    Reality Check June 7, 2015 at 11:33 am #

    I think David went into this based on a suggestion from an attorney (not Taitz) that Georgia had very challenger friendly election laws and he hoped he could force the Democratic Party or the Obama campaign to produce a physical certified copy of Obama’s long form birth certificate as evidence.

    He then made a critical error getting Taitz the WLITHOTU involved and the waters were further muddied when the other plaintiffs, Swennson and Powell I think, filed and brought in the silly two citizen parent argument. Taitz of course had to bring in all of her favorite idiocy about stolen social security numbers and draft registration cards.

    I think the most the Obama campaign would have ever done was to submit a certified COLB or more likely a verification letter, either of which are more than adequate to demonstrate place of birth. Once it turned into the clown show and Malihi ruled not to quash Taitz ridiculous subpoena the campaign went for the empty chair strategy. They knew even if the SoS tried to keep Obama off the ballot his action would ultimately be overturned in the courts.

    Joey:
    David Farrar fails to comprehnd that if he wanted discovery of Obama birth vital records, he needed to file suit against the state of Hawaii, in Hawaii.

  85. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 7, 2015 at 1:29 pm #

    The verification letter is only for those not entitled to a birth certificate. Obama, at need, would most reasonably submit the COLB. We know the campaign had one.

    Reality Check: I think the most the Obama campaign would have ever done was to submit a certified COLB or more likely a verification letter,

  86. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 7, 2015 at 2:03 pm #

    I have a copy of the verification letter submitted to the court in Mississippi which I have on good authority is authentic. Even the word of a anonymous commenter on a blog about a document produced by the State of Hawai’i verifying the facts of President Obama’s birth is a higher level of proof than the birthers deserve.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The verification letter is only for those not entitled to a birth certificate. Obama, at need, would most reasonably submit the COLB. We know the campaign had one.

  87. avatar
    scott e June 7, 2015 at 5:34 pm #

    he’s not a true lib … er….. tarian if he doesn’t smoke weed. but wicked smart he is.
    ***
    good luck loren, i’ll enjoy following the updates.

  88. avatar
    Pete June 8, 2015 at 2:00 am #

    HistorianDude: What is “so hard to accept” is the assertion that the framers in general (and Jay in particular) would insert a well known common law term into the Constitution with a completely different meaning… and then forget to tell anybody.

    Words mean stuff. To claim that John Jay and the Framers of the Constitution really meant something different by “natural born” than what they had always previously meant by it is just like claiming that when they said the President had to be 35 years old, they didn’t mean 35 years old as we understand it, because they were giving the number in base 8 or base 16.

  89. avatar
    Pete June 8, 2015 at 2:02 am #

    Let’s see. 35 as base 8 would be 3 x 8 = 24, plus 5 = 29.

    35 as base 16 would be 3 x 16 = 48, plus 5 = 53.

    So yeah. It’s like saying when the Framers of the Constitution wrote the President had to be 35 years old, what they really meant was that he had to be 53.

  90. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) June 8, 2015 at 3:47 am #

    Pete: is just like claiming that when they said the President had to be 35 years old, they didn’t mean 35 years old as we understand it, because they were giving the number in base 8 or base 16

    Or rather that by “Years”, they did not mean Earth years (since those are used in British Common Law) but Mars years (because they worshipped Vattel who was born on Mars).

  91. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) June 8, 2015 at 3:58 am #

    Arthur B.: You do not understand what prima facie means.

    Cargo cult. Farrar thinks using certain “magic words” gives him more power than those not using them.

    He also doesn’t understand “little, if any”. I doubt he actually understands most of the English language when it comes to his ODS delusions.

  92. avatar
    Sudoku June 8, 2015 at 12:59 pm #

    (I apologize for not using quote function. Can’t manage in my phone.)

    David Farrar, you said the following:

    ‘The “natural born Citizen” clause pertains to the civic status required to be eligible to take the oath of office of the president of the United States: that is, how one obtained their citizenship, and not simply citizenship itself, as reflected in Art. I §8 cl. 4. Simply put: “natural citizenship” is citizenship acquired by natural right, without the need of statutory law.’

    ‘Beyond this point it eludes me to find any possible way to acquire natural citizenship free from foreign sovereignties at birth other than to require a person born of a US citizen father subject to the jurisdiction. …’

    First, aren’t those contradictory? If your ‘natural citizenship’ is acquired without the need of statutory law, how does it follow that there should be a ‘requirement’ that the father be subject to U.S. jurisdiction? Doesn’t that negate the natural part?

    Second, assuming you’re right, how would one prove they have ‘natural citizenship’? What would be acceptable?

  93. avatar
    Curious George June 8, 2015 at 1:41 pm #

    Arthur B.
    June 5, 2015

    David Farrar: was the “little, if any” prima facie impeachment evidence set before him sufficient enough to overcome Obama’s prima facie evidence that had absolutely no probative value whatsoever?

    “Ah, David, David…

    1) You had no prima facie evidence whatsoever. You do not understand what prima facie means.

    2) The other side did, and it is not possible for prima facie evidence to have no probative value. You do not understand what prima facie means.”

    David, you are in way over your head.”

    Well said Arthur B.

  94. avatar
    Notorial Dissent June 8, 2015 at 1:59 pm #

    The point that Mario the Putz and Farrar can’t seem to get around to is that if the Founders had intended that one of the requirements to be a Natural born citizen was to have two citizen parents, then they would have come right out and said so. They didn’t. They relied on the definition of natural born subject/citizen that they had grown up with and considered part of their legal history and were familiar with. if they had meant something different they would have come right out and said so, they didn’t. They obviously had no problem coming out and specifying an age or residency period, so it is the height of ridiculous, not to mention intellectual dishonest and hubris, to then come back and say that they meant something that they didn’t come out and say if it was different.

  95. avatar
    Sudoku June 8, 2015 at 2:37 pm #

    I can’t imagine that citizenship of the parents would be an integral qualification of the presidency, and yet, the citizenship of the parents is not on the standard birth certificate to this day.

  96. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 8, 2015 at 3:34 pm #

    Actually, it isn’t relevant. US certificates of live birth are only issued for persons born in the US. For such persons, the citizenship or nationality of the parents has no bearing on the citizenship of the child or on that child’s eligibility to be President. The only relevant question that could be added is whether or not the parent is an accredited representative of a foreign government.

    The US standard certificate does ask for the birthplace of each parent.

    Sudoku: I can’t imagine that citizenship of the parents would be an integral qualification of the presidency, and yet, the citizenship of the parents is not on the standard birth certificate to this day.

  97. avatar
    Sudoku June 8, 2015 at 4:33 pm #

    Exactly. That’s what I mean. IF the parents’ citizenship mattered, surely proof of naturalization, etc., would be required.

  98. avatar
    Color Me Skeptical June 8, 2015 at 6:07 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Mahili’s

    I thought this was about Loren Collins. As a lawyer, maybe he can clear this up. I was under the impression that when two parties are summoned to appear to court, and one party decides not to show up, a default judgment in favor of the party that shows is pretty much standard procedure. Either that or a delay.

    Anyway, lets’ all agree that it’s a tribute to Loren Collins’ magnanimity and generosity of spirit that he is willing to give up his lucrative and intellectually rewarding law practice in order to fill the nation’s need for more civil servants.

  99. avatar
    Dave B. June 8, 2015 at 6:15 pm #

    I think Loren should go all Abe Lincoln on us and grow a beard. That’ll fix ’em.

    Color Me Skeptical: I thought this was about Loren Collins.

  100. avatar
    OllieOxenFree June 8, 2015 at 7:55 pm #

    Color Me Skeptical: I was under the impression that when two parties are summoned to appear to court, and one party decides not to show up, a default judgment in favor of the party that shows is pretty much standard procedure. Either that or a delay.

    The court was actually prepared to render a default judgement in the plaintiffs favor, but they had asked that the court make a decision based on the evidence and the arguments that they presented.

    This of course resulted in the closest birthers have ever come to a victory and also perhaps their most humiliating defeat, losing to a defendant that not only offered no defense, but didn’t even bother to show up.

  101. avatar
    bob June 8, 2015 at 7:59 pm #

    Color Me Skeptical: I was under the impression that when two parties are summoned to appear to court, and one party decides not to show up, a default judgment in favor of the party that shows is pretty much standard procedure.

    If the plaintiff doesn’t show, the case is dismissed.

    If the defendant doesn’t show, the plaintiff still has to prove up the case. The defendant just forfeits the opportunity to object to the evidence presented, or to present his or her own evidence.

  102. avatar
    Arthur B. June 8, 2015 at 8:28 pm #

    OllieOxenFree: The court was actually prepared to render a default judgement in the plaintiffs favor…

    I’ve heard that claimed over the years, but I don’t think it’s true.

    Did you read Doc’s comment on the subject, above (http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2015/06/bull-moose-republican-obot-candidate/#comment-356839)? I think he is correct when he says that the option Malihi offered was a default order rather than a default judgment, and there is no reason to think that it would have resulted in anything resembling a birther victory.

  103. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 8, 2015 at 8:36 pm #

    The Georgia ballot challenge is on topic as Loren was the one who wrote Mr. Farrar’s original complaint.

    Color Me Skeptical: I thought this was about Loren Collins. As a lawyer, maybe he can clear this up. I was under the impression that when two parties are summoned to appear to court, and one party decides not to show up, a default judgment in favor of the party that shows is pretty much standard procedure. Either that or a delay.

    Anyway, lets’all agree that it’s a tribute to Loren Collins’ magnanimity and generosity of spirit that he is willing to give up his lucrative and intellectually rewarding law practice in order to fill the nation’s need for more civil servants.

  104. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 8, 2015 at 8:49 pm #

    As I responded to Doc’s comment that you referenced, I think you are correct on what would have happened, but it would have nonetheless been the biggest birther victory ever, ever by far. It would have instantly given them a boost in credibility and would have generated national headlines like “Georgia Judge Declares President Obama Ineligible” and would probably have swelled the size of the birther movement at least through the 2012 election. They’ve been eating crap for years and declaring it fit for a king (the birthers like their kings—just following after their hero Vattel), how good do you think gruel would taste to them?

    I think you vastly underestimate the effect that even a perceived victory would have had amongst the faithful and the birther-curious.

    Arthur B.: I’ve heard that claimed over the years, but I don’t think it’s true.

    Did you read Doc’s comment on the subject, above (http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2015/06/bull-moose-republican-obot-candidate/#comment-356839)? I think he is correct when he says that the option Malihi offered was a default order rather than a default judgment, and there is no reason to think that it would have resulted in anything resembling a birther victory.

  105. avatar
    Arthur B. June 8, 2015 at 9:27 pm #

    Slartibartfast: it would have nonetheless been the biggest birther victory ever, ever by far

    Maybe I’m missing something, but I just haven’t been able to see it that way. According to the Georgia rule that Doc quoted, “After issuing a default order, the Administrative Law Judge shall proceed as necessary to resolve the case without the participation of the defaulting party.” Malihi would have rendered a judgment based on the record, and it’s hard to believe that he could have ruled the President ineligible — even if the defendant doesn’t show up, the plaintiff still has to prove the case, and Malihi’s ruling made it very clear that they did not.

    I think some of it would have depended on how Malihi issued the default order and how easy it would have been for the birthers to claim that they had gotten a ‘default judgment.’

    But I imagine he would have returned to open court after the conference and announced that the hearing had been canceled as the defense had defaulted on its appearance. And he would then have proceeded to say that he would arrive at a determination based upon his examination of the record, and that a ruling on eligibility would follow. I don’t see an opportunity for a major victory claim. They had a bigger one, IMO, when Malihi refused to quash the subpoena.

  106. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 8, 2015 at 9:43 pm #

    Arthur,

    I think that it is entirely possible (remember that Judge Malihi didn’t have the authority to hold the hearing in the first place) that the judge would have recommended that the SoS remove President Obama’s name from the ballot knowing that the SoS would just ignore the recommendation. Even if it happened as you suggest, I think that the birthers would have found it easier to spin into a victory than quashing a subpoena and it would have been national news. Do you think that FOX would have hesitated to portray such a ruling as putting President Obama in a bad light?

  107. avatar
    Arthur B. June 8, 2015 at 10:04 pm #

    Slartibartfast: I think that it is entirely possible … that the judge would have recommended that the SoS remove President Obama’s name from the ballot…

    Why would he have found the Plaintiffs to have made their case in that instance when he did not reach that conclusion when the hearing was held? His ruling pulls no punches — he makes it clear that he considered their case to be worthless. How could he then have written an opinion ruling the other way? The same facts and law are in play.

  108. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 8, 2015 at 10:12 pm #

    I don’t think he realized just how immense a pile of crap it was until they presented their case. At the time, people were criticizing Judge Malihi for grandstanding. I think that, on his own, he could well have handed down a ruling which the birthers would have been quite happy with. After Orly had infected the record? Not so much.

    Arthur B.: Why would he have found the Plaintiffs to have made their case in that instance when he did not reach that conclusion when the hearing was held? His ruling pulls no punches — he makes it clear that he considered their case to be worthless. How could he then have written an opinion ruling the other way? The same facts and law are in play.

  109. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 8, 2015 at 11:44 pm #

    I don’t think the Georgia legislature is a full-time job, but I understood that Loren was intending to start a career as a mediator.

    Color Me Skeptical: Anyway, lets’ all agree that it’s a tribute to Loren Collins’ magnanimity and generosity of spirit that he is willing to give up his lucrative and intellectually rewarding law practice in order to fill the nation’s need for more civil servants.

  110. avatar
    Keith June 9, 2015 at 1:00 am #

    Arthur B.: I think some of it would have depended on how Malihi issued the default order and how easy it would have been for the birthers to claim that they had gotten a ‘default judgment.’

    My suspicion is that the default order would have been along the lines of:

    By failing to appear, the defendants have forfeited their rights to object to the evidence presented by the defendants, to call witnesses in their own defense, and to provide a suggested judgement order. Accordingly, there is no requirement for a hearing to present additional argument and the court will determine final judgment solely on the materials presented by the plaintiffs and the defense in their pre-hearing submissions as provided by laws governing such situations in the State of Georgia.

    Such final judgement will be handed down in two weeks time.

    So ordered on this day, etc, etc, etc.

    The final judgement would have been exactly what the actual final judgement was, minus any of the “unqualified witness” docta stuff.

  111. avatar
    Arthur B. June 9, 2015 at 11:36 am #

    Keith: My suspicion is that the default order would have been along the lines of … The final judgement would have been exactly what the actual final judgement was…

    Yeah, that’s pretty much the way I’m thinking. I doubt that he would have said anything that could have been interpreted as a ruling of ineligibility, though we might have been told repeatedly that “[b]y failing to appear, the defendants have forfeited their rights,” both ex animo and ad nauseam.

  112. avatar
    David Farrar June 9, 2015 at 1:32 pm #

    @ HistorianDude said:

    “Words mean stuff. To claim that John Jay and the Framers of the Constitution really meant something different by “natural born” than what they had always previously meant by” …yada, yada yada…

    The “intent” of Jay’s letter to G. Washington was as clear to Washington as it was to the delegates …. among their greatest fears was the reactionary forces already present in their own population would, with a little leadership and funding from foreign sources — as events would later dramatically prove in the war of 1812 — would attempt to bring about, the return of a constitutional monarchy and, given time, perhaps an hereditary one as well. This danger, of course, has now passed, but not the foreign threat and its ability to effect our constitutional Republic. If anything, this threat is growing in today’s turbulently shrinking world. When you realize virtually all executive power in this country is held by one person as the commander in chief of all of this nation’s armed forces, and also take into account the vast increase in speed and destructive fire-power modern weapons now have over their 18th Century counterparts, you begin to realize just how important it is to apply the narrowest of definitions to the “natural born Citizen” requirement in the presidential qualification clause of the US Const., the one with the least doubt, rather than standing on the threshold of abandoning this requirement altogether.

  113. avatar
    Daniel June 9, 2015 at 2:10 pm #

    David Farraryou begin to realize just how important it is to apply the narrowest of definitions to the “natural born Citizen” requirement in the presidential qualification clause of the US Const., the one with the least doubt,rather than standing on the threshold of abandoning this requirement altogether.

    Timothy McVeigh was a natural born citizen with two citizen parents.

    I don’t think the founding fathers were stupid enough to think that having citizen parents, as opposed to parents who wanted to be here in this country so much that they sacrificed everything to get here, was in any way a guarantee of loyalty.

    And since you brought up heredity….

    The founding Fathers fought long and hard against the British system of birthright entitlement, where what you could be depended entirely on being born into the right kind of family.

    Why are you and the birthers so intent on thwarting the work of the founding fathers, by trying to bring back family entitlement to the highest office in the land?

  114. avatar
    ballantine June 9, 2015 at 2:52 pm #

    David Farrar:

    The “intent” of Jay’s letter to G. Washington was as clear to Washington as it was to the delegates ….”

    Really, and what was that? Jay only said he wanted a “strong check” against appointment of foreigners. So how do you know what he meant by a “strong check?” You don’t. The only check discussed in the convention was a native-birth requirement. And, in the convention, the term “foreigner” was used to refer to foreign-born persons. The only analogous check that existed at the time was the requirement in England the office holders be natural born subjects. To state that Jay meant anything else that the English precedent is simply lying as there is no evidence at all to support your interpretation. Speculation is not a legal argument which is why no court or actual legal authority will ever give your speculation any consideration.

    And, if you every actually studied Constitutional law, you would know that the framers only proposed the Constitution. It gained the force of law by ratification by the states so the understanding of the people who ratified the document is what really counts. You have no evidence anyone ratifying the Constitution even knew of Jay’s letter or had any reason to think his “strong check” followed you speculation. Of course, I know you will keep claiming you know what Jay meant and somehow people should listen to such a lie, but no legal authority that matters will. In the real world, Jay didn’t define who was a natural born citizen and insisting otherwise is simply another birther lie.

  115. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 9, 2015 at 3:41 pm #

    David Farrar: The “intent” of Jay’s letter to G. Washington was as clear to Washington as it was to the delegates …. among their greatest fears was the reactionary forces already present in their own population would, with a little leadership and funding from foreign sources — as events would later dramatically prove in the war of 1812 — would attempt to bring about, the return of a constitutional monarchy and, given time, perhaps an hereditary one as well.

    So now you’re Miss Cleo? You somehow think you can read the minds of the dead. It’s funny how birthers take a line that Jay wrote and then spin it with their own false assumptions and then try to pass it off on John Jay.

  116. avatar
    Dave B. June 9, 2015 at 3:48 pm #

    Yeah, they were so stuck on the Jay Letter that they included the original citizens clause. Now about that question you’re running away from– when you said,
    “It is nice to know 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23); INA 101(a)(23)) defines naturalization as “the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth by any means whatsoever,” which includes by birth and at birth,”
    what, exactly, were you saying includes “by birth and at birth”?

    David Farrar: The “intent” of Jay’s letter to G. Washington was as clear to Washington as it was to the delegates …. among their greatest fears was the reactionary forces already present in their own population would, with a little leadership and funding from foreign sources — as events would later dramatically prove in the war of 1812 — would attempt to bring about, the return of a constitutional monarchy and, given time, perhaps an hereditary one as well.

  117. avatar
    Thomas Brown June 9, 2015 at 4:03 pm #

    Ah, the old “naturalized at birth” horse-flop. Mind-crushingly stupid.

  118. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 9, 2015 at 4:14 pm #

    Thomas Brown:
    Ah, the old “naturalized at birth” horse-flop.Mind-crushingly stupid.

    Poor David Farrar drowning in flop sweat

  119. avatar
    Reality Check June 9, 2015 at 5:09 pm #

    I like to think the moment it really hit home for him was when Orly called herself as a witness.

    Slartibartfast: I don’t think he realized just how immense a pile of crap it was until they presented their case.

  120. avatar
    Arthur B. June 9, 2015 at 5:27 pm #

    Reality Check:
    I like to think the moment it really hit home for him was when Orly called herself as a witness.

    I may be confusing it with another case, but didn’t she offer for sale autographed copies of the video?

  121. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 9, 2015 at 6:11 pm #

    They’re still on her web site: “DVD of the historic trial in GA and DVD of a historic testimony in NH were evidence was provided showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a stolen social security number. The DVDs are in a beautiful commemorative case with personal autographs from attorney Dr. Orly Taitz $22.50 each +$2.50 for shipping and handling .”

    But if you try to go the web site where the money is to be paid, you get something else. I wonder if this is Nancy’s former site:

    http://orlytaitzforussenate2012.com/

    Arthur B.: I may be confusing it with another case, but didn’t she offer for sale autographed copies of the video?

  122. avatar
    Rickey June 9, 2015 at 11:47 pm #

    Reality Check:
    I like to think the moment it really hit home for him was when Orly called herself as a witness.

    She reminded me of Woody Allen questioning himself in the film Bananas.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4zP7247W7o

  123. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) June 10, 2015 at 9:45 am #

    Daniel: Why are you and the birthers so intent on thwarting the work of the founding fathers, by trying to bring back family entitlement to the highest office in the land?

    If birthers really wanted to make an honest argument about the Founders, they should say “the Founders never intended a black guy to become President”. That would be racist, but at least honestly convey their actual motivation.

  124. avatar
    Northland10 June 13, 2015 at 6:52 pm #

    ballantine: And, if you every actually studied Constitutional law, you would know that the framers only proposed the Constitution. It gained the force of law by ratification by the states so the understanding of the people who ratified the document is what really counts. You have no evidence anyone ratifying the Constitution even knew of Jay’s letter or had any reason to think his “strong check” followed you speculation.

    Some Birther once claimed that the framers changed the definition from the known one but did not tell anybody because they were worried about causing confusion and concert in their new country. Besides the obvious initial absurdity of the claim, other issues would include:

    1. As you mentioned, the proposed Constitution was ratified in the states yet there is no evidence that they ever knew the secret change was made. It certainly was not in the various arguments published, such as the Federal Papers.

    2. The election for the President was to be done by bodies meeting separately in the various states and existing for the single purpose of electing the President. If there was to be a new understanding of the meaning of natural born citizen, one might think that they should be informed and, being intentionally separate, the new concept would have be be public knowledge.

  125. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 13, 2015 at 8:59 pm #

    Bob Gard was one of those:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/tag/bob-gard/

    Northland10: Some Birther once claimed that the framers changed the definition from the known one but did not tell anybody because they were worried about causing confusion and concert in their new country

  126. avatar
    David Farrar June 13, 2015 at 9:32 pm #

    @ ballantine

    The legal term of art: “natural born Citizen” as it is exclusively used in the executive qualification clause of the US Constitution (Art. II §I Cl. 5) pertains to the civic status required for the highest political office in the land, not to the status of one’s citizenship. Its function is to strictly limit the command in chief of the nation’s armed forces to persons born under US sovereignty alone.

    Since the founders and framers of the US Constitution clearly moved to prohibit naturalized US citizens from the presidency due to their previous allegiances to foreign sovereignties (Art. I §8 cl. 4), it was clearly their intention in using the “natural born Citizen” requirement to also block those US citizens from the command in chief of the nation’s armed forces who were born subject to foreign sovereignties other than US sovereignty alone.

    Beyond this point it eludes me to find any other possible way the founders and framers of the US Constitution could have assured themselves that the command in chief of the nation’s armed forces did not devolve on a person born subject to a foreign power other than to require such persons to be born of US citizen fathers within the jurisdiction (in the beginning). Later, when the Doctrine of Couverture was abandoned, both parents would be required to be US citizens before the issue occurred in order to avoid involving other foreign sovereignties. This isn’t rocket science. It is simply recognizing the higher emphasis the founders, framers and ratifiers of the US Const. wanted to place as a presidential requirement, as befitting the highest office in the Republic, rather than using the simple phrase of a “US citizen at birth”.

  127. avatar
    Northland10 June 13, 2015 at 10:01 pm #

    David, “it makes sense to you” is not an argument against actual historical evidence. You claim what was “clearly their intention” with no support that actually has them saying it is their intention. By your logic, I can claim that it is clearly your intent that every president must be a white male. It makes sense to me so it must be correct.

    Don’t bother me with facts claiming otherwise because what makes sense to me is all that matters.

  128. avatar
    Northland10 June 13, 2015 at 10:05 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Bob Gard was one of those:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/tag/bob-gard/

    Ah yes, Mr. Secrecy Oath. I note that he once argued that I was “showing him actual history.” How, could I have been so silly.

  129. avatar
    David Farrar June 13, 2015 at 10:07 pm #

    @ Northland10,

    As I said: “Since the founders and framers of the US Constitution moved to prohibit naturalized US citizens from the presidency due to their previous allegiances to foreign sovereignties (Art. I §8 cl. 4), it was also clearly their intention in using the “natural born Citizen” requirement to block US citizens from the command in chief of this nation’s armed forces who were subject to foreign sovereignties at birth.”

  130. avatar
    Arthur B. June 13, 2015 at 10:39 pm #

    David Farrar:
    @ Northland10,

    As I said…”

    David, you keep missing the point. The operative part of your sentence is “it was also clearly their intention,” and you say that as if you were an authority on the founders’ and framers’ intentions.

    Not only are you not one, but those who are unequivocally disagree. At some point you need to realize that your conviction that you are infallible is delusional.

  131. avatar
    gorefan June 13, 2015 at 10:50 pm #

    David Farrar:
    @ Northland10,

    As I said: “Since the founders and framers of the US Constitution moved to prohibit naturalized US citizens from the presidency due to their previous allegiances to foreign sovereignties (Art. I §8 cl. 4), it was also clearly their intention in using the “natural born Citizen” requirement to block US citizens from the command in chief of this nation’s armed forces who were subject to foreign sovereignties at birth.”

    They were so concerned they added the grandfather clause which made some naturalized citizens eligible to be President.

  132. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 14, 2015 at 12:04 am #

    David Farrar: blah blah blah I’m going to sue Mitt Romney if he becomes the republican nominee blah blah blah

    Whatever happened with that David?

  133. avatar
    J.D. Sue June 14, 2015 at 12:13 am #

    David Farrar: Beyond this point it eludes me to find any other possible way . . . . This isn’t rocket science. It is simply recognizing the higher emphasis the founders, framers and ratifiers of the US Const. wanted to place as a presidential requirement, as befitting the highest office in the Republic, rather than using the simple phrase of a “US citizen at birth”.

    —–
    Yeah, it’s only the Law, not rocket science. So simple, amazing how some people spend so many years in law school and thereafter studying what you find so simple.

  134. avatar
    Lupin June 14, 2015 at 3:09 am #

    David Farrar:
    @ Northland10,

    As I said: “Since the founders and framers of the US Constitution moved to prohibit naturalized US citizens from the presidency due to their previous allegiances to foreign sovereignties (Art. I §8 cl. 4), it was also clearly their intention in using the “natural born Citizen” requirement to block US citizens from the command in chief of this nation’s armed forces who were subject to foreign sovereignties at birth.”

    Considering the fact that James Madison opted to become a French citizen with the prior consent of then-president Thomas Jefferson, I’d say you’re about 100% wrong on the issue.

  135. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 14, 2015 at 6:45 am #

    19th-century historian George Bancroft wrote in his ” History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United States” (1884): ”

    “The idea then arose that no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for the office of president”

    This is his explanation for the natural born citizen language. What you have failed to show is that at the time of the ratification of the constitution that “citizen at birth” and “natural born citizen” denoted something different. The only reason that the latter was used, I think, is so that it might refer to the English common law, and therefore recognize the jus soli rule for American citizenship.

    David Farrar: This isn’t rocket science. It is simply recognizing the higher emphasis the founders, framers and ratifiers of the US Const. wanted to place as a presidential requirement, as befitting the highest office in the Republic, rather than using the simple phrase of a “US citizen at birth”.

  136. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 14, 2015 at 6:56 am #

    19th-century historian George Bancroft wrote in his “History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United States” (1884):

    One question on the qualifications of the president was among the last to be decided. On the twenty second of August the committee of detail, fixing the requisite age of the president at thirty five, on their own motion and for the first time required that the president should be a citizen of the United States and should have been an inhabitant of them for twenty one years. The idea then arose that no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for the office of president; but as men of other lands had spilled their blood in the cause of the United States, and had assisted at every stage of the formation of their institutions, the committee of states who were charged with all unfinished business proposed on the fourth of September, that “no person except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution should be eligible to the office of president” and for the foreign born proposed a reduction of the requisite years of residence to fourteen. On the seventh of September the modification with the restriction as to the age of the president was unanimously adopted

    This is his explanation for the natural born citizen language. What you have failed to show is that at the time of the ratification of the constitution that “citizen at birth” and “natural born citizen” denoted something different. The only reason that the latter was used, I think, is that it references the common law, and that it thereby recognizes the initial common law condition of jus soli citizenship. That is, at the start, no one would have to question who were the citizens at birth–they were those who were born in the country. Congress quickly enlarged the class of natural born citizens to include the children of US citizen fathers born overseas.

    David Farrar: This isn’t rocket science. It is simply recognizing the higher emphasis the founders, framers and ratifiers of the US Const. wanted to place as a presidential requirement, as befitting the highest office in the Republic, rather than using the simple phrase of a “US citizen at birth”.

  137. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 14, 2015 at 8:59 am #

    Lupin:

    Considering the fact that James Madison opted to become a French citizen with the prior consent of then-president Thomas Jefferson, I’d say you’re about 100% wrong on the issue.

    That matter was resolved by SCOTUS in Perkins v. Elg, 1939. Native born US citizens with dual nationality are natural born citizens in the United States and not natural born citizens while residing outside of the United States.

  138. avatar
    Jim June 14, 2015 at 9:27 am #

    Doc: “the committee of states who were charged with all unfinished business proposed on the fourth of September, that “no person except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution should be eligible to the office of president” and for the foreign born proposed a reduction of the requisite years of residence to fourteen.”

    Isn’t it interesting in this discussion how they understood that a foreign born citizen could hold the office and yet they had to add the foreign born to the citizenship after ratification. It also shows I’ve been following this way to long to notice that immediately. 😀

  139. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund June 14, 2015 at 10:02 am #

    SvenMinimussen:
    Lupin:

    That matter was resolved by SCOTUS in Perkins v. Elg, 1939. Native born US citizens with dual nationality are natural born citizens in the United States and not natural born citizens while residing outside of the United States.

    Why do you keep lying about what the Supreme Court ruled?

    Fifth. The cross-petition of Miss Elg, upon which certiorari was granted in No. 455, is addressed to the part of the decree below which dismissed the bill of complaint as against the Secretary of State. The dismissal was upon the ground that the court would not undertake by mandamus to compel the issuance of a passport or control by means of a declaratory judgment the discretion of the Secretary of State. But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg “solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.” The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,” and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary’s discretion with respect to the issue of a passport, but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship.

    The decree will be modified accordingly so as to strike out that portion which dismisses the bill of complaint as to the Secretary of State, and so as to include him in the declaratory provision of the decree, and as so modified the decree is affirmed.

    Modified and affirmed.

    Perkins v. Elg, 307 U. S. 349-350

    SCOTUS specifically ordered that the declaratory provision of the decree be unchanged except to add the Secretary of State. And the decree, as SCOTUS noted, declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States.”

  140. avatar
    Notorial Dissent June 14, 2015 at 10:08 am #

    Svenski, no where in that decision does it say anything like that. They said that she was a natural born citizen by virtue of having been born in the US and that hadn’t changed for her having returned to Sweden with her family as a minor, or also being considered a natural born Swedish citizen by virtue of her father. She opted to return to the US and timely acted to retain her US citizenship, and that she could not be denied entrance or residence in the US as a natural born citizen. So you are just flat wrong on all accounts.

    SvenMagnussen:
    Lupin:

    That matter was resolved by SCOTUS in Perkins v. Elg, 1939. Native born US citizens with dual nationality are natural born citizens in the United States and not natural born citizens while residing outside of the United States.

  141. avatar
    Lupin June 14, 2015 at 11:33 am #

    SvenMagnussen: That matter was resolved by SCOTUS in Perkins v. Elg, 1939. Native born US citizens with dual nationality are natural born citizens in the United States and not natural born citizens while residing outside of the United States.

    Even if that were true — and it isn’t — it still means that they could be elected president (as indeed Madison was) and therefore your previous assertion about – I quote you – “the Founders’ intention in using the “natural born Citizen” requirement [was] to block US citizens from the command in chief of this nation’s armed forces who were subject to foreign sovereignties…” is pure bollocks.

  142. avatar
    J.D. Sue June 14, 2015 at 11:57 am #

    Lupin:
    David Farrar:
    @ Northland10,

    As I said: “Since the founders and framers of the US Constitution moved to prohibit naturalized US citizens from the presidency due to their previous allegiances to foreign sovereignties (Art. I §8 cl. 4), it was also clearly their intention in using the “natural born Citizen” requirement to block US citizens from the command in chief of this nation’s armed forces who were subject to foreign sovereignties at birth.”


    Considering the fact that James Madison opted to become a French citizen with the prior consent of then-president Thomas Jefferson, I’d say you’re about 100% wrong on the issue.

    —-
    So, President (Commander in Chief) James Madison, who waged the War of 1812, was at the same time a citizen of France during the Napoleonic Wars?

  143. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 14, 2015 at 12:08 pm #

    MacGyver:

    Why do you keep lying about what the Supreme Court ruled?

    SCOTUS opined, “That right [voluntary renunciation or abandonment of nationality and allegiance] is fittingly recognized where a child born here, who may be, or may become, subject to a dual nationality, elects on attaining majority citizenship in the country to which he has been removed. But there is no basis for invoking the doctrine of expatriation where native citizen who is removed to his parents’ country of origin during minority returns here on his majority and elects to remain and to maintain his American citizenship.”

    and

    “The question, then, is whether this well recognized right of election has been destroyed by treaty or statute. ”

    and then

    SCOTUS wrote Article I of the US-Sweden Treaty was, “Citizens of the United States of America who have resided in Sweden or Norway for a continuous period of at least five years, and during such residence have become and are lawfully, recognized as citizens of Sweden or Norway, shall be held by the government of the United States to be Swedish or Norwegian citizens, and shall be treated as such.”

    and then

    SCOTUS quotes the instructions issued under date of November 24, 1923, by the Department of State to the American Diplomatic and Consular Officers, “The term ‘dual nationality’ needs exact appreciation. It refers to the fact that two States make equal claim to the allegiance of an individual at the same time. Thus, one State may claim his allegiance because of his birth within its territory, and the other because, at the time of his birth in foreign territory, his parents were its nationals. The laws of the United States purport to clothe persons with American citizenship by virtue of both principles.”

    and finally SCOTUS opined

    “Having regard to the plain purpose of § 2 of the Act of 1907 to deal with voluntary expatriation, we are of the opinion that its provisions do not affect the right of election, which would otherwise exist, by reason of a wholly involuntary and merely derivative naturalization in another country during minority. And, on the facts of the instant case, this view apparently obtained when, in July, 1929, on the instructions of the Secretary of State, the Department issued the passport to respondent as a citizen of the United States.”

    Read the opinion carefully. It says Elg voluntarily renounced her US citizenship during her minority in view of the US-Sweden treaty but retained her right of return just as if there had been an involuntary and derivative naturalization in another country during her minority.

    And then SCOTUS concluded the State Department refused to issue Elg a US passport in Sweden because she was not a US citizen and then the Secretary of State intervened to recognize she retained her right of return. SCOTUS agreed with the Secretary of State that Elg was entitled to a US passport after she notified the State Department of her intent to return and that she retained her right of return even though she voluntarily renounced and naturalized in Sweden pursuant to the US-Sweden treaty.

    After Elg returned to the US, the State Dept denied her a passport renewal and the Sec of the Dept of Labor issued an order of deportation because Elg did not physically return to the US until 8 months past her of majority. SCOTUS affirmed the lower courts’ opinions that Elg was only required to notify the Sec of State of her intent within the time specified by US law and actual return was only required to be reasonable.

    Elg was a natural born citizen at her birth. Elg was not a natural born citizen when she voluntarily renounced her US citizen to naturalize as a Swedish citizen pursuant to treaty. And finally, Elg was a natural born citizen after she exercised her right of return and actually returned, i.e. a natural born citizen in the US.

  144. avatar
    Dave B. June 14, 2015 at 12:21 pm #

    Then there’s Justice Story, writing on the purpose of the original citizens clause in his “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” (1833):

    “It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities.”

    I don’t know how many birthers I’ve pointed these passages out to who INSIST that the founders thought they were themselves ALL “born in a foreign land” and “men of other lands.”

    Dr. Conspiracy: 19th-century historian George Bancroft wrote in his “History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United States” (1884):

  145. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 14, 2015 at 12:24 pm #

    Notorial Dissent:

    The US – Sweden Treaty is effectively US law.

    SCOTUS wrote: “As at birth she became a citizen of the United States, that citizenship must be deemed to continue unless she has been deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by her voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles.”

    Elg retained her right of election to return and recapture her US citizenship because SCOTUS opined the language of the treaty with respect to the forfeiture of that right did not specifically mention minors and did not apply to minors, only those who have reached the age of majority without exercising the right of return during their minority.

    I did not come up this on my own. I have people with many, many years of experience with respect to foreign policy feeding me this info but do not publicly express themselves for fear of retaliation. The State Department is full of the most vindictive, unpatriotic scum you’ll ever encounter.

  146. avatar
    Dave B. June 14, 2015 at 12:57 pm #

    Then you should stop listening to those vindictive, unpatriotic scum.

    SvenMagnussen:
    Notorial Dissent:

    The US – Sweden Treaty is effectively US law.

    SCOTUS wrote: “As at birth she became a citizen of the United States, that citizenship must be deemed to continue unless she has been deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by her voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles.”

    Elg retained her right of election to return and recapture her US citizenship because SCOTUS opined the language of the treaty with respect to the forfeiture of that right did not specifically mention minors and did not apply to minors, only those who have reached the age of majority without exercising the right of return during their minority.

    I did not come up this on my own. I have people with many, many years of experience with respect to foreign policy feeding me this info but do not publicly express themselves for fear of retaliation. The State Department is full of the most vindictive, unpatriotic scum you’ll ever encounter.

  147. avatar
    Dave B. June 14, 2015 at 1:05 pm #

    What you HAVEN’T said is what you meant when you said,
    “It is nice to know 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23); INA 101(a)(23)) defines naturalization as “the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth by any means whatsoever,” which includes by birth and at birth,”
    What, exactly, were you saying includes “by birth and at birth”?

    David Farrar: As I said, etc., etc., etc…

  148. avatar
    Joey June 14, 2015 at 1:18 pm #

    The Framers made provision for foreigners to become president. That provision was the 14 year residency requirement in Article II, Section 1.

    George Bancroft was not a Founding Father. He was born in 1800. He belongs to the next generation of patriots.

    Bancroft (October 3, 1800 – January 17, 1891) “was an American historian and statesman who was prominent in promoting secondary education both in his home state and at the national level. During his tenure as U.S. Secretary of the Navy, he established the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis in 1845. He was a senior American diplomat in Europe. Among his best-known writings is the magisterial series, History of the United States, from the Discovery of the American Continent.”

    Bancroft also wrote The Formation Of The Constitution of the United States of America, Volumes One and Two.

    In Volume Two Bancroft writes: In the [Constituional] convention, it was objected that no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for that place [president]; but as men of other lands had spilled their blood in the cause of the United States, and had assisted at every stage of the formation of their institutions, on the seventh of September, it was unanimously settled that foreign-born residents of fourteen years who should be citizens at the time of the formation of the Constitution are eligible to the office of President.–History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United States of America Volume 2

    6th Edition, 1889).

    http://www.amazon.com/History-Formation-Constitution-United-America/dp/1452843929

  149. avatar
    Northland10 June 14, 2015 at 2:28 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Read the opinion carefully. It says Elg voluntarily renounced her US citizenship during her minority in view of the US-Sweden treaty but retained her right of return just as if there had been an involuntary and derivative naturalization in another country during her minority.

    Do you define “reading carefully” as making stuff up? They never said she voluntarily renounced.

    “The opinion [by an earlier AG regarding a slightly similar case] does not discuss the right of election of a native citizen of the United States when he becomes of age to retain American citizenship and does not refer to the repeated rulings of the Department of State in recognition of that right, the exercise of which, as we have pointed out, should not be deemed to be inconsistent with either treaty or statute. We are reluctant to disagree with the opinion of the Attorney General, and we are fully conscious of the problems incident to dual nationality and of the departmental desire to limit them, but we are compelled to agree with the Court of Appeals in the instant case that the conclusions of that opinion are not adequately supported and are opposed to the established principles which should govern the disposition of this case.

    Nor do we think that recent private acts of Congress for the relief of native citizens who have been the subject of administrative action denying their rights of citizenship, can be regarded as the equivalent of an Act of Congress providing that persons in the situation of the respondent here have lost the American citizenship which they acquired at birth and have since duly elected to retain. No such statute has been enacted.

    We conclude that respondent has not lost her citizenship in the United States and is entitled to all the rights and privileges of that citizenship.

  150. avatar
    Notorial Dissent June 14, 2015 at 4:36 pm #

    As I said Svenski, and as Northland10 has further verified, the court said no such thing. The State Dept at a later time than the one that issued her a passport as a citizen so that she could return to the US, said she had lost her citizenship, the court told them they were full of it. In plain English they were WRONG, they said she was and had always been a natural born citizen. And you are WRONG yet again.

  151. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 14, 2015 at 5:44 pm #

    Notorial Dissent

    The State Dept at a later time than the one that issued her a passport as a citizen so that she could return to the US, said she had lost her citizenship, the court told them they were full of it.

    Ms. Elg, a resident of New York, complained in the District Court for the District of Columbia that the State Department denied her a renewal passport because she was not a US citizen after she had been issued a US passport to honor her right of election to return to the US. The US government responded that Ms. Elg lost her US citizenship because she actually moved back to the US eight months after she reached the age of majority. SCOTUS ruled Elg’s actual return date was only to be reasonable and the notice of intent was time limited to 6 months past the age of majority.

    Think about it. A New York resident files a complaint using a well connected D.C. lawyer who offered his services pro bono in D.C. Ms. Elg was entitled to file in New York and it would have been advantageous for her to file in New York. This is a test case orchestrated by the vindictive, scumbags at the State Department to get to SCOTUS for a ruling on dual citizens and their right of return before the US became engaged in World War II.

    The toe-suckers in the USDC-DCC graciously dismissed the the Secretary of State from the case and SCOTUS added the SoS back into the case. Pursuant to treaty between US-Sweden, SCOTUS ruled Elg voluntarily renounced and relinquished her US citizenship to naturalized as a Swedish citizen, but retained her right of election to return. SCOTUS then ruled a person who has exercised their right of return, as Elg did to get her first passport, only has to return to the US within a reasonable amount of time.

    Native born US citizens who are also dual nationals are natural born citizens while they live in the US. President Madison retained his eligibility to be President even though he was a dual US-French citizen because he maintained in his residency in the US.

  152. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 14, 2015 at 7:11 pm #

    What part of “We conclude that respondent has not lost her citizenship in the United States and is entitled to all the rights and privileges of that citizenship.” did you not understand?

    The decision hinges on the Court’s view that nothing Ms. Elg did in the way of Swedish nationality or residence was voluntary.

    SvenMagnussen: SCOTUS ruled Elg voluntarily renounced and relinquished her US citizenship to naturalized as a Swedish citizen, but retained her right of election to return.

  153. avatar
    Northland10 June 14, 2015 at 7:35 pm #

    I wonder if Sven buys any furniture that you have to assemble at home. With his comprehension level, all of those Bolt A into Hole C instructions must create some really odd results. His coffee table might come out looking like David Smith’s CUBI VI

  154. avatar
    Lupin June 15, 2015 at 2:32 am #

    J.D. Sue: So, President (Commander in Chief) James Madison, who waged the War of 1812, was at the same time a citizen of France during the Napoleonic Wars?

    Yes. (SATSQ)

  155. avatar
    David Farrar June 15, 2015 at 9:44 am #

    @ J.D. Sue

    These were looked upon as honorariums. George Washington, and Alexander Hamilton were also awarded these honorarium citizenships, as well as a number of European supporters of the French Revolution

  156. avatar
    David Farrar June 15, 2015 at 9:48 am #

    @ Joey

    The issue of “foreigners” being qualified to hold the office of the presidency was addressed in Art. II §I Cl. 5 natural born Citizen’s grandfather clause.

  157. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 15, 2015 at 9:53 am #

    David Farrar:
    blah blah blah I’m going to sue mitt romney if he becomes the republican nominee.

    Whatever happened with that?

  158. avatar
    Lupin June 15, 2015 at 10:14 am #

    David Farrar: These were looked upon as honorariums. George Washington, and Alexander Hamilton were also awarded these honorarium citizenships, as well as a number of European supporters of the French Revolution

    Maybe they looked at this way, and certainly one might indeed argue with some validity that the gift of citizenship (as it were) was made to acknowledge the services rendered by the individuals in question to the French republic, just as William Churchill was made a Honorary Citizen of the United States.

    However, France, unlike the U.S., has no such thing as a “Honorary Citizenship” class — never had one — so from a purely French legal standpojnt, you cannot claim that these folks were made Honorary Citizens; they were offered French citizenship, and if they accepted, they in effect became naturalized French citizens, whether you like it or not.

    As I pointed out here & in my recent interview, the matter was deemed serious and consequential enough to become the subject of an argument between James Monroe (who was against acceptance) and Thomas Paine (who was in favor of it).

    James Madison sent his own letter of acceptance to then-President Thomas Jefferson, asking him to either forward it, or not, to the French Ambassador, depending on whether he (Jefferson) thought that by accepting French citizenship it might create a problem (or not).

    Since Jefferson sent on the letter, we must conclude that he did not believe (rightly or wrongly is not the issue here) that it was a problem.

    Now, clearly, James Madison was never confronted to any actual consequences of his decision of accepting to become in effect a naturalized French citizen, but other less illustrious people were.

    As I also pointed out, one of the consequences of the Louisiana Purchase was to make previously French citizens into American citizens. As such, they could no longer marry women of color, this being illegal at the time in the South. So over 100 of them chose to petition the French assembly to be renaturalized French (which they did through the French consul in New Orleans) — the same Assembly which had the sole power of granting them citizenship, as it had done to Madison and others.

    Interestingly, not all were renaturalized (becoming in effect dual citizens). Some were turned down.

    The ones who were renaturalized later found out that the consequences of their naturalization were very real, in terms of taxes and serving in the French military if & when they set foot on French soil again — including Haiti, which was cumbersome for people residing in New Orleans who often had connections to that island, then still a part of France.

    So, in short, the answer is no. You are incorrect in your statement.

    Even though folks like Madison may certainly have looked upon such citizenship as purely honorary, it would have carried very real circumstances had they moved to France, just as it did for John Paul Jones who spent the last two years of his life in Paris.

  159. avatar
    ballantine June 15, 2015 at 10:46 am #

    David Farrar:
    @ Joey

    The issue of “foreigners” being qualified to hold the office of the presidency was addressed in Art. II §I Cl. 5 natural born Citizen’s grandfather clause.

    Of course no legal authority has ever said that. The grandfather clause issue came up when talking about foreign born, i.e., people not natural born under English law. All legal scholars I have seen on the subject have similarly said it related to the foreign born. but what do people like Justice Story who lived through the period know compared to birthers. Of course, no framer, court or legal authority has ever said dual citizenship mattered. Such is why not court will give such argument the time of day.

  160. avatar
    Lupin June 15, 2015 at 11:32 am #

    My understanding (my esteemed colleagues will correct me if I’m wrong) is that the US authorities do not recognize dual citizenship in any way. That is to say, if you are a US citizen ion US soil, they literally don’t care how many other passports you have. Indeed, at the end of US naturalization ceremonies, when ill-informed people offer to surrender their other passports, the officials politely decline to take them.

    I honestly don’t see what legal (as opposed o political) reasons would prevent a natural-born but dual citizen from becoming President. (In that, I reason like Jefferson.) I always found the birthers’ argument on the subject terribly unconvincing (Apuzzo being a prime example of this).

  161. avatar
    Arthur B. June 15, 2015 at 1:06 pm #

    Lupin:

    I honestly don’t see what legal (as opposed o political) reasons would prevent a natural-born but dual citizen from becoming President. (In that, I reason like Jefferson.) I always found the birthers’ argument on the subject terribly unconvincing (Apuzzo being a prime example of this).

    What strikes as particularly ironic is that the birthers will blithely forgive a Founding Father’s mature acquiescence to foreign citizenship but will give no quarter to one who has come into British/Kenyan citizenship through no involvement of his own.

  162. avatar
    Benji Franklin June 15, 2015 at 1:26 pm #

    Northland10: I wonder if Sven buys any furniture that you have to assemble at home. With his comprehension level, all of those Bolt A into Hole C instructions must create some really odd results.

    My wife, who at my suggestion, has showed uncommon interest in reading (in apalled fascination) quite a few of the recent lunatic postings of Sven AND John, drew a somewhat similar analogy which I thought was humorously apt.

    She said, if John or Sven had been in charge of reassembling the parts of the Statue of Liberty for reassembly in the US from unmarked parts, John would have ended up leaving us with a huge copper Ostrich with its head buried in the water of the Upper New York Bay, and Sven after flattening and polishing all the copper, would have assembled it into a mirror.

  163. avatar
    Joey June 15, 2015 at 1:39 pm #

    David Farrar:
    @ J.D. Sue

    These were looked upon as honorariums. George Washington, and Alexander Hamilton were also awarded these honorarium citizenships, as well as a number of European supporters of the French Revolution

    I believe that our resident French attorney Lupin has posted here that France does not have honorary citizenship. Washington and Hamilton graciously declined citizenship in the French Republic while the “Father of the Constitution,” James Madison accepted it,

  164. avatar
    Jim June 15, 2015 at 2:41 pm #

    Northland10:”I wonder if Sven buys any furniture that you have to assemble at home.”

    Yes, and like Sven, it’s full of loose screws.

  165. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 15, 2015 at 4:02 pm #

    Lupin:
    My understanding (my esteemed colleagues will correct me if I’m wrong) is that the US authorities do not recognize dual citizenship in any way. That is to say, if you are a US citizen ion US soil, they literally don’t care how many other passports you have. Indeed, at the end of US naturalization ceremonies, when ill-informed people offer to surrender their other passports, the officials politely decline to take them.

    I honestly don’t see what legal (as opposed o political) reasons would prevent a natural-born but dual citizen from becoming President. (In that, I reason like Jefferson.) I always found the birthers’ argument on the subject terribly unconvincing (Apuzzo being a prime example of this).

    http://travel.state.gov/content/travel/english/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/citizenship-and-dual-nationality/dual-nationality.html

    My wife recently went through the process of naturalizing last year. They didn’t require her to forfeit her other passport and she still has it. She is allowed to continue her native country’s citizenship and our children will have dual citizenship.

  166. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund June 15, 2015 at 7:53 pm #

    I have taken the liberty of putting in bold where SCOTUS said the opposite of what Sven claims, and in italics where Sven simply made things up out of whole cloth.

    SvenMagnussen:
    MacGyver:

    SCOTUS opined, “That right [voluntary renunciation or abandonment of nationality and allegiance] is fittingly recognized where a child born here, who may be, or may become, subject to a dual nationality, elects on attaining majority citizenship in the country to which he has been removed. But there is no basis for invoking the doctrine of expatriation where native citizen who is removed to his parents’ country of origin during minority returns here on his majority and elects to remain and to maintain his American citizenship.”

    and

    “The question, then, is whether this well recognized right of election has been destroyed by treaty or statute. ”

    and then

    SCOTUS wrote Article I of the US-Sweden Treaty was, “Citizens of the United States of America who have resided in Sweden or Norway for a continuous period of at least five years, and during such residence have become and are lawfully, recognized as citizens of Sweden or Norway, shall be held by the government of the United States to be Swedish or Norwegian citizens, and shall be treated as such.”

    and then

    SCOTUS quotes the instructions issued under date of November 24, 1923, by the Department of State to the American Diplomatic and Consular Officers, “The term ‘dual nationality’ needs exact appreciation. It refers to the fact that two States make equal claim to the allegiance of an individual at the same time. Thus, one State may claim his allegiance because of his birth within its territory, and the other because, at the time of his birth in foreign territory, his parents were its nationals. The laws of the United States purport to clothe persons with American citizenship by virtue of both principles.”

    and finally SCOTUS opined

    “Having regard to the plain purpose of § 2 of the Act of 1907 to deal with voluntary expatriation, we are of the opinion that its provisions do not affect the right of election, which would otherwise exist, by reason of a wholly involuntary and merely derivative naturalization in another country during minority. And, on the facts of the instant case, this view apparently obtained when, in July, 1929, on the instructions of the Secretary of State, the Department issued the passport to respondent as a citizen of the United States.”

    Read the opinion carefully.It says Elg voluntarily renounced her US citizenship during her minority in view of the US-Sweden treaty but retained her right of return just as if there had been an involuntary and derivative naturalization in another country during her minority.

    And then SCOTUS concluded the State Department refused to issue Elg a US passport in Sweden because she was not a US citizen and then the Secretary of State intervened to recognize she retained her right of return. SCOTUS agreed with the Secretary of State that Elg was entitled to a US passport after she notified the State Department of her intent to return and that she retained her right of return even though she voluntarily renounced and naturalized in Sweden pursuant to the US-Sweden treaty.

    After Elg returned to the US, the State Dept denied her a passport renewal and the Sec of the Dept of Labor issued an order of deportation because Elg did not physically return to the US until 8 months past her of majority. SCOTUS affirmed the lower courts’ opinions that Elg was only required to notify the Sec of State of her intent within the time specified by US law and actual return was only required to be reasonable.

    Elg was a natural born citizen at her birth. Elg was not a natural born citizen when she voluntarily renounced her US citizen to naturalize as a Swedish citizen pursuant to treaty. And finally, Elg was a natural born citizen after she exercised her right of return and actually returned, i.e. a natural born citizen in the US.

    For all that Sven demands we read the ruling carefully, very little of what he claims is actually in the ruling.

  167. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund June 15, 2015 at 8:00 pm #

    Italics didn’t show, will have to try again

  168. avatar
    Northland10 June 15, 2015 at 8:06 pm #

    W. Kevin Vicklund: For all that Sven demands we read the ruling carefully, very little of what he claims is actually in the ruling.

    It’s no different then when was claiming that Mendoza-Martinez was deported, even after we pointed out that the court stated he could not lose his citizenship (at least without due process, under the law in question). So he made up the scenario that Mendoza was deported, ignoring later cases that basically closed to book on revoking citizenship, and that minor issue of Mendoza actually dying in the same city he had lived previously.

    Sven makes his “leap of faith” and then ignores, misquotes and lies about the actual facts.

  169. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 15, 2015 at 8:18 pm #

    I thought that was a lot of making stuff up even for Sven.

    Blockquotes are italicized and italics tags inside of them are ignored (they should unitalicize, but that hasn’t been my experience).

    W. Kevin Vicklund:
    Italics didn’t show, will have to try again

  170. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund June 15, 2015 at 10:54 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    I thought that was a lot of making stuff up even for Sven.

    Blockquotes are italicized and italics tags inside of them are ignored (they should unitalicize, but that hasn’t been my experience).

    Yeah, I forgot that this system puts blockquotes in italics. And although I hit the edit button with one second left on the timer, the edit didn’t save.

  171. avatar
    J.D. Sue June 16, 2015 at 12:06 am #

    Lupin: My understanding

    —-
    I dunno know, but several people in my family legitimately have two passports–American and Israeli, and they use which is most useful at a particular point in time, e.g. Israeli on El Al, American when travelling to places which officially ban any hint of Israel’s existence.

  172. avatar
    Lupin June 16, 2015 at 2:17 am #

    J.D. Sue: —-
    I dunno know, but several people in my family legitimately have two passports–American and Israeli, and they use which is most useful at a particular point in time, e.g. Israeli on El Al, American when travelling to places which officially ban any hint of Israel’s existence.

    That’s not what t I said. My wife and I have dual citizenship too and we also use whatever passport suits us best leaving and entering Europe or the US, but while in America, the US would ignore our French citizenship. By “ignore” i mean, it’s as if we didn’t have it; we couldn’t use it in any meaningful way, shape or form.

  173. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund June 16, 2015 at 8:17 am #

    Trying it again:

    Bold are where SCOTUS ruled the opposite of what Sven claims, italics are where Sven just made stuff up out of whole cloth.

    SvenMagnussen:

    SCOTUS opined, “That right [voluntary renunciation or abandonment of nationality and allegiance] is fittingly recognized where a child born here, who may be, or may become, subject to a dual nationality, elects on attaining majority citizenship in the country to which he has been removed. But there is no basis for invoking the doctrine of expatriation where native citizen who is removed to his parents’ country of origin during minority returns here on his majority and elects to remain and to maintain his American citizenship.”

    and

    “The question, then, is whether this well recognized right of election has been destroyed by treaty or statute. ”

    and then

    SCOTUS wrote Article I of the US-Sweden Treaty was, “Citizens of the United States of America who have resided in Sweden or Norway for a continuous period of at least five years, and during such residence have become and are lawfully, recognized as citizens of Sweden or Norway, shall be held by the government of the United States to be Swedish or Norwegian citizens, and shall be treated as such.”

    and then

    SCOTUS quotes the instructions issued under date of November 24, 1923, by the Department of State to the American Diplomatic and Consular Officers, “The term ‘dual nationality’ needs exact appreciation. It refers to the fact that two States make equal claim to the allegiance of an individual at the same time. Thus, one State may claim his allegiance because of his birth within its territory, and the other because, at the time of his birth in foreign territory, his parents were its nationals. The laws of the United States purport to clothe persons with American citizenship by virtue of both principles.”

    and finally SCOTUS opined

    “Having regard to the plain purpose of § 2 of the Act of 1907 to deal with voluntary expatriation, we are of the opinion that its provisions do not affect the right of election, which would otherwise exist, by reason of a wholly involuntary and merely derivative naturalization in another country during minority. And, on the facts of the instant case, this view apparently obtained when, in July, 1929, on the instructions of the Secretary of State, the Department issued the passport to respondent as a citizen of the United States.”

    Read the opinion carefully.It says Elg voluntarily renounced her US citizenship during her minority in view of the US-Sweden treaty but retained her right of return just as if there had been an involuntary and derivative naturalization in another country during her minority.

    And then SCOTUS concluded the State Department refused to issue Elg a US passport in Sweden because she was not a US citizen and then the Secretary of State intervened to recognize she retained her right of return. SCOTUS agreed with the Secretary of State that Elg was entitled to a US passport after she notified the State Department of her intent to return and that she retained her right of return even though she voluntarily renounced and naturalized in Sweden pursuant to the US-Sweden treaty.

    After Elg returned to the US, the State Dept denied her a passport renewal and the Sec of the Dept of Labor issued an order of deportation because Elg did not physically return to the US until 8 months past her of majority. SCOTUS affirmed the lower courts’ opinions that Elg was only required to notify the Sec of State of her intent within the time specified by US law and actual return was only required to be reasonable.

    Elg was a natural born citizen at her birth. Elg was not a natural born citizen when she voluntarily renounced her US citizen to naturalize as a Swedish citizen pursuant to treaty. And finally, Elg was a natural born citizen after she exercised her right of return and actually returned, i.e. a natural born citizen in the US.

  174. avatar
    Notorial Dissent June 16, 2015 at 10:37 am #

    Svenski lied yet AGAIN, in other news, water is wet!!!

  175. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 16, 2015 at 4:48 pm #

    Notorial Dissent

    “She opted to return to the US and timely acted to retain her US citizenship, and that she could not be denied entrance or residence in the US as a natural born citizen.”

    The US federal government is not authorized to require a declaration of intent or oath of allegiance or any act to retain or maintain their US citizenship status if they are currently a US citizen. This is an important point Obots like to ignore. If someone is asked by a federal officer of the US federal government to declare an intent to retain US citizenship or state an oath of allegiance to retain their US citizenship to be recognized as a US citizen, US citizen at birth or natural born citizen, then the person who is asked to make a declaration or state an oath is not a US citizen.

    The State Department gets around this by asking a US passport applicant to declare their date of return to the US. In the Elg case, Elg declared her date of intent to return on a US passport application at or near her age of majority.

    Pursuant to the US-Sweden treaty in effect at the time Elg moved to Sweden, Elg involuntarily renounced and relinquished her US citizenship, but maintained her right of return because the treaty did not address the situation of a minor with birthright US citizenship who moved to Sweden, naturalized and then declared an intent to return at or near the age of majority. This upsets Obots and forces them to call me a liar because there is nothing in the US Code to allow a minor to move to a foreign country, involuntarily renounce, relinquish their birthright citizenship and maintain a right of return at or near their age of majority . A treaty has the effect of US law.

    SCOTUS concluded that the treaty did not address the situation of native born US citizen who has renounced and relinquished as a minor and chose to exercise their right of return. Absent any language to deny Elg a right of return, SCOTUS ruled Elg properly declared her intent to return on her US passport application and recaptured her natural born citizenship status. SCOTUS did find unidentified Private Acts that could be construed as detrimental to Elg, but concluded Private Acts with respect to birthright citizens who lost their citizenship and elected to retain those rights do not have the effect of Public Law and are inconsequential to Elg.

    SCOTUS affirmed and modified the Court of Appeals conclusion. The Court of Appeals ignored the the US -Sweden treaty and opined on the various interpretations of Swedish naturalization laws in effect at the time. Obots demand the conflicting reasons for arriving at the same conclusion between the Court of Appeals and SCOTUS are irrelevant. I and a few experienced career professionals at the State Department think the SCOTUS opinion speaks volumes about the fluidity of natural born citizenship status, i.e. dual citizens are natural born citizens while they maintain a full time residence in the US and are not natural born citizens while they maintain a full time residence outside of the US.

  176. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 16, 2015 at 5:29 pm #

    MacGyver

    Hierarchy of U.S. Law Pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.

    The Supremacy Clause lists four types of law in order to develop a hierarchy of U.S. Law.

    1) The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
    2) Legislation drafted as a Congressional Act and enacted into U.S. Law pursuant to the U.S. Constitution
    3) Treaties made under the authority of the United States.
    4) State constitutions and laws not in violation the U.S. Constitution or U.S. Law enacted pursuant to the U.S. Constitution.

    Article I of US-Sweden Treaty:

    “Citizens of the United States of America who have resided in Sweden or Norway for a continuous period of at least five years, and during such residence have become and are lawfully recognized as citizens of Sweden or Norway, shall be held by the government of the United States to be Swedish or Norwegian citizens, and shall be treated as such.

    “Reciprocally, citizens of Sweden or Norway who have resided in the United States of America for a continuous period of at least five years, and during such residence have become naturalized citizens of the United States, shall be held by the government of Sweden and Norway to be American citizens, and shall be treated as such.

    “The declaration of an intention to become a citizen of one or the other country has not for either party the effect of citizenship legally acquired.”

    Article III:

    “If a citizen of the one party, who has become a recognized citizen of the other party, takes up his abode once more in his original country and applies to be restored to his former citizenship, the government of the last-named country is authorized to receive him again as a citizen on such conditions as the said government may think proper.”

    SCOTUS concluded Elg’s right of return was not diminished by US-Sweden treaty and she recaptured her natural born citizenship after she returned to the US. She was not a natural born citizen in Sweden pursuant to US – Sweden treaty. Elg is a natural born citizen “in the U.S.” pursuant to US – Sweden Treaty.

    The Court of Appeals did not address the US – Sweden Treaty. SCOTUS affirmed/modified the ruling, but only after careful analysis of the US -Sweden treaty.

  177. avatar
    Northland10 June 16, 2015 at 6:26 pm #

    The court states that she retained, not recaptured her citizenship. As for your so called experts, you’re making that up.

  178. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 16, 2015 at 6:56 pm #

    Northland10

    SCOTUS stated, “The question, then, is whether this well recognized right of election has been destroyed by treaty or statute. ”

    She retained her right of election to return because neither the treaty or statute diminished her right of election.

    Review the Supremacy Clause. In the absence of a Congressional Act enacted into US law to the contrary, a US treaty has the full effect of US law.

    The treaty in effect during this case stated the US federal government will recognize and defer to Sweden with respect to “Citizens of the United States of America who have resided in Sweden or Norway for a continuous period of at least five years, and during such residence have become and are lawfully, recognized as citizens of Sweden or Norway, shall be held by the government of the United States to be Swedish or Norwegian citizens, and shall be treated as such.”

    And the people who are telling you that I’m not communicating with State Department whistle blowers are as competent as the lawyers and judges who have forgotten the hierarchy of US law detailed in the Supremacy Clause.

  179. avatar
    Northland10 June 16, 2015 at 7:34 pm #

    We think that this provision in its direct application clearly implies a voluntary residence, and it would thus apply in the instant case to the father of respondent. There is no specific mention of minor children who have obtained citizenship by birth in the country which their parents have left. And if it be assumed that a child born in the United States would be deemed to acquire the Swedish citizenship of his parents through their return to Sweden and resumption of citizenship there, still nothing is said in the treaty which in such a case would destroy the right of election which appropriately belongs to the child on attaining majority. If the abrogation of that right had been in contemplation, it would naturally have been the subject of a provision suitably explicit. Rights of citizenship are not to be destroyed by an ambiguity.

    Followed by:

    Moreover, the provisions of Article III must be read in connection with Article I. Article III provides:

    “If a citizen of the one party, who has become a recognized citizen of the her party, takes up his abode once more in his original country and applies to be restored to his former citizenship, the government of the last-named country is authorized to receive him again as a citizen on such conditions as the said government may think proper.”

    If the first article could be taken to cover the case of a child through the derivation of citizenship from that of his emigrating parents, Article III, by the same token, would be applicable to the case of a child born here and taken to Sweden, who at majority elects to return to the United States and to assume the privileges and obligations of American citizenship. In that event, the Government of the United States is expressly authorized to receive one so returning “as a citizen on such conditions as the said government may think proper.” And if this Government considers that a native citizen taken from the United States by his parents during minority is entitled to retain his American citizenship by electing at majority to return and reside here, there would appear to be nothing in the treaty which would gainsay the authority of the United States to recognize that privilege of election and to receive the returning native upon that basis.

    Again, you make it up. The court stated that by the wording of the treaty, Elg RETAINED her citizenship.

    Whether Sweden was obligated to recognize her retained US citizenship while in that country would have been a matter of International Law. However, according to the court, if she elected, she had the right to RETAIN (i.e. never lost) her citizenship.

    No need to worry about the supremacy clause when the court said the treaty does not remove her citizenship.

  180. avatar
    Northland10 June 16, 2015 at 7:37 pm #

    Rights of citizenship are not to be destroyed by an ambiguity.

    I like that line.