Main Menu

Doc back on the air with RC tonight

Realty Check has invited me on his Blog Talk Radio program tonight (Oct. 21) at 9 PM Eastern Time. I’ll be talking about my experience on the Mike Volin Show, and probably a range of other topics in the birther news.

Kevin Davidson, aka Doctor Conspiracy, the owner of the obamaconspiracy.org blog returns to RC Radio. Doc has been a frequent guest on RC Radio since the early days. He recently appeared on Mike Volin’s Where’s Obamas Birth Certificate show here on Blog Talk Radio. Doc will review how it went and address some points he was not given time to make during the interview. We will also discuss the upcoming deposition and testimony by Cold Case Posse lead Mike Zullo in the Melendres v Arpaio case in federal court in Arizona.

 

Check Out Politics Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with RCRadio on BlogTalkRadio

, , , , ,

153 Responses to Doc back on the air with RC tonight

  1. avatar
    Reality Check October 21, 2015 at 4:43 pm #

    Thanks for coming on the show Doc. I can’t imagine what we might have to discuss. 😉 LOL

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 21, 2015 at 4:56 pm #

    Everything from A to Z.

    Reality Check: I can’t imagine what we might have to discuss.

  3. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG October 21, 2015 at 5:37 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Everything from A to Z.

    Oh you! 😀

  4. avatar
    Crustacean October 21, 2015 at 6:16 pm #

    Please, oh, please invite Dr. Deb to call in to the show. Not that I think she really would, but if she did it would be epic.

    Without the mania-inducing anonymity of the Internet, she may prove to be a perfectly nice person. She could apologize to Doc for demanding his imprisonment, and Doc could compliment her on her academic achievements. Next thing you know, Deb invites Doc to the Blue Ridge Mountains, where the two of them share laughs as they canoe together on Lake Nottely.

    Hey, stranger things have happened. I can’t think of any off the top of my head, but still…

  5. avatar
    Reality Check October 22, 2015 at 8:59 am #

    Thanks again Doc. Also thanks to Brian Reilly and CRJ who called. We went past the two hour streaming limit but the discussion should be in the archive version. We had a discussion with CRJ and about his case and the definition of NBC.

  6. avatar
    Pete October 22, 2015 at 10:09 am #

    Do you think CRJ might be any closer to reality on that?

  7. avatar
    Reality Check October 22, 2015 at 11:01 am #

    No, he buys into Birther memes about Jay’s letter and Minor v Happersett and cannot understand why the SCOTUS didn’t take the opportunity of ruling on NBC based on a frivolous case submitted by a lay person that is frankly barely readable.

    Pete:
    Do you think CRJ might be any closer to reality on that?

  8. avatar
    CRJ October 22, 2015 at 11:38 am #

    @RC [Thanks again Doc. Also thanks to Brian Reilly and CRJ who called. We went past the two hour streaming limit but the discussion should be in the archive version. We had a discussion with CRJ and about his case and the definition of NBC.]

    It was a real pleasure to be in that Round Table Discussion agreeing to disagree.

    As I thought about it this morning I appreciated you letting me come on the show. Things like that ROUND TABLE are EPIC and the Discussion Healthy.

    Like Doc said about his experience in WOBC there was one point I regretted not saying as we disagreed on “Precedent Case”

    And that would have been to emphasize more the reality that the SCOTUS has not had a Discussion on “natural born Citizen” where it Counts – Between TWO PRESIDENTIAL Candidates.

    Thus our Campaigns are regulated by Cases considering “Citizen” and not “natural born Citizen”

    I do wish the SCOTUS had enough respect for the Constitution to understand the slight. (smile)

    You, Doc,Brian, and myself really engaged in a conversation that should be had in the U.S. Supreme Court and broadcast on Prime Time. . if you just for one minute thought about the hundreds of millions of Votes and Billions of dollars that have gone into the ’08. ’12., and now ’16 Presidential Elections. . that’s an easy up.

    If the SCOTUS could not be juiced up by THAT I’d have to say they are in the same condition as the majority of Certs that hit their desk .. D.O.A or Deadlisted.

    On a side note:
    You and Doc are so talented with your voices. I mean REALLY good! Your both amazingly articulate, distinct, and unique and PRIME TIME is missing out.

    Doc’s Voice could sell Beef to Cows. Sam Elliot better watch out , because he could lose his dinner over that voice.

    You RC really should be MC’n Bloomberg TV or some other high profile show , with your quick wit, intelligence, and all around savvy.

    REALLY was my honor in the Discussion with you guys and with Brian Reilly (who worked on the CCP). . whose sincere desire to look for truth I took as genuine.

    You know I thought this morning “America’s Got GreatTalent”

    Wouldn’t it be something if the best of the best in forensics, in Congress, in Court, in Politics, got together in Principle for the Truth?

    Then I thought .., “Well, that was what the great experience and experiment the USA was all about in the first place with the Freedom and Liberty to do it. ”

    You know TODAY that Round Table Discussion at Prime Time would cost millions of dollars. . and the Value would be exponentially higher.

    I guess we missed the Pro Salary Cap, but it was a great Scrimage.

  9. avatar
    Lupin October 22, 2015 at 12:00 pm #

    For somebody who makes such a stink, it struck me that CJR actually knew very little about the topic.

    Also while everyone is entitled to have an opinion, not all opinions are equal — or valid. The Earth is flat is an opinion, but hardly worth consideration nowadays.

    The issue of natural-born citizenship has been pretty much settled, as demonstrated by Doc and RC, and that of “foreign influence” is certainly greatly resolved by the Madison/Jefferson correspondence on the topic of dual citizenship.

  10. avatar
    CRJ October 22, 2015 at 12:11 pm #

    @Lupin – Do you know what GroupStink is? Try that question for $500.

    @RealityCheck I’m doing a write up Post about the Show and would like to Credit You properly. Could you email me your Preferences and Credits
    cody@codyjudy.us
    What do you get when the LEADING OBAMA CONSPIRACY DOCTOR, REALITY CHECK RADIO , A Former COLD CASE POSSE Investigator and a Presidential Candidate with U.S. Supreme Court Cases under his belt get together on a ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION?

    WELL “Shake N Bake” , THAT just Happened!

    I came on with a question for Doc Conspiracy (Kevin Davidson) at the 90 Minute Mark and the Show went into two 15 Minute OVER TIMES!

  11. avatar
    Rickey October 22, 2015 at 1:21 pm #

    CRJ:

    And that would have been to emphasize more the reality that the SCOTUS has not had a Discussion on “natural born Citizen” where it Counts – Between TWO PRESIDENTIAL Candidates.

    What you fail to comprehend is that there is no real controversy about what a natural born citizen is. As Justice Scalia said, “That’s jus soli, isn’t it?”

    There is no a single justice on the Supreme Court who believes your “two citizen parent” argument.

    President Obama was born in Hawaii, which makes him eligible to be president. Case closed.

  12. avatar
    CRJ October 22, 2015 at 2:01 pm #

    @Rickey AND Sen Ted Cruz (?)
    The punitive factor of arguing for any particular Candidate is dismissive of the Principles of Law which we ought to be engaged in.

    The dislocation of that lays bear the Constitutional Cupboard

    Please Excuse Dis-location
    I’ve been regulated to the “moderation” board, so I’m not sure if my comments “if approved” will fall in order.

    But that might be due to the sensitive info of which that paticular comment had within it. Understandable.

  13. avatar
    bob October 22, 2015 at 2:50 pm #

    Lupin:
    For somebody who makes such a stink, it struck me that CJR actually knew very little about the topic.

    Also, Judy asked if anyone thought there was any collusion between Trump and the democrats, and everyone said “no.” So then Judy asked the question again — because no one said what Judy wanted to hear.

  14. avatar
    bob October 22, 2015 at 3:20 pm #

    To answer the questions raised at the end: Vice President Curtis was born in the Kansas Territory in 1860.

    The 12th (not 20th) Amendment made the qualifications for the presidency and vice presidency co-extensive; it was ratified in 1804.

  15. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG October 22, 2015 at 3:25 pm #

    Lupin: For somebody who makes such a stink, it struck me that CJR actually knew very little about the topic.

    Does he know very much about anything? Granted his photoshopping skills are much better than BSEs, but that’s besting a blind guy at “I Spy”.

  16. avatar
    Pete October 22, 2015 at 4:06 pm #

    Reality Check:
    No, he buys into Birther memes about Jay’s letter and Minor v Happersett and cannot understand why the SCOTUS didn’t take the opportunity of ruling on NBC based on a frivolous case submitted by a lay person that is frankly barely readable.

    North America = reality
    Easter Island = Cody R Judy

  17. avatar
    Pete October 22, 2015 at 4:11 pm #

    CRJ: And that would have been to emphasize more the reality that the SCOTUS has not had a Discussion on “natural born Citizen” where it Counts – Between TWO PRESIDENTIAL Candidates.

    Thus our Campaigns are regulated by Cases considering “Citizen” and not “natural born Citizen”

    That may be true, Cody, but it really doesn’t matter.

    The Supreme Court has been clear enough about the meaning of “natural born citizen,” at least in regard to those born on US soil, whether they have citizen parents or not.

    They’ve been less clear about the status of those born US citizens overseas, but as I’ve commented here before, the general consensus of legal scholarship is that such persons are natural born citizens as well.

    I think Dr C has about the best definition of “natural born citizen” I’ve heard: “born having the nature of a citizen.”

  18. avatar
    Pete October 22, 2015 at 4:13 pm #

    Rickey: There is no a single justice on the Supreme Court who believes your “two citizen parent” argument.

    This is a good point, and I think it’s probably accurate.

    In order to win a US Supreme Court case, you have to have 5 votes at a minimum.

    If Judy’s case were to actually go before the Court, I’m fairly certain he wouldn’t have even one single vote in his favor. It would be unanimous. 0-9 against.

  19. avatar
    Rickey October 22, 2015 at 4:50 pm #

    CRJ:

    The punitive factor of arguing for any particular Candidate is dismissive of the Principles of Law which we ought to be engaged in.

    Could you translate that into plain English?

  20. avatar
    Rickey October 22, 2015 at 4:56 pm #

    Pete: This is a good point, and I think it’s probably accurate.

    In order to win a US Supreme Court case, you have to have 5 votes at a minimum.

    And requesting a response from a respondent requires only one vote.

    Since every birther case to reach SCOTUS has been denied without a response and without a single request for a response, we can safely say that each case has been denied 9-0.

  21. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 22, 2015 at 5:48 pm #

    Mr. Judy was much more intelligible when he called in to the RC radio show last night.

    Rickey: Could you translate that into plain English?

  22. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 22, 2015 at 5:56 pm #

    No, you haven’t. Comments go into moderation for a variety of reasons, including delays in spam checking from a 3rd party service, and the appearance of certain keywords.

    In any case, comments which do get into moderation appear in the order written when they appear.

    CRJ: I’ve been regulated to the “moderation” board,

  23. avatar
    bob October 22, 2015 at 6:01 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Mr. Judy was much more intelligible when he called in to the RC radio show last night.

    “More” is doing a lot of work there. Yes, his verbal articulation is better his ability to write. But his response to your comments about political-question doctrine made little sense. Same thing with your explanation as to why SCOTUS isn’t going to take a birther case when there’s no disagreement among the lower courts.

    To say nothing about the arguments that he could articulate — but were simply just wrong.

  24. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 22, 2015 at 6:01 pm #

    Absolutely not. None of us are experts.

    CRJ: You, Doc,Brian, and myself really engaged in a conversation that should be had in the U.S. Supreme Court and broadcast on Prime Time.

  25. avatar
    Sudoku October 22, 2015 at 7:03 pm #

    I truly enjoyed the podcast. I know what to expect from RC and Doc, which is why I listen, but CRJ was a pleasant surprise. He was polite, didn’t yell, and seemed to welcome the interaction. Contrast that with those birthers who just want to talk over everyone.

    I would like to better understand CRJ’s point of view. Seemed like a load of hoping and thinking, but again, he was nice about it.

  26. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 22, 2015 at 9:32 pm #

    I would just point out that a response is often filed without a request from the Court, which doesn’t request a response if it has already been filed.

    In one of the cases, Laity v. New York, the Supreme Court Docket uses the phrase “Response due,” which I cannot interpret with certainty. In many other cases a waiver to the right of response was filed, but not this one.That is the only case I could find that remotely suggested that a response could have been requested. There is no notice that a response was filed.

    While looking through the cases, I noticed that CRJ has already had one bite of the Supreme Court apple, appealing the Georgia ballot case. He filed IFP and cert was denied.

    Rickey: Since every birther case to reach SCOTUS has been denied without a response and without a single request for a response, we can safely say that each case has been denied 9-0.

  27. avatar
    Rickey October 22, 2015 at 10:12 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I would just point out that a response is often filed without a request from the Court, which doesn’t request a response if it has already been filed.

    Absolutely. Respondents who waive their right to respond generally are confident that SCOTUS will deny cert, so they don’t bother to go to the time and expense of filing a respond. As you say, sometimes they don’t even bother to file a waiver.I believe it was Judy who thought that the failure to respond was tantamount to a default.

    in cases which appear to be of interest to SCOTUS, respondents do file responses without being prompted to do so.

    In one of the cases, Laity v. New York, the Supreme Court Docket uses the phrase “Response due,” which I cannot interpret with certainty.

    “Response due” just means that if the respondent plans to file a response, the date indicated is the due date. SCOTUS will extend the due date if the respondent waives and SCOTUS subsequently asks for a response.

  28. avatar
    Rickey October 23, 2015 at 12:32 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Mr. Judy was much more intelligible when he called in to the RC radio show last night.

    That’s interesting. It’s unusual to have someone who can speak intelligibly but cannot write intelligibly. Perhaps he is dyslexic.

  29. avatar
    Lupin October 23, 2015 at 2:06 am #

    CRJ: @Lupin – Do you know what GroupStink is? Try that question for $500.

    1) More often than not, in life, the opinion of a consensus of experts is right. Your own opinion is just as extreme and misguided as those who believe that the Earth is flat.

    2) I was amazed how fumbling, unprepared and generally unread about the issue you came across on the radio.

  30. avatar
    Lupin October 23, 2015 at 2:10 am #

    CRJ: The dislocation of that lays bear the Constitutional Cupboard

    It took me a minute to figure out that he meant to type “bare” (not bear) although frankly it makes just as much sense with the notion of Yogi dipping the Constitution in a tub of honey and eating it.

  31. avatar
    Lupin October 23, 2015 at 2:11 am #

    Rickey: That’s interesting. It’s unusual to have someone who can speak intelligibly but cannot write intelligibly. Perhaps he is dyslexic.

    I said before, learning disability of some kind.

  32. avatar
    Rickey October 23, 2015 at 3:25 am #

    Sudoku:

    I would like to better understand CRJ’s point of view.Seemed like a load of hoping and thinking, but again, he was nice about it.

    It is difficult to understand CRJ’s point of view because his writing style is word salad. Consider this, which is verbatim from his cert petition:

    2. Question – POLICING THE JUDICIAL BENCH – When a law enforcement investigation report is submitted to the Court under the authority of the Sherman/Clayton Acts of Congress directive to rein in illegal activity by two or more Corporations forming an illegal cartel in the political arena whereupon it is stated the Court’s obliged duty is to direct an investigation with an appropriate prosecutor, it is a misprision offense if the Court refuses that Congressional Directive that could lead to the dissolution of the Supreme Court suggested by Obama recently in Cleveland, Ohio to only take a matter of time?

    I have read that several times and I still cannot figure out what he is trying to say, much less what relevance it has to Obama’s eligibility.

  33. avatar
    CRJ October 23, 2015 at 4:26 am #

    @ REALITY [I believe it was Judy who thought that the failure to respond was tantamount to a default.]

    One thing I’ve learned, always ask for everything. You never know what the Court is going to be in the mood to grant. You just might catch a Judge in a mood, but if you didn’t ask, there’s no way he’s/she’s gonna suggest it., FAULT ? YOURS.

    To the questions directed towards my writing style-
    One thing my Dad said about not writing me much before he passed away, was because he understood how easily things could be misconstrued, or taken out of context.

    It is very True. One thing I could do, actually enjoyed doing was reading what I wrote in my Lions Den Show. I can verbally, with the right and correct verbal fluctuations, make it Understandable.

    I do understand the problem, and concede it with out taking any offense at all. I do work on it everyday and consider corrections more helpful than ever are meant harmful.

    Again time is a wrestling factor. In my college English and Writing I had A’s and B’s nothing lower. My accumlative GPA was 3.7 in College. .and with just two classes short of 3 minors and 1 major thats a lot classes.

    More people… More time.. Things get better.

    As an example I wholly got a kick out of the story or scene retold By Professional reporters as the Clerk walked outside with the BIG grey box full of copies of the SCOTUS Courts decision.

    As you know there’s a literal SHOPPERS GRAB scramble to get a copy, read it, and report it FIRST.

    Well, as long sentences go, and varying degrees and nuances are expressed all colesing around the action and subject, these Reporters just shook their heads at reading it and reporting it wrong, and then having to sit down re read, disect, and re evaluate the findings.

    I understand no one likes reading something 10 times to understand it. The more you do it though the more understanding that comes.

    Many people do not like or enjoy for example reading the Bible for various reasons. I’ve read it over 100 times and continue every day picking new things up in my understanding. Jesus often spoke in parables not to be seen as a smart A$s or vague, but as a tool of assistance. He was smart enough not to deny us the privilege of ah-hah moments when that understanding would come.

    I appreciate all of the good humor here in all the comments, and hope to one day have you helping in a Judy Administration with your truly wonderful talents.

    I’m really excited to have gotten to know each of you a little better, and I take your expressions and comments as really caring for me deep inside. I appreciate that. I do care about each of you also and wish you well.

  34. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) October 23, 2015 at 5:53 am #

    Pete: In order to win a US Supreme Court case, you have to have 5 votes at a minimum.

    You only need a majority of non-recused judges as long as you have a quorum of six, therefore 4 votes are enough.
    If you’re on the side that does not want the appealed decision overturned, 3 votes can suffice (because SCOTUS divided 3-3 means the lower court’s decision stands).
    Not that any birther case was ever close to even getting one vote.

  35. avatar
    Lupin October 23, 2015 at 5:56 am #

    CRJ: I’m really excited to have gotten to know each of you a little better, and I take your expressions and comments as really caring for me deep inside. I appreciate that. I do care about each of you also and wish you well.

    Leaving aside your obvious problems with writing, my suggestion — which parallels the advice given to you by RC or Doc — would that you should read more history & educate yourself better about the issue of natural-born citizenship.

    First, you will find that the term as it was widely understood in the 18th century simply meant “born a citizen” or “citizen at birth”, no more, no less (by contrast with naturalized citizens).

    (In fact the root of thew ord “naturalized” is “naturel”, another French term for citizen at birth, and means “to be made a naturel”)

    There never was a magical third class of citizenry other than natural-born & naturalized (except honorary citizenship, which is a kind of naturalization, but let’s not go there).

    Yes, there were some ambiguities about who was a citizen at birth indeed, and also the concern of some — not all — of your founders about foreign influence, were real.

    Your courts or your congress took care of resolving the ambiguities that may have existed in the last two centuries — from Wong Kim Ark to the recent resolution about Senator McCain.

    As for the concern about foreign influences, that, too, evolved. Where Monroe and Jay had initially given voice to this concern, Paine and later Madison and Jefferson settled the matter, in a much more tolerant fashion. (Not surprisingly since the US was then no longer as fearful of England as it may have been son after the revolution.)

    So in effect it is not that what you say is totally incorrect, but it is dramatically incomplete. You’re like someone advocating that slavery is still legal today, or women should not have the right to vote, or the Sun is circling the Earth.

    The concerns you express have already been discussed in the proper forums (not on radio! :-)) and settled once and for all. History proves it.

    If you make an effort to truly educate yourself about such matters, you will see that we are right.

  36. avatar
    Sam the Centipede October 23, 2015 at 6:32 am #

    […] you [CRJ] should read more history & educate yourself better about the issue of natural-born citizenship.

    First, you will find that the term as it was widely understood in the 18th century simply meant “born a citizen” or “citizen at birth”, no more, no less (by contrast with naturalized citizens).
    […]

    Exactly, Lupin (notre français, merci ami!) understands English better than some native speakers. “natural born” is NOT a legal term, not a term of art, it’s simple, if archaic, English, meaning “born with that nature”.

    Judy needs a dictionary, not a Supreme Court ruling.

  37. avatar
    Rickey October 23, 2015 at 10:35 am #

    CRJ:

    One thing I’ve learned, always ask for everything. You never know what the Court is going to be in the mood to grant. You just might catch a Judge in a mood, but if you didn’t ask, there’s no way he’s/she’s gonna suggest it., FAULT ? YOURS.

    Except that you asked for the impossible. There is no such thing as a default at the Supreme Court. A respondent is not required to do anything.

    If I were filing a pro se petition with the Supreme Court, the first thing that I would do is read the entire Supreme Court rules, from cover to cover, and read them again and again until I was certain that I knew and understood each of them.

    The Supreme Court is not a trial court. You were fantasizing that SCOTUS would take your case and rule that Obama is not eligible to be president. That too was impossible. Even if SCOTUS granted you cert, and then somehow ruled in your favor 6-9 months from now, the best that you could hope for was having your case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

    I appreciate all of the good humor here in all the comments, and hope to one day have you helping in a Judy Administration with your truly wonderful talents.

    You really should try to do something more productive with your life than wasting your time pretending that you are a real candidate for president.

  38. avatar
    CRJ October 23, 2015 at 11:29 am #

    @Lupin

    Of course the term had some roots in Frenchs esteemed scholar Vattel
    codified in the then contemporary encyclopedia “The Law of Nations” (1758) by Emerich de Vattel. (As a legal source “Law of Nations” is mentioned in Article I, Section 8, #10 of the Constitution in respect to the authority of the US Congress to enforce the law of nations, in particular – against piracies and felonies on high seas).

    According to Chapter 19, §212 of “Law of Nations”, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens”. The concept “Natural born citizen” is a twofold criterion meaning that:

    Both parents must be the citizens of, and the birth must take place in the concerned country, assuming that the citizenship inherited by this child and the loyalty are never changed ever after.

    In other words, a natural born citizen means at least a second generation citizen of the country.

    Of interest and respect to your question without being redundant I have a more in depth analysis of the Discussion for your pleasure which includes many Constitutional scholars.

    http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2015/10/breaking-report-natural-born-citizen.html?m=1

    Je vous en prie n’y a pas de quoi

  39. avatar
    Andy October 23, 2015 at 12:00 pm #

    I would highly recommend you not try to throw Vattel into the face of a French lawyer. Especially one who has worked on translations of the specific work you are referencing.

    That, my friend, is a very silly move to make.

    CRJ:
    @Lupin

    Of course the term had some roots in Frenchs esteemed scholar Vattel
    codified in the then contemporary encyclopedia “The Law of Nations” (1758) by Emerich de Vattel. (As a legal source “Law of Nations” is mentioned in Article I, Section 8, #10 of the Constitution in respect to the authority of the US Congress to enforce the law of nations, in particular – against piracies and felonies on high seas).

    According to Chapter 19, §212 of “Law of Nations”, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens”. The concept “Natural born citizen” is a twofold criterion meaning that:

    Both parents must be the citizens of, and the birth must take place in the concerned country, assuming that the citizenship inherited by this child and the loyalty are never changed ever after.

    In other words, a natural born citizen means at least a second generation citizen of the country.

    Of interest and respect to your question without being redundant I have a more in depth analysis of the Discussion for your pleasure which includes many Constitutional scholars.

    http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2015/10/breaking-report-natural-born-citizen.html?m=1

    Je vous en prie n’y a pas de quoi

  40. avatar
    Pete October 23, 2015 at 12:17 pm #

    What Andy just said.

  41. avatar
    bob October 23, 2015 at 12:25 pm #

    CRJ:
    One thing I’ve learned, always ask for everything.

    To paraphrase “Game of Thrones,” “You know nothing, Cody Judy.”.

    This site has a motto about a gold coin and a bucket of mud. Each time you make a frivolous request, you are making more mud. Of course, birthers have only mud; there is no gold coin.

    Judy’s misunderstanding of Vattel is also unsurprising. Vattel never wrote “natural-born citizen,” in either English or French. Eligibility cases have made rulings that either expressly or inferentially reject Vattel as a basis for the natural-born-citizen clause. Judy either ignores them, or is ignorant of them, but he is nonetheless still wrong.

  42. avatar
    Daniel October 23, 2015 at 12:25 pm #

    //and broadcast on Prime Time.//

    That phrase, more than any other, speaks to CRJs prime motivation.

    IMHO

  43. avatar
    bob October 23, 2015 at 12:41 pm #

    Daniel:
    //and broadcast on Prime Time.//

    That phrase, more than any other, speaks to CRJs prime motivation.

    Agreed; one look at Judy’s vanity blog shows he is most interested in being noticed.

    To say nothing of his domestic terrorism aggravated burglary.

  44. avatar
    Arthur B. October 23, 2015 at 12:53 pm #

    CRJ: As a legal source “Law of Nations” is mentioned in Article I, Section 8, #10 of the Constitution…

    And while we’re at it, that’s false too.

  45. avatar
    Pete October 23, 2015 at 2:01 pm #

    Cody, I think you’re a pretty decent guy. Okay, so you made some past mistakes in your life. A lot of people have. Bottom line is, I do think you’re a pretty decent guy. So let me try to orient you a bit if I can.

    Now I know that the following is long, but if you will take the time to read it carefully and with an open mind, you might learn something.

    In the world, there are two kinds of people. There are people who know what they’re talking about, and people who don’t know what they’re talking about.

    People who know what they’re talking about can help lead you to a greater understanding. People who don’t know what they’re talking about can lead you down meaningless paths.

    Sometimes people who don’t know what they’re talking about can sound really convincing. Their ideas just seem to make sense. And they may say those ideas with great conviction.

    As human beings, there are shortcuts we tend to take when listening to people. If someone says something with great conviction and emphasis, then we read from that person that he or she really believes what they’re saying. Well, if they really believe it, then it must be true, right? Not necessarily.

    Likewise, if an idea just seems to make sense, then it’s probably true, right? Again, not necessarily.

    Shortcuts can be really handy. But they can also lead us astray.

    Sometimes you will find two groups of people. One group says one thing, the other group says the exact opposite.

    So it’s a pretty good idea to have the skills, or develop the skills, that you need in order to tell the difference between people who know what they’re talking about, and people who don’t.

    I think you might be surprised at the level of expertise and knowledge of the people who tend to frequent this site. As someone has noted, Lupin is not only a native French-speaker, but a French lawyer.

    And not only a French lawyer, but one who has particular professional knowledge of, and extensive professional experience with, the writings of Monsieur de Vattel.

    Kevin Davidson (Dr C) is recently retired from a career that involved working with software for such things as vital statistics information systems.

    If you were able to scratch beneath the surface a bit, I think you would discover that many of the others here have very strong relevant experience and knowledge as well. Some of the commentators here, for example, are US lawyers in “real life.” Others have strong technical skills relevant to the Obama PDF stuff. And many (if not most) of us have done a LOT of reading and research on various birther questions.

    And that’s a first clue. I don’t think you will find anything approaching a similar level of expertise at places like Birther Report. Now I haven’t spent nearly as much time over there (partly since they’ve always tended to censor comments heavily), but frankly, I’ve never noticed any of the regular commentators over there who had any particular credentials or expertise other than loudly proclaiming that they were “right.”

    Offhand, I can only think of a few vociferous birthers who actually have any kind of real credentials. Orly Taitz is obviously a lawyer, but she’s a really, really bad one. Mario Apuzzo is a lawyer as well, and he has debated extensively, but frankly, he’s full of crap. I would refer you to previous debates that various people have had with Apuzzo so that you can read both sides.

    By the way, another major clue that a community is promoting nonsense is how open they are to detailed skeptical analysis of their claims. And, how freely they permit open discussion with people who disagree.

    If people are banned from a site for being obnoxious jerks, that’s normal. But if people are banned or have their posts censored for posting contrary opinions and arguments (as they always have been at pretty much every birther web site), that’s usually a good indicator of some sort of BS cult.

    As you can tell, you don’t get run off from obamaconspiracy.org just for being a birther. We’ll happily talk with you, just as long as you behave like a reasonable human being.

    That’s a second clue.

    In fact, if you were to go back through the archives of this site, I think you would find some very long and pretty civil discussions with birthers. Yes, you’re going to have some folks express some negative opinions of the birther from time to time. You’re probably going to have a few insulting comments.

    But the key thing is: Birthers who behave reasonably civilly here are welcome to show up and discuss whatever evidence they think they may have. And in general, I think the population here is reasonably tolerant. (We don’t, for example, call people “f____ts” or “traitors” for disagreeing with the general consensus, as they do over at BR).

    The real test of who’s right and who’s wrong, though, is in the nitty-gritty examination and analysis of evidence.

    Once again, the clue is: That doesn’t happen at Birther Report. It does happen here. At least, it HAS happened, in the past, extensively. It doesn’t happen quite as much any more because literally every single issue has been beaten to death, and then beaten some more.

    Someone made a comment recently to the effect that “Obots” ARE the experts on Obama’s birth certificate, and on the legal meaning of “natural born citizen” – and all the rest of it – because we’re the ones who’ve actually investigated every single allegation birthers have ever made.

    And that statement is true. If you haven’t figured it out yet, Dr C’s tagline for the site, “Fishing for gold coins in a bucket of mud, since 2008,” is pretty accurate.

    He (and others at this site) have been fishing for birther gold coins for as long as 7 years. Do you know what he, and others, have found? Nothing but mud. Mud, mud, and more mud. Not one single damn gold coin.

    The entire bucket has been gone through, several times. There are no gold coins. They aren’t there.

    To put it simply: All of the real evidence indicates that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. There is no real evidence, that stands up under scrutiny, that indicates otherwise. There’s no real indication that his birth certificate is forged, and every known claim ever made of “evidence” that his birth certificate is a forgery is nonsense. It doesn’t hold up. Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse even went so far as to FAKE evidence to say Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery. That didn’t hold up, either.

    Likewise, “natural born citizen” simply means “born a citizen” or “born having the nature of a citizen.” All of the evidence is that if you’re born a US citizen, you’re eligible to be President upon meeting the other qualifications (e.g., age 35, 14 years a resident of the United States). It is absolutely certain that if you’re born in the United States, you don’t have to have citizen parents in order to be a natural born citizen. This was decided in US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Minor v. Happersett does NOT give a contrary definition of NBC (and this has been affirmed by a US federal court ruling stating exactly that). Vattel did NOT give us a Constitutional “definition” of “natural born citizen.” And finally, while it’s never been proclaimed by the US Supreme Court, it seems pretty clear to most of us that persons born United States citizens abroad (because of being born to one or two US citizen parents) are natural born citizens as well, and thus Constitutionally eligible to be elected President.

    So where’s your action point on this? Well, for starters, if you want to know something about Vattel, you should listen carefully to what Lupin has to say. Because he knows a hell of a lot more about Vattel than you do. And that’s not remotely a slam on you. I consider myself to be pretty well-informed, but Lupin knows a hell of a lot more about Vattel than I do, as well.

    Secondly, there’s a heck of a lot that you could learn by going through some of the past conversations on this site, including, sometimes, debates with previous birthers who have shown up from time to time.

    I was also going to give you a bit of coaching on writing more clearly, but I guess we’ll have to save that for another time. 🙂

  46. avatar
    Pete October 23, 2015 at 2:10 pm #

    Arthur B.: And while we’re at it, that’s false too.

    Now, Cody – this is the kind of knowledge and expertise I’m talking about. It’s something Arthur knows, that you don’t.

    Let’s look at the original quote in the Constitution that you refer to:

    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations

    Well, that’s a reference to Vattel. Right?

    Wrong.

    Here’s a clue for you.

    What best-selling legal book served as the basic training for ALL American lawyers in the late 1700s, was FAR more widely read than Vattel, and is the ONLY book from that era that included a chapter prominently entitled:

    “Of Offences Against the Law of Nations” ??

    Hint: It wasn’t Vattel.

  47. avatar
    Arthur B. October 23, 2015 at 4:38 pm #

    Pete: Here’s a clue for you.

    And here’s another: There’s nothing in that quotation to suggest that there was any intention to refer to a specific book. “The law of nations” refers to a branch of international law, not to a book title.

  48. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 23, 2015 at 4:41 pm #

    I am not saying this to insult you, but to reveal something about how I think. I divide those who argue the other side of the natural born citizen issue into two camps: the regular ones, and the hopelessly clueless. The criteria that I use is the statement you made. Those who make it go into the latter category, those I consider not worth the effort.

    CRJ: Of course the term had some roots in Frenchs esteemed scholar Vattel
    codified in the then contemporary encyclopedia “The Law of Nations” (1758) by Emerich de Vattel. (As a legal source “Law of Nations” is mentioned in Article I, Section 8, #10 of the Constitution in respect to the authority of the US Congress to enforce the law of nations, in particular – against piracies and felonies on high seas).

  49. avatar
    Pete October 23, 2015 at 6:07 pm #

    Arthur B.: And here’s another: There’s nothing in that quotation to suggest that there was any intention to refer to a specific book. “The law of nations” refers to a branch of international law, not to a book title.

    While I agree with you to a certain extent, it seems to me that the phrase refers clearly to Blackstone’s commentary on the law of nations. That would be the chapter I referred to, “BOOK 4, CHAPTER 5, Of Offenses Against the Law of Nations.”

    And the Constitution Society appears to agree with me on this. Jon Roland of the Constitution Society wrote, in 1998:

    Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 10 of the Constitution for the United States delegates the power to Congress to “define and punish … Offenses against the Law of Nations”. It is important to understand what is and is not included in the term of art “law of nations”, and not confuse it with “international law”. They are not the same thing. The phrase “law of nations” is a direct translation of the Latin jus gentium, which means the underlying principles of right and justice among nations, and during the founding era was not considered the same as the “laws”, that is, the body of treaties and conventions between nations, the jus inter gentes, which, combined with jus gentium, comprise the field of “international law”. The distinction goes back to ancient Roman Law.

    Briefly, the Law of Nations at the point of ratification in 1788 included the following general elements, taken from Blackstone’s Commentaries, and prosecution of those who might violate them:

    (1) No attacks on foreign nations, their citizens, or shipping, without either a declaration of war or letters of marque and reprisal.

    (2) Honoring of the flag of truce, peace treaties, and boundary treaties. No entry across national borders without permission of national authorities.

    (3) Protection of wrecked ships, their passengers and crew, and their cargo, from depredation by those who might find them.

    (4) Prosecution of piracy by whomever might be able to capture the pirates, even if those making the capture or their nations had not been victims.

    (5) Care and decent treatment of prisoners of war.

    (6) Protection of foreign embassies, ambassadors, and diplomats, and of foreign ships and their passengers, crew, and cargo while in domestic waters or in port.

    (7) Honoring of extradition treaties for criminals who committed crimes in a nation with whom one has such a treaty who escape to one’s territory or are found on the high seas.

    And, although it was not yet firmly established with all nations in 1788,

    (8) Prohibition of enslavement of foreign nationals and international trading in slaves.

  50. avatar
    Pete October 23, 2015 at 6:19 pm #

    Here’s another thing, Cody.

    People who know what they’re talking about not only cite credible sources, they do so without stripping those sources of context and/ or twisting their meaning.

    Often birther “scholars” portray a poor, unauthoritative source as authoritative. Why do they do this? Because they are looking for any source that says what they want to prove.

    And while birther “scholars” may also cite credible sources, they often strip those sources of the original context and/or twist the meaning. A good example of this is Minor v. Happersett. It simply does not give, or even attempt to give, any complete “definition” for “natural born citizen.”

    Ah, but birther scholars claim it does. Why? It’s all to do with attempting to prove an agenda.

    An agenda which, in this case, turns out simply to be false. It’s just not supported by the legal and historical evidence.

  51. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater October 23, 2015 at 7:36 pm #

    CRJ: “The Law of Nations” (1758) by Emerich de Vattel. (As a legal source “Law of Nations” is mentioned in Article I, Section 8, #10 of the Constitution in respect to the authority of the US Congress to enforce the law of nations, in particular – against piracies and felonies on high seas).

    This is the stupidest claim I’ve ever seen by birthers. You’re really claiming a section dealing with congressional authority and talking about piracy and felonies on the high seas (which Vattel didn’t mention in your section) somehow really refers to the other section on presidential eligibility? This is stupid. You think somehow they secretly meant a section in Vattel which doesn’t actually say what you think it said and then didn’t tell anyone?

  52. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 23, 2015 at 9:09 pm #

    Yeah, just what makes Publius Huldah an authority?

    Pete: Often birther “scholars” portray a poor, unauthoritative source as authoritative.

  53. avatar
    Daniel October 23, 2015 at 9:16 pm #

    //I think you might be surprised at the level of expertise and knowledge of the people who tend to frequent this site.//

    I have a Master’s degree in biology.

    That, more than any other criteria, gives me exactly…

    …zero expertise in the subject.

    Unlike birthers, I realize my limitations. Unlike birthers I rely on actual experts to fill that gap for me.

  54. avatar
    Reality Check October 23, 2015 at 9:51 pm #

    I have one that rivals that. js/js posted this at BR yesterday:

    No matter what, the essential factoid is that Hawaii/HDOH had no reason to issue an Obama BC , 1961 circa.

    Under the prevailing laws, they (Fukino) should have legally declined, and just said NO!

    The birth of mixed race Obama (African father) was illegal in 1961 under US law. As noted, not until 7/1967 was

    Obama’s birth (somewhere) validated as allowed and legal. If in Hawaii, note that the US mixed race marriage laws still

    applied until July 1967. Per Federal law in all 50 states and 5-6 other territories. The Supreme Court USA did not change

    this situation until July 1967 as noted. Obama was in legal jeopardy at birth, on several racial levels.

    The alleged 1961 Hawaii birth of Obama, being illegal by statute, made it unlikely that he was legally eligible to be Prez.

    Nancy Pelosi was a duplicitous traitor, to keep this factoid hidden from all discussion.

    Law and reason should be applied. (Sorry, Doctor Con.!)

    Obama Jr., the II, simply was NOT ELIGIBLE to be Prez per the terms and constraints of the 1961 birth, even in Hawaii.

    Let them know, Danno!!!

    http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/10/feedback-still-probable-cause-for.html#IDComment1000701659

    When rantalbott pointed out that mixed race marriages were not illegal under US law and Hawaii had no state law banning mixed race marriage in 1961 she doubled down on the stupid.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: This is the stupidest claim I’ve ever seen by birthers.

  55. avatar
    Rickey October 23, 2015 at 10:43 pm #

    Reality Check:

    When rantalbott pointed out that mixed race marriages were not illegal under US law and Hawaii had no state law banning mixed race marriage in 1961 she doubled down on the stupid.

    Doubling down on the stupid is what birthers do best.

  56. avatar
    Pete October 23, 2015 at 11:02 pm #

    It’s even stupider than that. According to idiot birther, Obama’s BIRTH was illegal:

    The birth of mixed race Obama (African father) was illegal in 1961 under US law. As noted, not until 7/1967 was Obama’s birth (somewhere) validated as allowed and legal.

    I guess he should’ve stayed in the womb until 1967.

    Here’s another thing, Cody: If you notice that claim after claim after claim made by people on one side of an issue are easily disproved (or just plain idiotic), that may be a clue.

  57. avatar
    CRJ October 24, 2015 at 1:29 am #

    @Pete Well, appreciate that lengthy consideration. I know it takes time, and time is precious.

    Now, in Discussion the semi-agreeable sorta.. Maybe.. We’re not sure item which is contrast:
    Which Book, if it was a book would the Founders be more pleased to represent?

    England’s Sir William Blackstone Justice of the Court of King’s Bench : writing on
    Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England Book the Fourth – Chapter the Fifth : Of Offences Against the Law of Nations

    Or

    Emerich de Vattel -Swiss philosopher, diplomat, legal expert, author : The Law of Nations” (1758 Translate original French) noted to be influencer of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton

    (?)

    Lets see, at the TIME we had just gained our Independence with a very bloody war against England, and if my memory serves me correctly with gratitude towards the French Navy which blocked Cornwallis’s escape Yorktown 1781.

    The U.S. Constitution ratification 1789

    That’s like a far stretch pretty unlikely.

    Certainly would notice my innitial word

    [ The Law of Nations” (1758) by Emerich de Vattel. (As a legal source “Law of Nations” is mentioned in Article I, Section 8, #10 of the Constitution in respect to the authority of the US Congress to enforce the law of nations, in particular – against piracies and felonies on high seas).] [Noted with] rather then the word [against]

    I do apologize for my incorrect placement also for it reads [ To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas;
    To establish Post Offices and post roads
    To promote science
    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization and uniform Laws
    To coin Money
    To declare War
    To define and punish Offences against the Law of Nations
    Etc Etc Etc
    I mean I mixed the list up certainly to advocate a point. The importance of each on the list widely varies from the next, and so we can’t necessarily say as it correctly reads
    [To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;].. Are meant to be birds connected together any more than War and The POST OFFICE or Science.

    Of course in your argument the word “of” is missing, and the author is aligned with the enemy of the Revolution England.

    In my argument there isn’t a single word missing, we have a friendly ally in French, and a well documented history of affinity with very notable U.S. Founders.

    I think my evidence as assumptions still stand more clear in my heart, and the argument and evidence you’ve brought to show has not changed my mind respectfully.

  58. avatar
    J.D. Sue October 24, 2015 at 2:22 am #

    Reality Check: When rantalbott pointed out that mixed race marriages were not illegal under US law and Hawaii had no state law banning mixed race marriage in 1961 she doubled down on the stupid.


    Well then thanks to the birther for admitting what many of us have always said. Birthers are pissed off about a mixed marriage (and conception) they think should have been illegal. Of course, laws against mixed-raced intimate relationships and marriages were part of some states’ Jim Crow laws, shot down as unconstitutional in Loving v Virginia.

  59. avatar
    Lupin October 24, 2015 at 5:01 am #

    CRJ: According to Chapter 19, §212 of “Law of Nations”, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens”. The concept “Natural born citizen” is a twofold criterion meaning that:

    Both parents must be the citizens of, and the birth must take place in the concerned country, assuming that the citizenship inherited by this child and the loyalty are never changed ever after.

    No this is not correct. In French (as in English) the sentence must be understood as “either parent citizen” not “both” Also in this case any ambiguity is removed by the fact that in the next sentence, Vattel specifies that it is only the father who had the power to transmit citizenship (or failing that a male relative).

    There is no ambiguity about any of the above; it’s been written about in french sand codified by Napoleon in 1806.

    The “two parents citizens” is simply a canard made in 2008 by ignoramuses who didn’t understand French.

  60. avatar
    Lupin October 24, 2015 at 5:23 am #

    CRJ: In my argument there isn’t a single word missing, we have a friendly ally in French, and a well documented history of affinity with very notable U.S. Founders.

    I think my evidence as assumptions still stand more clear in my heart, and the argument and evidence you’ve brought to show has not changed my mind respectfully.

    Like many birthers, you somehow (and mistakenly) believe that if you can trace the definition of the term “natural-born citizen” of your Constitution to the writings of Vattel, you’ve won the day.

    But even if you were correct (which is highly debatable), you’ve won nothing, because there isn’t really anything in Vattel that, properly understood, makes Obama NOT a natural-born citizen.

    Yes, his FATHER (his mother’s citizenship status only became relevant in 1863) was not a citizen, but Vattel specifically acknowledges that IN ENGLAND, the place of his birth would be sufficient to confer citizenship at birth.

    Also hypothetically, if his father was absent at birth, the child might have inherited his citizenship from his maternal uncle, if his mother had a brother. Due to the many deaths that occurred during the Napoleonic wars, we had thousands of like cases.

    Finally, there is no distinction in Vattel (or in Napoleonic Law) between citizens at birth, based on how they get their citizenship, so to the extent that you seek to create one, you are violating and distorting what Vattel wrote.

    In conclusion, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever in Vattel that can be used to support any of your theories. It simply is not there.

  61. avatar
    Lupin October 24, 2015 at 5:25 am #

    J.D. Sue: —
    Well then thanks to the birther for admitting what many of us have always said.Birthers are pissed off about a mixed marriage (and conception) they think should have been illegal.Of course, laws against mixed-raced intimate relationships and marriages were part of some states’ Jim Crow laws, shot down as unconstitutional in Loving v Virginia.

    Yesterday one of the gerbils (can’t remember which one) was calling the African-American member of Congress on the Benghazi panel a “gorilla”.

  62. avatar
    Lupin October 24, 2015 at 5:33 am #

    Pete: And while birther “scholars” may also cite credible sources, they often strip those sources of the original context and/or twist the meaning. A good example of this is Minor v. Happersett. It simply does not give, or even attempt to give, any complete “definition” for “natural born citizen.”

    In the case of the “two citizens parents” I have asked Apuzzo and his ilk I don’t know how many times to find me a credible source — any source, really — that validates their nonsensical theory prior to 2008, and I’m still waiting.

    I mean, really… As I often say, there’s been just as much scholarship about Vattel as there’s likely been and bout Blackstone etc. You would think that if anyone in 200+ years had put forth that notion, they could find some evidence of it.

    But no, they can’t — because there is none. And yet, naive, ill-educated, gullible folks like CJR somehow think they’ve chanced onto something new!

  63. avatar
    Reality Check October 24, 2015 at 9:40 am #

    I think I confused js/js with jbjd, the Birther blogger I had on my program a long time ago. It appears this js/js person is really that stupid.

  64. avatar
    Pete October 24, 2015 at 12:05 pm #

    CRJ: Which Book, if it was a book would the Founders be more pleased to represent?

    England’s Sir William Blackstone Justice of the Court of King’s Bench : writing on
    Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England Book the Fourth – Chapter the Fifth : Of Offences Against the Law of Nations

    Or

    Emerich de Vattel -Swiss philosopher, diplomat, legal expert, author : The Law of Nations” (1758 Translate original French) noted to be influencer of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton

    (?)

    Lets see, at the TIME we had just gained our Independence with a very bloody war against England, and if my memory serves me correctly with gratitude towards the French Navy which blocked Cornwallis’s escape Yorktown 1781.

    Where did you get this idea? From other birthers?

    Wherever you got it, Cody, it’s an old idea, and it’s not one that has merit.

    In describing it as “without merit,” I’m being kind.

    History isn’t a matter of coulda, woulda, shoulda. It’s a matter of what actually was, what actually happened.

    Just because you say, “Well, it coulda been this way. It woulda been this way if I’d been there. It shoulda been this way, because this is what I think the Founders woulda wanted,” none of that makes it so.

    The question is: How was it, actually?

    There is not the slightest evidence – no, forget “evidence,” there’s not the slightest SUGGESTION or the slightest HINT in the historical or legal record that the Founders used Vattel’s writings as a model for “natural born citizen.” THere’s not the slightest suggestion, or the slightest HINT of evidence, that they broadly rejected the principles of English law, either.

    While the Founders certainly looked at other systems to see what they might learn, the entire basis of the legal system of the United States was based on the English one. Alexander Hamilton, one of our most important FOUNDERS, didn’t write that if you wanted the definition of a term in the Constitution you should look at Vattel; instead, he wrote:

    [W]here so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived,

    while referring 100% clearly and unambiguously to ENGLAND.

    Yes, Alexander Hamilton was 100% clear that our entire legal system was derived from that of England. He was also 100% clear that if you needed to know the definition of a term in the Constitution (which wouldn’t only include “excise,” it would also include “natural born citizen”) then you should look to ENGLISH law for the definition.

    And the notion that because we separated ourselves politically from England, that that means we also threw away our entire legal culture and precedent and terminology and legal system that had been built up over our entire history, is not only stupid, it also flies in the face of every fact known about our legal system.

    That our legal system was based on England’s is a principle used to understand and interpret the Constitution to this very day.

    In fact, do you know what one of the complaints of the colonists was? It was that they were not being afforded the protections due to English subjects BY THE ENGLISH COMMON LAW.

    So the problem wasn’t that we didn’t like English law – it was that in regard to the Colonists, the English weren’t living up to it!

    Here’s the birther fallacy. Pay close attention.

    The birther says to himself, “The Founding Fathers thought like this. That means they woulda done such-and-such. They woulda meant such-and-such.”

    No, sorry, history doesn’t work that way. Law doesn’t work that way, either.

    First of all, you and I weren’t there and didn’t spend four entire months in Philadelphia with 55 guys hashing out the Constitution.

    Just because you or I fantasize that they “woulda” meant this, or they “shoulda” meant that, doesn’t mean it’s so. In order to know what they meant, we have to look at what they themselves, and those who followed after them, SAID about the Constitution.

    We can also look at what they didn’t say.

    They DIDN’T say that Vattel had the slightest influence at all on the meaning of “natural born citizen,” or on the definition of the general body of terms that are found in the Constitution.

    This simply isn’t there. It isn’t in the Constitution itself. It isn’t in the notes and minutes of the Constitutional Convention. It isn’t in the Founders’ letters and personal memoirs. It isn’t in the commentaries that were written by American lawyers on the Constitution in the years, decades and centuries following the Constitutional Convention. And it isn’t in any statement, by any judge, in any court case, in the history of the United States.

    It’s complete and absolute fantasy. It’s like claiming that the Founding Fathers, at the Constitutional Convention, declared the Coney Island hot dog the national wiener of the United States.

    Secondly, if you look at what the Founding Fathers and their successors DID say, it’s completely clear that our legal system was based on that of England, that the Constitution was written in the entire framework of a generation of lawyers who spoke English legal language just as fluently as they spoke the English common language, that the Constitution itself was drafted within that legal and cultural framework, and that terms in it generally derived from the existing legal system.

    Or, to put it another way: The native language of the United States was English, and the native legal language of the United States was the English common law and the preexisting colonial law.

    For a bit more commentary on this, see the comments in the following thread:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/12/question-for-the-birthers/

    Now, this is where normal people and birthers-determined-to-be-stupid usually part ways. The normal person goes out, looks at the evidence, and rightly concludes, “Looks like the Constitution was drafted within the framework of English law, by American lawyers who were steeped in an entire all-encompassing system of English and colonial law.”

    The birther goes out and searches diligently to see what few strands of straw he can find to beat against the granite rock of history, and when he finds one or two flimsy strands of straw, he comes back and proclaims that the granite rock of history and legal precedent is nothing more than a largish dirt clod, and that the straw in his hand is a mighty oak club with which he can beat the dirt clod into dust.

    And then he stands there endlessly beating the granite rock with his wisps of straw, and looking like a fool to pretty much everyone else.

    So sorry, Cody, once again, there is no “there” there. The bucket of mud has been sifted again and again. It quite definitely contains nothing but mud.

  65. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) October 24, 2015 at 12:39 pm #

    Indeed. If Vattel had said “ius sanguinis is crap” and some Kenyan philosopher had said “ius sanguinis is great”, CRJ (and all birthers) would claim Vattel had nothing to do with the Constitution and that the Founders certainly didn’t want anything to do with not just English law, but European law altogether, and that therefore they looked to the Kenyan genius who wrote “The Lore of Nations: Parents’ Edition” in 1464.

  66. avatar
    Pete October 24, 2015 at 2:44 pm #

    Magic M: Yep.

    The basic orientation of a birther is, “I’m a real patriot, and I would do things this way. If the Founding Fathers were real patriots, they would do things the same way. I know they were real patriots, so they must’ve done things the same way I would. Now let’s go and find the evidence that proves they would’ve done things the same way I would.”

    The basic orientation of a genuine historian or lawyer is, “Let’s find out how the Founding Fathers did things, and what they meant by what they wrote.” The genuine historian or lawyer then goes and looks at the historical and legal record, without prejudgment as to how the Founders “would have” done things, and finds out what they meant.

    The birther starts with the intention of proving the Founders did things the same way he would. Then, when the historical and legal record fails to indicate that, he clings to his notion anyway. He then searches for whatever flimsy historical or legal straws he can find (for example, Minor v Happersett, which is the flimsiest of straws indeed as opposed to the clear and solid boulder of US v Wong Kim Ark), refuses to accept any balanced interpretation of the evidence, and endlessly whacks the flimsy straws against the granite boulder.

  67. avatar
    CRJ October 24, 2015 at 3:20 pm #

    @Lupin [And yet, naive, ill-educated, gullible folks like CJR somehow think they’ve chanced onto something new!]

    Actually it would be quite old , you are right however about it not being new.

    @ Pete [ Just because you say, “Well, it coulda been this way. It woulda been this way if I’d been there. It shoulda been this way, because this is what I think the Founders woulda wanted,” none of that makes it so] DITO

    Of course I always turn what people say about me or to me and see if their own argument applies to them. Of course it usually does.

    So, when I swear, and cuss, and disparage someone I go see how it holds up in the mirror saying it. LOL!

    The key 🔑 to Vattel is not to claim exact implications , but rather attribute influence. There ya go.

    As I believe the Discussion started when I brought up Vattel, I was being lectured about reading history more and being educated by a lot of smart people. Apparently I went too far back for a degree of comfort.

    @Pete [The birther goes out and searches diligently to see what few strands of straw he can find to beat against the granite rock of history,..]

    The GRANITE ROCK of History as it pertains to the USA is of 43 Presidents everyone has been a (Citizen) at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, or a “natural born Citizen” (ie. Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents) according to Wikipedia. .accept Obama.

    Recently, as my latest Post at the Blog related Arthur was found to be only a Citizen due to his father’s naturalization after Aurther’s 14th birthday. He was not re-elected, nor did he squire the Office without an assasination of President Garfield.

    This makes Obama the sole elected Office of the President holder elected in violation of the traditions of U.S. History in the specifically outlined manner as criteria.

    Now, what I will give you is I am a MUDDY Rucking Goldless Loser in many respects. I have nothing but mud on my bucket. That’s true. I havent won anything by the important Standards anyone here would really respect.

    What I have WON is remarkable to me and more precious then the Gold and Pearl of Ophir; the fact I’m even around to convey it really is just as flabberghasting!

    You all know I did 3018 days in Prison. You may not know 4.5 Of those years was in solitary isolation maximum security for standing up for and with the Native American’s Civil Rights to worship their God in appearance according to their Religion.

    They had been kept in Solitary Confinement, some over a Decade! 😢

    I’ve often questioned “WHY” God would want me to plead “guilty” at first, but then just 3 days later Motion to Withdraw my guilty plea.

    I know without a shadow of a doubt if I had fought the charges they would have crumbeled in a Public Trial. Religion has a BIG PART in Freedom of Speech. A central role.

    Looking back if I asked myself a question of how you get in to a Prison without being part of the guilty my path was perfect.

    Now why would anyone want to go to Prison?

    Well, I didn’t know why God wanted me to go either. I had no juvenile or adult previous Criminal Record.

    I appealed if course, and it was solely upon the LDS Bishop’s intrepation of Rule 11 that he denide the Motion I had to Appeal. I did that and also Appealed Discovery not being allowed the videotape of the whole thing to make Public. It was had by the Prosecutor and witnessed by the LDS Bishop/Federal District Court Judge.

    Don’t expect you guys to know anything about that As you haven’t purchased my book Taking A Stand.

    Anyway, the Court hid behind the LDS Church Presidencies Copyright of the Videotape. The evidense used at against me denide.

    I was told I’d have To take the LDS Presidency to Court in a separate case to obtain it. I did… Clear to the SCOTUS.

    TOOK quite a few years to do that. SCOTUS interestingly enough wrote me a letter after they Denied Cert. Said, we recognise your Case, but not enough people suffer not getting their evidence to take it up.

    Meantime, I’d sued for Relief of Cruel and Unusual punishment on the basis of Not cutting my hair as a assist to the Native Americans. I didn’t use religion, but a discrimination of Gender defense. We won!

    Amazing Day! To see those men walk out of Solitary Confinement after decades into General Population. Was I on an errand from God?

    I do recall a humble prayer to God if there was anything I could do for my fellow man that no one else could, I would do it.

    Be careful for what you pray huh? 😉

    What else was given to me that was so precious and valuable? What else have I WON?

    I cannot imagine if I had been afforded every Constitutional CIVIL Right guaranteed in our U.S. Constitution ever doing 8+ years .

    If I had NOT DONE 8 years , would there be a BI-Partisan Federal Court Record by a U.S. Presidential Candidate in the SCOTUS?

    I can attest there would not be, nor would this conversion or discussion be happening.

    It was ONLY through the PROFOUND LOSS that I came to WIN such a devotion, love, and Respect for the U.S. Constitution.

    As I am the only Presidential Candidate with a specific Federal Court Record against Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama with great mentions of Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal within, there wouldn’t be a non-racial claim or a stain free Claim by anyone with standing.

    I find offensive the claims of Principle to be denigrated to Racism, or Bigotry. They do not serve the True Record . . my Cases are very much considered as part of the Record.

    No we haven’t WON a CASE. In that light it’s pretty dark indeed. It’s really pointless to say otherwise at this time other than Doc, I think you won the bet.🏁

    What I have WON is not truly understood by you Gentleman , I consider you as American Friends.

    Side note @REALITYCHECK I really like the intro to your Radio show. The American song that plays is cool.

    There are many Records kept by God. It’s understood by Christians I know that it is out of the Books that men shall be Judged.

    When you think about ALL the Civilizations known to man, … Past & Present and you think of the Records of each civilization being their own history. That is Cannon.

    Out of all that’s been written their are some Records esteemed much higher than others. Some are lost., some just forgotten.. Some kept up.. Some given as Witnesses.

    This is all the Bible is.. A Record of the Jews. Falling away..being brought back in a Restoration. It’s a repeated story, one in which we to are living.

    Good Day

  68. avatar
    J.D. Sue October 24, 2015 at 3:41 pm #

    Pete: While the Founders certainly looked at other systems to see what they might learn, the entire basis of the legal system of the United States was based on the English one. Alexander Hamilton, one of our most important FOUNDERS, didn’t write that if you wanted the definition of a term in the Constitution you should look at Vattel; instead, he wrote:

    [W]here so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived,

    —-
    Birthers’ analysis of this is so shallow and silly, and defies not only history but common sense! The founders et al lived and breathed English common law–it structured essentially every legal aspect of their lives, and cases and controversies were resolved via their common law courts of law and equity. They demanded but were denied their rights as Englishmen, and ultimately had to throw off the English Crown so they could exercise such rights, free from the Crown, and free of any royalty. They did NOT say, “let’s all turn our whole legal/equity world completely upside down, and start from scratch. French stuff sounds cool–goodbye Blackstone, hello Vattel.” Sheesh! The way birthers paint it, one would think the founders were as stupid and reckless and nuts as birthers, rather than the lawyers that many of the founders were. Double Sheesh!

  69. avatar
    Pete October 24, 2015 at 3:59 pm #

    While the Founders did look at other legal systems, and were informed by them (and yes, it’s certainly true that they considered the thoughts of Vattel and many other writers especially in regard to international law), they didn’t “reject” the principles of English and colonial (which was also “English”) law any more than they rejected the English language and daily English-derived colonial culture.

    So why do birthers insist they did – against all of the known evidence and without any positive evidence in favor of the idea?

    It’s all back to: If the Founders had “rejected English law,” then it would be favorable to the way they want history to have been.

    It’s all about: I have this fantasy that I like, so I’m going to argue that it’s reality, even if it isn’t. It’s about living in a pleasant fantasy world, and then attempting to impose that fantasy upon others as “reality.”

    So you have a desirable fantasy (from the birthers’ point of view), and a wish to “prove” it. The whole mindset pervades the birthers’ world view and even extends to matters that are only peripherally related.

    “Hell, I would wear a dress and ruby slippers all year if we can prove this.”

    But it goes beyond desire for proof. It often extends to outright rejection of reality, in favor of fantasy, when “proof” goes in the opposite direction. Which is often.

    The hard core birthers, you can never tell them anything. In the end, evidence simply doesn’t matter. Because they’re going to choose their pleasant (to them) fantasy no matter what, even when all of the evidence makes clear there’s not the slightest chance it’s real.

    And that is called deliberately living in a fantasy world.

  70. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 24, 2015 at 5:12 pm #

    Two mistakes. It’s spelled “except,” and Chester A. Arthur’s father was Irish.

    The qualifications for vice president and president are the same, so Arthur is precedent for being a natural born citizen with a foreign father. No one in Arthur’s time ever raised an objection to his eligibility because his father was Irish, even though his opponents investigated his eligibility. Arthur didn’t seek re-election because he was dying.

    CRJ: The GRANITE ROCK of History as it pertains to the USA is of 43 Presidents everyone has been a (Citizen) at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, or a “natural born Citizen” (ie. Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents) according to Wikipedia. .accept Obama.

  71. avatar
    Pete October 24, 2015 at 5:39 pm #

    CRJ: No we haven’t WON a CASE. In that light it’s pretty dark indeed. It’s really pointless to say otherwise at this time other than Doc, I think you won the bet.🏁

    Well, there’s the admission.

    Cody, congratulations on being big enough to admit you lost the bet.

    As for the rest of it, Dr C is precisely correct.

    Yes, Arthur’s election to the Vice-Presidency (and subsequent ascension to and service as President) is precedent that citizen parents are not required. And yes, he didn’t seek reelection because he was dying, not because of any doubts about his eligibility. At that point, he had already served 3-1/2 years as President.

    As far as Obama being a natural born citizen, the courts (MULTIPLE courts) have ruled that he is, in fact, a natural born citizen.

    See:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/lawsuits/recent-court-rulings-on-presidential-eligibility/

  72. avatar
    Keith October 24, 2015 at 7:15 pm #

    CRJ: Lets see, at the TIME we had just gained our Independence with a very bloody war against England, and if my memory serves me correctly with gratitude towards the French Navy which blocked Cornwallis’s escape Yorktown 1781

    I’m going to go out on a limb here, and try to interpret what you are trying to say.

    I believe you are trying to say that the Revolution Generation so hated England and by extension the English legal system that they would adopt a Swiss legal system because it was described in French because the French Navy helped in the war.

    I believe you are saying that the influence that Blackstone had over the founders should be rejected simply because he was English and represented English law.

    I wonder where we might look for evidence of that one way or another.

    Hmmm.

    I wonder if the founders ever wrote down their reasoning in a more or less ‘official’ document. I wonder if they ever explained what it was they were rebelling against. I have a vague remembrance of something I learned in elementary school, but I admit that I have more of a forgettery than a memory these days.

    Wait! I have it! Its The Declaration of Independence! Surely The Declaration says that they reject absolutely English Law and that is why they are severing ties with the mother country.

    Hmmm. I can’t find that reference. Surely it should stand out. The only thing resembling that words like this:

    Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

    He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

    Wait. So they are saying that their complaint is that the King has refused to allow laws to be enacted? They are complaining that English law is being denied them? Surely not.

    He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

    He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

    He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

    He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

    He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

    There it is again. They seem to be complaining that the King is DENYING them the application of the English legal system, not complaining about the system. This just doesn’t seem to square with the idea that they want to overthrow the legal system.

    Reading on…. Wait… What is this?

    He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

    For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

    Wow. It really says that. One of the major reasons for the rebellion was because the English King had actually DENIED the ‘free system of English laws’ to a neighboring province in preparation to extend it to the united colonies, and had actually begun dismembering the colonial bodies that administer those laws.

    I think the conclusion is obvious: the American Revolution was not to overthrow the English legal system in the ‘colonies’; it was to protect that English legal system in the colonies.

    They want to overthrow a tyrannical government, not the legal system that that government was denying them.

  73. avatar
    Pete October 24, 2015 at 7:16 pm #

    Perhaps a clearer way to say what I wrote above would be: the reason President Arthur declined to seek reelection was because he was dying.

  74. avatar
    Pete October 24, 2015 at 7:23 pm #

    And: well put, Keith.

  75. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 24, 2015 at 7:27 pm #

    You are a hopeless cause. In the extremely unlikely case that I am mistaken, I will throw you this lifeline:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2015/02/the-english-common-law-and-the-american-revolution/

    CRJ: Lets see, at the TIME we had just gained our Independence with a very bloody war against England, and if my memory serves me correctly with gratitude towards the French Navy which blocked Cornwallis’s escape Yorktown 1781.

  76. avatar
    bob October 24, 2015 at 8:14 pm #

    So Vattel never wrote the words “natural-born citizen,” in either English or French.

    Portions of Vattel’s book contradict the First and Second Amendments.

    Almost every U.S. state has a receptin statue, which gives legal effect to the pre-Independence English common law (to the extent it didn’t contradict the U.S. Constitution, federal law, or a state’s law).

    …yet Judy believes the British-educated Framers adopted a Swiss philosopher’s beliefs as a hat tip to the French Navy. And then didn’t tell anyone that was what they were doing.

    And around a dozen courts have made rulings that explicitly or impliedly rejected Vattel’s influence on the Framers’ meaning of the natural-born-citizen clause. And the only people to notice this legal travesty are … those who would not support President Obama under any circumstances.

  77. avatar
    Rickey October 24, 2015 at 9:19 pm #

    CRJ:

    The GRANITE ROCK of History as it pertains to the USA is of 43 Presidents everyone has been a (Citizen) at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, or a “natural born Citizen” (ie. Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents)according to Wikipedia. .accept Obama.

    Your “granite rock” is more like a slab of silly putty.

    No president has been a Mormon. Does that mean that Mormons are not eligible to be president?

    No president has been a woman. Does that mean that women are not eligible to be president?

    No president has been Hispanic. Does that mean that Hispanics are not eligible to be president?

    There has never been a president who had a felony conviction on his record. But you know what? That doesn’t mean that you aren’t eligible to be president.

    Here is a simple fact which you fail to comprehend. No birther has ever been able to identify a single history book, civics book, or constitutional law book which says that a natural-born citizen must have even one citizen parent (much less two). There has never been a court ruling that a natural-born citizen must have even one citizen parent.

    When Barack Obama announced in 2007 that he was a candidate for president, it was well-known that his father was never a U.S. citizen. Yet no Democratic candidate argued that his father’s lack of citizenship made Obama ineligible, and in fact no Republican candidate made that claim, either. Even Jerome Corsi failed to mention it in his book “The Obama Nation.”

  78. avatar
    CRJ October 24, 2015 at 10:26 pm #

    @Rickey [ Yet no Democratic candidate argued that his father’s lack of citizenship made Obama ineligible, and in fact no Republican candidate made that claim, either.]

    You qualify those who object to the R’s or D’s and seem to exclude Independents. This is certainly dismissive of Independents that now out number both.

    Judy v. McCain included an EMERGENCY MOTION near the end of the Docket that submitted Berg v Obama SCOTUS Case. I was a I – Presidential Candidate at the time.

    This birds been flying 6.5 years without a rest.. Lol.. Whew!

    CRJ Federal Court Record
    http://codyjudy.us/information/codyrobertjudyforpresident2012_028.htm

    Judy v. Obama FEDERAL DISTRICT Docket
    https://dockets.justia.com/docket/nevada/nvdce/2:2008cv01162/61642

    @Keith I certainly did not mean to say the Colonist were radically set to dispose of EVERYTHING English, including language or the few decentcies the English may have picked up on in The Ten Commandments forming a common good. (smile)

    That’s taking my suggestion and a sailing out on a limb for sure. Lol

    Balance is Key GENTLEMAN.. and flailing about in extremist unbalanced curriculum is not my style, or tantamount to my suggestions with Pete in contrasting two Printed works. One he suggested and one I suggested, which is on record from multiple sources as having “influence” on the Founders as a great assistance. Noted with Vattell I brought up.

    I’m sure Blackstone’s work did also as well the 10 Commandments and The Holy Bible which of course does not directly infer any particular religion.

    I believe Vattell did write exactly what I inferred he wrote. It seems the opposite is the nature of Pete’s argument.

    @Doc I noticed on the Wiki Entry of Arthur they have his father as a U.S. Citizen and not a foreigner. This then places Obama alone.

    It really was my extended research on Arthur that lent the 2008 revelation that popped up his father had not naturalized. I would hardly call a recent discovery precedent for Obama. Re: my latest Blog entry http://www.codyjudy.blogspot.com

    Truly, according to U.S. History Obama is the only one without credentials under the Conditional Authority of “Citizen at the Time of the Adoption of the U.S. Constitution (the same as Representatives and Senators qualification ) and “natural born Citizen” ie Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents after.

    The 8 attempts to change “Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents” to other conditions by Congress since 2003 are strong evidence towards legal reason substantuating this parameter for [natural born Citizen].

    The failure of all 8 would be considered a Continued Legislative Mandate for the Judicial Branch to uphold as Constitutional.

    Of course the [two citizen Parents] cannot be under estimated in current all be it non binding U.S. Resolution 511 As a remarkable as well modern consideration of Legislation many here fail to include OBAMA himself as a U.S. Senator co- sponsored.

    This indicates Obama himself would and did outlaw himself with one U.S. Citizen Parent from the Office of the President in the qualification of [natural born Citizen] under its conditions and justifications excluding “place” in particular circumstances.

    @ Doc [ Your hopeless ] I don’t believe so Doc , I tell you I have lots of Hope. But I may indeed be hopeless to avoiding the Facts I bring to the table. I see no reason to abandon them . THEY are FACTS.

  79. avatar
    Pete October 24, 2015 at 11:40 pm #

    Yah, Cody is looking pretty hopeless to me too.

    There just aren’t that many birthers who can be reached by reality. The attraction of the fantasy is just too strong

  80. avatar
    Rickey October 25, 2015 at 12:59 am #

    CRJ:
    @Rickey [ Yet no Democratic candidate argued that his father’s lack of citizenship made Obama ineligible, and in fact no Republican candidate made that claim, either.]

    You qualify those who object to the R’s or D’s and seem to exclude Independents. This is certainly dismissive of Independents that now out number both.

    Judy v. McCain included an EMERGENCY MOTION near the end of the Docket that submitted Berg v Obama SCOTUS Case. I was a I – Presidential Candidate at the time.

    What independent candidates made the “two citizen parent” argument during the 2008 campaign? What did Judy v. McCain have to do with Obama?

    Besides, I was talking about serious candidates who actually had a chance to be elected president. How many votes did you receive in 2008?

    I notice that you haven’t bothered to try to refute my statement that there are no history books, civics books, or constitutional law texts which state that a natural-born citizen must have two citizen parents. In fact, nobody ever heard of the “two-citizen parent requirement” until Leo Donofrio filed his lawsuit in New Jersey in October, 2008.

    @Doc I noticed on the Wiki Entry of Arthur they have his father as a U.S. Citizen and not a foreigner.

    Do you have a reading disability? The Wikipedia entry on Arthur says nothing about his father’s citizenship, other than to point out that he was born in Ireland.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_A._Arthur

  81. avatar
    Pete October 25, 2015 at 1:23 am #

    Yeah, the fact is, no serious candidate, d, r or i raised any objection at all.

    Just like NOBODY ever raised any objection to Chester Arthur’s candidacy on the basis of his father’s citizenship, although they did try very hard to claim he was ineligible to the vice presidency, and by consequence the presidency as well, based first on a false rumor that he was born in Ireland, then on a false rumor he was born in Canada.

    And just like nobody ever raised the slightest objection to John Charles Frémont making a serious bid for the presidency, even though he openly ran as the proud son of a Frenchman who never made the slightest pretence or had any intention of becoming a US citizen, even though Frémont went so far as to spell his name, throughout his life and presidential candidacy, with a French accent!

    Cody is doing what all birthers do sooner or later: denying reality, rejecting unimpeachable historical sources and facts, and generally flailing away at facts and reality with the flimsiest of straws, which he solemnly proclaims to be massive clubs of solid oak.

    I hate to say it, but he’s not worth the breath of trying to teach anything. Like pretty much all remaining birthers, Cody is incapable of learning anything, because he imagines he knows it all already.

  82. avatar
    Pete October 25, 2015 at 1:32 am #

    At this point I feel like I’ve totally wasted my time trying to get through to Cody. Ah well, I knew it was a long shot from the beginning.

  83. avatar
    Lupin October 25, 2015 at 4:24 am #

    CRJ: The key 🔑 to Vattel is not to claim exact implications , but rather attribute influence. There ya go.

    If so, his “influence” is indeed crystal clear: Obama is a “naturel”, hence a “natural-born citizen” (by your own wont, equating the two), hence eligible and legitimate.

    We have 200+ years jurisprudence stating so.

    You are simply and unarguably WRONG.

  84. avatar
    bob October 25, 2015 at 4:28 am #

    CRJ:
    Judy v. McCain included an EMERGENCY MOTION near the end of the Docket that submitted Berg v Obama SCOTUS Case.

    Judy’s “suit” against McCain was initially dismissed because Judy could not comply with the most basic of procedural requirements. Judy’s tardy attempt to revive his case was made moot by McCain’s losing.

    I was a I – Presidential Candidate at the time.

    There is no evidence that anyone — literally any person — voted for Judy in 2008.

    CRJ Federal Court Record

    Judy has a perfect record of failure in the courts … yet he boasts about it.

    I believe Vattell did write exactly what I inferred he wrote.

    Judy’s beliefs are his own and no one else’s. It is hard to take his beliefs seriously, especially when he can’t even spell Vattel correctly

    ie Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents after.

    There is no requirement for two citizen parents for those born in the United States. As the Georgia courts explained to Judy in the losing lawsuit he filed there.

    The 8 attempts to change “Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents” to other conditions by Congress since 2003 are strong evidence towards legal reason substantuating this parameter for [natural born Citizen].

    Except the “8 attempts” have been to allow naturalized citizens be eligible for the presidency.

    Of course the [two citizen Parents] cannot be under estimated in current all be it non binding U.S. Resolution 511 As a remarkable as well modern consideration of Legislation many here fail to include OBAMA himself as a U.S. Senator co- sponsored.

    Except S.R. 511 did not say two-citizen-parents were necessary for those born in the United States, which President Obama was.

    But I may indeed be hopeless to avoiding the Facts I bring to the table. I see no reason to abandon them . THEY are FACTS.

    Judy brings no actual facts, and he ignores those that are brought to him.

  85. avatar
    Lupin October 25, 2015 at 4:31 am #

    CRJ: I believe Vattell did write exactly what I inferred he wrote.

    No he did NOT.

    I have explained it to you THREE TIMES already.

    This is NOT a matter of “belief” but understanding very plain statements written in clear, unambiguous French.

    There is NO “two citizen parents” requirement in THE LAW OF NATIONS — anywhere.

    No one anywhere on Earth has ever claimed Vattel wrote or meant what you said he did. In fact, IN THE VERY SAME PARAGRAPH he says the OPPOSITE of what you say.

    And yet you persist.

    If you don’t want to be called insulting names, you MUST learn how to read & understand what people are telling you.

  86. avatar
    Lupin October 25, 2015 at 4:38 am #

    Pete: I hate to say it, but he’s not worth the breath of trying to teach anything. Like pretty much all remaining birthers, Cody is incapable of learning anything, because he imagines he knows it all already.

    Regrettably, I have to agree.

    Despite sounding meek and reasonable on the radio, he really is b*tsh*t crazy. His religious or pseudo-religious rant above is virtually incomprehensible, pure gobbledygook that makes sense only to him.

    On very specific narrowly-defined points, we here have brought him truly incontrovertible evidence; his only response has been to repeat again and again the same falsehoods, without even bothering to acknowledge or debate said points, and cloak himself in some kind of weird religious guise to explain his rote parroting of his worldview.

    In style, CJR is indistinguishable from any other deluded fanatic.

  87. avatar
    nbc October 25, 2015 at 5:35 am #

    “The 8 attempts to change “Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents” to other conditions by Congress since 2003 are strong evidence towards legal reason substantuating this parameter for [natural born Citizen].”

    Ever since WKA, the federal courts resolved the issue of the status of a child born on US soil to foreign parents. Legislation has been tried and failed to reject the jus soli interpretation, which so clearly existed in our laws.

    “The failure of all 8 would be considered a Continued Legislative Mandate for the Judicial Branch to uphold as Constitutional.”

    Not too familiar with our Constitutional system it seems?

    ROTFL…

    Cody v Obama, one a successful president, the other? Well… His own words help best understand this.

  88. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 25, 2015 at 7:25 am #

    CRJ: flailing about in extremist unbalanced curriculum is not my style

    Yes it is.

    CRJ: @ Doc [ Your hopeless ] I don’t believe so Doc ,

    OK, i’ll withdraw “hopeless” and substitute “incorrigible.” And I didn’t say “your”–I said “you are.” Facts and rational argument roll off your back like water off a duck.

  89. avatar
    Pete October 25, 2015 at 8:16 am #

    I’m going to step well outside of my own area of expertise here for a minute and engage in some psychological speculation.

    One of the things that has come to interest me is: why do birthers behave the way they do?

    One of the major behaviors is rejection of reality in favor of pleasant fantasy.

    Another is considering themselves authorities on things they really have quite little knowledge of.

    At this point I am reminded of a Bible verse: The fool is wiser in his own eyes than seven men who answer discreetly.

    Birthers are invariably wiser in their own eyes than French lawyers who’ve professionally translated Vattel. They’re smarter than people who present evidence they can’t refute. It doesn’t matter to them that they can’t refute it. They’re more brilliant than the federal courts, and even the entire United States Supreme Court.

    I think at some level, they have to know that they’re not really as brilliant as they tell themselves they are. But that’s kind of a bitter pill to accept. So they simply don’t accept it.

    It seems to me that rejecting reality at that level helps pave the way for the birther’s wholesale rejection of all the rest of reality as well.

    Ironically, the only way to get smarter is to admit your present limitations, and learn. Learning takes humility the typical birther doesn’t have. Plus, the fantasy is a pleasant one.

    So they block themselves from learning and actually getting a bit smarter.

  90. avatar
    Pete October 25, 2015 at 8:20 am #

    Cody is a bit odd in that he at least has the humility to admit he lost the bet, although it did take him a few weeks.

    Still, that’s probably better than the birther average.

    Typical non-birther would’ve been okay, you got me, I lost the bet.

  91. avatar
    CRJ October 25, 2015 at 1:10 pm #

    Great Example here of Law depicting [Citizen] not [ natural born Citizen] as lawful intrpretation.

    The following shall be nationals and [citizens] of the United States at birth: … outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, … 477, title III, ch. … L. 95–432, §§ 1, 3, Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat.

    8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth …
    Cornell University

    It’s a Congress Act ALIENS & NATIONALS which depicts a lawful naturalization a-h none of which include [born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents]

    Why?

    Because [ natural born Citizen] ie. Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents – there was no need to naturalize. It was a given. It was clearly understood. It was stable. It was common knowledge.

    It’s remarkable that the reverse has happened.

    When the undefined, but understood , becomes that which is said to be ridiculous or insubstantial in court.

    Great Example comes to mind for clarity of what I’m saying. In the movie A FEW GOOD MEN Tom Cruise playing Lt. McCaffee question a Infantryman –

    Q.”Can you tell me what page the directions are in the Marine Manual to the Mass Hall? ”

    “A.”ummm there isn’t one.”

    Q. ” YOU mean you have never had a meal?”

    A. “No, I’ve eaten every meal.”

    Q. ” How did you know where the Mass Hall was if it’s not in the Manuel?”

    A. ” GUESS I just followed my nose..followed the Crowd.”
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fgIBG8q1Gjc

    Code Red not found in the Manuel is like ( [ natural born Citizen – born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents) or finding the Chow Hall.

    Minor v. Happerset simple stated the obvious in saying it was never doubted that those born in the Country to Citizen Parents were themselves natural born citizens.

  92. avatar
    CRJ October 25, 2015 at 1:36 pm #

    The distinction of separate terms occurs in one paragraph.
    [ No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United Stated , at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;]

    We notice it was impossible for a single person to be [natural born Citizen] Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents because the United States didnt exist until the LAW of Authority in Constitution was signed as Supreme Law.

    This made all those at the time [Citizens] of a New Nation.

    Congress was given naturalization powers to adopt Citizens.

    Anyone born of Citizens were [natural born Citizens]

    The term [natural born Citizen] was considered a WALL to foreigners. .and aliens and nationals adopted as Citizens by naturalization or any process of Government are considered Foreigners to that Office of President.

    It’s the only thing that preserves the intent of national security, and gives reason the same qualification was not intended for Representatives and Senators.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clauseRationale
    The purpose of the natural born citizen clause is to protect the nation from foreign influence.

    (Chief Justice) John Jay to (Pres) George Washington
    [Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.]

  93. avatar
    CRJ October 25, 2015 at 1:57 pm #

    The distinction of separate terms occurs in one paragraph.
    [ No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United Stated , at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;]

    We notice it was impossible for a single person to be [natural born Citizen] Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents because the United States didnt exist until the LAW of Authority in Constitution was signed as Supreme Law.

    This made all those at the time [Citizens] of a New Nation.

    Congress was given naturalization powers to adopt Citizens.

    Anyone born of Citizens in the U.S were [natural born Citizens] under constant jurisdiction of the same law

    The term [natural born Citizen] was considered a WALL to foreigners. .and aliens and nationals adopted as Citizens by naturalization or any process of Government are considered Foreigners to that Office of President.

    It’s the only thing that preserves the intent of national security, and gives reason the same qualification was not intended for Representatives and Senators.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause
    Rationale
    The purpose of the natural born citizen clause is to protect the nation from foreign influence.

    (Chief Justice) John Jay to (Pres) George Washington
    [Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.]

    Aliens and Nationals are considered adopted by some naturalization process including declarative Congressional Act or Title X a-h which is necessary for entitlement justification.

    Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents is not listed in TITLE X but we get entitlements. .because it was never doubted.

    Sadly, the twisting and contortions have failed the most basic fundamental truths on some lawyers profound new truth that of its not listed it isn’t. That’s just poppy cock reasoning and voids deductive reasoning we are all very capable of.

  94. avatar
    Arthur B. October 25, 2015 at 1:59 pm #

    CRJ: Because [ natural born Citizen] ie. Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents – there was no need to naturalize. It was a given. It was clearly understood. It was stable. It was common knowledge.

    It’s remarkable that the reverse has happened.

    It is remarkable, isn’t it? I mean, nowadays, every judge who has looked at the issue has concluded that there is no two-citizen-parent rule. Every reputable legal scholar who has written about it has made the same point.

    Now you know, Cody, constitutional law is a serious pursuit, taught widely at colleges and universities throughout the country, with many experts devoting their lives to exploring it.

    So if there was a shift — if the tide turned from it being “a given” and “clearly understood” that two citizen parents were necessary to the complete opposite — don’t you think people in the legal community would have taken notice of this dramatic change in our understanding of the Constitution?

    Maybe you can identify just when this change took place, and point out some of the scholarly comments taking note of it.

  95. avatar
    Sudoku October 25, 2015 at 2:08 pm #

    The courts have consistently held there are only two kinds of citizens, natural born or naturalized. There is no third category of a citizen at birth, by virtue of being born in the US, who is not a natural born citizen.

  96. avatar
    CRJ October 25, 2015 at 2:13 pm #

    @arthur Perhaps you could point out the case of 2 Presidential Candidates, one stating damages to his Campaign with Standing that has occured in the U.S. Supreme Court over the specific [ natural born Citizen] clause unique to the qualification of the Office of President in the U.S. Constitution?

    Actually Heard by SCOTUS in History?

    If you can’t we must assume it’s pretty recent the shift took place as consideration.

    Judy v. Obama 14-9396 gave us as close of an encounter as we have had.

    By your standard there should be no hurdle of the Political Doctrine Question or Ripeness Doctrine

    Can you recall such a time in History that an all OUT assault on the prohibition of Constitution construction took place?

  97. avatar
    CRJ October 25, 2015 at 2:31 pm #

    @Soduko [The courts have consistently held there are only two kinds of citizens, natural born or naturalized. There is no third category of a citizen at birth, by virtue of being born in the US, who is not a natural born citizen.]

    Certainly those born in the U.S. qualifying as anchor babies under the NATURALIZED Clause of the 14th amendment would be also understood As naturalized by an Act of Congress.

    No one part of the Constitution can void another. Both terms Respected.

    The 14thAMEND did not void a qualification for President in Art 2, Sect 1, C-5.

  98. avatar
    Arthur B. October 25, 2015 at 2:33 pm #

    CRJ:

    If you can’t we must assume it’s pretty recent the shift took place as consideration.

    But you’re avoiding my question.

    There should be no need to assume when the shift took place. Whenever it took place, it must have resulted in a situation in which all the lawyers and scholars who had been taught that two citizen parents were considered necessary were now learning, to their surprise, that two citizen parents were no longer considered necessary.

    I mean, that’s a major shift. It’s hard to believe that not a single lawyer or judge or academic would have let that pass without even mentioning it. None of the judges ruling à la Ankeny has said anything about how it used to be different — quite the contrary, they trace their reasoning back to pre-Revolution English common law through the Fourteenth Amendment to Wong Kim Ark.

    So, again, why is there no mention by anyone of the dramatic shift that must have taken place for your theory to be correct?

  99. avatar
    Sudoku October 25, 2015 at 2:37 pm #

    @CRJ
    The 14th Amendment does not naturalize anyone, it codifies who are citizens of the country.

    Of course it doesn’t void any presidential requirements. They remain unchanged.

  100. avatar
    Rickey October 25, 2015 at 4:00 pm #

    CRJ:

    No one part of the Constitution can void another. Both terms Respected.

    What an absurd statement! For example, the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment. Repeal = Void.

  101. avatar
    Rickey October 25, 2015 at 4:42 pm #

    CRJ:

    We notice it was impossible for a single person to be [natural born Citizen] Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents because the United States didnt exist until the LAW of Authority in Constitution was signed as Supreme Law.

    Once again you are wrong.

    Everyone who was born in one of the colonies was considered to be a natural-born citizen of the United States, other than those who chose to remain British subjects.

    In addition to the natural-born citizen requirement, Article II Section 1 requires that a president have “been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”

    The United States arguably became a country on July 4, 1776 (and certainly no earlier than that date), George Washington was inaugurated on April 30, 1789, less than thirteen years after the Declaration of Independence. How then did Washington meet the fourteen years residency requirement? The answer is that Washington was born in Virginia, so he was considered to have been a resident of the United States for his entire life.

  102. avatar
    Rickey October 25, 2015 at 4:47 pm #

    CRJ:

    Because [ natural born Citizen] ie. Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents – there was no need to naturalize. It was a given. It was clearly understood. It was stable. It was common knowledge.

    People born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents have no need to naturalize, either. They are citizens at birth.

    P.S. It’s a “mess hall,” not a “mass hall.”

  103. avatar
    Rickey October 25, 2015 at 5:17 pm #

    bob:

    Judy brings no actual facts, and he ignores those that are brought to him.

    Yes, he doesn’t even try to address most of the facts which are given to him.

    Our friend Lupin not only is a French attorney and an expert on Vattel, he also has an impeccable command of English. As I understand Lupin, during Vattel’s time a Frenchman could have been married to an Englishwoman and their offspring would have been citizens of France at birth.

    Yet CRJ, who has no credentials whatsoever, believes that he knows better.

  104. avatar
    Keith October 25, 2015 at 5:37 pm #

    CRJ: Certainly those born in the U.S. qualifying as anchor babies

    The use of the term ‘anchor baby’ is offensive – I’ll leave it to you to research why that is so. Continuing its use after this has been pointed out (and you could hardly have missed it during the recent Jeb Bush flap over it) merely denotes the user’s underlying racism issues.

    under the NATURALIZED Clause of the 14th amendment

    Which clause is that? The one that says that born citizens and naturalized citizens are both citizens? That is properly called the ‘citizenship clause’, not the ‘naturalized clause’. It expresses ONE concept: that there are exactly two kinds of citizenship: born and naturalized. Except for Presidential eligibility where only born citizens are allowed, the two classes are equal in every way.

    would be also understood As naturalized by an Act of Congress.

    An Act of Congress cannot override the Constitution – period – it just can’t.

    Children born in the US to aliens, whether documented or not documented, are born citizens of the United States – end of story. That is explicitly stated in the 14th Amendment (that is the Citizenship Clause you mention).

    Children who are born citizens of the United States are said to be Natural Born Citizens – and according to the Constitution they are eligible to hold the Office of the President of the United States.

  105. avatar
    Keith October 25, 2015 at 5:50 pm #

    CRJ: No one part of the Constitution can void another. Both terms Respected.

    This is simply not true. The founders knew that they were not perfect and what they wrote would not necessarily be appropriate in the future or that new needs might arise. That is why they included Article V which describes the manner in which the Constitution can be changed. These amendments ‘shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution’.

    Here is a link to the text of the U.S. Constitution at Cornell Law Library. You may notice hyperlinks scattered around in the text (most browsers underline the hyperlinks, you may have customized this for yourself). These hyperlinks take you to commentary on the Amendments that modify that text.

    The Constitution of the United States

  106. avatar
    Pete October 25, 2015 at 8:17 pm #

    If my memory serves me, I think I explained earlier, quite clearly and in significant detail, exactly why persons born in the colonies were natural born citizens of the united States.

    But Cody seems to be deaf, or incapable of reading and understanding. He certainly seems to be incapable of learning anything.

  107. avatar
    J.D. Sue October 25, 2015 at 11:52 pm #

    CRJ: Certainly those born in the U.S. qualifying as anchor babies under the NATURALIZED Clause

    —-

    It’s “All persons born or naturalized in the United States….”

    Not “born AND naturalized”

  108. avatar
    Rickey October 26, 2015 at 2:27 am #

    Pete:
    If my memory serves me, I think I explained earlier, quite clearly and in significant detail,exactly why persons born in the colonies were natural born citizens of the united States.

    If that were not the case, no one would have been eligible to become president in 1789 because no one would have been able to meet the fourteen year residency requirement.

    But Cody seems to be deaf, or incapable of reading and understanding. He certainly seems to be incapable of learning anything.

    That is abundantly clear.

  109. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) October 26, 2015 at 5:24 am #

    CRJ: Can you recall such a time in History that an all OUT assault on the prohibition of Constitution construction took place?

    What is “prohibition of the Constitution construction” even supposed to mean?

    The funny part about NBC is that birthers don’t really think their redefinition through.
    What the Founders were actually afraid of was some foreign prince coming over, naturalizing and becoming President.
    What birthers claim the Founders were afraid of was some foreign prince having a baby in the US and that baby becoming President.
    What even birthers seem to have no problem with is some foreign prince having a baby in the US which later has a baby with a US citizen mother and that baby becoming President.
    IOW, the Founders wanted to rule out first generation influence, the birthers claim they wanted to rule out second generation influence, but even the birthers are fine with third generation influence (even though the second generation, the “real US citizen parents”, wouldn’t even have to live two days in the US and could raise their third generation child abroad – the 14 year residency requirement for their offspring has no real influence because they could have that residence locked up in a cellar with Mao and Stalin blasting out the stereo every single day).

  110. avatar
    Sudoku October 26, 2015 at 8:47 am #

    The whole ‘foreign influence’ stuff falls flat for me. If the Founders were so concerned about that, why only 14 years residency for a 35 year old?

  111. avatar
    Pete October 26, 2015 at 9:03 am #

    Rickey: If that were not the case, no one would have been eligible to become president in 1789 because no one would have been able to meet the fourteen year residency requirement.

    That is abundantly clear.

    I notice Cody hasn’t popped up yet to explain how George Washington was legally elected President when he was inaugurated less than 14 years after July 4, 1776.

    Or maybe he’s going to claim George Washington was an illegal President. The original Usurper!

    What Cody still doesn’t get is the vast extent of his own ignorance.

    He still doesn’t understand that he’s exactly like the ignorant, know-it-all 11 year old who walks into a room full of experienced managers and CEOs, and tells them he knows more about running their businesses than they do.

    Like everything else, this has been discussed here in great detail. The discussion at this site includes, for example, Madison’s discussion in the First Congress about how citizenship was considered, an opinion which was agreed to by our early leaders 36 to 1.

    If Cody were smarter, he would listen and learn.

  112. avatar
    Pete October 26, 2015 at 9:08 am #

    Sudoku:
    The whole ‘foreign influence’ stuff falls flat for me.If the Founders were so concerned about that, why only 14 years residency for a 35 year old?

    Exactly. They clearly and specifically made it so that a child could be born here, move with his parents to some other country, receive his entire education in that other country, return here at age 21 or 22, and then be elected President at age 35 or 36.

    Wow. They were certainly very keen on eliminating ALL “foreign influence,” weren’t they?

    In fact, the number “fourteen” seems rather odd, doesn’t it? Why is it that the President is required to be a resident of the United States for 14 years? Why not 10, or 15, or 20?

    I submit that it may well be specifically because the Founders considered the exact scenario outlined above. The legal age of adulthood was 21 years of age. There were children who were removed from the United States to England by their parents at or around the time of the Declaration of Independence. I believe the Founders wanted to give these children the option of returning to the United States as full citizens, with no disability whatsoever – including the ability to be elected President in the future – when they reached adulthood.

    Of course, against this idea is the fact that they didn’t always use “round numbers” for other Constitutional qualifications. But personally, I think they quite likely arrived at “fourteen years” simply by subtracting 21 from 35.

  113. avatar
    bob October 26, 2015 at 12:11 pm #

    CRJ:
    Judy v. Obama 14-9396 gave us as close of an encounter as we have had.

    Judy’s most recent SCOTUS case was closed because he failed to obtain IFP status, and then did not pay the filing fees. Judy’s SCOTUS petition, of course, sought review of a lawsuit that the district court dismissed as frivolous, and the appellate affirmed that dismissal.

    And the only people to notice this “shift” was a few birthers (and those who watch the birthers).

    * * *

    Judy likes to state that natural-born-citizen clause is a check on foreign influence; It is generally agreed that was the Framer’s intent. Judy speculates on how severe of a check it was meant to be. (Jay wrote “strong check,” not strongest check.)

    But let’s talk about actual influence. President Obama was born with a form of British citizenship. Perhaps Judy can give a few examples of how this has influenced President Obama’s policies.

  114. avatar
    Pete October 26, 2015 at 3:29 pm #

    Pete:
    If my memory serves me, I think I explained earlier, quite clearly and in significant detail,exactly why persons born in the colonies were natural born citizens of the united States.

    But Cody seems to be deaf, or incapable of reading and understanding. He certainly seems to be incapable of learning anything.

    Maybe Cody just missed the post somehow. Just in case Cody missed it, I’ll repeat it here.

    First, it was a response to Cody saying,

    Really have no idea why people do not understand the “natural born Citizen” (ie. Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents) was not in place for the early Presidents.

    The Constitution declared, “Or [C]itizen at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”. Does that not ring in your ears? Hello?

    The [United States] was created under the Constitution September 17th, 1787. Really impossible to have [Citizens] of a United States before hand, and very impossible to have [*natural born Citizens].

    To which I replied:

    Sorry, Cody, but that’s just flat wrong.

    I know it’s one of those things that seems intuitively obvious, but that was NOT the perspective of the Founders.

    This is ground that has been covered extensively and in great detail in the past, but I’m sure you haven’t read those discussions, so I’ll summarize it for you.

    Thomas Jefferson (and every other early President, for that matter) was a natural born citizen of the United States. We never had a President who had to qualify under the “or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution” exception.

    Not one.

    We might’ve had, if Alexander Hamilton hadn’t been killed in a duel. It was very specifically for Hamilton and other foreign-born patriots that the clause was added in the first place. Without such people, the clause would never even have been considered, let alone included. They would’ve left it at “natural born citizen.”

    Thomas Jefferson was born in Virginia. John Adams, the President before him, was born in Massachusetts. Jefferson was thus a natural born citizen of the State of Virginia. Adams was a natural born citizen of the State of Massachusetts.

    When those States joined together to form the United States, the citizenship of each member State transferred to the United States as a whole.

    Jefferson was thus a “natural born citizen of the United States.” So was Adams, George Washington and every President elected since.

    And this is not in doubt. It’s just about as clear as that the sun comes up in the east.

    In the next couple of comments, I elaborated:

    People like Alexander Hamilton were already citizens of the United States.

    Like virtually everyone in the Colonies, Hamilton was a citizen of the British Empire (technically a “subject,” but it meant essentially the same thing). Upon the American Revolution, it appears that simply by continuing to reside in the United States and participate as a citizen here, British subjects became American citizens.

    and

    As Dave B has noted, George Washington fulfilled the requirement of having resided in the United States for 14 years, although the United States had not been called that during the entire preceding 14 years.

    So Cody, did you get that?

    And does anyone aside from Cody have a problem with anything I wrote there?

  115. avatar
    Pete October 26, 2015 at 3:49 pm #

    To elaborate: Because George Washington had been a resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia (formerly under the English crown) for his entire life, he easily fulfilled the requirement that the President had to be ” fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

    The Commonwealth of Virginia under the English crown became the Commonwealth of Virginia, a State of the United States.

    George Washington, born a natural-born subject of the Commonwealth of Virginia, became a natural-born citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the State of the United States) when “subjects” were promoted to “citizens,” and when “colonies” were promoted to “states.”

    As a natural born citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia, he was therefore also a natural born citizen of the union of that state with the other states. This made Washington, along with all other persons born in any of the colonies-promoted-to-states, a natural born citizen of the United States.

    And this precise reasoning, history and relationship was spelled out, in much the same way, by James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, during a citizenship discussion in our First Congress. A vote was taken, and 36 of 37 representatives agreed not only with Madison’s reasoning, but with his practical conclusions as well.

    This is why George Washington was able to legally serve as President under the Constitution, and why he was NOT an illegal President and “the original usurper.”

  116. avatar
    Pete October 26, 2015 at 4:07 pm #

    Pete: This made Washington, along with all other persons born in any of the colonies-promoted-to-states, a natural born citizen of the United States.

    I should add: As long as they chose to remain in the United States, and participate as citizens of the United States.

    There was a great divorce between the English Crown and the American Colonies. Upon that divorce, the “children,” that is, those who until that moment had been English subjects in the Colonies, had a choice to make.

    Until that moment, they were both English and American. But now, English and American became two entirely different things. One could no longer be both. They could only continue as one, or the other.

    They could either continue to be Americans (specifically, Virginians, or South Carolinians, etc), or they could continue to be English.

    Conversely, they were required either to STOP being English, or to stop being American.

    The election to be Americans, and citizens of the United States, was made by those who continued to live in the United States and act as citizens there. The election to be English was made by those who returned to live in England.

    In the case of children born in the Colonies before or around the time of Independence, who were removed to England by their parents, such children had the right to return at age 21 to the United States and take up their citizenship, due to them by their birth, as United States citizens.

    However, if they did not do so within a reasonable time, but stayed in England for years after the age of majority, and participated as English citizens there, then they forfeited their birthright to United States citizens and were, like their parents, solely English citizens instead.

    As I recall, an exact number of years was never legally defined, but at least one person born in the Colonies was later denied US citizenship after having spent some decades living as a citizen of England.

    So Cody: There’s a primer for you on citizenship in the early United States.

  117. avatar
    Pete October 26, 2015 at 4:20 pm #

    Pete: they forfeited their birthright to United States citizens

    Should say: They forfeited their birthright to be United States citizens.

  118. avatar
    Pete October 26, 2015 at 4:52 pm #

    At the risk of beating the whole subject entirely to death, a further illustration.

    If you are Lois’ natural born son, and Lois is a maid at the Ramada Inn, then you are a natural born son of the maid.

    If Lois, your mother, then switches jobs, makes a bit of money, enters politics and rises over the next 20 years through city council, to become mayor of her town, and then Governor of the State of New Jersey, you are now the natural born son of the Governor of New Jersey.

    And everyone will recognize you as the natural born son of the Governor. There will be no controversy in it at all.

    You weren’t the natural born son of the Governor at the time you were born, because she wasn’t the Governor back then. But now she is, and so you are.

    In the same way, Sasha and Malia are now natural born children of the President of the United States.

    This is similar to how natural born subjects of the colonies became natural born citizens of the United States.

  119. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 26, 2015 at 5:08 pm #

    I’ve never heard anyone complain of Barack Obama being too pro-British.

    bob: But let’s talk about actual influence. President Obama was born with a form of British citizenship.

  120. avatar
    Sam the Centipede October 26, 2015 at 6:05 pm #

    I believe Cody Robert Judy is a natural born idiot. He was an idiot at birth. But I have no reason to believe his parents were idiots. That’s what “natural born” means.

    Like all birthers, Judy wishes to interpret “natural born citizen” as synonymous with “white”! Like most (but not all) birthers, he is not honest enough to confess to his racist motives.

    Are there any birthers who are not lying, racist. idiotic losers?

  121. avatar
    Keith October 26, 2015 at 10:28 pm #

    Pete: Or maybe he’s going to claim George Washington was an illegal President. The original Usurper!

    Well… there is this: George Washington replaced by Adam Weishaupt

  122. avatar
    CRJ October 27, 2015 at 1:19 am #

    In question of how did President Washington fullfill 14 Year RESIDENCY requirement?

    Noticing the difference between being a [Citizen] for 14 years verses a [Resident] for 14 years is verily clear to me.

    The Residency requirement did not require that to be as a Citizen, but a Resident.

    One could fullfill the “14 Year Residency” by being a [R]esident in the Geography prior to bring a Citizen at the Adoption of the Constitution and the beginning of the United States.

    That is why the Constitution does NOT say and [14 years a Citizen of the United States] for the Office of President.

    Now if you Notice this is very different from the Representative Requirements which in fact do say :
    [seven Years a Citizen of the United States]
    and also see U.S Senator
    [nine Years a Citizen of the United States]

    Virginia actually was the 10th State to come into the the Union, but did so in 1788 a Year after 1787 signing of the COTUS.

    So again, very clearly, the Office the President did not require a [14 year prior Citizenship] but clearly states [14 years a Resident within the United States]

    And The first [Citizen] (s) were Adopted at the signing of the Constitution. We all agree Obama was not there.

    [Citizen] was the requirement, because they ALL KNEW, (what many here have failed to either understand, or just blantantly want to stay or be ignorant about), there was no [ natural born Citizens]

    Natural born Citizen required Birth in the U.S. to Citizen Parents.

    Those first generation Adopted U.S. Citizens had children who were the [natural born Citizens] qualified for the Office of President.

    It’s the [Supreme Law of the Land] , not racist. It’s WE THE PEOPLE’S [w]ill by Legislative Mandate, not a wipple of any particular minority.

  123. avatar
    Pete October 27, 2015 at 3:06 am #

    Cody,

    Like pretty much any birther that still remains a birther, you’re simply determined to believe what you want to believe, evidence be d*mned.

    You’re also determined not to learn a d*mn thing, even if the truth is served up to you on a silver platter.

    Which it has been.

    You are a waste of time. You are arrogant, ignorant, and incapable of being taught anything.

    You are all the more arrogant because of your ignorance, which is very substantial.

    First of all, if a person could have been “fourteen Years a Resident within the United States,” even prior to the political existence of the United States, then he or she could equally have been a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.

    Secondly, we have a very good idea how the Founding Fathers thought about citizenship, because James Madison – who was called the Father of the Constitution – expounded upon it during the First Congress. This took place during the consideration of whether William Loughton Smith was eligible to be a Representative.

    Madison actually said that the citizens in a particular Colony owed their allegiance first and primarily to that Colony, and then, through that Colony, secondarily to the King of England.

    He said that therefore, when each Colony separated from the King of England and became an independent State, that did not dissolve the relationship that its citizens had always held to their Colony (now State).

    In other words, in Madison’s view, the people of the Colonies kept the same relationship they had always had with those Colonies through the birth of the new independent States. And the relationship of a person with his State also defined his relationship to the United States.

    In other words, just what I have been telling you.

    Madison’s view was not entirely uncontested. Representative James Jackson of Georgia stood and said that in his view, there had been no such continuity, and made an argument for YOUR position.

    In spite of that, Jackson actually said he might still vote in favor of Smith’s eligibility, even though Smith had only lived in South Carolina less than 6 years since the Revolution, and the Constitution required him to have been a resident for 7 years. So when it came down to it, his own position ultimately contradicted the argument he was making!

    In the end, it’s clear what position the members of the House took. Jackson abstained from voting, and the House voted 36 to 1 in favor of Madison and his position on the matter.

    Now, to make it clear who we’re talking about: The first House of Representatives included numerous signers of the Constitution. Virtually every member of the first House had either been a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, a member of the Continental Congress, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, or more than one of the above. Most if not all of those not included in the above had fought in the Revolutionary War.

    These WERE the Founders of the United States of America.

    And the Founders of the United States of America say that YOU are dead wrong.

    So you have a choice, Cody. You can admit you were wrong, and actually learn something, or you can spit in the face of the Founders of our nation, and still kid yourself that you speak for them, when you very clearly don’t.

  124. avatar
    Lupin October 27, 2015 at 3:20 am #

    bob: Judy likes to state that natural-born-citizen clause is a check on foreign influence; It is generally agreed that was the Framer’s intent. Judy speculates on how severe of a check it was meant to be. (Jay wrote “strong check,” not strongest check.)

    But let’s talk about actual influence. President Obama was born with a form of British citizenship. Perhaps Judy can give a few examples of how this has influenced President Obama’s policies.

    It is clear that (some of) the Founders’ minds evolved on the subject, as evidenced by the Monroe-Madison-Paine-Jefferson correspondence on accepting French citizenship.

    I think when Jefferson as president agreed to forward Madison’s letter of Acceptance, that pretty much sealed the deal and being posterior to the writing of the Constitution, I would argue that it shows a shift in the original concern.

    The Birther conveniently forget that Trump’s mother was a dual citizen of the UK as well and hence the Donald, like Obama, was born with the potential of electing to become a UK citizen.

  125. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) October 27, 2015 at 5:10 am #

    Pete: He still doesn’t understand that he’s exactly like the ignorant, know-it-all 11 year old who walks into a room full of experienced managers and CEOs, and tells them he knows more about running their businesses than they do.

    Except the child has a chance to be right. 😉

  126. avatar
    RanTalbott October 27, 2015 at 10:00 am #

    Lupin: The Birther conveniently forget that Trump’s mother was a dual citizen of the UK as well and hence the Donald, like Obama, was born with the potential of electing to become a UK citizen.

    I’ve read that his mother was naturalized in the U.S., which requires renunciation of prior citizenship. Does the U.K. still hold that their citizenship is “non-renounceable”?

  127. avatar
    gorefan October 27, 2015 at 10:14 am #

    CRJ: In question of how did President Washington fullfill 14 Year RESIDENCY requirement?

    The New York Ratification Convention proposed the following amendment to the US Constitution:

    “That no Persons except natural born Citizens, or such as were Citizens on or before the fourth day of July one thousand seven hundred and seventy six, or such as held Commissions under the United States during the War, and have at any time since the fourth day of July one thousand seven hundred and seventy six become Citizens of one or other of the United States, and who shall be Freeholders, shall be eligible to the Places of President, Vice President, or Members of either House of the Congress of the United States.”

    So CRJ who would have been the citizens “before” July 4th, 1776?

  128. avatar
    Lupin October 27, 2015 at 10:28 am #

    RanTalbott: I’ve read that his mother was naturalized in the U.S., which requires renunciation of prior citizenship. Does the U.K. still hold that their citizenship is “non-renounceable”?

    Whatever the US requires one to do in order to get US citizenship is not binding as far as the authorities of the other country are concerned. British law like French law consider allegiance to be perpetual. Therefore at Age 18, if he had chosen to apply for it, Trump could have been granted British citizenship, just like Obama. That is an indisputable fact.

  129. avatar
    Lupin October 27, 2015 at 10:33 am #

    Lupin: Whatever the US requires one to do in order to get US citizenship is not binding as far as the authorities of the other country are concerned. British law like French law consider allegiance to be perpetual. Therefore at Age 18, if he had chosen to apply for it, Trump could have been granted British citizenship, just like Obama. That is an indisputable fact.

    I need to modify my answer above. I understand that at present, British citizenship can be renounced (unlike French citizenship), but only by contacting British officials directly and filling a proper request that has to be approved by British authorities.

    Any “renunciation” of British citizenship before foreign (ie: US) officials — such as the blanket renunciatory statement in the US naturalization oath — is legally
    meaningless as far as the UK is concerned.

    I’m not 100% certain, but even if Trump’s mother had done all of this properly (which i;m pretty sure she didn’t), I’m not certain that that alone would have prevented Donald for applying for a British citizenship upon reaching majority (based on maternal grandparents being British).

  130. avatar
    CRJ October 27, 2015 at 10:42 am #

    @Gorfan [W]as it ratified by the Particular State?
    There have been Congress People in the U.S. Congress that have proposed 8 times to change the [natural born Citizen] clause understanding [born in the U.S to Citizen Parents] to something else. They all failed to pass.
    The point being just because it’s proposed certainly does not mean ratified. Legislation has been proposed in AZ that would make what Obama did a little less likely to occur. The Gov. Vetoed it.

    @Lupin & @Ron Even if Trumps mother was “dual” he was born to U.S. Citizens this making him a [natural born Citizen] ie. Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents. Obama’s father was not a dual citizen he was Kenyan and didn’t even try to be immigrate or naturalize. We should respect Obama’s father’s heritage equally in consideration Obama inherited such Kenyan Citizenship from his father.

    To not RESPECT Obama’s father equally is rather racist in my opinion.

    @Magic M Thank you for your support in stating that. Indeed.

  131. avatar
    gorefan October 27, 2015 at 10:56 am #

    CRJ: [W]as it ratified by the Particular State?

    New York’s Ratifying Convention ratified the US Constitution but like other states they proposed amendments that they wanted added to it.The passage I cited is one of New York’s proposed amendments.

    Clearly the delegates to the New York Convention (both Alexander Hamilton and John Jay were delegates) believed that there were persons who became citizens before July 4th, 1776.

    The question I’m asking you is who would have been a citizen “before” July 4th, 1776?

  132. avatar
    Lupin October 27, 2015 at 11:20 am #

    CRJ: @Lupin & @Ron Even if Trumps mother was “dual” he was born to U.S. Citizens this making him a [natural born Citizen] ie. Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents. Obama’s father was not a dual citizen he was Kenyan and didn’t even try to be immigrate or naturalize. We should respect Obama’s father’s heritage equally in consideration Obama inherited such Kenyan Citizenship from his father.

    First, there is NO requirement ANYWHERE (& certainly not in Vattel) that BOTH parents have to simultaneously be citizens in order to give birth to a natural-born citizen. Let’s get that clear: you’re making up sh*t by pretending otherwise.

    Second, by your twisted logic, what matters is possible double allegiance AT BIRTH. Paradoxically, you have expressed ZERO concern for US citizens who choose to receive a SECOND citizenship later during their adult life, such as James Madison, even though that would seem to me to be more problematic loyalty-wise than the condition of birth.

    Notwithstanding any of this, Obama had potential dual citizenship at birth (via his father); and Trump had it (via his mother). That Trump’s mother was naturalized makes zero difference since the child was still born with the right to become a dual citizen. That is indisputable.

    If you don’t grasp this, then you truly have no principles at all, since you’ve built your cased on allegiance at birth — in which case I have no choice but to conclude that your sole and entire objection to Obama is the color of his skin (since you have justified every other possible exceptions).

    You may claim you’re not a racist, but your own logic condemns you as such.

  133. avatar
    Rickey October 27, 2015 at 12:15 pm #

    Once again CRJ displays his ignorance of the Constitution and how it was created.

    All scholarship about the Constitution makes it clear that the phrase “or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution” was inserted in order to make patriots of the Revolution who were not born in the colonies (such as Alexander Hamilton) eligible to be president. That phrase did not apply to citizens who were born in the colonies.

    James Iredell of North Carolina, who later was appointed to the Supreme Court, wrote this in 1788: “No man but a native, and who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen President.” [“Debate on the Constitution” Vol. 2, p. 906, Library of America]. Thus Iredell states that native=natural born and America=United States. Anyone who born in America prior to the ratification of the Constitution was considered to have been born in the United States. That is how George Washington met the 14-year residency requirement.

  134. avatar
    Pete October 27, 2015 at 12:23 pm #

    CRJ: There have been Congress People in the U.S. Congress that have proposed 8 times to change the [natural born Citizen] clause understanding [born in the U.S to Citizen Parents] to something else. They all failed to pass.

    Cody, are you capable of reading? Are you capable of learning anything?

    The plain fact is that “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” HAS NEVER, AT ANY TIME IN AMERICAN HISTORY, BEEN DEFINED IN THE WAY YOU STATE.

    NEVER. NOT ONCE.

    I’ve personally examined the 8 attempts you refer to. They generally want to change the Constitution so that people who’ve been US citizens for long periods of time (e.g., 20 to 35 years) would be eligible to the Presidency, or to clarify that certain persons are included in the definition of natural born citizen (e.g., persons born overseas to military personnel.)

    Persons born overseas to military personnel are almost certainly natural born citizens anyway.

    One bill wanted to include children adopted by US citizens by age 18 in the definition of “natural born citizen.” One might debate whether Congress has the Constitutional authority to include adopted children as “natural born citizens,” but in my view, they probably do.

    In fact, the inclusion of adopted children is really the only change that bill would make to the current and historical definition of “natural born citizen.”

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2128:

    I’m going to ask you again: Are you capable of reading? Are you capable of learning anything? That’s looking very, very doubtful.

  135. avatar
    Pete October 27, 2015 at 12:26 pm #

    Lupin: I need to modify my answer above. I understand that…

    Cody, pay careful attention here. This is the mark of someone who is capable of admitting that what he said previously was not quite correct. It’s the mark of someone who is capable of admitting what he said was wrong. It’s the mark of someone who is capable of learning and growing in his understanding.

    Lupin has this. Do you?

    You need to go back and reread this entire thread, and understand and accept what people are telling you, because everyone here understands what you do not.

    Everyone here, besides you, understands the history and the law of the United States – as well as understanding what Vattel actually wrote. And they back it up by reference to the actual history and law. Everyone here, besides you, understands what a “natural born citizen” actually is.

  136. avatar
    bob October 27, 2015 at 12:52 pm #

    Lupin:If you don’t grasp this, then you truly have no principles at all, since you’ve built your cased on allegiance at birth — in which case I have no choice but to conclude that your sole and entire objection to Obama is the color of his skin (since you have justified every other possible exceptions).

    Exactly; Judy says we ought to “respect” Obama’s father’s heritage. Yet Judy insists on a fictional “rule” that will disproportionately affect those who are less than lily white, i.e., Obama, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal.

  137. avatar
    Arthur B. October 27, 2015 at 1:54 pm #

    CRJ: It was clearly understood. It was stable. It was common knowledge.

    It’s remarkable that the reverse has happened.

    Why, Cody, you’re still ignoring my question!

    If it was “clearly understood” that two citizen parents were required — if it was “common knowledge” — then why is there no historical evidence of the dramatic shift having taking place?

    For example, when the Ankeny decision came out saying that “persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents,” how come there is no record of a single lawyer, Democrat or Republican, stepping up and saying, ‘Hey, wait a minute — that’s just the opposite of what I was taught in law school’?

    How could such a revolution in thought have gone completely unnoticed by those who specialize in the field?

  138. avatar
    Pete October 27, 2015 at 3:25 pm #

    CRJ: Because [ natural born Citizen] ie. Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents – there was no need to naturalize. It was a given. It was clearly understood. It was stable. It was common knowledge.

    It’s remarkable that the reverse has happened.

    It’s hard to decipher Cody’s language, but what I take to be Cody’s main point here – that there was never a need to naturalize natural born citizens – is, of course, correct.

    But his secondary point – that “natural born citizens” consisted ONLY of person born in the United States to two parents who were both themselves citizens, is, of course, COMPLETELY WRONG.

    It is BIRTHER BULLSH*T, as everyone else here knows.

    Cody can’t produce any evidence that this was ever the “definition” of “natural born citizen,” because it never was.

    And repeating bullsh*t doesn’t make it any more true.

    Obama is a lizard alien.

    Obama’s heritage comes half from the human side, and half from the reptilian residents of Brrrzzpt.

    Secret documents indicate that the President is controlled by reptilian aliens from Brrrzzpt, and in fact is partly descended from them.

    You can also slip bullsh*t in as an assumed fact:

    A transmitter on the north side of the White House, installed to broadcast communications to the President’s home world, was reported to be out of commission Wednesday due to an electrical surge from the recent storm…

    Part of birtherism is to simply repeat bullsh*t as purported “fact,” over and over, hoping that people will believe it just because they’ve heard it so many times.

    Rewarmed bullsh*t is still bullsh*t.

    All this, of course, is ground that’s been gone over here many times before.

  139. avatar
    Arthur B. October 27, 2015 at 3:48 pm #

    Pete: But his secondary point – that “natural born citizens” consisted ONLY of person born in the United States to two parents who were both themselves citizens, is, of course, COMPLETELY WRONG.

    Of course, and he’s been told that countless times. My point here has been to point out the failing in his thinking from a somewhat different angle.

    Since he believes that it was at one time universally acknowledged among the legal community that two citizen parents were required, and since it’s pretty much universally acknowledged among the current legal community that no such requirement exists, there must have been a transition period during which this radical change of thinking took place, and it’s reasonable to expect that people spoke about it as it was happening.

    My thought was that this might help him to understand the absurdity of his position more effectively than simply telling him one more time that he’s COMPLETELY WRONG.

  140. avatar
    Rickey October 27, 2015 at 4:53 pm #

    CRJ:

    Natural born Citizen required Birth in the U.S. to Citizen Parents.

    Why is it that there is not a single history text, civics text, or Constitutional law text which agrees with you? Why has there never been such a text?

    If one existed, surely we would have heard about it by now.

  141. avatar
    Pete October 27, 2015 at 5:40 pm #

    Arthur B.: Of course, and he’s been told that countless times. My point here has been to point out the failing in his thinking from a somewhat different angle.

    Your reasoning is, of course, very reasonable. We’ll see whether he can accept reality presented from a different angle.

  142. avatar
    Northland10 October 28, 2015 at 7:36 pm #

    If you strip the issue down to Cody’s and the others claimed base, it is about, from Jay’s letter, “foreign influence.” Yet, their own claim falls apart as an example of foreign influence. How do you claim influence when the President never lived in Kenya and whose father was not part of his life. If that extremely limited relationship can impart a large foreign influence, imagine the danger to the union for the reading books written by foreign authors.

    Now, if you strip the issue down further, you end up with… “he’s different than us, therefore, cannot possibly be eligible for our highest office.”

  143. avatar
    Keith October 28, 2015 at 8:04 pm #

    Pete (quoting CRJ): The [United States] was created under the Constitution September 17th, 1787. Really impossible to have [Citizens] of a United States before hand, and very impossible to have [*natural born Citizens].

    Actually March 1, 1781.

    I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to find the significance of that date.

  144. avatar
    Northland10 October 28, 2015 at 8:11 pm #

    Keith: Actually March 1, 1781.

    I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to find the significance of that date.

    March 1 seems to be a popular date for various happenings.

  145. avatar
    Keith October 28, 2015 at 8:11 pm #

    CRJ: Virginia actually was the 10th State to come into the the Union, but did so in 1788 a Year after 1787 signing of the COTUS.

    Virginia was a founding member of the United States of America on the day that it came into being on 1 March 1781.

  146. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 28, 2015 at 8:41 pm #

    Anyone arguing that Washington was not a natural born citizen must contend with the fact that Virginia had not yet ratified the Constitution when it went into effect. So he was not a citizen of the State of Virginia under the US Constitution on the date that the Constitution was ratified by the sufficient number of states for it to to into force, and hence could not have benefited from the ill-named “grandfather clause.”

    Keith: Virginia was a founding member of the United States of America on the day that it came into being on 1 March 1781.

  147. avatar
    Dave B. October 28, 2015 at 9:29 pm #

    Tell that to the first three Congresses, and the Senate of the 4th Congress.

    Keith: Pete (quoting CRJ): The [United States] was created under the Constitution September 17th, 1787. Really impossible to have [Citizens] of a United States before hand, and very impossible to have [*natural born Citizens].

  148. avatar
    Keith October 28, 2015 at 10:06 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Anyone arguing that Washington was not a natural born citizen must contend with the fact that Virginia had not yet ratified the Constitution when it went into effect. So he was not a citizen of the State of Virginia under the US Constitution on the date that the Constitution was ratified by the sufficient number of states for it to to into force, and hence could not have benefited from the ill-named “grandfather clause.”

    The United States of America officially came into being on 1 March 1781 when the “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union” was officially ratified. Of course it can be argued that it existed since 4 July 1776, however the ‘Articles’ made it official, even specifying the name: “The stile of this confederacy shall be ‘The United States of America.”

    The United States of America has existed since that date. Virginia was the first State to ratify the ‘Articles’ on 16 December 1777. Cody is wrong on all counts (so what else is new?).

    The Constitution of 1787 was the SECOND Constitution. It replaced the ‘Articles’, but it did not negate the previous existence of the nation.

    Washington was a Natural Born Citizen of the State of Virginia and therefore “The United States of America” under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union before the Constitution of 1787, during the his Presidency of the Constitutional Convention, and up to the instant that the Articles were superseded by the Constitution, whereupon he was NBC under that Constitution.

  149. avatar
    ballantine October 29, 2015 at 11:00 am #

    Another interesting example is the state of Maine. Their constitution of 1820 required the governor to be a natural born citizen with no grandfather clause. Several of the early governors were born before 1776 in the colonies.

  150. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) October 29, 2015 at 11:11 am #

    Northland10: If you strip the issue down to Cody’s and the others claimed base, it is about, from Jay’s letter, “foreign influence.” Yet, their own claim falls apart as an example of foreign influence. How do you claim influence when the President never lived in Kenya and whose father was not part of his life.

    Yet birthers are perfectly fine with this scenario:

    Two North Koreans move to the US, naturalize, drop a baby the next day which is an NBC even by Vattelist standards (fulfilling the NBC requirement).
    They lock the child in their basement and raise it as a good Communist and hater of everything American for 14 years (fulfilling the residency requirement). Then they move with the child to North Korea to complete his indoctrination.
    21 years later the child comes back to the US (fulfilling the age requirement) and is now fully eligible even by the allegedly “high” birther standards even though it is about 10,000 times more un-American than Obama ever could’ve been.
    But it’s really all about the parents’ citizenship, right…

    (Of course in actual Birtherstan, the two North Koreans would never have been allowed to naturalize, such a thing being limited to white Christians from some European countries and Canada, if naturalization isn’t outlawed altogether.)

  151. avatar
    Northland10 October 29, 2015 at 12:21 pm #

    The Magic M (not logged in): (Of course in actual Birtherstan, the two North Koreans would never have been allowed to naturalize, such a thing being limited to white Christians from some European countries and Canada, if naturalization isn’t outlawed altogether.)

    Orly, of course, would be completely supportive as she follows the, “I’m here, lock the door” approach to immigration.

  152. avatar
    Pete October 30, 2015 at 4:37 pm #

    Pete: Your reasoning is, of course, very reasonable. We’ll see whether [Cody Judy] can accept reality presented from a different angle.

    Apparently not. No response from Cody to anything in this thread, except the sound of crickets chirping.

    Cody has chosen the strategy of ignore-and-disappear in order to preserve his birther delusions about natural born citizenship.

  153. avatar
    Arthur B. October 30, 2015 at 5:11 pm #

    Pete: Cody has chosen the strategy of ignore-and-disappear in order to preserve his birther delusions about natural born citizenship.

    Unfortunately true. The same thing happened last time I raised that question — he simply pulled out of the thread. When he returned, I asked again, with the same result.

    I guess we shouldn’t be surprised. Cody can’t answer that question.