Main Menu

Confusing natural born citizen

I was on the Manchester New Hampshire WMUR TV web site just now reading comments on an article about an eligibility challenged to Ted Cruz. Here is a bit from one of the comments by Fuzz T Was:

All presidential candidates should be ask[ed] if they are a natural born-Citizen[s] and if so, by providing evidence, how they meet that requirement. The natural born citizen status is met by complying with the (U.S.) common law definition of that term confirmed in Minor and Wong Kim Ark (born in the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents, plural).

So here we go again. Apuzzo, Farrar and ksdb are all out on the Internet saying things like Fuzz. Polls show that Americans are not clear on what the requirements for presidential eligibility are. A 2012 poll reported at WorldNetDaily said that only 1 in 5 believed that a president must have 2 citizen parents. In 2014, a YouGov poll found 76% of Americans think someone born in the US to a US citizen mother and an alien father was eligible. Only a plurality (47%) say that someone born in the US to two alien parents is eligible. 61% say a foreign born child of two US citizen parents, but only 30% say that one US citizen parent for a foreign-born child is sufficient–that’s a pretty small number for the answer most often given by constitutional authorities!

So here we start another election season with the same old birthers trying to misinform an already misinformed public. What should the knowledgeable folks do about this? I’ve been leaving some comments on these web sites. Dave B., Pouge Moran, William Rawle and others have also. I am wondering if it’s worth the effort. I don’t think any of us, or all together, is going to change public opinion from 30% to 70% in favor of what I think is correct. Should we collaborate on some good text to copy and paste? Should we divvy up the web sites where these discussions take place? Should we let the chips fall where they may?

57 Responses to Confusing natural born citizen

  1. avatar
    Dave B. November 17, 2015 at 8:34 pm #

    Good thing some of us have so much time on our hands.

  2. avatar
    bob November 17, 2015 at 9:00 pm #

    Should we divvy up the web sites where these discussions take place?

    To quote Judge Lamberth: “Sisyphean.”

  3. avatar
    Joey November 17, 2015 at 10:22 pm #

    “Trump names Cruz when asked about VP slot”
    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/260492-trump-names-cruz-when-asked-about-vp-spot

  4. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 17, 2015 at 10:58 pm #

    I guess that rules out the Trump sues Cruz over eligibility scenario.

    Joey: “Trump names Cruz when asked about VP slot”

  5. avatar
    CRJ November 17, 2015 at 11:35 pm #

    @Doc [What should the knowledgeable folks do about this?][I don’t think any of us, or all together, is going to change public opinion from 30% to 70% in favor of what I think is correct. ]

    Your so close to saying ANYONE IS ELIGIBLE, why waste your time with 70’s? Join Sen. Orin Hatch for Swarzenegger! (?)

    At the root of your reasoning are manifest some intergral problems .. Just a few to mention. Here’s the Petition, or the cotton in a dry mouth, your trying to sell to a still largely Christian Nation:

    1-You can dis- Honor your mother or father especially and more often the one who is [NOT] from the United States or foreigner.

    2-Picking a Foreigner to rule over you is cool! The more the Communist history of the Country the better.

    3-Traditions are stupid and so is Charlie Brown, Baseball, and Apple 🍎 Pie.

    4-The reason Moses was slow of speech was because he was stupid, and the reason God spoke to him and others like him, was even more stupid. We haven’t even figured that out yet.

    5-God doesn’t know better than we do how to (nurture) (pick) a good leader, or where to find one (Geography).

    6-It’s more about what is on the inside that’s covered up (nurture ), or .. what characteristic is on the outside (false) that can be exploited that counts then what’s on the inside that’s True.

    7- Our efforts are to prove God wrong, rather than Discovering why He’s right.

    There’s just a lot of history you’re working against in your efforts. (smile) The least of which is the natural tendency towards the light we inherited from at one time being with God.

    There are some very real aspects that you might call [reason]ably rational received by an individual based on [borders],[mother and father] that are spiritual authored by what is no longer taught in law school understood to be The Universal Laws of Nature.

    The effect in Judgement which is inherited by nature and nurturing you might say are reasons God made the recommendations seeing himself rationale that in fact did make perfect sense.

    These were hidden from those who often called themselves [Learned] and seen by those who often were called [unlearned]

    How else could it become True that God says he would make the learned appear foolish, and the foolish appear wise?

    As always, your Friend – Representing the Minority, the Multi Cultural Diversity, fighting for the poor, standing for woman’s rights, and Equality of Privileges to our U.S. Citizens long before they were politically popular with Barack Obama in an understanding these are most often despised by the World and most Churches or Religions, including all Muslims who look to Muhammad as their supreme male example and Christains not understanding the Borders of God’s Perfect Love especially articulated in the tolerances of our U.S. Constitution.

  6. avatar
    john November 17, 2015 at 11:41 pm #

    A great Winning Ticket – Trump/Cruz – Let’s “Cruz” to the White House!

    Trump/Foriana would be great too. Carson would not too bad either.

  7. avatar
    bob November 17, 2015 at 11:43 pm #

    CRJ:
    There are some very real aspects that you might call [reason]ably rational received by an individual based on [borders],[mother and father] that are spiritual authored by what is no longer taught in law school understood to be The Universal Laws of Nature.

    The “Universal Laws of Nature” are not taught in law school because they aren’t laws.

    They’re also not universal, nor from nature.

  8. avatar
    john November 17, 2015 at 11:45 pm #

    If Trump is really considering Cruz, he should make Cruz the proposition. Then in the middle of the 4th Debate being held in December, Trump and Cruz should surprise the world by officially annoucing their ticket (Trump/Cruz). It would be a bold move with high gamble but if it worked, Trump could pretty much solitify the nomination right then and there.

  9. avatar
    William Rawle November 18, 2015 at 12:16 am #

    “Only a plurality (47%) say that someone born in the US to two alien parents is eligible.”

    I suspect there is some confusion over the case of children of undocumented alien parents affecting those numbers. There doesn’t seem to be much clamoring for Rubio to be declared ineligible.

  10. avatar
    Joey November 18, 2015 at 12:23 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I guess that rules out the Trump sues Cruz over eligibility scenario.

    That sound you’re hearing? Hard core birther heads exploding. Robert Laity, we hardly knew ye.

  11. avatar
    Pete November 18, 2015 at 12:37 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I guess that rules out the Trump sues Cruz over eligibility scenario.

    Pretty much. At a minimum, it would certainly make it very difficult.

  12. avatar
    Pete November 18, 2015 at 12:44 am #

    CRJ: Your so close to saying ANYONE IS ELIGIBLE, why waste your time with 70’s? Join Sen. Orin Hatch for Swarzenegger! (?)

    Complete straw man, Cody. There’s no one on the planet who thinks Arnold is eligible, and probably not many more than that who would amend the Constitution to pave the way for him to become President.

    Another thing you may not have figured out: This isn’t an activist site in the sense of trying to change things. Offhand, I can’t recall ever having heard a single poster here advocate for dropping the NBC requirement. There may be some of us who may sympathize with children adopted as minors from overseas by US parents, who would like to see such children somehow included as natives. But that’s kind of about it.

  13. avatar
    Pete November 18, 2015 at 12:58 am #

    CRJ: Your so close to saying ANYONE IS ELIGIBLE, why waste your time with 70’s? Join Sen. Orin Hatch for Swarzenegger! (?)

    It’s also simply not true that people here are “close to saying ANYONE IS ELIGIBLE.”

    The position here is that all persons who are natural born citizens, have reached the age of 35, and have lived 14 years in the United States, are eligible.

    This, incidentally, just happens to be the position of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.

    Wow. What a concept.

  14. avatar
    Lupin November 18, 2015 at 2:07 am #

    One would have to start by educating them in the English language.

    There is no way in the English language that the sentence “born to US citizen parents” exclusively means both parents, no more than “accessible only to club members” means ALL members.

    If they don’t understand proper English to begin with, your fight is somewhat hopeless.

  15. avatar
    dunstvangeet November 18, 2015 at 2:49 am #

    Lupin: If they don’t understand proper English to begin with, your fight is somewhat hopeless.

    They don’t want to understand proper English, because it doesn’t actually support their position. If Proper English actually supported their position, then they’d argue the proper English.

    Birthers ultimately are people who work backwards from the conclusion that Barack Obama is ineligible to be President. They have their minds made up from that. So, any argument that gets them to that conclusion is valid in their minds, and any argument that goes against that position is invalid in their minds.

    Trust me, if they found an anchient text from Italy that said that Left-Handed people were not natural born citizens, they’d start arguing that the founders had obviously read that text and meant that left handed people were not able to be Natural Born Citizens.

  16. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) November 18, 2015 at 4:55 am #

    I bet 95% of Republicans believe Cruz was born in the US (and 40% believe liberals forged his birth certificate to falsely claim he was born abroad).

  17. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) November 18, 2015 at 4:59 am #

    dunstvangeet: Trust me, if they found an anchient text from Italy that said that Left-Handed people were not natural born citizens, they’d start arguing that the founders had obviously read that text and meant that left handed people were not able to be Natural Born Citizens.

    But only if Obama or Hillary is left-handed.

    I’m actually curious whether we will see some birthers go the Jedi Pauly route of making up pseudo-legal arguments why wimmin can’t be President. So far, birthers seem to concentrate on GOP candidates, but who knows what happens when Hillary is elected…

  18. avatar
    Yoda November 18, 2015 at 5:40 am #

    The beautiful thing about birthers is that they never learn-ever. It is actually one of the reasons that I pretty much dropped out of anti-birthering. I was tired of having the same conversations over and over again. It is all about what dunstvangeet said, they work backwards which includes rejecting everything that is contrary to their conclusion and accepting arguments that are mutually exclusive-such as the Frank Marshall Davis BS.

    Of course with every defeat, with every rejection, the vast conspiracy grows ever wider. In fact, the only people who are not part of the conspiracy are birthers themselves.

  19. avatar
    Sam the Centipede November 18, 2015 at 6:06 am #

    Lupin:
    One would have to start by educating them in the English language.

    There is no way in the English language that the sentence “born to US citizen parents” exclusively means both parents, no more than “accessible only to club members” means ALL members.

    If they don’t understand proper English to begin with, your fight is somewhat hopeless.

    True, but threy could also learn that “natural born X” is simply a mildly archaic phrasing for saying “born with the nature of an X”. As in “Judy and john are natural born idiots”. That statement implies nothing more than that the speaker has the opinion that both of these idiots have been that way since they drew their first breaths.

    There’s no legal terminology; it’s English language.

  20. avatar
    RanTalbott November 18, 2015 at 7:07 am #

    The Magic M (not logged in): I bet 95% of Republicans believe Cruz was born in the US

    This question was actually polled a few months ago, and the number was 40%, with 22% No, and 39% not sure.

    For Obama, it was 29%, 44%, 26%. And 14/54/32 on Christian/Muslim/dunno.

    The numbers are worse among Trump supporters. Details here: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/08/trump-supporters-think-obama-is-a-muslim-born-in-another-country.html

  21. avatar
    Reality Check November 18, 2015 at 8:14 am #

    If everyone the Birthers claim are in on the vast conspiracy were counted it would have to number in the thousands.

    Yoda: Of course with every defeat, with every rejection, the vast conspiracy grows ever wider. In fact, the only people who are not part of the conspiracy are birthers themselves.

  22. avatar
    Arthur November 18, 2015 at 10:12 am #

    Yoda:
    The beautiful thing about birthers is that they never learn-ever. It is actually one of the reasons that I pretty much dropped out of anti-birthering. I was tired of having the same conversations over and over again.It is all about what dunstvangeet said, they work backwards which includes rejecting everything that is contrary to their conclusion and accepting arguments that are mutually exclusive-such as the Frank Marshall Davis BS.

    Of course with every defeat, with every rejection, the vast conspiracy grows ever wider. In fact, the only people who are not part of the conspiracy are birthers themselves.

    This.

  23. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 18, 2015 at 10:36 am #

    Me too. I mean I’m glad that people are still making Mario et al. look foolish in comment sections all over the web, but the days when I felt compelled to join them are long past. Mario and his ilk (like John or CRJ or Mr. Laity here) cling to far too many misconceptions that they are completely unwilling to examine—it makes it impossible for any of them to engage in honest debate.

    Yoda:
    The beautiful thing about birthers is that they never learn-ever. It is actually one of the reasons that I pretty much dropped out of anti-birthering. I was tired of having the same conversations over and over again.It is all about what dunstvangeet said, they work backwards which includes rejecting everything that is contrary to their conclusion and accepting arguments that are mutually exclusive-such as the Frank Marshall Davis BS.

    Of course with every defeat, with every rejection, the vast conspiracy grows ever wider. In fact, the only people who are not part of the conspiracy are birthers themselves.

  24. avatar
    Dave B. November 18, 2015 at 10:44 am #

    Marius has just gotten SO boring.

    Slartibartfast:
    Me too.I mean I’m glad that people are still making Mario et al. look foolish in comment sections all over the web, but the days when I felt compelled to join them are long past.Mario and his ilk (like John or CRJ or Mr. Laity here) cling to far too many misconceptions that they are completely unwilling to examine—it makes it impossible for any of them to engage in honest debate.

  25. avatar
    dunstvangeet November 18, 2015 at 11:33 am #

    The Magic M (not logged in): But only if Obama or Hillary is left-handed.

    Obama is left-handed. (So were James Garfield, Herbert Hoover, Harry Truman, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush, all obvious Usurpers to the throne, who hid their left-handedness so that they could be President…)

  26. avatar
    Pete November 18, 2015 at 12:16 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Mario and his ilk (like John or CRJ or Mr. Laity here) cling to far too many misconceptions that they are completely unwilling to examine—it makes it impossible for any of them to engage in honest debate.

    In that sense, the persistent birthers are – I think without exception – fundamentally dishonest.

    For the more sincere among them, the dishonesty is first of all with themselves.

  27. avatar
    Steve November 18, 2015 at 6:43 pm #

    This guy claims until the Supreme Court rules on it, you really can’t say for sure if Cruz is natural-born or not.

    Not sure I agree.

    http://johntreed.myshopify.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s-news-blog/66449411-cruz-was-born-in-canada-and-therefore-may-not-be-a-natural-born-citizen

  28. avatar
    Pete November 18, 2015 at 7:07 pm #

    Steve:
    This guy claims until the Supreme Court rules on it, you really can’t say for sure if Cruz is natural-born or not.

    Not sure I agree.

    http://johntreed.myshopify.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s-news-blog/66449411-cruz-was-born-in-canada-and-therefore-may-not-be-a-natural-born-citizen

    Strictly speaking, that’s probably true (that you can’t say with 100% certainty until and unless the Supreme Court speaks on the issue).

    Here’s what I think can be said on the issue:

    1. The “general consensus” of real legal scholars is that Ted Cruz is eligible.

    2. Mary Brigid McManamon mostly disagrees, although she seems to be the only genuine legal scholar I know of who’s taken that position.

    3. John T Reed shows no sign of knowing jack about it, although he appears to imagine he does. I mean, he doesn’t even appear able to distinguish between Arnold Schwarzenegger and Ted Cruz, which (if he got it right) would be about 1st grade in a college-level discussion of the topic.

  29. avatar
    Dave B. November 18, 2015 at 7:36 pm #

    Reed says,
    “I am not a lawyer, but I write law books for a living and I have represented myself in 8 or 10 litigations, some lasting for years. So I think I know enough about this question.”

    Oh man.

    Pete: John T Reed shows no sign of knowing jack about it, although he appears to imagine he does. I mean, he doesn’t even appear able to distinguish between Arnold Schwarzenegger and Ted Cruz, which (if he got it right) would be about 1st grade in a college-level discussion of the topic.

  30. avatar
    Dave B. November 18, 2015 at 7:39 pm #

    And he says this, too:

    “I am not predicting how the U.S. Supreme Court would decide the case. I am simply telling you unequivocally that the U.S. Supreme Court has NOT YET decided it and as a result of that, the Republican Party is, at least, risking having their nominee replaced by their VP nominee after the election.

    Is there a chance that the Supreme Court might decide in between the election day and inauguration day and say that the second-place presidential candidate—the Democrat—thereby wins? Yes.”

    Pete: 3. John T Reed shows no sign of knowing jack about it, although he appears to imagine he does. I mean, he doesn’t even appear able to distinguish between Arnold Schwarzenegger and Ted Cruz, which (if he got it right) would be about 1st grade in a college-level discussion of the topic.

  31. avatar
    J.D. Reed November 18, 2015 at 8:08 pm #

    John Reed is disengenuous (to use the kindest word) about Hillary’s alleged role in birtherism. Imagining that Hillary and the Democrats would hammer Cruz over the circumstances of his birth may be a sincere belief of his, but to run such a campaign would come off as transparent hypocrisy given the amount of ridicule Democrats and liberals have (justifiably) rained on birthers. And Mr. Reed (no kin) need not worry about Obama appointing another “hack” to the Supreme Court. That door has closed; no way this Republican Congress would approve a Democratic president’s nominee less than a year before the presidential election. And the four “hacks” have a lot more professional pride than uber partisan John Reed credits.

  32. avatar
    Suranis November 18, 2015 at 8:12 pm #

    And all because the founders didn’t want anyone who was born by Cesarean Section to be president. Natural birth all the way!

  33. avatar
    J.D. Reed November 18, 2015 at 8:52 pm #

    A Supreme Court ruling favoring a presidential runner-up would make Bush v. Gore a walk in the park by comparison. A Republican House would instantly impeach the justices who voted for such a blatantly unconstitutional decision, and enough Democratic senators would join the majority Republicans to convict.
    The reason this won’t happen is that unless some justices die a majority of a court that would decide such an issue would be the appointees of Republican presidents, and it would be a cold day in a usually hot place before they would decide unfairly in favor of a Democrat.

  34. avatar
    Rickey November 18, 2015 at 9:50 pm #

    Lupin:

    There is no way in the English language that the sentence “born to US citizen parents” exclusively means both parents, no more than “accessible only to club members” means ALL members.

    Sign in a restaurant: “Rest Rooms are for customers only.”

    In birtherspeak, the sign means that someone dining alone cannot use the rest rooms.

  35. avatar
    Matt November 18, 2015 at 9:55 pm #

    Pete: This isn’t an activist site in the sense of trying to change things. Offhand, I can’t recall ever having heard a single poster here advocate for dropping the NBC requirement.

    Well allow me to be the first! (I agree this isn’t an activist site, I have never opined on this subject here before).

    But I will explain my reasoning on the open thread, so as not to hijack this one.

  36. avatar
    Northland10 November 19, 2015 at 9:02 am #

    Rickey: Sign in a restaurant: “Rest Rooms are for customers only.”

    In birtherspeak, the sign means that someone dining alone cannot use the rest rooms.

    Too put in language that some of them may better understand, if you were white in the segregated south, you had to go to some bathrooms together since the signs said, Whites only.

  37. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) November 19, 2015 at 9:50 am #

    My favourite example is “owners of tickets to the finals only”.
    This encompasses:

    1. One person owning one ticket to one final game.
    2. One person owning one ticket (each) to two or more final games.
    3. One person owning two or more tickets to one final game.
    4. One person owning two or more tickets (each) to two or more final games.
    5. Two or more persons owning one ticket (each) to one final game.
    6. Two or more persons owning one ticket (each) to two or more final games.
    7. Two or more persons owning two or more tickets (each) to one final game.
    8. Two or more persons owning two or more tickets (each) to two or more final games.

    Plus all the omitted combinations where two or more persons have tickets for any number of final games and one to n-1 persons have just one ticket, combined with one to m-1 final games, plus the combinations where one person has a different number of tickets for the different final games.

    E.g. three people where one has three tickets for final 1 and two tickets for final 2, another has one ticket for final 2 and two tickets for final 3 etc.
    Or one person having one ticket for final 1 and four for final 2.

    IOW possibly too many to list unless I want to make the definitions overly long.

    And birthers want to tell us this definition excludes at least #1-#7.

  38. avatar
    CRJ November 19, 2015 at 12:08 pm #

    J.D. Reed [..(Democrats)…come off as transparent hypocrisy given the amount of ridicule Democrats and liberals have (justifiably) rained on birthers]

    Justified Ridicule = The saddest tactic of lawlessness being correct in Order ie. The devil throws a raging temper-tantrum in what will never be Heaven. His fight in vain. For he craves the Order of Heaven in the Chaos of his habitation. Not even the devil likes Hell. All desire heaven.

    @Pete [Strictly speaking, that’s probably true (that you can’t say with 100% certainty until and unless the Supreme Court speaks on the issue).1. The “general consensus” of real legal scholars is that Ted Cruz is eligible.]

    Noticing the difference in Mr. Donald Trump and the @realdonaltrump. I’m wondering why he doesn’t change his name to Mr. Real Donald Trump?

    I suppose he didn’t have enough money to buy from others his own name? The draft of placing [real] seems pretty close to phoney when it comes to [Legal].

    Interesting that Legal Scholars do agree that the possibility of having an [illegal] person in the Office of President [elected] but failing to Qualify exist.

    This would be the quintistoxic shock to MainStream Media , especially if the illegal one was a Democrat. Maybe not so much shock of Republican.

    1933 Ratification of Amendment XX. …[ or if the President elect shall have failed to Qualify, ]

    Isn’t it interesting that it’s happened? Of course no one would dispute the requirement of TIME of 35 years old if someone was 34.9 years old, they are not 35.
    No one would dispute the 14 years a resident if only 13 years, 11 months had been accomplished.

    We are left with the TIME it takes for two to become Citizens and have a child in the United States. Its a TIME FACTOR not a race question.

    People always want to rush to get some place they are not. Its human nature to get on the freeway and drive somewhere as fast as the speed limit allows.

    There are a few things that make me ill. I’ve got a pretty good cast iron stomache. Some say it’s because I consume the BIG JARS of sliced jalapeno peppers (about 1 every two weeks). . some say it’s because I like hot 🔥 women, ( beauty is in the eye of the beholder).

    Whatever the case, calling my stand for the [natural born Citizen] qualification anything but a TEST-of-Time , simply a period of TIME, really makes me ill.

    The respect and love for the richness I find in every race and culture makes it thus for me.

    I certainly have done all I can and will continue to do all I can to bring this TRUTH to light.

    https://twitter.com/CodyRobertJudy/status/667271701827186688

  39. avatar
    Rickey November 19, 2015 at 12:59 pm #

    CRJ:

    Interesting that Legal Scholars do agree that the possibility of having an [illegal] person in the Office of President [elected] but failing to Qualify exist.

    If an unqualified person ever were to be elected president, it would be up to Congress to remedy it.

    This would be the quintistoxic shock to MainStream Media

    Quintistoxic? People might take you more seriously if you used real words.

    I certainly have done all I can and will continue to do all I can to bring this TRUTH to light.

    You wouldn’t know the truth if you tripped over it.

    Let’s face the facts. So few people care about your quixotic efforts to legitimize your specious “two citizen parents” argument that you couldn’t even raise enough money to pay your SCOTUS filing fee and printing expenses. Your campaign for president is a farce. You are not going to be on the ballot in a single state and it is unlikely that anyone outside of your immediate family would vote for you. Your book is #9,757,126 in sales at Amazon.

    You are still young enough to do something positive with your life, instead of spending all of your time blogging and tweeting nonsense.

  40. avatar
    CRJ November 19, 2015 at 1:18 pm #

    Thank You for caring Rickey. I’m 49.11 years old.. That’s close enough to 50 to make my own words and let you figure them out.

    It’s true, I still have time to become a U.S. Supreme Court Justice whose qualification, as Justice Thomas admitted is not quite as rigorous, far more lengthy in tenure, and does not require one to be [natural born Citizen] ie. “Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents”

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu6OiTiua08
    Of course blogging and tweeting are very much a part of free speech. Something out Constitution is an advocate for but also something Madame Secretary HRC is fuming about:

    Hey just heads up on the new “Comedian Label Warning in HRC”
    Video Montage
    HRC v. 1st AMEND
    http://www.laughfactory.com/channels/new-releases/1977

    She’s going after comedians whose sperch she is offended by.
    Artical from Judicial Watch
    http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015/11/clinton-goes-after-laugh-factory-comedians-for-making-fun-of-her/

    Reasons I do love these two
    https://twitter.com/CodyRobertJudy/status/667408562230964224

  41. avatar
    dunstvangeet November 19, 2015 at 1:51 pm #

    Steve: Strictly speaking, that’s probably true (that you can’t say with 100% certainty until and unless the Supreme Court speaks on the issue).

    The problem is the next leap that birthers make. The right wing is making the same leap when it comes to illegal immigrants. They go from:

    The Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on this specific issue, therefore there’s still a question.

    To: The Supreme Court hasn’t ruled against me, therefore my interpretation is the right one.

    As an example, take a look at what the right wing has done with the question of citizenship of illegal immigrants. They started by stating that the Supreme Court hasn’t specifically ruled that the children of illegal immigrants are U.S. Citizens (they have, but we’ll get into that later).

    Then they went to that illegal immigrants are not covered under the 14th Amendment (they are), and their children are not really citizens.

  42. avatar
    CRJ November 19, 2015 at 2:29 pm #

    @ dunstvangeet
    [Steve: Strictly speaking, that’s probably true (that you can’t say with 100% certainty until and unless the Supreme Court speaks on the issue).
    The problem is the next leap that birthers make. The right wing is making the same leap when it comes to illegal immigrants. ]

    Welcome to the world of proving a negative, rather than positively proving.

    ie. Court: “You don’t have Standing”
    ANTI-Birther Interpretation: OBAMA has won over 200 Cases!😂

    ie. Court: “You case is Wholly Incredible”
    ANTI-Birther Interpretation: That’s the reason you don’t get forma pauperis status

    ie. Court: “Your forma pauperis status is denied in spite of two LOWER COURT’S agreeing in the same year by a form asking for YEARLY INCOME REPORT that it’s granted.
    ANTI-Birther Interpretation: 1) IF your cause was credible you could have raised the money. 2) You can’t point to any Case Law stating the Forma PAUPERIS [Yearly] Report Form is good for a Year.

    The only thing true about these idiotic reasoning tactics is they are similar to the lack of deductive reasoning skills and example stating the qualification for President is the same for those in 1787 as it is for those in 2016 when the Constitution States very plainly in Article II, Section 1, C-5 differently:

    1) [natural born Citizen]
    OR
    2) [Citizen] at the [TIME] of the Adoption of this Constitution

    and then said example provides no distinction for the two requisites.

    To state you understand perfectly Obama has occupied an office he has never proven that he is qualified for is exactly in line with the negative proof hurdle your complaining about.

    I do understand your frustration and I have done everything I could to 🔊relieve that frustration. 😉

  43. avatar
    Dave B. November 19, 2015 at 2:59 pm #

    At long last, novelty! Over at the WMUR, birther Ray1547@teapartyorganizers.n has come up with a NEW definition of “natural born citizen”:

    “U magic need to work on your ability to understand the written word! Read carefully. If one is not eligible because they are deemed to not be nat born BECAUSE THEY HAD NOT SATISFIED THE 14 YR REQUIREMENT then they are not YET natural.born. It does not take a college education to understand the written word BUT it may take a reasonable IQ level which from.where i sit would appear to be somewhat inadequate in your case .”

    “To begin with we are. Talking about Prez eligibility which requires 14 yrs residency in order to be considered a NBC SO FOR PURPOSES OF PREZ qualifications one is not NBC until the 3 requirements are met.”

    So apparently one cannot be a natural born citizen unless one has also reached the age of thirty-five years and been fourteen years a resident within the United States. I wonder if that also means one cannot be thirty-five years old, or that one cannot have been for fourteen years a resident within the United States, without satisfying the other conditions. Hmmm.
    Ray’s also got his own take on jurisdiction:

    “The 14th says everyone born here is a citizen subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Everyone born here establishes and recognizes the fact that the physical jurisdiction is recognized. THEREFORE only political jurisdiction remains which is what the word jurisdiction is referring to. One cannot say you are here while adding a clause stating the law is subject to your being here. Lol. The only way the sentence makes sense at all is to realize 2 types of jurisdiction are being referenced.”
    “Tell me what the sentence is saying. The 1st part establishes the fact that physical jurisdiction is present. THEREFORE THERE IS NO NEED TO REFERENCE IT AGAIN IN THE SAME.SENTEMCE. THAT means that the word jurisdiction HAS to reference another type.of jurisdiction. Use your head. If the intent was to allow every SOB that was born here to be citizen the sentence would not have included the jurisdiction clause. DUH!”

  44. avatar
    Rickey November 19, 2015 at 3:43 pm #

    CRJ:
    Thank You for caring Rickey. I’m 49.11 years old.. That’s close enough to 50 to make my own words and let you figure them out.

    You claim to be a presidential candidate. Making up words is not an effective way of getting your message out.In fact, it makes you sound like an idiot.

    Of course blogging and tweeting are very much a part of free speech. Something out Constitution is an advocate for but also something Madame Secretary HRC is fuming about.

    How do you know that Clinton is fuming about it? She hasn’t publicly said a word about it. The owner of the club claims that he received a phone call, not from Clinton but from an unidentified “prominent person” in the Clinton campaign. And the club owner then contacted Judicial Watch, an organization which is infamous for hating the Clintons. And we are expected to believe it?

  45. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 19, 2015 at 4:21 pm #

    I saw that. It was so stupid that my brain spit it back out.

    Dave B.: they are deemed to not be nat born BECAUSE THEY HAD NOT SATISFIED THE 14 YR REQUIREMENT then they are not YET natural.born

  46. avatar
    bob November 19, 2015 at 5:58 pm #

    CRJ:
    Welcome to the world of proving a negative, rather than positively proving.

    Since you are profoundly ignorant, here’s your introduction to the reality-based world:

    ANTI-Birther Interpretation: OBAMA has won over 200 Cases!

    The anti-birther interpretation is actually that the birthers have lost. Every. Single. Case.

    Besides, Obama was the defendant only a few cases; most were against state officials. And, in the reality-based world, a defendant’s successful motion to dismiss is a victory.

    And around a dozen suits (including where Obama was a defendant) were decided on the merits, i.e., birth in the United States is sufficient to confer natural-born citizenship.

    And all of this is easy to prove because the court rulings exist. Anti-birhers have even compiled links. To all of the cases.

    ie. Court: “You case is Wholly Incredible”
    ANTI-Birther Interpretation: That’s the reason you don’t get forma pauperis status

    Judy’s case was frivolous, and that’s easy to prove by the district court said in its dismissal order. An order affirmed by the appellate court.

    Judy’s frivolity may have been the reason for SCOTUS denying IFP status. But Judy has to show that he was entitled to IFP status, and he consistently fails to show the original IFP application that he filed with SCOTUS.

    ie. Court: “Your forma pauperis status is denied in spite of two LOWER COURT’S agreeing in the same year by a form asking for YEARLY INCOME REPORT that it’s granted.

    SCOTUS is not obligated to follow the lower court’s decisions. If Judy asserts SCOTUS was so required, it his burden to show that such a requirement exists.

    1) IF your cause was credible you could have raised the money.

    A reasonable interpretation because there are many very rich people who would benefit from President Obama’s removal. Judy provides no reasonable alternative explanation.

    2) You can’t point to any Case Law stating the Forma PAUPERIS [Yearly] Report Form is good for a Year.

    That the lower courts asked for a yearly income report does not bind SCOTUS. If Judy asserts SCOTUS was so bound, it his burden to show that such a requirement exists.

    Instead, Judy whines when he is pressed to support his beliefs.

    The only thing true about these idiotic reasoning tactics is they are similar to the lack of deductive reasoning skills and example stating the qualification for President is the same for those in 1787 as it is for those in 2016 when the Constitution States very plainly in Article II, Section 1, C-5 differently

    Oh, the irony.

    To state you understand perfectly Obama has occupied an office he has never proven that he is qualified for

    In the United States, the burden is always on the challenger. If Judy asserts that President Obama must prove his eligibility, Judy must first show how such a burden is established.

    * * *

    Rickey: You are not going to be on the ballot in a single state and it is unlikely that anyone outside of your immediate family would vote for you.

    There is no evidence that anyone has voted for Judy for the presidency.

    You are still young enough to do something positive with your life, instead of spending all of your time blogging and tweeting nonsense.

    For someone who claims to be poor, Judy sure wastes a lot of time online, when he instead could be working, or at least looking for work.

  47. avatar
    Pete November 19, 2015 at 6:35 pm #

    Dave B.: “To begin with we are. Talking about Prez eligibility which requires 14 yrs residency in order to be considered a NBC SO FOR PURPOSES OF PREZ qualifications one is not NBC until the 3 requirements are met.”

    That is just so frickin stupid it should be tattooed onto Paris Hilton’s butt.

  48. avatar
    Keith November 19, 2015 at 8:19 pm #

    Rickey: You claim to be a presidential candidate. Making up words is not an effective way of getting your message out.In fact, it makes you sound like an idiot.

    I dunno about that. I think I’d have voted for Casey Stengal and I hate the Yankees.

  49. avatar
    justlw November 19, 2015 at 9:48 pm #

    dunstvangeet: Obama is left-handed. (So were James Garfield, Herbert Hoover, Harry Truman, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush

    …also Bill Clinton, our first Black Left-Handed President.

  50. avatar
    Keith November 19, 2015 at 10:49 pm #

    bob: SCOTUS is not obligated to follow the lower court’s decisions. If Judy asserts SCOTUS was so required, it his burden to show that such a requirement exists.

    In fact, if SCOTUS was “obligated to follow the lower court’s decisions” WTF is the point of appealing to SCOTUS in the first place?

  51. avatar
    Rickey November 20, 2015 at 3:16 am #

    Keith: I dunno about that. I think I’d have voted for Casey Stengal and I hate the Yankees.

    Sure, but don’t forget that Casey was the Old Professor, and even when he was dishing out malapropisms he was making more sense than CRJ.

  52. avatar
    Notorial Dissent November 20, 2015 at 5:50 am #

    I think someone should tell Judy that he’s not five any more, even though he generally acts like it, and that making up nonsense words is not an adult avocation, and in fact at his it could well be a sign of serious neurological issues, above and beyond the stupid and ignorant we already know about.

  53. avatar
    Lupin November 20, 2015 at 6:08 am #

    Notorial Dissent:
    I think someone should tell Judy that he’s not five any more, even though he generally acts like it, and that making up nonsense words is not an adult avocation, and in fact at his it could well be a sign of serious neurological issues, above and beyond the stupid and ignorant we already know about.

    I’ve been saying this for a while. Word salad is a medical symptom:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad

  54. avatar
    Pete November 20, 2015 at 12:38 pm #

    Apparently so. Especially:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphorrhea

    Cody, I would suggest you should have a conversation with your doctor. This does appear to be a medical symptom.

    Medical symptoms usually get better with treatment.

  55. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater November 20, 2015 at 2:06 pm #

    Dave B.: At long last, novelty! Over at the WMUR, birther Ray1547@teapartyorganizers.n has come up with a NEW definition of “natural born citizen”:

    Lol and he keeps saying stupid stuff: “And nowhere does the constitution say what it takes to be natural born. You just do not get what I am saying Pague. The only advantage to being deemed NB is one can be Prez. To qualify one must be resident for 14 yrs. If one has not been resident fir 14 yrs one is not considered NB for qualification purposes.”

    “U R correct. It does not say one has to be here for 14 yrs to be a NBC BUT for Prez purposes which is what the topic is here one must have been resident for 14 yrs to qualify so one can say one is not YET considered NB for Prez purposes. This is a mute point not worth talking about.”

    No Ray one cannot say what you just said.

  56. avatar
    Rickey November 20, 2015 at 2:16 pm #

    Getting back to what CRJ said about Hillary Clinton and the Laugh Factory, yesterday the owner of the Laugh Factory admitted to a reporter from Slate that he has no idea who made the phone call to him. ““Maybe it was a prank, I have no idea. Was it real? Not real? I have no idea.”

    So there you have it. CRJ unquestioningly swallowed it – hook, line and sinker. Because in his mind any negative statement about Clinton, no matter how outlandish, must be true.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2015/11/hillary_clinton_laugh_factory_this_is_how_your_hillary_smear_sausage_gets.html

  57. avatar
    Crustacean November 20, 2015 at 5:05 pm #

    Mmmm… yummy smear sausage. Comes with every Citizens Grand Jury Slam at Denny’s.

    Given the stakes involved, that seems like much more than a petty little prank. Too bad the Laugh Factory’s phone company couldn’t track down who made that call. Or could they?

    Rickey: Because in his mind any negative statement about Clinton, no matter how outlandish, must be true.
    http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2015/11/hillary_clinton_laugh_factory_this_is_how_your_hillary_smear_sausage_gets.html