Main Menu

Birther litigant sees the light

Breitbart News published an article this past April titled, “Cruz Supporters Planning to Launch ‘Ted Cruz Air Force’.” Breitbart describes the TCAF as “a group of zealous supporters of Sen. Ted Cruz.” They’re talking about a blimp and some other aerial promotional activities. So?

image

The member of the TCAF quoted by the Breitbart article is “Jerry Collette,” a name that should be familiar to long-time readers of this forum as one of the Obama eligibility litigants from Florida, someone who participated for a while on this blog, and the author of the “Do It Yourself Ballot Challenge” kit. The DIY kit alleges that Obama was not eligible to the presidency for any of three reasons:

  1. That he was foreign born;
  2. No matter where he was born, he is not a natural born citizen, because he was born of foreign paternity; and
  3. He became a citizen of Indonesia, and never properly reinstated his U.S. citizenship.

Senator Cruz is undisputedly foreign born with a non-US-citizen father, thereby meeting points 1 and 2 of Collette’s former ineligibility criteria. Given Collette’s reported “zealous” support for Cruz, one cannot help but conclude that Collette has seen the light and recognized the error of his ways. Hallelujah!1

I sincerely doubt that it was the argument here that caused Collette to change his mind, but perhaps it was the argument that Cruz himself presented that turned the tide. Cruz said in Fox News interview:

The facts are clear. I was born in Calgary. My parents, as a legal matter, my mother is an American citizen by birth, and it’s been federal law for over 2 centuries2 that the child of an American citizen born abroad is a citizen by birth, a natural born citizen, which is what the Constitution requires.

H/t to Whatever.

Update: Jerry Collette replies:

My position was not that Obama wasn’t born in the US; it was that he never properly documented his birth. I still have some serious questions about the validity of his documentation, as well as his social security and college records.

When complaints are filed in court, a common practice is to kitchen sink them, on the off chance that some alternative theory might work. I didn’t have much faith in the “natural born” theory which requires the father to also be a citizen, but I put it in my complaint anyway. Since then, my faith in that theory has diminished. Today, I would not advance such a theory.

Read more:


1“Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.” (Luke 15:7 ESV)

— Jesus

2Technically Cruz is wrong. The children born abroad of US citizen mothers have acquired US citizenship at birth only since May 24, 1934—not for 2 centuries.

, ,

54 Responses to Birther litigant sees the light

  1. avatar
    Another Birther December 13, 2015 at 10:57 pm #

    Jerry Collette was the one to develop the do-it-yourself ballot challenge kit, and filed suit in Florida because he believed Obama is not a natural born citizen, yet, he is now on the Ted Cruz campaign trail, saying he’s going to do everything he can to help Cruz win the GOP nomination.

    Wait… wasnt Ted Cruz born in CANADA…. C’mon Jerry…. seriously?

  2. avatar
    Rickey December 14, 2015 at 4:50 pm #

    And don’t forget, Jerry has a “gifted legal mind.”

    However, it appears that he is no longer selling his “Do It Yourself Ballot Challenge Kit.” It is no longer mentioned on his website, and the link doityourselfballotchallenge.org is dead.

  3. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 14, 2015 at 4:57 pm #

    Gone, but not forgotten:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20130221100339/http://doityourselfballotchallenge.org/

    Fellow Mensan Sam Sewell was the trustee for the DIY project.

    Rickey: the link doityourselfballotchallenge.org is dead.

  4. avatar
    Smirk4Food December 14, 2015 at 6:00 pm #

    They’re talking about a blimp and some other areal promotional activities.

    Should that not be “aerial?”

    And is the do it yourself challenge kit editable? Can we switch out Obama’s name for Cruz’s?

    And if it’s editable, how many layers are in the PDF???

  5. avatar
    CRJ December 14, 2015 at 6:13 pm #

    Not sure there has been a single paragraph uttered by any elected official that made U.S.C Amendment 14, Sect. 1 VOID, WORTHLESSLY CONTRIVED, and WHOLLY FRIVOLOUS.

    https://twitter.com/CodyRobertJudy/status/676525995701104642

    #TedCruz2016
    [The facts are clear. I was born in Calgary. My parents, as a legal matter, my mother is an American citizen by birth, and it’s been federal law for over 2 centuries that the child of an American citizen born abroad is a citizen by birth, a natural born citizen, which is what the Constitution requires. ]

    Hope you don’t mind my Demolishing & Destroying the Sales Hook or Pitch of B.S

    [The Facts are clear. I was born in the Foreign Nation of Canada! My parents as a legal matter: My Father was considered a CitizenTraitor of Cuba abandoning his native [birth place] jurisdiction for a naturalized adoption from Canada. My mother with her marriage and move may have also, but by her native [birth place] jurisdiction was a U.S. Citizen that I would like respected while disrepecting the same application to my own jurisdictional birth in Canada. And it’s been federal law for over 2 centuries that foreign born children of an American citizen born in foreign lands also to a Foreign fathers, are [citizen]s by birth in violation of pretty much every foreign country’s laws, and making the 14th Amendment Sect. 1, contrived as Jurisdiction by United States borders the most worthlessly contrived Amendment to still be included in the Constitution, aalso making any Citizen a natural born citizen, which is what the Constitution requires for the Office of President also indistinquishable from [Citizens] at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution and requirements of Citizen for Representatives and Senators the same for President., and jurisdiction by Birth Place obsolete, or as I said the 14th Amendment. ]

    Why doesn’t Sen Cruz sell his eligibility for the Office of President that way? The answer is because it’s not slick, fast, and a bait n switch tactic even the silver tongue devil himself could expect Americans to swallow whole.

    Most here swallowed it though.

    If you believe Cruz, you also believe Construction upon the U.S. Constitution is open to [personal construction] theories and is no longer prohibited, that Amendment 5 ensuring the 2/3rds of Congress Amendment process also is VOID and wholly frivolous.

    You also have basically destroyed the whole Constitution, it’s offices, branches, and rights. You have no law authorized in the United States Borders.

    Your person, property, and principles are sold and you are subjects of might is right and you can expect more and more People like Jerry Collette to not only figure it out , but very soon to dismiss respect from both the SCOTUS Authority and the Jurisdiction of the Judicial Branches as well the Legislative Branch to regulated as moot to the executive order of a King and you subjects of that authority.

  6. avatar
    bob December 14, 2015 at 6:59 pm #

    CRJ:
    And it’s been federal law for over 2 centuries that foreign born children of an American citizen born in foreign lands also to a Foreign fathers, are [citizen]s by birth in violation of pretty much every foreign country’s laws, and making the 14th Amendment Sect. 1, contrived as Jurisdiction by United States borders the most worthlessly contrived Amendment to still be included in the Constitution, aalso making any Citizen a natural born citizen, which is what the Constitution requires for the Office of President also indistinquishable from [Citizens] at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution and requirements of Citizen for Representatives and Senators the same for President., and jurisdiction by Birth Place obsolete, or as I said the 14th Amendment. ]

    Judy famous word salad aside (that is a helluva run-on sentence), Cruz was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. No one thinks 8 U.S.C. sec. 1401 violates U.S. Constitution or another part of federal law. (And the United States’ citizenship laws aren’t dependent on another country’s laws.) And no one thinks natural-born citizen and citizen mean the same thing.

    Most here swallowed it though.

    Because almost every scholar or other expert has concluded citizenship at birth confers natual-born citizenship. Whose reasoning is more persuasive than illiterate birthers, who have proven themselves to be continuously wrong about just about everything.

    If you believe Cruz, you also believe Construction upon theU.S. Constitution is open to [personal construction] theories and is no longer prohibited, that Amendment 5 ensuring the 2/3rds of Congress Amendment process also is VOID and wholly frivolous.

    Except no believes that the amendment process is void, or that the U.S. Constitution has been destroyed.

    Judy is welcome to test his beliefs by filing a lawsuit or ballot challenge against Cruz. That is, when he’s not campaigning for president, or telling lies about President Obama, himself, and just about everyone else in between.

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 14, 2015 at 7:30 pm #

    For what it’s worth, Cruz wasn’t telling the truth. It has not been true that the child of an American citizen born abroad is a citizen by birth for over two centuries. Only the children of US citizen FATHERS were citizens by birth until the Act of May 24, 1934 after which time both fathers and mothers could pass their citizenship on to their foreign-born children.

    See here.

    See also Montana v. Kennedy (366 U.S. 308(1961)) where the court ruled that a child born abroad to an American mother prior to 1934 did not acquire American citizenship at birth.

    CRJ: #TedCruz2016
    [The facts are clear. I was born in Calgary. My parents, as a legal matter, my mother is an American citizen by birth, and it’s been federal law for over 2 centuries that the child of an American citizen born abroad is a citizen by birth, a natural born citizen, which is what the Constitution requires. ]

  8. avatar
    CRJ December 14, 2015 at 7:42 pm #

    @Bob [Cruz was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. No one thinks 8 U.S.C. sec. 1401 violates U.S. Constitution or another part of federal law. (And the United States’ citizenship laws aren’t dependent on another country’s laws.) And no one thinks natural-born citizen and citizen mean the same thing.]

    @Bob just proved his own conundrum if you got that He says Cruz was a [U.S. Citizen] at birth instead of a [ natural born Citizen].

    @Bob then continued [no one believes citizen and natural born citizen mean the same thing.] when that is exactly what he just proported.

    @Bob as Tom T. Hall sang is a “Sneaky 🐍 Snake”.

    @Bob doesn’t believe in Amendment 14 covering jurisdiction of the United States of America was wholly contemptible, but he really runs his mouth in polar directions. .

    However, If @BOB would make an over $2000.00 contribution at http://www.codyjudy.us he could prove using Mr. Judy’s Standing as an official Presidential Candidate what the Court would say in North Carolina about the Jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment he holds as authorization as usurping Article II, Section 1, C-5.

    We’ll see if @Bob has any courage for his Trump eted remarks.

    http://WWW.CODYJUDY.US

    Everyone here may also presume the same offet is excellantly extended. Cheers🍺

  9. avatar
    Rickey December 14, 2015 at 8:06 pm #

    CRJ:

    @Bob just proved his own conundrum if you got that He says Cruz was a [U.S. Citizen] at birth instead of a [ natural born Citizen].

    @Bob then continued [no one believes citizen and natural born citizen mean the same thing.] when that is exactly what he just proported.

    I hesitate to defend Bob, who is perfectly capable of defending himself, but I can’t resist.

    Bob did not say that Cruz is a citizen at birth instead of a natural born citizen. He said that a citizen at birth is a natural born citizen. Most legal and history scholars agree with him.

    Bob did not say that citizen and natural born citizen have the same meaning. There are two types of citizens, natural born and naturalized. Natural born citizens are eligible to be president; naturalized citizens are not eligible to be president. But both are citizens. Everybody who posts regularly here knows that.

    Incidentally, “proported” is not a word.

    @Bob doesn’t believe in Amendment 14 covering jurisdiction of the United States of America was wholly contemptible, but he really runs his mouth in polar directions. .

    Once again your inability to comprehend the written word leads you astray.

    The 14th Amendment does not say that a person has to be born within the jurisdiction of the United States in order to be a citizen or a natural born citizen. It says that being born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a sufficient condition to confer citizenship, but it is not a necessary condition to confer citizenship. A child of an American citizen who is born in another country – outside the jurisdiction of the United States – is an American citizen at birth, which makes Ted Cruz an American citizen at birth.

  10. avatar
    bob December 14, 2015 at 8:17 pm #

    CRJ:
    @Bob just proved his own conundrum if you got that He says Cruz was a [U.S. Citizen] at birth instead of a [ natural born Citizen].

    And just about every legal scholar or other expert has concluded that a citizen at birth is a natural-born citizen. (And thank you, Rickey, for your clarifying (and correct) remarks.)

    @Bob then continued [no one believes citizen and natural born citizen mean the same thing.] when that is exactly what he just proported.

    Judy’s reading comprehension again fails him, as I purported no such thing.

    @Bob doesn’t believe in Amendment 14 covering jurisdiction of the United States of America was wholly contemptible, but he really runs his mouth in polar directions. .

    Due to Judy’s famous word salad, I have no idea what Judy thinks I think. But I do know Judy’s mindreading abilities have failed him yet again.

    However, If @BOB would make an over $2000.00 contribution at http://www.codyjudy.us he could prove using Mr. Judy’s Standing as an official Presidential Candidate what the Court would say in North Carolina about the Jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment he holds as authorization as usurping Article II, Section 1, C-5.

    Judy filing a singular FEC form doesn’t confer him some special form of standing.

    If I was going finance a ballot challenge, I would choose a competent, more literate, more honest, and less felonious actual candidate to back. But I’m not since I agree with the majority of experts that Cruz is eligible. (Unlike Judy, I don’t condone the wasting of scarce judicial resources.) I’ll let Judy waste his own time tilting at windmills.

    Besides, I don’t know if Judy needs the money. After all, Judy refuses to disclose the in forma pauperis application that he filed with SCOTUS.

    We’ll see if @Bob has any courage for his Trump eted remarks.

    Judy’s life would be better off if he wasted less time here, and instead learned to spell, write, and express himself. Because, again, I have no idea what Judy is attempting to say.

  11. avatar
    Northland10 December 14, 2015 at 8:32 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Gone, but not forgotten:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20130221100339/http://doityourselfballotchallenge.org/

    Fellow Mensan Sam Sewell was the trustee for the DIY project.

    I forgot all about that one.

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 14, 2015 at 9:29 pm #

    This is just an impression from memory, but it seems to me that the consensus that a US President can be born overseas is stronger than it was in 2008. Lawrence Solum of the University of Illinois seemed unwilling to commit himself in his article “Originalism and the Natural Born Citizenship clause.”

    We certainly had arguments in comments strongly defending the position that the foreign-born were excluded from the presidency. More people were saying that the status of the foreign born was an open question than seem to be saying that today. I myself was on the fence at first.

    Rickey: A child of an American citizen who is born in another country – outside the jurisdiction of the United States – is an American citizen at birth, which makes Ted Cruz an American citizen at birth.

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 14, 2015 at 9:34 pm #

    I re-upped with Mensa, and got my shiny membership card in the mail today. I’ll see if it’s changed in the decades since I was a member.

    Dr. Conspiracy: Fellow Mensan

  14. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 14, 2015 at 10:18 pm #

    Jerry Colette has replied to the article at my invitation, and I have included what he said at the end.

  15. avatar
    Slartibartfast December 14, 2015 at 11:15 pm #

    Someone should tell Mr. Colette that “kitchen sink[ing]” your theories isn’t so wise when they’re incompatible with each other. I guess Phil Berg pretty much completely lost his attempt to shape the movement he created. And now many birthers are dropping the “two citizen parent” argument anyway so they can jump on Rafael’s bandwagon.

    Sorry, I’m just not buying this incredibly lame defense of blatant hypocrisy.

    Jerry Colette: My position was not that Obama wasn’t born in the US; it was that he never properly documented his birth. I still have some serious questions about the validity of his documentation, as well as his social security and college records.

    When complaints are filed in court, a common practice is to kitchen sink them, on the off chance that some alternative theory might work. I didn’t have much faith in the “natural born” theory which requires the father to also be a citizen, but I put it in my complaint anyway. Since then, my faith in that theory has diminished. Today, I would not advance such a theory.

  16. avatar
    john December 14, 2015 at 11:50 pm #

    “…Since then, my faith in that theory has diminished. Today, I would not advance such a theory.”

    I tend to agree. While academicallly the Natural Born Argument may have merit, as far the courts are concerned, the advancement of the NBC argument has been tried over and over and over again and the courts have always shot it down. The NBC argument issue is dead and will never be won in court.

  17. avatar
    Matt December 15, 2015 at 12:09 am #

    Jerry Colette: My position was not that Obama wasn’t born in the US; it was that he never properly documented his birth.

    BS.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/97189120/FL-COLLETTE-2012-04-26-Collette-First-Amended-Complaint

    First Amended Complaint
    Summary of Complaint

    Plaintiff is challenging the eligibility of Barack Obama to be listed on Florida ballots as a candidate for President of the United States. This challenge is based upon two alternative theories related to his not being a natural born citizen, as required by Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, namely:

    1.That he was foreign born;
    2. No matter where he was born, he is not a natural born citizen because he was born of foreign paternity.

  18. avatar
    Matt December 15, 2015 at 12:16 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: it seems to me that the consensus that a US President can be born overseas is stronger than it was in 2008.

    Of course it is. Ted Cruz’s middle name is not Hussein. 🙄

  19. avatar
    Matt December 15, 2015 at 12:27 am #

    First Challenge to Eligibility – Foreign Birth

    23.Plaintiff is informed and believes that defendant Obama was foreign born.

    25.Defendant Obama’s mother, at the time of defendant Obama’s birth, was unable to convey U.S. citizenship to a foreign born offspring.

    So yeah, you explicitly told the court that Obama can’t be President because he wasn’t born in the US. Tell us again why Cruz doesn’t have the same problem?

  20. avatar
    Slartibartfast December 15, 2015 at 12:37 am #

    Because Rafael’s mother was old enough to convey US citizenship to her son. The problem with his attack on President Obama is the incontrovertible evidence that he was born in Honolulu, so he didn’t need either parent to be a US citizen.

    Matt:
    First Challenge to Eligibility – Foreign Birth

    23.Plaintiff is informed and believes that defendant Obama was foreign born.

    25.Defendant Obama’s mother, at the time of defendant Obama’s birth, was unable to convey U.S. citizenship to a foreign born offspring.

    So yeah, you explicitly told the court that Obama can’t be President because he wasn’t born in the US. Tell us again why Cruz doesn’t have the same problem?

  21. avatar
    CRJ December 15, 2015 at 12:39 am #

    Well to the point of consideration:
    @Rickey [I hesitate to defend Bob, who is perfectly capable of defending himself, but I can’t resist.] and
    @Bob [ (And thank you, Rickey, for your clarifying (and correct) remarks.)]

    And my failure in an attempt to mix up in a one sentence sound bite what U.S. Senator Ted Cruz expressed, that you all seem to agree on.

    That was one hell of a runny salad. . but in a comedy play if someone pulled that off right, the audience would walk out thinking to themselves, “We are Kingmen .. not Freeman”.

    Now with the clarification of @Rickey and @Bob , two very well respected authorities here I hope it is fair to them, we can all agree, about what they think:

    There are two types of citizens
    a. natural born Citizens
    b. naturalized citizens
    And:
    Neither of which are prohibited from occuping the Office of President

    Because they believe under their skirts, NBC equaling [natural born Citizen]
    THAT:
    Ted Cruz – Citizen by 1 parent = NBC
    Marco Rubio- Citizen by soil = NBC
    Barack Obama – Citizen by 1 parent & soil = NBC

    Are ALL eligible qualified and Constitutional for Office of President.

    Is that a fair assessment? IF that’s a fair word salad

    My runny-sentence-statement-word-salad exposing the sales pitch of Ted Cruz is correct.

    It is therefore an easily surmised Conundrum that

    Citizenship by Parent or Soil are not required for the Office of President. (?)

    That any type of [U.S. Citizen] is a [natural born Citizen] regardless of whether they are naturalized or natural born Citizen – the two types they say exist.

    This again simply makes all Citizens the same as natural born Citizens and in such makes the 14th Amendment supersillous, redundant, and frivolous.

    It makes the Constitution without or of no affect. .and it represents conspiracy against the Constitution.

    Again, this is the way to King Donald J. Trump gentleman. You won’t forget my words now. You are perilously close to seeing them.

    Perhaps you all want to be Knights rather than Patriots? I’m just here confirming for you, ( as one, yes, who had my rights of the Constitution violated so badly I was illegally and unconstitutionally incarcerated) that this KEY 🔑 of the Constitution understood as the [natural born Citizen] qualification requirement polluted to mean anything other than [born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents] is ultimately a sacrifice of Borders, Jurisdiction, Sovereignty, Union, and in short citizenship either [naturalized Citizen] or [natural born Citizen].

    To me it truly is a wonderful, beautiful KEY 🔑 representing the most lovely song I’ve ever heard ❤ that has in its melody the words, ” I Love You “. . it has been the secret of God’s Love for America.

    This is why. . to forget it is indeed like ripping the heart ❤ out of my chest and pulling all of my tears out of my eyes.

    It is the cruelest atrocity conceivable to leave as an inheritance to our children. . slavery … Subjects rather than Citizens … A Kingdom rather than a Partnershipped Country. It is the climate change of an entire Country as a Republic.

    It is the end of Justice for All and justice for me is inconsequential. It is the end of Justice for you.

  22. avatar
    Slartibartfast December 15, 2015 at 1:17 am #

    Mr. Judy,

    Are you intentionally misrepresenting our position because you know your position is so weak that you can’t defend it or are you so thick that you really don’t understand the obvious position that has been laid out here hundreds or even thousands of times?

    All people who are born US citizens are natural born citizens

    All citizens are either natural born or naturalized

    Naturalized citizens are not eligible for the presidency—and no one is arguing that they are.

    At birth, every single person on this Earth is either a (natural born) US citizen or an alien.

    Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jennifer Granholm were both born aliens and later became (naturalized) US citizens. Neither is eligible for the presidency. This is why people, on both sides of the aisle, have tried to remove the natural born citizen clause. Something which, if done by Constitutional Amendment, is EXACTLY WHAT THE FOUNDERS INTENDED (for their posterity to be able to change the Constitution if they saw fit to do so).

    When you misrepresent other people as violating the Constitution while you yourself argue it should be ignored at your whim it shows you to be both completely hypocritical and amazingly stupid. We can only hope that the next time you act on your own inanity that you wont hurt anyone else and afterwards you will be put somewhere where you aren’t a danger to yourself or society.

  23. avatar
    CRJ December 15, 2015 at 2:38 am #

    Not at all. I’m simply pointing out that the same [naturalization process] which is Law by Congress affecting Senators Cruz , Rubio, and Obama effectively include Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jennifer Granholm in their naturalization process effectively also articulated by Congress.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

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

    Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

    US Code
    Notes
    Authorities (CFR)
    prev | next
    The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
    (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
    (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe:
    Provided
    , That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
    (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
    (d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
    (e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
    (f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
    (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:
    Provided
    , That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
    (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States

    Those becoming naturalized by 14th Amendment

    Citizenship Through Naturalization
    Naturalization is the process by which U.S. citizenship is granted to a foreign citizen or national after he or she fulfills the requirements established by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

    http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-naturalization

    You May Qualify for Naturalization if:

    You have been a permanent resident for at least 5 years and meet all other eligibility requirements, please visit our Path to Citizenship page for more information.
    You have been a permanent resident for 3 years or more and meet all eligibility requirements to file as a spouse of a U.S. citizen, please visit our Naturalization for Spouses of U.S. Citizens page for more information.
    You have qualifying service in the U.S. armed forces and meet all other eligibility requirements. Visit the Military section of our website.
    Your child may qualify for naturalization if you are a U.S. citizen, the child was born outside the U.S., the child is currently residing outside the U.S., and all other eligibility requirements are met.

    Clarifying that a-h are [natural born Citizens] while they are certified as such by an Act of Congress known as 8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth seems … Ridiculously Arbitrary

    If there are two types
    1- Citizens who are naturalized
    ( should include all in Title 8 as Nationals and Aliens)

    2- Citizens who are natural born Citizens
    (Born in the U.S to Citizen Parents -free from any naturalization act)

  24. avatar
    Whatever4 December 15, 2015 at 3:03 am #

    CRJ: Not at all. I’m simply pointing out that the same [naturalization process] which is Law by Congress affecting Sen. Cruz , Rubio, and Obama effectively include Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jennifer Granholm in their naturalization process effectively also articulated by Congress.

    Then you can’t read. 8 U.S. Code § 1401 not a naturalization process. It is a description/explanation of natural born citizenship. The 8 U.S. Code § 1401 isn’t making anyone NBCs. Congress laid out the details in the code so people have something to refer to.

    Rubio and Obama are citizens at birth described by (a). Cruz is a citizen at birth described by (g). They are natural born citizens.

    Schwarzenegger and Granholm are naturalized citizens under a different section of the U.S. Code. They were aliens to the US at birth. The Constitution allows Congress to create rules for naturalization.

    This isn’t rocket science.

  25. avatar
    bob December 15, 2015 at 3:40 am #

    CRJ
    but in a comedy play

    Life is not a comedy play; people are judged by their ability to comprehend and commutate effectively.

    There are two types of citizens
    a. natural born Citizens
    b. naturalized citizens
    And:
    Neither of which are prohibited from occuping the Office of President

    Judy’s reading comprehension once again fails him, as that is not was I (or Rickey) said.

    Ted Cruz – Citizen by 1 parent = NBC
    Marco Rubio- Citizen by soil = NBC
    Barack Obama – Citizen by 1 parent & soil = NBC

    Judy is yet again wrong: All are natural-born citizens because they were citizens at birth; Rubio and President Obama indisputably so because they were born in the United States.

    That any type of [U.S. Citizen] is a [natural born Citizen] regardless of whether they are naturalized or natural born Citizen – the two types they say exist.

    Judy’s inability to read again fails him because no one is saying those three are naturalized citizens, that naturalized citizens are natural-born citizens, that the 14th Amendment is redundant, or the U.S. Constitution has been rendered ineffectual.

    to mean anything other than [born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents]

    A “definition” rejected by every judge, scholar, or other expert who has considered the matter.

    You won’t forget my words now. You are perilously close to seeing them.

    Nothing Judy says is worth remembering

    I’m just here confirming for you, ( as one, yes, who had my rights of the Constitution violated so badly I was illegally and unconstitutionally incarcerated)

    Unsurprisingly, the only one who thinks Judy’s punishment for his crime was unjust is … Judy.

    CRJ:
    Not at all. I’m simply pointing out that the same [naturalization process] which is Law by Congress affecting Senators Cruz , Rubio, and Obama effectively include Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jennifer Granholm in their naturalization process effectively also articulated by Congress.

    Except no serious thinker believes that Cruz, Rubio, or President Obama were naturalized because they are all citizens at birth. Especially Rubio and President Obama, who were born in the United States; it is actually Judy who ignores the U.S. Constitution because he invents requirements that do not actually exist under it.

  26. avatar
    Slartibartfast December 15, 2015 at 3:54 am #

    Bob,

    Actually, it is the birthers that wont admit that the citizenship at birth clause of the 14th Amendment is redundant. If it is, then it didn’t change the birth status of any native-born (white) persons which necessarily means that President Obama was a natural born citizen under the Constitution as originally ratified. If the 14th Amendment didn’t create a new class of citizens then the birther arguments all completely fall apart. That’s why Mario is careful to misrepresent or ignore this issue whenever it comes up—he knows its one of his major Achilles’ heels. On the other hand, CRJ might not be smart enough to know what topics he should be desperate to avoid.

    bob: that the 14th Amendment is redundant

  27. avatar
    The Magic M December 15, 2015 at 4:25 am #

    john: The NBC argument issue is dead and will never be won in court.

    So there goes your pipe dream of President Trump appointing a dozen ultra-conservative SCOTUS judges who will rule that Jesus and Vattel wrote the Constitution while riding on dinosaurs?

    [Cruz:] and it’s been federal law for over 2 centuries2 that the child of an American citizen born abroad is a citizen by birth, a natural born citizen

    Just to be clear, is this Cruz saying that (ordinary) federal law can (re-)define what a natural born citizen is? (Not that it would surprise me, given he’s one of the “we don’t need to amend the 14th to redefine what “all persons” means” crowd.)

    Should that not be “aerial?”

    It’s also “Breitbart”, not “Brietbart”. (A common confusion since German and English have – with few exceptions – exactly opposite pronunciations for “ie” and “ei”.
    It’s “dIEsel” as in “recEIve”, but “BrEItbart” as in “dIE”.)
    “Breitbart” literally translated means “wide beard”, though that’s as little a German word as its translation is an English expression.

  28. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 15, 2015 at 9:03 am #

    I knew how to spell Breitbart (I got it right 1 out of 3 times), but I just fingered it wrong.

    It’s interesting that you mention federal law redefining the Constitution. That’s what Prof. Solon says cannot happen in his piece “Originalism and the Natural Born Citizenship clause.”

    Blackstone’s understanding of the notion of a “natural born subject” is not completely clear or precise. On the one hand, he states “[n]atural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England,” but on the other hand, he suggests “all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now naturalborn
    subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes.” The latter statement might be considered a modification of the first, but the use of the qualifying language “to all intents and purposes” could be read as suggesting that children born to British subjects abroad were granted the rights of natural born citizens, but were not actually “natural born” themselves. For most practical purposes, this fine distinction is irrelevant because the common-law rule could be overruled by statute. However, when this distinction is applied to the natural born citizen clause, it might become important because statutes cannot overrule the Constitution.

    My problem with Solon’s analysis is that he assumes (elsewhere) that there was no popular definition of the words “natural,” “born” and “citizen” that strung together yields the definition of “natural born citizen.” He says that “natural born citizen” is an idiom–and not a popular idiom but a technical one (a term of art). This, says Solon, is a problem for the originalist who says that words in the Constitution should be interpreted based on how a voter would define the individual words, and understood according to the rules of grammar. My research says that the term “natural born” is a popular idiom (meaning “having a specified position or character by birth; used esp. with subject” according to the Oxford English Dictionary) and that “citizen” is a popular word, and that combining these definitions does yield a straightforward construction defining “natural born citizen.”

    If indeed the definition of natural born citizen is “a person who is a citizen from birth needing no subsequent naturalization,” then a statute could change who was a natural born citizen. The Congress did this in 1790, and such statues have existed ever since.

    The Magic M: Just to be clear, is this Cruz saying that (ordinary) federal law can (re-)define what a natural born citizen is? (Not that it would surprise me, given he’s one of the “we don’t need to amend the 14th to redefine what “all persons” means” crowd.)

    Should that not be “aerial?”

    It’s also “Breitbart”, not “Brietbart”. (A common confusion since German and English have – with few exceptions – exactly opposite pronunciations for “ie” and “ei”.
    It’s “dIEsel” as in “recEIve”, but “BrEItbart” as in “dIE”.)
    “Breitbart” literally translated means “wide beard”, though that’s as little a German word as its translation is an English expression.

  29. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 15, 2015 at 9:13 am #

    So are Mensa members prime candidates for the Dunning-Kruger effect?

    Dr. Conspiracy: I re-upped with Mensa,

  30. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 15, 2015 at 9:17 am #

    Waiter, excuse me, but there is a “surmised Conundrum” in my salad. Please take it back.

    CRJ: It is therefore an easily surmised Conundrum that

  31. avatar
    Jim December 15, 2015 at 9:30 am #

    If there are two types
    1- Citizens who are naturalized
    ( should include all in Title 8 as Nationals and Aliens)

    2- Citizens who are natural born Citizens
    (Born in the U.S to Citizen Parents -free from any naturalization act)

    If you are correct, you should be able to cite numerous instances of citizens born in the United States who were then naturalized in our over 200 years of our existence. What’s that you say? You can come up with no examples? Well heck CRJ, that must mean you’re wrong…again. BWAHAHAHAHAHA

  32. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 15, 2015 at 9:31 am #

    I think that this is the wrong division to get at the meaning of natural born citizen.

    From the legal community I am seeing a definition of “natural born citizen” that is “a citizen from birth needing no subsequent naturalization.” As I see it, Congressional naturalization is the power to make someone a citizen who would not otherwise be a citizen. The deciding factor as to whether someone is a natural born citizen is not whether they are a citizen under the common law implied by the Constitution, or according to a statute, but whether they became a citizen at birth or subsequently. There is ample support for saying that Ted Cruz is a naturalized citizen, but he was a citizen from birth, which is what matters. That is, I would divide citizens thusly:

    a) Citizen at birth
    b) Citizen after birth

    I would annotate your division this way:

    a. natural born Citizens (who may be such by common law or statute)
    b. naturalized citizens (who became citizens after birth)

    bob: There are two types of citizens
    a. natural born Citizens
    b. naturalized citizens

  33. avatar
    CRJ December 15, 2015 at 10:30 am #

    @WHATEVER4 re: Title 8 Section 1401 +-
    [. It is a description/explanation of natural born citizenship]
    It SURE doesn’t say this is a disctiption of [ natural born Citizen] AND, may I add if it was it would say that not to mention not IT WOULD NOT BE EXCLUDING : natural born Citizen – Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents.

    In fact, I believe it’s called [Nationals and Aliens ] and that the link has been doctored to say [Nationals and U.S. Citizens at Birth].

    At the time I wrote my SCOTUS Certiorari it was [ Nationals and Aliens ]
    I’m reading “2015 U.S. Supreme Court Judy v. Obama Writ Certiorari ” on Scribd. Read more: http://scribd.com/doc/262436958

  34. avatar
    gorefan December 15, 2015 at 10:46 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I would annotate your division this way:

    a. natural born Citizens (who may be such by common law or statute)
    b. naturalized citizens (who became citizens after birth)

    Have you read this law review article by Cyril Means Jr.?

    http://natural-borncitizens.com/nbcfiles/Is_Presidency_Barred_Americans_Born_Abroad.pdf

  35. avatar
    bob December 15, 2015 at 11:19 am #

    CRJ:
    It SURE doesn’t say this is a disctiption of [ natural born Citizen]

    Judy’s reading comprehension fails him because no said it did. It does, however, describe how citizenship at birth is acquired, which most judges, professors, and other experts agree is sufficient for natural-born citizenship.

    natural born Citizen – Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents.

    Judy continues to ignore the guidance that he claimed he seeks, as no court has accepted the birthers’ fantasy defintion.

    In fact, I believe it’s called [Nationals and Aliens ] and that the link has been doctored to say [Nationals and U.S. Citizens at Birth].

    In fact, Judy believes wrong. But I am curious who Judy thinks has doctored every online link (as Judy claims) in attempt to make Judy look foolish. (I see the mistake that Judy has made; l’m curious if he can figure it out for himself.)

    I’m reading “2015 U.S. Supreme Court Judy v. Obama Writ Certiorari ”

    Judy is forever dwelling on his failures.

    Slartibartfast:
    Actually, it is the birthers that wont admit that the citizenship at birth clause of the 14th Amendment is redundant.

    Thank you for specifying the citizenship clause. I was responding to Judy’s absurd straw man argument; I have doubts that Judy knows that the 14th Amendment did things other than declare (part of) the state of the common law regarding citizenship.

  36. avatar
    CRJ December 15, 2015 at 11:27 am #

    @Magic M [So there goes your pipe dream of President Trump appointing a dozen ultra-conservative SCOTUS judges who will rule that Jesus and Vattel wrote the Constitution while riding on dinosaurs?]

    First – TRUMP is to Birtherism what President George W. Bush is to Liberals and the war avenging Iraq President Saddam Hussein who bombed the Twin Towers.

    A Divert and Subvert tactic costing America Trillions. That doesn’t mean I don’t like them a little just as you like me.

    Second don’t confuse my Pipe Dreams of Mr. Trump losing to me in a General Election because I relate to the poor and uneducated much better than he does. All your corrections of my mistakes are ample evidence of that.

    Third
    “ultra-conservative SCOTUS Justices” will not be necessary and will be the last thing on your mind if TRUMP or CRUZ win after Hillary has another brain freeze and becomes the 1st women to run for President and pass in the middle of a question.

    As you pollute the Constitution and destroy it , it does make it much easier for Jesus whose not a [natural born Citizen] to come back and be King. Of course you will inherit your slave stock and your pipe dream will come true.

    Vattel did have a great influence on our Founders as his book was checked out by President George Washington and returned late; and Benjamin Franklin celebrated receiving and noticed quite often. Your freedom and liberty up to now are noticed gifts.

    Whose to say Jesus won’t come back riding a T-Rex and it will eat you for lunch while you’re shredding the Constitution over tea? It was only a few years ago that a Quantum Computer was thought of and developed and things are moving very fast now.

    Facinating English lesson.. Very nice.

    re: [ It’s “dIEsel” as in “recEIve”, but “BrEItbart” as in “dIE”.)
    “Breitbart” literally translated means “wide beard”, though that’s as little a German word as its translation is an English expression.]

  37. avatar
    The Magic M December 15, 2015 at 11:44 am #

    CRJ: Vattel did have a great influence on our Founders as his book was checked out by President George Washington and returned late

    First, that is not proof of anything, even if that were true
    Second, the book was never returned. What was returned was “another copy of the same edition”, see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7747181/George-Washingtons-estate-returns-library-book-221-years-after-he-borrowed-it.html

    IOW, Washington might’ve thrown the book in the furnace after thumbing through it for five minutes, FWIW. There is no proof he kept it “forever” because he liked it so much, as your claim insinuates.

  38. avatar
    bob December 15, 2015 at 11:49 am #

    CRJ:
    Vattel did have a great influence on our Founders as his book was checked out by President George Washington and returned late; and Benjamin Franklin celebrated receiving and noticed quite often.

    No disputes that Vattel was an influence on the Framers. There is simply no evidence that Vattel influenced the Framers’ definition of natural-born citizenship.

    For example: The edition of Vattel’s book that Washington checked out (and never returned) does not contain the phase “natural-born citizen,” in neither English nor French.

  39. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater December 15, 2015 at 12:46 pm #

    CRJ: 8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

    You blockhead. 1401 has nothing to do with naturalization. 1401 is talking about all natural born citizens and nationals of the US.

  40. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater December 15, 2015 at 12:51 pm #

    CRJ: In fact, I believe it’s called [Nationals and Aliens ] and that the link has been doctored to say [Nationals and U.S. Citizens at Birth].

    Umm no, there’s no conspiracy here: https://web.archive.org/web/20120303073648/http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

  41. avatar
    J.D. Reed December 15, 2015 at 12:53 pm #

    As well, the fact that GW checked out a certain book in 1789 is absolutely no evidence that said book had an influence on his actions during an event that happened two years earlier. Time travel might be one explanation, as with other birther memes. For instance take the possible motive for creating a fake birth certificate at about the time of Obama’s birth. Obtaining an authentic document, even if Obama was foreign born, would have been easier — maybe much easier — than creating a phony one. As the only advantage of being natural born over being foreign-born and requiring naturalization is that you can grow up to be president, why would this even be on the Obama family’s radar? This was 1961, before the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1965 Voting Rights Act of 1965, and a time when hundreds of thousands of black Americans were prevented from voting.

  42. avatar
    Thomas Brown December 15, 2015 at 1:05 pm #

    CRJ:
    the war avenging Iraq President Saddam Hussein who bombed the Twin Towers.

    Does it hurt to be that stupid? Seriously. Is it like a migraine, or what?

  43. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 15, 2015 at 1:59 pm #

    It is possible that Washington returned the book and that it was just not recorded. That has happened to me on multiple occasions, that a library dunned me in error for an overdue book. I just went to the shelf, got the book, and showed it to them.

    bob: The edition of Vattel’s book that Washington checked out (and never returned) does not contain the phase “natural-born citizen,” in neither English nor French.

  44. avatar
    Rickey December 15, 2015 at 2:17 pm #

    CRJ:

    Those becoming naturalized by 14th Amendment

    Nobody was naturalized by the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment merely clarified that anyone born in the United States, while subject to its jurisdiction, is a citizen at birth.

  45. avatar
    Sam the Centipede December 15, 2015 at 3:41 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo put up another of his screeds at the dog end of November with his latest thoughts on this subject. I have no idea what he wrote because it’s his usual insanely long soporific logorrhea. But even without reading it I can tell you that it is entirely wrong, because Mario is incapable of two things: learning anything and writing concisely. The post has 16 comments: a few are fawning words from his catamites, but most (certainly the majority by length) are Mario’s multi-part rants in response to somebody pointing out one of his many errors.

    Mario is not a birther who will learn!

  46. avatar
    Slartibartfast December 15, 2015 at 3:52 pm #

    Mario’s responses on his blog can be easily scored without reading them. Just count how may separate comments he required and the number of enumerated points.

    I once got a 7-part response with 16 points.

    You want to be very careful not to try reading something like that unless you are suffering from insomnia.

    Sam the Centipede:
    Mario Apuzzo put up another of his screeds at the dog end of November with his latest thoughts on this subject. I have no idea what he wrote because it’s his usual insanely long soporific logorrhea. But even without reading it I can tell you that it is entirely wrong, because Mario is incapable of two things: learning anything and writing concisely. The post has 16 comments: a few are fawning words from his catamites, but most (certainly the majority by length) are Mario’s multi-part rants in response to somebody pointing out one of his many errors.

    Mario is not a birther who will learn!

  47. avatar
    bob December 15, 2015 at 4:21 pm #

    Sam the Centipede:
    Mario Apuzzo put up another of his screeds at the dog end of November with his latest thoughts on this subject.

    BR had republished it when it first came out. Kerchner called it a real tour de force farce. I personally liked these unironic statements:

    While we do not know exactly what happened during the convention regarding Hamilton’s “now a citizen of one of the States” and “born a citizen of the United States” concept, we do know that they were both rejected and “natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution[]” was accepted. We can see that the Framers did not accept merely being a citizen of the United States at birth.

    And:

    Another reason that there was no [recorded] debate is probably that the definition that was used of a natural born citizen was of such universal acceptance that it satisfied all laws then know to the Framers.

  48. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater December 15, 2015 at 5:23 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Mario’s responses on his blog can be easily scored without reading them. Just count how may separate comments he required and the number of enumerated points.

    I once got a 7-part response with 16 points.

    You want to be very careful not to try reading something like that unless you are suffering from insomnia.

    When I was playing with Mario I don’t think he gave me a bullet point multi-part response but I did get him caught in a logic trap with his whole Born out of Wedlock theory which was new.

  49. avatar
    Sam the Centipede December 15, 2015 at 8:50 pm #

    Thanks bob, Slarti, Ken. I rarely look at Birther Report so I hadn’t seen La Merda di Mario there.

    I can’t be bothered to read his nonsense, even less to debate with him (other than asking him what jurists had expressed support for his [mis]interpretation of citizenship law). Even that feels unpleasantly like teasing a kid about his disability.

    Kerchner does appear to be a particular fan of Mario’s flatulence.

  50. avatar
    CRJ December 16, 2015 at 12:14 am #

    @Kenneth Noisewater [ You blockhead. 1401 has nothing to do with naturalization. 1401 is talking about all natural born citizens and nationals of the US.]

    The constipation is all yours..

    [Congress… To establish an UNIFORM Rule of Naturalization,] Article 1 Section 8

    Congress..
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
    8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth ]

    There is no word regarding [ natural born Citizen] in Title 8 Subsection 1401. . nor is Congress given powers to define nature’s laws.

    They will win every time .. Especially when man thinks he can over rule them. . enjoying the 69K Obama has credited your part of the national debt on his watch? It’s only nearly doubled.

    Of course you are not considering it.. Because he’s passing it on. . our future generation’s you simply do not care about or the 169,000 in Generational Theft.

    Blockhead is reserved for someone who just doesn’t get it. You get, and don’t Care!

    The sorrowful word is just ” sick”. That’s the NATIONAL SECURITY Threat.. Dissing your opportunity. Ruining the Trust with injustice, division, and inequality.

    You loving the terrorism yet Americans are living with?

    You’ve all sacrificed National Security in your sickness.

    That’s how it’s related to # SCOTUS.. they have a #waronpoor going and you guys don’t even care. Its dispicable..

  51. avatar
    bob December 16, 2015 at 12:47 am #

    CRJ:
    The constipation is all yours..

    * * *

    Blockhead is reserved for someone who just doesn’t get it. You get, and don’t Care!

    Oh, the irony.

    There is no word regarding [ natural born Citizen] in Title 8 Subsection 1401. .

    Judy’s reading comprehension still fails him because no said there was. Judy keeps ignoring that most scholars agree that citizenship at birth confers natural-born citizenship. So much for that guidance Judy (falsely) claimed he was seeking.

    And surely Judy is not suggesting that Congress lacks the ability to define the circumstances under which a person automatically becomes a citizen. Because Congress has been doing just that since its inception.

    nor is Congress given powers to define nature’s laws.

    “Nature’s law” do not govern the United States; the U.S. Constitution does, which is not defined by “nature’s law.” (Deeper thought for Judy: there is no natural law.)

    enjoying the 69K Obama has credited your part of the national debt on his watch? It’s only nearly doubled.

    Which is completely irrelevant to the discussion, especially because the discussion concerns Cruz.

    You loving the terrorism yet Americans are living with?

    You’ve all sacrificed National Security in your sickness.

    Cruz’s U.S.-Canadian citizenship at birth is a threat to national security and causing terrorism? Canadians have always seemed so pleasant to me….

    That’s how it’s related to # SCOTUS.. they have a #waronpoor going and you guys don’t even care. Its dispicable..

    Judy’s narcissism compels him to conclude that the routine rejection of his frivolous lawsuit is somehow a “war.”

    Meanwhile, Judy doesn’t care about the precious judicial resources he wastes, which is despicable.

  52. avatar
    Sam the Centipede December 16, 2015 at 5:22 am #

    Quibble time:

    Judy’s reading comprehension still fails him because no said there was.Judy keeps ignoring that most scholars agree that citizenship at birth confers natural-born citizenship.So much for that guidance Judy (falsely) claimed he was seeking.

    Citizenship at birth doesn’t confer natural born citizenship, it IS natural born citizenship. They are synonyms, a simple fact of English language that Judy, Apuzzo, and other buffoons who claim to be experts completely fail to understand.

    It is being born on U.S. soil, or to a citizen parent (with restrictions) that confers citizenship at birth, which is natural born citizen status.

    Similarly “naturalization at birth” (an occasional birther meme) – a fetus has no nationality; it acquires its nationality on being brought into the world, which can be referred to as naturalization, hence the idiot birthers’ confusion about Congress’s right to create a uniform rule of naturalization, which I think (correct me if I’m wrong) means defining who is considered a U.S. citizen. Of course, “naturalization” in everyday speech almost always refers to the formal process of acquisition of citizenship after birth, but it CAN be used to refer to it happening automatically at birth.

    Of course Judy’s only aim appears to be to cause disruption in the courts and elsewhere. I haven’t read most of his nonsense here because it’s… nonsense.

  53. avatar
    Notorial Dissent December 16, 2015 at 9:05 am #

    Bob, I will make a minor quibble here with your comment. Agreed absolutely there is NO definitive proof that the Founders used Vattel, HOWEVERif they did, they would have used the section pertaining to the English speaking world, Britain, and not to the French or Swiss chapters, as the Founders were neither illiterate, nor stupid, and many of them spoke fluent French and so would have known the differences in the sections and the meanings of the words that the likes of Judy cannot or will not.

    bob: No disputes that Vattel was an influence on the Framers. There is simply no evidence that Vattel influenced the Framers’ definition of natural-born citizenship.

    For example: The edition of Vattel’s book that Washington checked out (and never returned) does not contain the phase “natural-born citizen,” in neither English nor French.

  54. avatar
    bob December 16, 2015 at 11:28 am #

    Sam the Centipede:
    Citizenship at birth doesn’t confer natural born citizenship, it IS natural born citizenship.

    I used “confer” (and “most”) to acknowledge McManamon’s (minority) position that birth in the United States is basically a necessary condition for natural-born citizenship.

    Of course Judy’s only aim appears to be to cause disruption in the courts and elsewhere.

    I can only speculate as to Judy’s motivations. But I agree that his actions result only in disruptions. Judy repeatedly posting the same lies here, and bothering the courts with his frivolous lawsuits, will have absolutely no effect on anything. They are, among other things, a waste of his time (and life).

    Notorial Dissent:
    HOWEVER if they did, they would have used the section pertaining to the English speaking world, Britain, and not to the French or Swiss chapters, as the Founders were neither illiterate, nor stupid, and many of them spoke fluent French and so would have known the differences in the sections and the meanings of the words that the likes of Judy cannot or will not.

    Oh, I agree. I would guess Judy has read exactly one sentence of Vattel’s book, and hasn’t read the section that explains Britain’s (and, therefore, the United States’) laws are different.