Main Menu

Natural born citizenship and the draft

The Supreme Court in US v. Wong used an argument to demonstrate that Mr. Wong was a citizen, which applied the principle of English Common Law that those born within the allegiance of the sovereign were natural born subjects. Notice that I didn’t say “within the country.” The leading case in English law on this topic was Calvin’s Case and the writing of Lord Coke was considered definitive. The idea of the mutual obligation between subject and sovereign was the basis for the Common Law criteria to qualify as a natural born subject.

James H. Kettner wrote extensively about Calvin’s Case in his book, The Development of American Citizenship: 1608-1870. In a later chapter on “Birthright Citizenship” in the United States, he harkens back to Calvin’s Case and says:

With the single exception of eligibility for the presidency, they [aliens who met naturalization requirements] thereby acquired the same status and rights as native citizens.

But who counted as native citizens? No one appeared to re-examine and justify Coke’s idea of the “natural-born citizen.” Americans merely continued to assume that “birth within the allegiance” conferred the status and its accompanying rights. Natives were presumably educated from infancy in the values and habits necessary for self-government, and there was no need to worry about their qualifications for membership. …

It was not “birth within the territory” but “birth within the allegiance.”

James Madison, a Framer of the Constitution, spoke before the US House of Representatives in 1789 with an argument in favor of the citizenship of William Smith, opening with his “general principles”:

It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.

In an argument on citizenship, Madison begins with “allegiance.” He recognizes the possibility that allegiance may be created through parentage, even though in 1789 US law did not provide for it. When he says that “in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States,” he may have been acknowledging that all of the states granted citizenship, at least to those born within their borders. Under federal law, the children of citizens born abroad were not citizens until the year following Madison’s speech, when the 1790 Naturalization Act made them citizens. Ever since 1790, US law contains a provision granting citizenship to the foreign-born children of our citizens

I assert that the 1790 Act and its successors brought those foreign-born citizens under the allegiance of the United States when it made them citizens, and therefore made then natural born citizens under the criteria of the English Common Law.

If Ted Cruz hadn’t registered for the draft, he would have been guilty of a felony.

I do not see any difference in the allegiance of a person born in the country and the allegiance of someone born its citizen elsewhere. “It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage,” but allegiance is allegiance.

, , , ,

122 Responses to Natural born citizenship and the draft

  1. avatar
    Sterngard Friegen January 16, 2016 at 9:29 pm #

    In Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) Justice Blackmun’s majority opinion notes that Bellei had registered for the draft but because of his work for NATO he had gotten a deferment. And that Bellei had also been warned repeatedly he was in danger of losing his citizenship.

    So, I pretty much wholeheartedly disagree with you, Doc. I think (obviously) that Rogers v. Bellei is the game changer. If one can’t rely on the Constitution to grant citizenship, let along natural born status to a jus sanguinis citizen, then all of the discussion that’s taken place that doesn’t deal with it is, frankly, beside the point. So all the common law discussions about the meaning of “natural born” vis-a-vis jus sanguinis citizenship are irrelevant. That’s why Professor Ramsey’s article was so disappointing.

    And Justice Thomas’s comment is pure dictum. Which I think conflicts with what his conservative brethren wrote 45 years ago.

  2. avatar
    Scientist January 16, 2016 at 9:45 pm #

    I don’t get your argument here. All citizens, whether born in the US, born abroad to American parents or naturalized at some point in later life have the obligations you list. In fact, permanent resident aliens pay taxes on the same basis as citizens and are subject to the draft if there is one.

  3. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 16, 2016 at 9:52 pm #

    Yes, but citizens naturalized after birth do not have allegiance at birth, which is the criteria for a natural born subject. And of course resident aliens to do not have any allegiance to the United States at birth. And citizens have these obligations wherever they reside, in contrast to resident aliens.

    Scientist: I don’t get your argument here. All citizens, whether born in the US, born abroad to American parents or naturalized at some point in later life have the obligations you list. In fact, permanent resident aliens pay taxes on the same basis as citizens and are subject to the draft if there is one.

  4. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 16, 2016 at 9:56 pm #

    You dismiss Thomas as dicta, and rightly so. What you fail to acknowledge is that the Belliei case was about expatriation not the acquisition of citizenship, and its application to the definition of natural born citizenship is equally dicta. (Also Bellei was a 5-4 decision.)

    What is the argument that someone being able to lose their citizenship implies that they are not a citizen under the Constitution? Thou shalt not beg the question.

    Do you disagree that all citizens at birth are in some way born within the allegiance of the country?

    As an attorney arguing within a framework of precedence, I think your position is stronger than if you were making an originalist argument (which is what I am essentially doing). That said, there is simply no case law on presidential eligibility for the foreign born. I think that there is no applicable precedent, and no court has been briefed with the kinds of arguments we’re seeing today on the natural born citizen question. No court has attempted to make the kinds of distinctions we are making.

    Sterngard Friegen: So, I pretty much wholeheartedly disagree with you, Doc. I think (obviously) that Rogers v. Bellei is the game changer.

  5. avatar
    Scientist January 16, 2016 at 10:00 pm #

    So what is the point of your list of obligations? It’s a non-sequitor. Naturalized citizens and permanent residents also have to register for the draft. And of course at birth, one has none of those obligations at all, no matter what one’s status is.

    This post really adds nothing to the discussion, but rather distracts,

  6. avatar
    Scientist January 16, 2016 at 10:07 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Do you disagree that all citizens at birth are in some way born within the allegiance of the country?

    If Ted’s parents had stayed in Canada, I would guess he would have felt himself to be Canadian like everyone else in Canada. He might be agitating to succeed Stephen Harper as Conservative leader at this very moment. The fact that he was legally entitled to a US passport might have been something he remained unaware of or, had he become aware, might not have cared about,.

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 16, 2016 at 10:08 pm #

    I know that you disagree with my conclusion, but do you disagree with the reasoning? What is my error?

    Sterngard Friegen: So, I pretty much wholeheartedly disagree with you, Doc.

  8. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 16, 2016 at 10:17 pm #

    Perhaps the list of obligations, that I snagged of a web site, is a distraction. I’ve deleted it. However, I think the argument is simply brilliant and one of the best I’ve come up with. Your reaction took me by surprise.

    Scientist: This post really adds nothing to the discussion, but rather distracts,

  9. avatar
    RanTalbott January 16, 2016 at 10:28 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: What is the argument that someone being able to lose their citizenship implies that they are not a citizen under the Constitution?

    Is it not settled law that you cannot take the citizenship of an NBC? That it can only be relinquished voluntarily?

    I’ve forgotten where I read this, so maybe the source was wrong.

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 16, 2016 at 10:39 pm #

    Your question highlights the reason that we’re debating this question in the first place. The courts have not directly addressed the question of presidential eligibility. We are left to try to tease out something from court decisions that were not given to solve those questions. We’re reading decisions where the arguments that we’re seeing in the Cruz debate, were not before the courts.

    Because the Courts were not making the kinds of distinctions that would apply to presidential eligibility, what I find is contradictions in what one can infer from the distinctions they did make when applied to our argument.

    The reason that some citizens cannot lose their citizenship and others can have it taken away involuntarily is the language of 14th Amendment. The Amendment gives certain protections to persons “born or naturalized in the United States.” Those who are born citizens abroad are not “born in the United States” and not “naturalized in the United States.” The distinction for loss of citizenship purposes is not whether they are “natural born citizens” or not, but where they were born or naturalized.

    RanTalbott: Is it not settled law that you cannot take the citizenship of an NBC? That it can only be relinquished voluntarily?

    I’ve forgotten where I read this, so maybe the source was wrong.

  11. avatar
    John Reilly January 17, 2016 at 12:32 am #

    I think it most unlikely that the courts will write a set of mathematical rules for eligibility. If Sen. Cruz wins, the Supreme Court is not going to undo (another) election.

  12. avatar
    Alert TO DINGBAT January 17, 2016 at 9:00 am #

    SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the Act intituled, “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is “hereby repealed”

    Your a devious piece of CRAP… and furthermore the 1790 law explicitly states that the law is applicable “THE WHITE MAN” which you chose to ignore as you did with the REPEAL the 1790 FED law… dingbat that you are and arguing over BULLSHIT

  13. avatar
    gorefan January 17, 2016 at 10:32 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The reason that some citizens cannot lose their citizenship and others can have it taken away involuntarily is the language of 14th Amendment.

    Has Congress ever passed a law that took away citizenship involuntarily?

  14. avatar
    bovril January 17, 2016 at 11:36 am #

    Plenty of cases out there, in recent(ish) years the most obvious ones being those men who, after WW2, moved to the US, naturalized in the US to become citizen.

    When it was discovered that they were Nazi camp guards etc, were stripped of their US citizenship and returned to Germany for trial.

    Here is a link to these and others

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

    There are a surprising number of people who have/had been stripped of US Citizenship for these or similar crimes but remain/ed in the US as they had no other country prepared to accept them…….

  15. avatar
    Reality Check January 17, 2016 at 11:37 am #

    At least two acts of Congress were designed to do just that (and probably others earlier). The Expatriation Act of 1907 removed the citizenship of women when they married an alien even if the woman was a citizen under the 14th Amendment. Also Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which was the subject of Rogers v Bellei.which provided that one who acquires United States citizenship by virtue of having been born abroad to parents, one of whom is an American citizen, who has met certain residence requirements, shall lose his citizenship unless he resided in this country continuously for five years between the ages of 14 and 28.

    gorefan: Has Congress ever passed a law that took away citizenship involuntarily?

  16. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 17, 2016 at 1:02 pm #

    I don’t blame you for not using your real name or email address.

    The section making the children of American fathers born overseas natural born citizens under the 1790 Act does not refer only to “the white man.” Read it again:

    http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html

    My purpose in citing the 1790 Act was not to make anyone think that the Act was still in force. Any reader here knows that it was repealed. The purpose was to give an example of how the First Congress dealt with the topic. Under US jurisprudence, special consideration is given to the acts of the First Congress in understanding the intent of the Constitution.

    Should you want to discuss this question further, perhaps you should seek a forum with a lower reading level.

    Alert TO DINGBAT: Your a devious piece of CRAP… and furthermore the 1790 law explicitly states that the law is applicable “THE WHITE MAN” which you chose to ignore as you did with the REPEAL the 1790 FED law… dingbat that you are and arguing over BULLSHIT

  17. avatar
    gorefan January 17, 2016 at 1:38 pm #

    Reality Check:
    At least two acts of Congress were designed to do just that (and probably others earlier). The Expatriation Act of 1907 removed the citizenship of women when they married an alien even if the woman was a citizen under the 14th Amendment. Also Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which was the subject of Rogers v Bellei.which provided that one who acquires United States citizenship by virtue of having been born abroad to parents, one of whom is an American citizen, who has met certain residence requirements, shall lose his citizenship unless he resided in this country continuously for five years between the ages of 14 and 28.

    In Mackenzie v. Hare the SCOTUS ruled that a a US citizen losing her citizenship under the 1907 Act did so voluntarily. I suspect the same argument would apply to someone who voluntarily did not reside in the US for the required time period under the 1952 Act.

  18. avatar
    Hermitian January 17, 2016 at 2:33 pm #

    Mr. Conspiracy

    I assert that the 1790 Act and its successors brought those foreign-born citizens under the allegiance of the United States when it made them citizens, and therefore made then natural born citizens under the criteria of the English Common Law.

    According to a legal analysis published by Ann Coulter, your assertion is incorrect.

    We’re All Ruth Bader Ginsburg Now
    Ann Coulter | Jan 13, 2016

    http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2016/01/13/were-all-ruth-bader-ginsburg-now-n2104198/page/full

    Briefly stated, only the Constitution has the authority to convey natural born citizenship status to a person. Additionally, the Constitution granted to Congress the power to create the laws governing Naturalization.

    Consequently, the Nationalization Act of 1790, in which Congress purported to extend the status of natural born citizen to the children born outside the territory of two citizen parents WAS NOT LEGALLY CORRECT. Congress subsequently realized their mistake (namely that they did not have the power to award the status of natural born citizenship) and removed the natural born citizen provision from their amendment to the Naturalization Act in 1795.

    So Coulter concludes that a citizen by birth (as defined by a law created by Congress) must be a Naturalized citizen — not a natural born citizen.

    The status of natural born citizenship can only be obtained under the authority of the Constitution — not by law.

  19. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 17, 2016 at 2:42 pm #

    There is no historical support for the assertion that “Congress subsequently realized their mistake.” One might just as well argue the converse: since there was no debate relating to the change in wording, it must not have been thought to be significant.

    And the 1795 Act was not in any way an “amendment.” It was a wholly new Act, repealing the 1790 Act in its entirety.

    Hermitian: Congress subsequently realized their mistake (namely that they did not have the power to award the status of natural born citizenship) and removed the natural born citizen provision from their amendment to the Naturalization Act in 1795.

  20. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 17, 2016 at 3:10 pm #

    I have done further study, and at least under the English Law, I think it is an uphill battle to assert that Cruz was born within the Allegiance of the United States. A principle of alienage is that an alien is born within the allegiance of some other monarch. Under the English understanding, Cruz was born under the allegiance of Canada, and so excluded from the allegiance of the United States. That’s my preliminary finding.

    Binney wrote of the United States:

    The state of the law in the United States is easily deduced. The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries of native born American father and mother father or mother must be discarded. There is not and never was any such common law principle. But the common law principle of allegiance was the law of all the States at the time of the Revolution and at the adoption of the Constitution and by that principle the citizens of the United States are with the exceptions before mentioned such only as are either born or made so born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States or naturalized by the authority of law either in one of the States before the Constitution or since that time by virtue of an Act of the Congress of the United States

  21. avatar
    Dingbat Alert January 17, 2016 at 4:08 pm #

    YEAH! Dingbat,
    Your convoluted analysis is the same of all your NBC analysis.. it is CRAP period. You should have known that the 1790 law was repealed by the 1795 act that did in fact have the “white person” phrase.

    Should you be credited for following up on my comment re” the 1790 Naturalization Act. the answer is NO.

    And for all of your other IDIOTIC OBOT’s so called smart guys, they too are NUT JOBS when it comes to American rights.

    They are so screwed up with stupidity on the American RIGHTS that I fear that the American “REPUBLIC” is in DIRE straights attributable to their self a aggrandizement of being superior to other type of citizens called BIRTHERS.

    Here is the undisputed FACT showing why a citizen born of citizens in America cannot be DEPORTED as a NATURALIZED citizen can be deported.

    The FACT is “UNALIENABLE RIGHTS” given to American citizens by the CREATOR.
    These rights CANNOT BE GIVEN AWAY NOR CAN ANY ENTITY TAKE THEM AWAY from the RIGHTS possessor.

    If an ARTICLE II NBC citizen or other born of citizen parent/s is charged with and offense against the American Government then they get JAIL TIME and can NEVER BE DEPORTED… you DINGBAT. The SUPREME law is the PEOPLE’s LAW not the GOVERNMENTS law.. DINGBAT.

    YOU OBOTS HAVEN”T GOT A CLUE… ALL LAWS DEALING WITH CITIZENSHIP OTHER THAN A NBC CITIZEN CAN BE REGULATED BY CONGRESS…THE FEDERAL LAW aka statutes by initiated by Congress: BUT THE ARTICLE II, Section 1, CLAUSE 5, IS ONLY AMENDABLE BY A PROFFER of an amendment to the American Constitution by 2/3 vote of Congress then ratified by 3/4’s of the states. YOU DINGBAT !

    DINGBAT… I PAUSE HERE TO ASK A QUESTION.. DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A RIFLE AND A GUN ?

    The caps are there to PISS you off, and in net etiquette it is considered SCREAMING. DO YOU UNDERSTAND ‘DINGBAT’

    Now here’s a puzzle for you and your OBOTS …Dingbat.. How can a person with “UNALIENABLE RIGHTS” go between states to set up new living conditions under the state Constitutions …DINGBAT ?

    Later.. YOUR AND YOUR OBOTS are SO FUCKING STUPID on the RIGHTS of Americans causing their rights to be taken away by the POLITICOS; as the Cubans,Venezuelans, N.Korea, Former China, Forner Soviet Union, the TURD REIK, and Argentina rights have been taken away from those ‘USEFUL IDIOTS” who voted for Chavez,Maduro and the STINK in America’s White House.

    Currently the Venezuelan “USEFUL IDIOTS” who voted for Socialism/Communism about 20 years ago are now in the streets making a HUGE attempt to get their RIGHTS back again and this time it with GUNS.

    Send me $ 100,000,000 for educating you and YOUR DUMB OBOTS .. DINGBAT>

  22. avatar
    Scientist January 17, 2016 at 4:26 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Perhaps the list of obligations, that I snagged of a web site, is a distraction. I’ve deleted it. However, I think the argument is simply brilliant and one of the best I’ve come up with. Your reaction took me by surprise.

    My objection to the obligations is that many apply to non-citizen permanent residents, such as being subject to the draft and paying taxes. And I don’t think citizens are obliged to “protect and defend the Constitution”. Public officials take an oath to do so, but ordinary citizens are free to trash the Constitution to their heart’s content (a right that the Constitution itself guarantees).

  23. avatar
    Scientist January 17, 2016 at 4:35 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I have done further study, and at least under the English Law, I think it is an uphill battle to assert that Cruz was born within the Allegiance of the United States.

    I have 2 points: 1. The idea of allegiance to a country at birth strikes me as silly. Newborn babies’ only allegiance is to their parents or other caretakers. They know not of countries.

    2. How does one who lives outside of a country show allegiance to it? As I argued above, suppose the Cruzes had stayed in Canada, rather than returning to the US and Ted had grown up a Canadian. What would he owe to the US today? Yes, legally he would be supposed to file US taxes (though that is a requirement unique to the US tax code, not shared bu other countries), but enforcing that is difficult if he doesn’t enter the US or own US assets. So, to my mind. allegiance is really not meaningful unless one is within the jurisdiction.

    To quote Andy Borowitz: You can knock America all you want, but it’s a country where any Canadian boy can grow up to be President if he gets a million dollars from Goldman Sachs.

  24. avatar
    CRJ January 17, 2016 at 4:53 pm #

    @Doc it has been fascinating to watch your affinity to English Common Law when the Law in the U.S. Constitution. 10 Amendment Standardise against it.

    Dr. Conspiracy: I think it is an uphill battle to assert that Cruz was born within the Allegiance of the United States. A principle of alienage is that an alien is born within the allegiance of some other monarch. Under the English understanding, Cruz was born under the allegiance of Canada, and so excluded from the allegiance of the United States.

    Amendment XX

    [The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.]

    The Colony States differed in practices and policies so adamantly that each state had their own [ Common Law ] and in their Union became a mixed bag of practising law, something England would call heresy towards the Crown.

    Amendment 10 ratified interestingly enough 1791.
    In discussion of 1790 Act, only 3 words changed deleted [natural born] added [moral] to [character] 1795 Act I believe.

    @Hermitan is right – and my love continues to grow for Ann-

    Hermitian: So Coulter concludes that a citizen by birth (as defined by a law created by Congress) must be a Naturalized citizen — not a natural born citizen.

    The status of natural born citizenship can only be obtained under the authority of the Constitution — not by law.

    P.S. Ann – I shall love thee forever if thou will extoll upon the treachery of Dual Citizenship excommunicated from the Office of President by the term [ natural born Citizen]

    So, [Common Law] in England defies U.S.A’s States Rights and practices. The Framers worked diligently to find common ground which was much easier in defying Common Law for Natural Law.

    Indeed, it is much more difficult for Doc and I to disagree that we would refuse barbecue chicken if that’s all there was to eat on the 4th of July. Similiarly, we would agree a ball tossed off the roof goes down with gravity.

    This is and was the attraction also to the Framers with Emerich de Vantell with the interest in what kind of Government can last and stand.

    Of course those aligned in harmony with the Principles of Nature last in the balance as Nature. Those not aligned familiar to most in history do not last and are destroyed in many ways.

    Their interest was steadfastly in avoiding corruption and thus disintegration and great peril for their future generations.

    Thus, Common Law was well abandoned in many respects for States Rights. Why pray-tell was the Constitution Pamphlet pocket sized with 50 pages , one for each State, including front and back covers. Yes!

    In the interest of Nature and controlling forces of the natural verses unnatural came the [ born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents ] definition for [ natural born Citizen] that included both Parents conferred Citizenship allegiances and Place as Madison inferred had considerable weight.

    The fractured allegiances could be considered in the Laws of Nature unnatural, and those of nature ie. [ natural ] lasting much longer then Naturalization Common Laws or laws of adoption.

    Interesting note the Kings position for natural born Subjects wholly misguided in the assumptions to mount the Tgrown but the POTUS position available to [ natural born Citizens].

    These two positions at polar opposites in the ideas of qualification and so in many respects [English Common Law] and United States of America – [American Natural Law] more aligned with the Principles and diversities of Nature in such a Grand Area!

    It was ONLY the Office of President and for good measure Vice President Office that have held the criteria of Time noticed in two generations [ Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents.

    In harmony with the greatest factors known to man [ nature and nurture]. Saying that wasn’t damn smart is just plain stupid. Stupid as in I won’t have the Barbecue chicken on the fourth of July pass me the bucket of mud; or let me get a ladder above the roof line so when you toss me the ball and it goes up, I can catch it.

  25. avatar
    CRJ January 17, 2016 at 5:33 pm #

    Isn’t it interesting.

    @tedcruz cnfrd USCitzn @birthMomUSCtzn =to Obama cnfrd KenyaCtznPop@birth #SCOTUS 14-9396 @realDonaldTrump #Birther https://t.co/maWkG4xfgb

    https://twitter.com/CodyRobertJudy/status/688820661498728452

    As I was listening to the Houston, Texas Lawyer Newton Scgwartz who filed against Ted Cruz:

    “The stakes are too high” Newton Schwartz explains why he’s filed a lawsuit against @tedcruz https://t.co/w8xFkwa6ic https://t.co/cFGmVgz1y7

    Speaking of what good for the goose is good for the gander, I liked him. Interesting he was responsible for keeping athletes Eligible and he opined Ted Cruz should love me for bringing this to the Courts.

    That was also my feeling in SCOTUS 14-9396 everyone really should be supporting the efforts to bring this to the Court instead of praying it fails and hooping and haulering for joy when it fails.

    The failures are choosing us much more, I’ll tell you that. The fact they don’t go away with Obama’s Term should tell everyone that.

    Anyway, as he talked about the idea that -[if] Obama had been born in Kenya the argument would be the same as Ted Cruz – relying wholly up in his conferred Citizenship from Ted’s mother.

    Now, the brillance of this is also the disqualifying factor of a [single Parents allegiance] at the Time of a child’s birth.
    CNN’s story [ conferred Citizenship only link for Cruz]
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/15/politics/ted-cruz-donald-trump-birther-movement-marco-rubio/

    Legal Jurisdiction Claims would have to consider the single Parent conferred Citizenship or Ted Cruz’s last straw.

    In doing so, like Minor v. Happersett having first to consider her Citizenship before deciding on her Voting Rights, the Court would have to consider the conferred Citizenship implications on [ natural born Citizenship] from the alien or foreign Parent.

    This I think would lead to firmly disqualifying Obama as eligible for POTUS.

    Because As Vattel said:
    If he is born here of a foreign Parent it will only be the place of his birth and not his Country, much the same as Foreign Ambassadors.

    This interestingly enough was considered in English Common Law w Blackstone referencing against anchor babies
    [ where no protection can be Claimed, no Allegiance can be Due ]

    The Citizenship conferred by Obama’s father is a disqualified @ his birth in the same sentence the Cruz uses his conferred Citizenship from his mother as his qualifier.

    These are [ Allegiances] noticed and they must be considered equally in reverse and unnatural to natural born Citizen.

  26. avatar
    Rickey January 17, 2016 at 6:03 pm #

    CRJ:

    That was also my feeling in SCOTUS 14-9396 everyone really should be supporting the efforts to bring this to the Court instead of praying it fails and hooping and haulering for joy when it fails.

    We don’t have to pray for it to fail, because it is dead and buried.

    Anyway, as he talked about the idea that -[if] Obama had been born in Kenya the argument would be the same as Ted Cruz – relying wholly up in his conferred Citizenship from Ted’s mother.

    Irrelevant, because Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Now, the brillance of this is also the disqualifying factor of a [single Parents allegiance] at the Time of a child’s birth.
    CNN’s story [ conferred Citizenship only link for Cruz]
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/15/politics/ted-cruz-donald-trump-birther-movement-marco-rubio/

    The CNN story that you linked to calls your “two citizen parent” argument a “fringe legal theory.”

  27. avatar
    Rickey January 17, 2016 at 6:21 pm #

    Scientist: I have 2 points:1. The idea of allegiance to a country at birth strikes me as silly.Newborn babies’ only allegiance is to their parents or other caretakers.They know not of countries.

    2.How does one who lives outside of a country show allegiance to it?As I argued above, suppose the Cruzes had stayed in Canada, rather than returning to the US and Ted had grown up a Canadian.What would he owe to the US today?Yes, legally he would be supposed to file US taxes (though that is a requirement unique to the US tax code, not shared bu other countries), but enforcing that is difficult if he doesn’t enter the US or own US assets.So, to my mind. allegiance is really not meaningful unless one is within the jurisdiction.

    And if the Cruz family had remained in Canada, the United States quite possibly would never have known that he was born, much less have known that he was born a dual citizen.

    An obligation is pretty much meaningless if it can’t be enforced.

  28. avatar
    Hermitian January 17, 2016 at 6:23 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy January 17, 2016 at 2:42 pm (Quote) #

    There is no historical support for the assertion that “Congress subsequently realized their mistake.” One might just as well argue the converse: since there was no debate relating to the change in wording, it must not have been thought to be significant.

    And the 1795 Act was not in any way an “amendment.” It was a wholly new Act, repealing the 1790 Act in its entirety.

    Hermitian: Congress subsequently realized their mistake (namely that they did not have the power to award the status of natural born citizenship) and removed the natural born citizen provision from their amendment to the Naturalization Act in 1795.

    Congress never again after 1790 assumed the authority to award natural born citizenship status to anyone. Lawmakers who pass flawed legislation often don’t publicly debate their failures.

    The U.S. position regarding this is as follows:


    7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency

    (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)

    a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

    b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen…shall be eligible for the Office of President.”

    c. The Constitution does not define “natural born”. The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “…the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born … out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

    d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

    https://fam.state.gov/FAM/07FAM/07FAM1130.html#M1131_6_2

    We can debate this till the cows come home and you will still be wrong.

  29. avatar
    CRJ January 17, 2016 at 6:27 pm #

    Rickey: We don’t have to pray for it to fail, because it is dead and buried.

    @Rickey Do you know what [Garlic on the Line] means?

    It means I will overcome my barriers.

    Rickey: Irrelevant, because Obama was born in Hawaii.

    IF Hawaii was not involved with a BIG Cover-Up that got the only Hawaii Health Department Official claiming to see Obama’s original killed unnaturally , I would say it still doesn’t matter because of what Obama has Claimed as his Record and passed out.

    I really think if Cruz can be considered ineligible with one string of a Parent tying his Citizenship by a Naturalization Statute, and those anchor babies who lay Claim directly by Birth in the U.S. by the Constitution at birth , not over-ruling Art. II, Sect 1, C-5 , that all that is necessary to spoil or unnaturalize a [ natural born Citizen] would be a Foreign Parent or a Foreign Birth.

    By the way, Sen. McCain was not the son of a Foreign Ambassador he was naturalized at 11 months of age by Congress.
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1403

    Further

    Second Naturalization Act and first on a [natural born Citizen] was Non-Binding U.S. Sen Res. 511.,co sponsored by Hillary and Obama.

    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/sres511/text

    Corruption defying natural law

  30. avatar
    bob January 17, 2016 at 6:32 pm #

    CRJ:IF Hawaii was not involved with a BIG Cover-Up that got the only Hawaii Health Department Official claiming to see Obama’s original killed unnaturally , I would say it still doesn’t matter because of what Obama has Claimed as his Record and passed out.

    There is no evidence that the State of Hawaii is covering anything up. And Judy’s baseless besmirching the memory of a beloved public servant further shows what a disgusting excuse for a human being he is.

  31. avatar
    CRJ January 17, 2016 at 6:42 pm #

    bob: There is no evidence that the State of Hawaii is covering anything up. And Judy’s baseless besmirching the memory of a beloved public servant further shows

    how much he cares.

    If you were murdered 3 different ways I hope there would be people here who cared about you Bob enough to raise some concern.

    @Bob no evidence accept the Three Official Records

    http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/02/diagnosis-more-fuddy-business-died.html?m=1

    I thought I knew how Loretta Fuddy died. However, after a review of the public record, I had to think again. And again and again. In these documents, Loretta Fuddy has died three different ways from severe internal injuries 5 to drowning 6 and finally cardiac arrhythmia 7, and in four different places, in the fuselage 8, in the wreckage 9, in the waters off of Molokai 10 and on the island of Molokai 11. That alone calls for some kind of reckoning.
    Read more at http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/02/diagnosis-more-fuddy-business-died.html#hIYT5VXoZRMBwJBT.99

  32. avatar
    Nancy R Owens January 17, 2016 at 6:57 pm #

    Hawaii is involved in the conspiracy. As the forger, I know this for an absolute certainty.

    CRJ: @Rickey Do you know what [Garlic on the Line] means?

    It means I will overcome my barriers.

    IF Hawaii was not involved with a BIG Cover-Up that got the only Hawaii Health Department Official claiming to see Obama’s original killed unnaturally , I would say it still doesn’t matter because of what Obama has Claimed as his Record and passed out.

    I really think if Cruz can be considered ineligible with one string of a Parent tying his Citizenship by a Naturalization Statute, and those anchor babies who lay Claim directly by Birth in the U.S. by the Constitution at birth , not over-ruling Art. II, Sect 1, C-5 , that all that is necessary to spoil or unnaturalize a [ natural born Citizen] would be a Foreign Parent or a Foreign Birth.

    By the way, Sen. McCain was not the son of a Foreign Ambassador he was naturalized at 11 months of age by Congress.
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1403

    Further

    Second Naturalization Act and first on a [natural born Citizen] was Non-Binding U.S. Sen Res. 511.,co sponsored by Hillary and Obama.

    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/sres511/text

    Corruption defying natural law

  33. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 17, 2016 at 7:25 pm #

    That is one of the more stupid remarks to come from you. Congress is partisan, and it is quite normal for one group to blame things on another when something goes wrong.

    Your making stuff up out of thin air adds nothing to the discussion, but it waves the weakness of your position around like a flag.

    Hermitian: Lawmakers who pass flawed legislation often don’t publicly debate their failures.

  34. avatar
    bob January 17, 2016 at 7:29 pm #

    CRJ: how much he cares.

    If you were murdered 3 different ways I hope there would be people here who cared about you Bob enough to raise some concern.

    There’s no evidence that Fuddy was murdered, but that doesn’t stop Judy from being the vampire he is. No official record says that Fuddy was murdered; rather, they all conclude it was accident.

    Judy’s ability to lie knows no bounds. If Judy spent half the time he wastes on imaginary crimes on honest work, his children would not be as deprived as they are.

    And, again, Judy has derailed an interesting, intelligent conversation with his word salad that no one cares about.

  35. avatar
    bob January 17, 2016 at 7:30 pm #

    Nancy R Owens:
    Hawaii is involved in the conspiracy. As the forger, I know this for an absolute certainty.

    And Owens-Judy convergence! DON’T CROSS THE STREAMS.

  36. avatar
    Rickey January 17, 2016 at 7:53 pm #

    CRJ:
    IF Hawaii was not involved with a BIG Cover-Up that got the only Hawaii Health Department Official claiming to see Obama’s original killed unnaturally , I would say it still doesn’t matter because of what Obama has Claimed as his Record and passed out.

    You are so ignorant it is almost painful to see.

    Loretta Fuddy, who died in an accident, wasn’t the only Hawaii official to see the birth certificate. Is also was seen by Alvin Onaka, who certified the copy which was given to Obama’s attorney. Dr. Onaka is still alive.

    Second Naturalization Act and first on a [natural born Citizen] was Non-Binding U.S. Sen Res. 511.,co sponsored by Hillary and Obama.

    You “forgot” to mention that it also was co-sponsored by Republican Senator Tom Coburn. And it was passed unanimously by the Senate.

    By co-sponsoring the resolution (it was sponsored by Sen. Leahy), Obama and Clinton were signaling that they would be honorable and not challenge McCain’s eligibility if he won the election.

  37. avatar
    gorefan January 17, 2016 at 8:00 pm #

    Rickey:
    Loretta Fuddy, who died in an accident, wasn’t the only Hawaii official to see the birth certificate. Is also was seen by Alvin Onaka, who certified the copy which was given to Obama’s attorney. Dr. Onaka is still alive.

    So did Dr. Fukino who told both MSNBC and CNN that she reviewed the original birth certificate.

  38. avatar
    Nancy R Owens January 17, 2016 at 8:21 pm #

    Fukino’s another conspirator.

    gorefan: Dr. Fukino

  39. avatar
    gorefan January 17, 2016 at 8:26 pm #

    Un-huh

  40. avatar
    Rickey January 17, 2016 at 9:11 pm #

    gorefan: So did Dr. Fukino who told both MSNBC and CNN that she reviewed the original birth certificate.

    Thanks, I forgot about Dr. Fukino. She is still alive, too.

  41. avatar
    Scientist January 17, 2016 at 9:19 pm #

    Rickey: An obligation is pretty much meaningless if it can’t be enforced.

    That is why I disagree with Doc’s contention that allegiance is allegiance. The allegiance of someone born in a country who lives in that country is real-they receive benefits and are bound to obey the laws. The allegiance of someone who acquires a citizenship from a parent but doesn’t live in the parent’s country is at best a warm and fuzzy feeling, like someone of Irish ancestry has on St. Patrick’s Day.

    Ted Cruz only acquired meaningful allegiance to the US when his family moved here.

    Rickey: And if the Cruz family had remained in Canada, the United States quite possibly would never have known that he was born, much less have known that he was born a dual citizen.

    That is true. Technically, he would be obliged to file US taxes as well as Canadian taxes, but if he lived in Canada as a Canadian and earned his income there, nothing would be reported to the IRS.

  42. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 17, 2016 at 9:39 pm #

    The distinction I’m trying to make is between allegiance at birth, and allegiance acquired later, the former I say is that of the natural born citizen, and the latter the resident alien or the naturalized citizen. Allegiance is allegiance and if it is “at birth” then it makes a natural born citizen, or at least that’s what I’m arguing in this article.

    Scientist: That is why I disagree with Doc’s contention that allegiance is allegiance.

  43. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 17, 2016 at 9:45 pm #

    Just a general word of advice. When you engage in an orgy of insults and name calling, most people will be put off, and they will not sift through it to see of you make any valid points. Perhaps you don’t want close examination, but if that is the case, why bother to write?

    Just sayin…

    Dingbat Alert: YEAH! Dingbat,

  44. avatar
    Scientist January 17, 2016 at 9:51 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The distinction I’m trying to make is between allegiance at birth, and allegiance acquired later, the former I say is that of the natural born citizen, and the latter the resident alien or the naturalized citizen. Allegiance is allegiance and if it is “at birth” then it makes a natural born citizen, or at least that’s what I’m arguing in this article.

    My point is that there really is no meaningful allegiance absence physical presence, because one is not bound by the laws of a country one doesn’t set foot in in any real way even if you are a citizen. The child of US citizens who lives abroad and never enters the US really has no meaningful allegiance to the US. He/she derives no benefits from the US government and is not bound by its laws. Ted Cruz only acquired meaningful allegiance to the US when he entered the country, while someone born here has meaningful allegiance at birth because they are here. That’s why there is a difference.

  45. avatar
    Rickey January 17, 2016 at 10:34 pm #

    Scientist:

    That is true.Technically, he would be obliged to file US taxes as well as Canadian taxes, but if he lived in Canada as a Canadian and earned his income there, nothing would be reported to the IRS.

    And if he failed to register with Selective Service the authorities would not know about it.

  46. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 17, 2016 at 10:35 pm #

    In France at one time, the children of French citizens born overseas were born with a fictional extraterritorial status (if that makes any sense). They pretended they were born in France so to make them French nationals.

    Scientist: My point is that there really is no meaningful allegiance absence physical presence, because one is not bound by the laws of a country one doesn’t set foot in in any real way even if you are a citizen.

  47. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 17, 2016 at 10:43 pm #

    You are confused on the law. A naturalized citizen has exactly the same rights as a natural born citizen, except the right to become President. Naturalized citizens cannot be deported. The only a naturalized citizen could be deported is if their citizenship application was fraudulent and their citizenship revoked.

    Dingbat Alert: Here is the undisputed FACT showing why a citizen born of citizens in America cannot be DEPORTED as a NATURALIZED citizen can be deported.

  48. avatar
    gorefan January 17, 2016 at 10:44 pm #

    Scientist: The child of US citizens who lives abroad and never enters the US really has no meaningful allegiance to the US

    Much like President Obama and his British/Kenyan citizenship.

    If the Cruzs never moved to the US, he would have lost his US citizenship under the 1952 Act.

  49. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 17, 2016 at 10:45 pm #

    You may be confusing allegiance with jurisdiction. In any case, the American natural born citizen ex patriot would seem to have the same allegiance as the foreign-born citizen.

    Scientist: My point is that there really is no meaningful allegiance absence physical presence, because one is not bound by the laws of a country one doesn’t set foot in in any real way even if you are a citizen.

  50. avatar
    RanTalbott January 17, 2016 at 11:20 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The only a naturalized citizen could be deported is if their citizenship application was fraudulent and their citizenship revoked.

    Or if he failed to jump through all the hoops in the INA and had his citizenship revoked.

  51. avatar
    y_p_w January 17, 2016 at 11:53 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    You are confused on the law. A naturalized citizen has exactly the same rights as a natural born citizen, except the right to become President. Naturalized citizens cannot be deported. The only anaturalized citizen could be deported is if their citizenship application was fraudulent and their citizenship revoked.

    There are actually a few other reasons, but they’re rare. Joining a subversive organization after naturalization could be grounds to revoke naturalization. There’s also refusal to testify before Congress regarding that person’s possible subversive activities.

    http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/Print/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartL.html#footnote-9
    http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-10362.html

    There’s also naturalized US citizenship granted on the basis of military service. That can be revoked for a dishonorable discharge.

  52. avatar
    Lupin January 18, 2016 at 5:44 am #

    CRJ: Because As Vattel said:
    If he is born here of a foreign Parent it will only be the place of his birth and not his Country, much the same as Foreign Ambassadors.

    Vattel never said (or more accurately, wrote) that. You are (once again) incorrect.

    What Vattel actually wrote, once translated, is:

    ” to belong to a homeland, one must be born of a father who is a citizen. For if you are born of a foreigner, then that country is your place of birth without being your homeland. ”

    The rights once held exclusively held by fathers were progressively amended to include mothers as well, in the 19th and early 20th century.

    I note with irony that muslim extremists and birthers have that in common that they deny equal rights to women as gained in the last 2 centuries.

  53. avatar
    Lupin January 18, 2016 at 5:50 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: In France at one time, the children of French citizens born overseas were born with a fictional extraterritorial status (if that makes any sense). They pretended they were born in France so to make them French nationals.

    While the result was indeed what you say it was (ie French citizenship acquired at birth via jus sanguinis), I don’t think the leagal. reasoning was what you describe.

  54. avatar
    Scientist January 18, 2016 at 8:20 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: You may be confusing allegiance with jurisdiction

    You may be confusing allegiance with citizenship. In which case saying “birth within the allegiance” is simply saying “born a citizen” and we have a tautology. Perhaps we ought to to define the terms.

    If allegiance is loyalty based on citizenship, what does that mean? Is it simply a warm feeling in one’s heart? Well, one might feel warmly about a place without being a citizen. Or, one might be a citizen there based on ancestry. Or one might hate one’s ancestral homeland because one’s ancestors suffered there. Or one might be torn. If it’s actual obedience to the laws, then that requires jurisdiction, which is place-based.

    In Cruz’s case he was a citizen of Canada until a couple of years ago. What allegiance did he have? Did he, in the privacy of his own home, sip Molson’s and eat Tim Horton’s doughnuts (Canadian spelling)? Did he secretly prefer hockey to football? Inquiring minds want to know.

  55. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 18, 2016 at 8:34 am #

    Perhaps I misremembered what I read yesterday. I read a lot of stuff, and I can’t find it now.

    Lupin: While the result was indeed what you say it was (ie French citizenship acquired at birth via jus sanguinis), I don’t think the leagal. reasoning was what you describe.

  56. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 18, 2016 at 8:47 am #

    Allegiance is the mutual obligation of a citizen and a government. The citizen to obey the laws, and the government to extend protection to the citizen. Madison says: “It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. ” Under the common law those born within the allegiance of the King are his natural born subjects.

    The OED definition is: “”The relation of duties of a liege-man to his lord; the tie or obligation of a subject to his sovereign, or government.”

    Scientist: If allegiance is loyalty based on citizenship, what does that mean? Is it simply a warm feeling in one’s heart?

  57. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 18, 2016 at 9:11 am #

    I wonder if those would withstand a constitutional challenge.

    y_p_w: joining a subversive organization after naturalization could be grounds to revoke naturalization. There’s also refusal to testify before Congress regarding that person’s possible subversive activities.

  58. avatar
    Scientist January 18, 2016 at 10:30 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Allegiance is the mutual obligation of a citizen and a government. The citizen to obey the laws, and the government to extend protection to the citizen.

    But everyone within a country, citizen or not, is obligated to obey its laws. Even tourists. And everyone gets protection. If a building catches fire, the firefighters don’t ask to see passports and rescue only citizens. Non-citizens have full due-process in courts if charged with a crime. They can sue and have their suit heard the same as citizens.

    Madison’s words don’t really get us very far IMO. Let’s try this practical question: When Ted Cruz lived in Canada, what obligation did he owe the US vs Canada (or vs Cuba for that matter)?

  59. avatar
    Sam the Centipede January 18, 2016 at 2:10 pm #

    With Nancy Owens, Cody Judy and “Hermitian” posting in the comments, it’s a surprise that this website doesn’t collapse with a dull “plop” into their black hole of massive stupidity.

    They are nasty-minded and evil, each and every one of them.

    Doc’s pointing to the OED for the definition of allegiance is germane: it sometimes helps to remember that some concepts come from times when the ordinary people were regarded as relatively unimportant by their “betters”, tools to be used to further their rulers’ aims.

  60. avatar
    CRJ January 18, 2016 at 3:38 pm #

    Scientist: If allegiance is loyalty based on citizenship, what does that mean? Is it simply a warm feeling in one’s heart? Well, one might feel warmly about a place without being a citizen. Or, one might be a citizen there based on ancestry. Or one might hate one’s ancestral homeland because one’s ancestors suffered there. Or one might be torn. If it’s actual obedience to the laws, then that requires jurisdiction, which is place-based.

    That is a very good reason TIME in the two Generations of [ born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents] is still a good Principle for the Office of Pres.

    It was noticed also ,FYI, in Hearings of the Judiciary Committee in the House. One certain ambiguity I notice here is a tendency to exclude Reason for Technical Intrepetation.

    Of course, there is the Law and also the Spirit of the Law. Betwixt the two balance and harmony is found. When one is forced by the Law to unreasonable rationales the Law is not supporting the reason.

    The neutrality found in sole allegiance and jurisdiction is so important for the Office of President.

  61. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 18, 2016 at 3:45 pm #

    Jesus said that a man cannot serve two masters, and Horace Binney basically said that a person cannot have allegiance to two countries, that he is a subject/citizen of the one and an alien to the other. Cruz, however, owed allegiance to two countries.

    Some countries, and some writers on citizenship in the 18th century raise the concept that a citizen is not so until they reach majority. William Rawle argued against that position, using the “natural born citizen” clause in the Constitution to prove that in the United States infants are citizens even though (as you point out) the obligations of children to their government are limited.

    Barack Obama was faced with the choice of whether to become a Kenyan citizen at age 21, and not taking it up, he lost that citizenship after a grace period at age 23. And we might ask what allegiance Eisenhower owed Germany, John McCain Panama and Chester A. Arthur Ireland.

    I would be comfortable with the concept that Cruz, renouncing Canadian citizenship upon reaching majority, being essentially raised in the United States and (presumably) registering for the US Draft, should be considered on an equal footing with someone born in the US. A minor flaw in my comfort is that Cruz did not renounce his Canadian citizenship until a year or so ago.

    Up until Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship, I presume his obligations to the US and Canada were equal insofar as that is compatible, and contradictory at least in some hypothetical war between the two.

    Scientist: When Ted Cruz lived in Canada, what obligation did he owe the US vs Canada (or vs Cuba for that matter)?

  62. avatar
    CRJ January 18, 2016 at 3:51 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:[ Just a general word of advice. When you engage in an orgy of insults and name calling, most people will be put off, and they will not sift through it to see of you make any valid points. Perhaps you don’t want close examination, but if that is the case, why bother to write? Just sayin…]

    Here Here !
    Is there an end to the insult I suffer here?

    Lupin: I note with irony that muslim extremists and birthers have that in common that they deny equal rights to women as gained in the last 2 centuries.

    God knows the U.S. Constitution Rights betrayed in my Record as a white male Christian go unnoticed and that of Official State and Federal Record.

    Happy MLK Day!
    https://twitter.com/CodyRobertJudy/status/689162338088292352

  63. avatar
    CRJ January 18, 2016 at 4:14 pm #

    My Court Record Stands as a Witness:

    Supported & Fought for [Equallity in grooming Standards among Genders] in Prison. Suffered 4.5 years of Solitary Confinement in that Official Win for all Prisoners.

    Suffered 3018 Days of Total Incarseration 8+ years without being given the Evidense of the VideoTape used in prosecution in a Religeous Meeting.

    Denied Free Speech and Religeous Worshipping Priveleges at the hands of being beaten by a Mob, and Prosecuted by a Mob State denying Principles of our Constitution. http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2015/02/fight-over-forgiveness-lds-church.html?m=1

    Of course my SCOTUS Case 14-9396 is a Witness of discrimination of my economic condition based on the Denial of Forma Pauperis Motion so granted by lower Courts and SCOTUS in 2012.
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/12-5276.htm

    Such case in defense of the Rights of All The People to Vote for an Eligible Candidate in the Office of President when standing is denied them.
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/14-9396.htm

    Of course when basic voting rights are impeded by a Republic, the individual civil rights of individuals is very much in jeopardy.

    My efforts have been to Take a Stand and reading my book is a Witness to that fight for All.

    http://www.amazon.com/Taking-Stand-Conservative-Independent-Voice/dp/059552611X

  64. avatar
    Scientist January 18, 2016 at 4:19 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I would be comfortable with the concept that Cruz, renouncing Canadian citizenship upon reaching majority, being essentially raised in the United States and (presumably) registering for the US Draft, should be considered on an equal footing with someone born in the US. A minor flaw in my comfort is that Cruz did not renounce his Canadian citizenship until a year or so ago.
    .

    But then what is the difference between Cruz arriving in the US at the age of 4 and Jennifer Granholm, who, I believe, arrived around the same age, if not a bit younger? If the basis of the natural born citizen clause is attachment, they are equal. Actually, since the basis really was to block European royalty, it shouldn’t apply to either one.

    Ms. Granholm, because of gender discrimination would not have to have registered for the draft and I don’t know if she ever renounced Canadian citizenship. As I have pointed out, you weaken your case by relying on draft registration, because it is an obligation for permanent residents also and thus not a marker of citizenship.

    The bigger concern regarding Cruz’s renouncement is that he claimed to have not known he was a Canadian citizen. A brilliant Harvard lawyer who argued cases before the Supreme Court, knowing he was born in Canada, never even imagined he might have Canadian citizenship? Come on! A cursory check of any Canadian government web site would have given him the answer. Are we really to believe he was unaware?

    Dr. Conspiracy: Up until Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship, I presume his obligations to the US and Canada were equal insofar as that is compatible, and contradictory at least in some hypothetical war between the two.

    My position is that they were NOT equal. The greater obligation of a dual citizen is determined by where they live. While he lived in Canada, he had greater allegiance to Canada and when he lived in the US vice versa. Which means. in my view, that his allegiance at birth was more to Canada than to the US. interestingly: It is the policy of both countries that a dual citizen should enter the US with a US passport and Canada with a Canadian passport (though I know from personal experience that this is rarely enforced). For a third company, you can choose either one. In practice dual citizens will typically carry the passport of the country they live in and often not bother with the expense of hassle of maintaining 2. But, the bottom line is that residence unquestionably affects allegiance. Let’s not pretend it doesn’t. And Cruz’s residency in Canada at birth made him more Canadian than American at that moment, whatever happened subsequently.

  65. avatar
    Scientist January 18, 2016 at 4:36 pm #

    CRJ: The neutrality found in sole allegiance and jurisdiction is so important for the Office of President.

    Trump can claim UK citizenship if he chooses. Any candidate could have purchased citizenship in any of a number of countries that sell citizenship. You wouldn’t know if they did, because it’s kept confidential. More importantly, they can take money from foreign countries. have business interests there and so on (not naming any in particular). Apparently, you aren’t worried about that, but who their Daddy is is a great big deal to you.

    CRJ: When one is forced by the Law to unreasonable rationales the Law is not supporting the reason.

    Indeed!!!

  66. avatar
    bob January 18, 2016 at 5:30 pm #

    CRJ:
    Is there an end to the insult I suffer here?

    Judy is insulted by the truth. Judy prefers fantasies, but he should not expect his lies to go unchallenged.

    God knows the U.S. Constitution Rights betrayed in my Record as a white male Christian go unnoticed and that of Official State and Federal Record.

    Judy has not been unjustly deprived of any constitutional rights, and certainly not on the based his race, gender, and religion. And, per usual, Judy insults those who have by comparing himself to them.

    CRJ:
    Supported & Fought for [Equallity in grooming Standards among Genders] in Prison. Suffered 4.5 years of Solitary Confinement in that Official Win for all Prisoners.

    Says Judy; there is no record of him filing a case.

    Suffered 3018 Days of Total Incarseration 8+ years without being given the Evidense of the VideoTape used in prosecution in a Religeous Meeting.

    The courts repeatedly rejected Judy’s challenges to his criminal conviction.

    Denied Free Speech and Religeous Worshipping Priveleges at the hands of being beaten by a Mob, and Prosecuted by a Mob State denying Principles of our Constitution.

    Judy continues to play the victim when he fact victimized thousands; Judy continues to lie about the evil that he committed on others.

    Of course my SCOTUS Case 14-9396 is a Witness of discrimination of my economic condition

    Judy’s application was routinely denied simply because he couldn’t follow simple instructions.

    Such case in defense of the Rights of All The People to Vote for an Eligible Candidate in the Office of President when standing is denied them.

    The routine denial of (yet another) frivolous lawsuit did not impair anyone’s rights.

    Judy whines and envisions himself a hero, when in fact his is lonely liar who cannot take responsibility for his own actions.

  67. avatar
    CRJ January 18, 2016 at 5:58 pm #

    bob: Supported & Fought for [Equallity in grooming Standards among Genders] in Prison. Suffered 4.5 years of Solitary Confinement in that Official Win for all Prisoners.

    Says Judy; there is no record of him filing a case.

    Eqality of Gender Hair
    Judy v. UT-State 3rd District Court Case #940902299
    Court of Appeals: Case No. 940902299

    SmokingTobacco BlackMarket Case
    Judy v. UT -State 3rd District Court Case #940900782
    Court of Appeals :Case No: 940593-‘S
    Utah Supreme Court : Case No. 940555

    Judy v. Public Defenders 4th District Court Case #940400679 3rd District 930907001 Court of Appeals UT Case No. 950258

    UT State v. Judy Case No. 980404702 & 931400326
    Court of Appeals Case No. 930719-CA and 950259-CA
    Federal Distict Utah Division 95-cv-989-B
    Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Case #96-4196

    Rights of Evidence Civil
    Judy v. Hinckley Federal District Court Case
    #95-cv-952
    Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Case #96-4045
    U.S. SUPREME Court Case # 96-7655

    COURT CASES AND OTHER CASES OF ACTION
    1) Judy v. McCain Las Vegas, Nevada 2008 U.S. Fed. 2)Judy v. Obama New Hampshire State Ballot Challenge Executive Court 3)Judy v. Obama New Hampshire State Superior Court 4)New Hampshire State Supreme Court 5)Judy v. Obama Georgia Ballot Challenge Executive Court 6)Judy v. Obama Georgia State Superior Court 7)Judy v. Obama Georgia State Supreme Court 8)Judy v. Obama Ballot Challenges United States Supreme Court 12-5276 9)Judy v. Obama Utah U.S. Fed Court 10)Judy v. Obama Utah Division Circuit Court of Appeals (Denver, Colorado) 11.) Judy v. Obama U.S. Supreme Court 14-9396

    Other Courts
    12-10th Amendment Trial New York witness in the CIA Columbia Obama Sedition and Treason Trial
    13-Amicus Curiae Filed in Berg v. Obama 2008
    14-Amicus Curiae Filed in Keyes v. Obama Judge Carter case
    15-Amicus Curiae Filed in Military Court if Lt. Terry Lakin

    The proceeding referenced Court actions have been within the three Presidential Races 2008, 2012, and 2016.

    Cody Robert Judy – U.S. President 2016
    The 2016 Cody Robert Judy Campaign for U.S. President
    http://www.codyjudy.us
    http://www.codyjudy.blogspot.com

  68. avatar
    CRJ January 18, 2016 at 6:14 pm #

    @Doc Apologies for what may seem [ personal] however, it is a Record of Defense in the [ natural born Citizen] principle of the Title of your Post as well a official Record accurately representing a dispute from Bob on comments.

    Thank You for being one who I respect for representing Facts and backing them up Doc. I do appreciate you, your talents, and work for this Forum.

    In addition the foregoing may serve as evidence supporting my reason of the Federal Tenth Circuit and Federal District Utah Division having somewhat against based in WRIT of Cert 14-9396 some may not have understood.

  69. avatar
    CRJ January 18, 2016 at 6:35 pm #

    Court of Appeals in the Grooming code for Equality of Gender and also acted as Freedom of Religion case for Native Americans Religeous Rights

    3rd District # 940902299 ( I just looked up and found) the Court of Appeals Case No.940771-CA

    Re: @Bob [Judy whines and envisions himself a hero, when in fact his is lonely liar who cannot take responsibility for his own actions.]

    I know nothing about you Bob personally but you might be surprised at how many friends I have in both high and low places as this clip from The Daily Show illustrates. Lol
    http://www.cc.com/video-clips/ybem0d/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-putting-the-con-back-in-congress

  70. avatar
    Scientist January 18, 2016 at 6:52 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I would be comfortable with the concept that Cruz, renouncing Canadian citizenship upon reaching majority, being essentially raised in the United States and (presumably) registering for the US Draft, should be considered on an equal footing with someone born in the US. A minor flaw in my comfort is that Cruz did not renounce his Canadian citizenship until a year or so ago.

    But then what is the difference between Cruz arriving in the US at the age of 4 and Jennifer Granholm, who, I believe, arrived around the same age, if not a bit younger? If the basis of the natural born citizen clause is attachment, they are equal. Actually, since the basis really was to block European royalty, it shouldn’t apply to either one.

    Ms. Granholm, because of gender discrimination would not have to have registered for the draft and I don’t know if she ever renounced Canadian citizenship. As I have pointed out, you weaken your case by relying on draft registration, because it is an obligation for permanent residents also and thus not a marker of citizenship.

    The bigger concern regarding Cruz’s renouncement is that he claimed to have not known he was a Canadian citizen. A brilliant Harvard lawyer who argued cases before the Supreme Court, knowing he was born in Canada, never even imagined he might have Canadian citizenship? Come on! A cursory check of any Canadian government web site would have given him the answer. Are we really to believe he was unaware?

    Dr. Conspiracy: Up until Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship, I presume his obligations to the US and Canada were equal insofar as that is compatible, and contradictory at least in some hypothetical war between the two.

    My position is that they were NOT equal. The greater obligation of a dual citizen is determined by where they live. While he lived in Canada, he had greater allegiance to Canada and when he lived in the US vice versa. Which means. in my view, that his allegiance at birth was more to Canada than to the US. interestingly: It is the policy of both countries that a dual citizen should enter the US with a US passport and Canada with a Canadian passport (though I know from personal experience that this is rarely enforced). For a third company, you can choose either one. In practice dual citizens will typically carry the passport of the country they live in and often not bother with the expense of hassle of maintaining 2. But, the bottom line is that residence unquestionably affects allegiance. Let’s not pretend it doesn’t. And Cruz’s residency in Canada at birth made him more Canadian than American at that moment, whatever happened subsequently.

  71. avatar
    bob January 18, 2016 at 8:17 pm #

    CRJ:
    In addition the foregoing may serve as evidence supporting my reason of the Federal Tenth Circuit and Federal District Utah Division having somewhat against based in WRIT of Cert 14-9396 some may not have understood.

    Those cases are only evidence that Judy likes to file unsuccessful lawsuits. Of the cases that even appear online, Judy lost every one.

    Yet someone Judy losing every case is “evidence” that SCOTUS got it wrong when it routinely denied his IFP application due his failure to follow simple directions.

    you might be surprised at how many friends I have in both high and low places as this clip from The Daily Show illustrates.

    Judy’s “proof” that he has friends (“in high places”) is an old Daily Show clip … where he is the punchline. But Judy prefers being the butt of a national joke over being ignored.

  72. avatar
    Sterngard Friegen January 18, 2016 at 8:45 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    You dismiss Thomas as dicta, and rightly so. What you fail to acknowledge is that the Belliei case was about expatriation not the acquisition of citizenship, and its application to the definition of natural born citizenship is equally dicta. (Also Bellei was a 5-4 decision.)

    What is the argument that someone being able to lose their citizenship implies that they are not a citizen under the Constitution? Thou shalt not beg the question.

    Do you disagree that all citizens at birth are in some way born within the allegiance of the country?

    As an attorney arguing within a framework of precedence, I think your position is stronger than if you were making an originalist argument (which is what I am essentially doing). That said, there is simply no case law on presidential eligibility for the foreign born. I think that there is no applicable precedent, and no court has been briefed with the kinds of arguments we’re seeing today on the natural born citizen question. No court has attempted to make the kinds of distinctions we are making.

    If you can lose it by inaction, are you really a NBC? But more than that, the grant of citizenship by Congress to jus sanguinis citizens — I would argue — doesn’t extend to NBC status. The naturalization laws since 1795 have made them just ordinary citizens.

  73. avatar
    Keith January 18, 2016 at 10:46 pm #

    Sterngard Friegen: The naturalization laws since 1795 have made them just ordinary citizens.

    What are “just ordinary citizens”?

    Are they naturalized or are they born citizens or some third category in between?

    (Hint: read the Minor v Happersett case)

  74. avatar
    CRJ January 19, 2016 at 12:17 am #

    Sterngard Friegen: If you can lose it by inaction, are you really a NBC? But more than that, the grant of citizenship by Congress to jus sanguinis citizens — I would argue — doesn’t extend to NBC status

    Scientist: The bigger concern regarding Cruz’s renouncement is that he claimed to have not known he was a Canadian citizen. A brilliant Harvard lawyer who argued cases before the Supreme Court, knowing he was born in Canada, never even imagined he might have Canadian citizenship? Come on! A cursory check of any Canadian government web site would have given him the answer. Are we really to believe he was unaware?

    Scientist: My position is that they were NOT equal. The greater obligation of a dual citizen is determined by where they live. While he lived in Canada, he had greater allegiance to Canada and when he lived in the US vice versa. Which means. in my view, that his allegiance at birth was more to Canada than to the US. interestingly: It is the policy of both countries that a dual citizen should enter the US with a US passport and Canada with a Canadian passport (though I know from personal experience that this is rarely enforced). For a third company, you can choose either one. In practice dual citizens will typically carry the passport of the country they live in and often not bother with the expense of hassle of maintaining 2. But, the bottom line is that residence unquestionably affects allegiance. Let’s not pretend it doesn’t. And Cruz’s residency in Canada at birth made him more Canadian than American at that moment, whatever happened subsequently.

    Really enjoyed these comments and insites.

    It’s going to be interesting to see what the one (or first Term) U.S. Senator’s do from Florida and Texas. From my position Sen. Cruz and Sen. Rubio have had red-carpet roll ours for not only their warm extensions of qualification as U.S. Senator’s but the voting confidence and finance that goes along with them.

    I think they are both very articulate, talented, and quick minded as Politicians. There may even be tinges of saddness in the respect that this run-for-the-roses may be they’re undoing as far as re-elections are concerned where I think they might have really been better off biding more time and influence as Senators.

    The reason I say it’s going to be interesting is because I see the bridges burning behind them. This begs the question regarding the Comments highlighted here, , what will they do?

    There is the distict possibility that we will see EXACTLY what we are discussing as far as the question of where and how are loyalties framed and how deep they go?

    Will it be for money?
    Cruz’s connections Internationally with Goldman Sacs leaves Plan B wide open with a very big following in the Conservative Tea Party arena to consider. Will he turn on them as he sees they didn’t provide the push he needed to get him over the Hill into the White House? Will he embrace his roots in Canada as Texans shake their head at his ruse of intelligence and stupidity used at his leisure for convenience and power?

    Rubio’s poised also to abandon ship. He hates the U.S. Senate perhaps because for his dictatorial background? It’s a painfully slow back and fourth he can’t stomache and grows noticably ill over. Perhaps he could Rule Cuba and changes would happen faster for him?

    As I ponder these things along with my own roots and history, I realize there is no other place for me. For better or for worse, in sickness and in health, for rich or for poor, as far as treatment I’m here at home.

    Recognising today MLK Jr. Day often the most painful circumstances can arise at home.. Its still home.

    And, wouldn’t it be interesting to SEE Obama’s foreign passports or foreign student college entrance papers if they were Public with the Promised Transparency he Proclaimed, yet reserves in Cover-Up and Question?

    Tomorrow marks 365 left and 700 down

    http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?p0=263&iso=20170120T00&msg=Time%20left%20until%20Obama%20leaves%20office%22

  75. avatar
    John Reilly January 19, 2016 at 12:51 am #

    CRJ: And, wouldn’t it be interesting to SEE Obama’s foreign passports or foreign student college entrance papers if they were Public with the Promised Transparency he Proclaimed, yet reserves in Cover-Up and Question?

    Wouldn’t it be nice to see your application to the Supreme Court for in forma pauperis status? That’s a piece of paper you actually have.

  76. avatar
    CRJ January 19, 2016 at 1:03 am #

    .. 2,555 days down that is two three and a half year periods of TIME equaling 7 years.

    John Reilly: Wouldn’t it be nice to see your application to the Supreme Court for in forma pauperis status? That’s a piece of paper you actually have.

    I’m not sure WHY?

    You have 3 witnesses I qualify for Forma Pauperis of Court Record. Do you think the SCOTUS will change their minds? Would you change your mind?

    Will you commit yourself to protesting in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. , organizing rallies based on the known corruption?

  77. avatar
    Rickey January 19, 2016 at 2:10 am #

    CRJ:

    And, wouldn’t it be interesting to SEE Obama’s foreign passports or foreign student college entrance papers if they were Public with the Promised Transparency he Proclaimed, yet reserves in Cover-Up and Question?

    You can’t see what doesn’t exist.

    Are you really unaware of the fact that the story which said that Obama entered college as a foreign student was an April’s Fool joke?

    John Reilly: Wouldn’t it be nice to see your application to the Supreme Court for in forma pauperis status? That’s a piece of paper you actually have.

    I’m not sure WHY?

    Because if you showed us your IFP application we could tell you precisely where you went wrong.

    But you don’t want us to tell you where you went wrong, because then you would have to stop whining about how you were discriminated against for being poor.

  78. avatar
    bob January 19, 2016 at 2:16 am #

    CRJ:

    I’m not sure WHY?

    Because Judy missed the obvious sarcasm: Judy longs to see imaginary documents about President Obama, but Judy refuses to release his actual documents in his actual control.

    You have 3 witnesses I qualify for Forma Pauperis of Court Record.

    Not so: different applications (to different courts). What Judy refuses to show is the one document — his IFP application — that could prove his claim of court malfeasance.

    Do you think the SCOTUS will change their minds?

    Everyone but Judy knows his never-was frivolous lawsuit is over. O-V-E-R.

    Would you change your mind?

    Only if the IFP application was properly filled out. But Judy prefers his self-pity party over actually showing there’s any truth in his fantasies.

    Will you commit yourself to protesting in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. , organizing rallies based on the known corruption?

    Not without first seeing the IFP application.

  79. avatar
    Notorial Dissent January 19, 2016 at 5:22 am #

    Judy, you just don’t seem to get it that just because you managed to get IFP in three other courts doesn’t mean or guarantee that you have a right to it at the USSC, particularly NOT when you can’t seem to follow the rules and complete the forms properly. You were given the opportunity to correct the problem and you failed/refused to do so. So your IFP was properly denied for failure to follow the rules. So as usual you have NOTHING but a whole lotta whine.

  80. avatar
    Scientist January 19, 2016 at 7:36 am #

    CRJ: Really enjoyed these comments and insites.

    It’s going to be interesting to see what the one (or first Term) U.S. Senator’s do from Florida and Texas.

    Just so we’re clear, there is not a scintilla (look the word up) of doubt that Sen Rubio is a natural born citizen, even if he looks and acts like he might not be 35 yet. He was born in the US. End of story. i don’t know enough about the laws of Cuba to say whether he could be a citizen there, but it’s immaterial since he never lived there (as far as i know he never even visited). He was never bound by the laws of Cuba any more than you were. If his parents had died or split up when he was an infant,, his disposition and care would have been decided by US courts. Cuba has no call on him. He might harbor warm feelings towards it, but that would be no different than the love Thomas Jefferson had for France or JFK for Ireland. Of course, the same applies to President Obama and Kenya.

    Cruz is in a different situation. At birth, Canada was responsible for his well-being. Had his parents died, what happened to him would have been up to a Canadian court. That is why there are real legal issues regarding Cruz, where actual experts disagree, while none disagree on Rubio or Obama. Not a single one.

  81. avatar
    Northland10 January 19, 2016 at 9:19 am #

    John Reilly: Wouldn’t it be nice to see your application to the Supreme Court for in forma pauperis status?That’s a piece of paper you actually have.

    I do not really need to see his form because I have a sense of where he messed up. Some place he was complaining that SCOTUS was using his gross receipts to determine his income. If that is what he provided, there is the issue. The form wants, for self-employment, the monthly gross profit derived from line 5 of Schedule C. This comes after subtracting the cost of goods from the gross receipts. Later down the IFP worksheet there is a place for listing the self-employed expenses from part 3 of Schedule C.

    The clerks might have seen the error but given the likely sloppiness and the fact that his case was frivolous, they may have decided to not bothers having him try again. We have seen how well he understands things we tell him.

    I wonder if he even knows what a Schedule C form is?

  82. avatar
    CRJ January 19, 2016 at 12:05 pm #

    Scientist: i don’t know enough about the laws of Cuba to say whether he could be a citizen there, but it’s immaterial since he never lived there (as far as i know he never even visited). He was never bound by the laws of Cuba any more than you were.

    Maybe you didn’t get the Memo from Cuba? Of course the 14th Amendment birth jurisdiction was not meant to supplant the [Natural Born Citizen] qualification for Pres.

    Cuba does recognize Rubio and Cruz as subjects for their Military.
    http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2015/11/breaking-report-us-embassy-warning-to.html?m=1

    Any realiance upon [conferred Citizenship] by Parent that quite a few have relied upon for Q of the Office of Pres goes out the door. You of course know I sued McCain for his not being born in the United States? Military bases or foreign hospitals are not States of the Union and the jurisdiction of Law is not the same either.

    Just one of the many reasons [ born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents] keeps us out of allegiances many other Countries recognize and can be problematic. This is also consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s findings in Minor v. Happersett.

    Rickey: Are you really unaware of the fact that the story which said that Obama entered college as a foreign student was an April’s Fool joke?

    Just like May 1st was Obama’s Mayday Mayday Mayday? 😂😂😂 You of course know that the Obama Foreign Student College Entry April Fools joke was released on April Fools Day [specifically] to give you the SpoofAmmo to shoot blanks as Obama said that his Birth was in Africa at the White House correspondence dinner?
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TxFho4DQnBY
    Funny has many flavors including to saying a False about what is already proven true.

    Obama’s college or his Passport Records have never been seen so it’s not funny. Of course we do know he traveled to Pakistan; and we know flight records have been lost over the week I believe his Mother came to the U.S.; and we do know there was a breach of security involving his Passport a Witness to that who was murdered. We do know Loretta Buddy’s death has three different determinations in Hawaii and Gov Abrocrombie a friend of Obama’s said he just couldn’t find the B.C. But what we know most is Obama’s [conferred Citizenship] came from Kenya as Cruz’s came from Canada/Cuba.

  83. avatar
    ballantine January 19, 2016 at 12:19 pm #

    Interesting point. I have seen some later English authorities arguing that persons naturalized under 4 Geo. II c.21 and 13 Geo. III c.21 with “born in the allegiance of the crown” but such was not easy since such statutes said they were born out of the ligence of the crown. I don’t think anyone made such argument in the 18th century as pursuant to Coke and Blackstone such persons were born in the allegiance of a foreign prince and out of the allegiance of the crown as such concept for Coke and Blackstone was tied to feudal system of land ownership. According to Blackstone:

    “And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once.”

    A few sentences later he talks about the foreign born being natural born “to all intents and purposes” without explaining what allegiance such persons owed and how they could owe two allegiance. England dealt with this issue by adopting the policy of not claiming the allegiance of such foreign born subjects unless they came home to England( or at least left their native land) as England’s own law was to claim the supremacy of its jus soli over foreign claims of jus sanguinis. Hence, England maintained the US/English dual citizens born in England owed military obligations to England, but US English dual citizens born in America did not unless they moved back to England. This became the basis of public law in the 19th century as all jus sanguinis nations came to the realization they couldn’t claim the allegiance of persons born in jus soli nations without starting a war. Thus, such foreign born natural born subjects were not really treated as owing allegiance at birth. Some later writers disputed this practice, but it was the practice out of necessity.

    This notion was codified into 13 Geo. III c.21 as grandchildren under the statute were natural born subjects only if they moved back and resided in England. Thus, while these grandchildren were called natural born subjects, they were not so at birth.

  84. avatar
    CRJ January 19, 2016 at 12:26 pm #

    Northland10: I do not really need to see his form because I have a sense of where he messed up.

    The only thing you continue to deny with your senses is the evidence of the very few cents CRJ Provided in bank accounts. Gosh, it sure is hard to squeeze common sense out your imaginations.

    Notice your theories would indicate CRJ was able to produce back logged bank account logs proving what he said was True. He had no money for Printing and Filing Fees. This is actually similar to the theories of Obama’s Folks printing in newspapers his Birth rather then the Hawaii Health Departnent automatically posting records as they were petitioned for by parents or relatives in the advent he would be President someday that is a mocking joke by the MSM as they rely on the newspapers Truth like you should my bank account Logs given here.

    I’m reading “IFP Reconsideration Review Judy v. Obama 14-9396” on Scribd. Read more: http://scribd.com/doc/269622543

    Really don’t think Evidense and Facts matter to those who deny them in front of their face. I mean if you duplicate the month over and over you see that it would be at least a third or more of yearly income for a 5K printing and Filing fee and it would necessarily have put me in a homeless shelter.

    Something Forma Pauperis #SCOTUS record can be proud of in their history don’t you think? Not! All I can say is your mercy on the poor sucks.

  85. avatar
    CRJ January 19, 2016 at 1:09 pm #

    As Christians, if you are, we should be very concerned about this Corruption of the Court.

    1 Corinthians Ch 13 notices how pure love and Charity exceeds all else. I mean v3 and though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor , and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
    v.6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in truth;

    Colosians ch. 3:14 above all things put on Charity

    1 Timothy 1:5 end of commandments is Charity

    Now, if you do not think as important if an Issue as this is to and in your attention, that God has not his Eye on you, your saddly mistaken.

    Above all others your attention is here and so is your accountability to the Lord. Most are out there ignorant about this but you are not.

    You plea of ignorance will not suffice in your judgement. You will not have that benefit and like your dead ears to my pleas God will be slow to hear you if he hears you at all.

    I do not think I am being tested as to the slow response but I think it is You in the balance. You cannot deny that Truth is a big deal and if you spend your time mocking, ridiculing, belittling me and covering up Truth it will be a real shame for you.

    You are brothers and sisters and this Truth is BIG affecting millions futures in hopes and dreams. Of this I do have a Witness of assurity. There is no confusion.

    Yet a Dog gets a Hearing in the GA. Supreme Court and the qualifications for the Office of President is continually, and repeatedly refused?

    https://twitter.com/CodyRobertJudy/status/689477886642782209

    I can not begin to express the saddness in this and you will never be able to deny to God you were not in the Front Seats.

    We have discussed my Record in depth. Your Record we have not discussed in depth. It surely is known by the Heavens though and that God where your Spirits originated and who owns the dust of your bodies.

    Certainly you have nothing to fear from my little voice but your own Records will have my little voice upon them in a Huge Big Way.

    I cannot believe the SCOTUS Justices would invite this horror upon themselves. Would have been better for them to grant the Motion of Forma Pauperis and deny the Writ than to make judgements evil upon the poor.

    They have invited a very bad curse upon themselves and Hell shall be their attention but not because I did not plea for their cause. I can do no more.

  86. avatar
    Nancy R Owens January 19, 2016 at 1:15 pm #

    CRJ,

    I have an email on the front of my webpage.

    If you want to hear the real truth about how we forged the birth certificates, let me know and I will send you my telephone number.

    http://iforgedobamasbirthcertificates.weebly.com/

    For the record, I am not the one who wants to remain anonymous which should be clear by now so don’t let anybody tell you otherwise.

    CRJ:
    .. 2,555 days down that is two three and a half year periods of TIME equaling 7 years.

    I’m not sure WHY?

    You have 3 witnesses I qualify for Forma Pauperis of Court Record. Do you think the SCOTUS will change their minds? Would you change your mind?

    Will you commit yourself to protesting in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. , organizing rallies based on the known corruption?

  87. avatar
    Jim January 19, 2016 at 1:36 pm #

    @CRJ – Shouldn’t you be posting to RWNJ sites about charity? It’s the pubs who want to cut off the poor and needy…you know, the party of (faux) Christianity.

  88. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 19, 2016 at 2:23 pm #

    Stern,

    But where is there any precedent whatsoever that says that natural born citizenship can’t be lost? Either with or without action? Also, I can just as easily argue that Congress has extended natural born citizenship via jus sanguinis since 1790. You’ve got principles of statutory interpretation and SCOTUS precedent on your side and so do I. I can say that your argument concedes that Congress has the ability to extend NBC status beyond those covered by the Constitution as originally ratified (which, since neither of us are birthers, is just the14th Amendment rule) and cite to the dissent in Wong Kim Ark as saying that it would be a travesty to prevent foreign-born children of US citizens from running for president while allowing native-born children of aliens.

    Again, stalemate. What the law says simply cannot be decided by deduction from statute and precedent (except by the SCOTUS who has the power to decide arbitrarily and in violation of past precedent). I do not doubt that you (given a client with standing) could get this argument thorough the courts in such a way that SCOTUS action would decide the issue once and for all, but I think all of the lower court rulings would be idiosyncratic because the decision of the judges would necessarily be based on something beyond statute and past precedent.

    If that is the case, then I think you would almost certainly lose. Even you admit that Rogers v. Bellei is bad law and the SCOTUS has proven pretty convincingly that it is not above partisan politics. I don’t think that it is a stretch to think they would be predisposed to rule in favor of Rafael and have sufficient grounds to make that decision if they wish—do you?

    Sterngard Friegen: If you can lose it by inaction, are you really a NBC? But more than that, the grant of citizenship by Congress to jus sanguinis citizens — I would argue — doesn’t extend to NBC status. The naturalization laws since 1795 have made them just ordinary citizens.

  89. avatar
    Scientist January 19, 2016 at 2:48 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Again, stalemate. What the law says simply cannot be decided by deduction from statute and precedent (except by the SCOTUS who has the power to decide arbitrarily and in violation of past precedent).

    Hey, Slarty, long time no see. How’s it going? At the end of the day, I consider it unlikely that this will get a definitive court ruling. There are enough issues of standing, timing and political doctrine that the courts can easily decline to get involved.

    If they did, I agree with you that one could construct a reasonable argument on either side, unlike the Obama case, where one side could only argue nonsense. So, in such a situation we might ask, where does the presumption lie? How strong a case must each side make to prevail? It seems to me that in a democracy (assuming the US still is one, something which many have questioned in view of the power of the plutocracy) the presumption ought to be that candidates should be able to run unless they are clearly ineligible and the candidate with the most votes should win the office unless the case against him is clear and convincing.

    Much as I detest Ted Cruz, I have to say that the case against him does not meet those tests.

  90. avatar
    Crustacean January 19, 2016 at 3:10 pm #

    More evidence of what a sick and twisted individual I am: I would love to listen in on that telephone conversation.

    Nancy R Owens: CRJ,
    I have an email on the front of my webpage.
    If you want to hear the real truth about how we forged the birth certificates, let me know and I will send you my telephone number.

  91. avatar
    Dave B. January 19, 2016 at 3:19 pm #

    It needs to be a conference call with Rick Hyatt and Linda Joy Adams thrown in for a real family reunion.

    Crustacean:
    More evidence of what a sick and twisted individual I am: I would love to listen in on that telephone conversation.

  92. avatar
    Nancy R Owens January 19, 2016 at 3:55 pm #

    So, email me.

    Crustacean:
    More evidence of what a sick and twisted individual I am: I would love to listen in on that telephone conversation.

  93. avatar
    Reality Check January 19, 2016 at 4:32 pm #

    Is CRJ ever going to shut up about his IFP petition getting denied for his pathetic case that was a frivolous pile of dung? I know; that’s a rhetorical question.

  94. avatar
    Northland10 January 19, 2016 at 6:13 pm #

    Reality Check:
    Is CRJ ever going to shut up about his IFP petition getting denied for his pathetic case that was a frivolous pile of dung? I know; that’s a rhetorical question.

    No. I doubt he will ever get it. Oddly, if I were to consider Christian charity as he mentioned, I would be even more supportive of the IFP being denied. Giving in a way the enables him to continue this fool-hardy and delusional quest is not charitable. Helping somebody fall further his not helping at all. Sometimes charity requires the tough love of not giving what he wants, but what he needs.

  95. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 19, 2016 at 7:27 pm #

    Same to you Scientist! Things are going well. I’m trying to position my company as the authority on analyzing and designing bioanalytic pipelines for DNA sequencing. I’m working on a proof-of-concept which a major computer company wants to put in front of their clients with genomics problems. How are your plans for world domination coming? Any genetically engineered minions or sharks with laser beams on their heads yet?

    I agree with you (about everything you said), but I don’t think it will ever be adjudicated for a different reason: the birthers will muddy the waters so badly that no one without a real candidate as a client and a solid argument (like Stern’s) will be able to rise above the frivolity and I don’t see any of Cruz’s opponents spending the money to do something that will probably help Rafael out.

    Scientist: Hey, Slarty, long time no see.How’s it going? At the end of the day, I consider it unlikely that this will get a definitive court ruling.There are enough issues of standing, timing and political doctrine that the courts can easily decline to get involved.

    If they did, I agree with you that one could construct a reasonable argument on either side, unlike the Obama case, where one side could only argue nonsense.So, in such a situation we might ask, where does the presumption lie?How strong a case must each side make to prevail?It seems to me that in a democracy (assuming the US still is one, something which many have questioned in view of the power of the plutocracy)the presumption ought to be that candidates shouldbe able to run unless they are clearly ineligible and the candidate with the most votes should win the office unless the case against him is clear and convincing.

    Much as I detest Ted Cruz, I have to say that the case against him does not meet those tests.

  96. avatar
    Rickey January 19, 2016 at 7:46 pm #

    CRJ:

    Cuba does recognize Rubio and Cruz as subjects for their Military.

    No, Cuba does not. As you have been told previously, both Rubio and Cruz are too old to be subject to military service in Cuba, even if they went there for a visit. And the last American President to set foot in Cuba was Calvin Coolidge, in 1928.

    Why do you keep lying about this?

    Military bases or foreign hospitals are not States of the Union and the jurisdiction of Law is not the same either.

    You obviously have never set foot on a military base. The United States has complete legal jurisdiction over American citizens on American military bases, wherever in the world they happen to be.

    John McCain wasn’t born in a foreign hospital, so whatever point you are trying to make about that is irrelevant.

    Just one of the many reasons [ born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents] keeps us out of allegiances many other Countries recognize and can be problematic. This is also consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s findings in Minor v. Happersett.

    You still fail to comprehend the actual meaning of Minor v. Happersett.

    Obama’s college or his Passport Records have never been seen so it’s not funny. Of course we do know he traveled to Pakistan; and we know flight records have been lost over the week I believe his Mother came to the U.S.; and we do know there was a breach of security involving his Passport a Witness to that who was murdered. We do know Loretta Buddy’s death has three different determinations in Hawaii and Gov Abrocrombie a friend of Obama’s said he just couldn’t find the B.C. But what we know most is Obama’s [conferred Citizenship] came from Kenya as Cruz’s came from Canada/Cuba.

    You have packed so many lies into one paragraph that I can scarcely count them. As Jesus said, bearing false witness is one of the things which defiles a man. You should be ashamed of yourself for continuing to spread lies.

  97. avatar
    Scientist January 19, 2016 at 7:55 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Same to you Scientist! Things are going well. I’m trying to position my company as the authority on analyzing and designing bioanalytic pipelines for DNA sequencing. I’m working on a proof-of-concept which a major computer company wants to put in front of their clients with genomics problems.

    Sound heavy. Do you still have my email? I’d be interested in hearing more.

    Slartibartfast: How are your plans for world domination coming?

    Already accomplished. That’s the beauty, everything looks the same except I am in total control and no one realizes it..

    Slartibartfast: the birthers will muddy the waters so badly that no one without a real candidate as a client and a solid argument (like Stern’s) will be able to rise above the frivolity

    It’s deliciously ironic, isn’t it? By lying and inventing ridiculous arguments against Obama, the birthers, who claim to care DEEPLY about the NBC clause have made it essentially impossible to enforce it, even against someone who might not be.

    But I still do believe that if it ever went to court, the barrier to disqualify a candidate should be high. And in a post-election suit, the barrier to overturning tens of millions of votes should be even higher.

  98. avatar
    Nancy R Owens January 19, 2016 at 8:19 pm #

    I don’t see your email. Nor do I see one from CRJ.

    Crustacean:
    More evidence of what a sick and twisted individual I am: I would love to listen in on that telephone conversation.

  99. avatar
    bob January 19, 2016 at 9:26 pm #

    CRJ: You of course know I sued McCain for his not being born in the United States?

    Instead of being ashamed about his failures, Judy boasts about them.

    Just one of the many reasons [ born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents]

    Which is still not the law, no matter how many times Judy repeats it here, or elsewhere.

    This is also consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s findings in Minor v. Happersett.

    Minor has nothing to with eligibility.

    Obama’s college or his Passport Records have never been seen so it’s not funny.

    Just like every other candidate, including Trump and … Judy.

    we know flight records have been lost over the week I believe his Mother came to the U.S.

    There’s no evidence President Obama’s mother left the United States in 1961.

    we do know there was a breach of security involving his Passport a Witness to that who was murdered

    There is no evidence linking President Obama to Harris’ death.

    We do know Loretta Buddy’s death has three different determinations

    Differing preliminary assessments are not unusual; something known by all but conspiracy-adled shrills who have no actual experience in the relevant field.

    Gov Abrocrombie a friend of Obama’s said he just couldn’t find the B.C.

    Abercrombie said no such thing.

    But what we know most is Obama’s [conferred Citizenship] came from Kenya

    What we know most is that President Obama’s Hawaiian birth was sufficient to confer natural-born citizenship. A simple fact birthers like Judy still can’t accept.

    CRJ: The only thing you continue to deny with your senses is the evidence of the very few cents CRJ Provided in bank accounts.

    Among the thing Judy continues to deny: The critical document is his IFP application, which he refuses to show.

    This is actually similar to the theories of Obama’s Folks printing in newspapers his Birth rather then the Hawaii Health Departnent automatically posting records

    There’s no evidence that relatives could purchase birth announcements in newspapers that would be printed with the health department’s lists.

    Really don’t think Evidense and Facts matter to those who deny them in front of their face.

    Oh, the irony.

    Something Forma Pauperis #SCOTUS record can be proud of in their history don’t you think?

    There is nothing wrong with SCOTUS denying Judy’s improperly filled out IFP application; the fault lies with him alone.

    All I can say is your mercy on the poor sucks.

    Mercy is for those deserving, which does not include liars who terrorized thousands.

    CRJ:
    As Christians, if you are, we should be very concerned about this Corruption of the Court.

    There is no evidence of judicial corruption, just Judy making excuses for his own failures.

    Yet a Dog gets a Hearing in the GA. Supreme Court

    Because that’s a real suit involving litigants with standing and interesting legal issues. Unlike the repeated whinings of sore losers like Judy.

    We have discussed my Record in depth. . . It surely is known by the Heavens though and that God where your Spirits originated and who owns the dust of your bodies.

    Judy, who terrorized thousands and continuous lies, ought to concern himself less with others’ souls.

    I cannot believe the SCOTUS Justices would invite this horror upon themselves.

    There is nothing horrific about denying an improperly filled out form.

    Would have been better for them to grant the Motion of Forma Pauperis and deny the Writ than to make judgements evil upon the poor.

    No one thinks SCOTUS has made any judgments on the poor.

    They have invited a very bad curse upon themselves and Hell shall be their attention but not because I did not plea for their cause.

    Typical Judy: Instead of admitting to his own failings, he predicts Hell for others.

    * * *

    Reality Check:
    Is CRJ ever going to shut up about his IFP petition getting denied for his pathetic case that was a frivolous pile of dung?

    Of course not: It soothes Judy to cast himself as the victim, despite the fault being entirely his own.

    Really, denying his IFP application was best result for Judy, because it allows him to eternally ask, “What if?” Instead of, you know, accepting reality and moving on.

  100. avatar
    CRJ January 19, 2016 at 11:10 pm #

    Seems the New York Times now agrees Judy v. Obama 14-9396 SHOULD be heard without an Election in the Balance. I’ll take that as a Huge Compliment.

    It makes only the worst insane kind of sense not to hear this Case before a real Election Crisis tears the Country apart. Unfortunately, the position of Anti-Birther seems much more [war-mongering] as they hope for just that kind of a scenario rather then SEE the wisdom of Judy v. Obama 14-9396 with all the advantages in their favor with Obama in his 7th Year now.

    “LONG OVERDUE” NYTimes calls #SCOTUS Defining NBCtzn while Mr. Cruz or the next White House contender whose “natural born” credentials are questioned might not appreciate the attention, the plight could serve a purpose by finally delivering a legal answer that is long overdue. They don’t mention Judy v. Obama 14-9396 which names Cruz half-a-dozen times.

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/us/politics/it-may-be-time-to-resolve-the-meaning-of-natural-born.html?_r=1&referer=http://www.birtherreport.com/2016/01/pile-ny-times-says-it-may-be-time-to.html?m=1

  101. avatar
    Rickey January 19, 2016 at 11:48 pm #

    CRJ:
    Seems the New York Times now agrees Judy v. Obama 14-9396 SHOULD be heard without an Election in the Balance. I’ll take that as a Huge Compliment.

    No, the New York Times does not agree that Judy v. Obama should be heard.

    While you did mention Cruz in your case, you made the crucial mistake of failing to name Cruz as a defendant.

    The eligibility of Cruz is being debated because he was born in Canada, not because of the citizenship of his father.

    Clarifying the definition of natural-born citizen would be a positive development, but your sorry, frivolous lawsuit was never going to do it.

  102. avatar
    CRJ January 20, 2016 at 12:44 am #

    Rickey: Clarifying the definition of natural-born citizen would be a positive development, but your sorry, frivolous lawsuit was never going to do it.

    I only need to be allowed the FIRST QUESTION to make your sorry statement False, and that would be a very Positive principle of our Constitution resolved.

    Everyone can see that #1 Question here. I’ll leave it to everyone to decide how to see your remarks True or False.

    https://twitter.com/CodyRobertJudy/status/688235012005572608

    It’s a real honor to have the New York Times on my side now stating exactly what I stated in my Video

    Re:
    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/us/politics/it-may-be-time-to-resolve-the-meaning-of-natural-born.html

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hRVY2t3OchE

  103. avatar
    CRJ January 20, 2016 at 1:17 am #

    What an interesting thought💡

    The #SCOTUS Court Denide my Motion for Forma Pauperis as the coffee timer is set to percolate. They could watch the Circumstances of the 2016 unfold keeping my Case 14-9396 in reserve.

    All that needs to happen for them to hear my Case is for the Court to say, ” oops! .. Made a little miscalculation there and we rectified it. Reverse the Denial of Forma Pauperis and Cert is Granted!

    https://twitter.com/CodyRobertJudy/status/689686756468269056

    https://twitter.com/CodyRobertJudy/status/689688597759324160

    Wow! 🏆That would BLOW your mind wouldn’t it?😂

  104. avatar
    Rickey January 20, 2016 at 1:34 am #

    CRJ:

    All that needs to happen for them to hear my Case is for the Court to say, ” oops! .. Made a little miscalculation there and we rectified it. Reverse the Denial of Forma Pauperis and Cert is Granted!

    The Supreme Court has never, ever reopened a closed case. You had your chance, but your inability to plead a claim doomed your case from the beginning.

    It doesn’t matter that the definition of natural born citizen arguably should be clarified. Your lawsuit was an incoherent mess which would not have been granted cert even if you had been given a lifetime entitlement to in forma pauperis status.

  105. avatar
    CRJ January 20, 2016 at 6:50 am #

    Rickey: but your inability to plead a claim doomed your case from the beginning.

    It doesn’t matter that the definition of natural born citizen arguably should be clarified. Your lawsuit was an incoherent mess which would not have been granted cert even if you had been given a lifetime entitlement to in forma pauperis status.

    Well, if you think my Writ of Cert was an incoherent mess, that just proves your reading and comprehension skills are very low, or your just a testy jealous little prick who uses insults that don’t make any sense to belittle people to make yourself feel good?

    I can read it just fine. A Writ of Cert has a limit of argument, a lot of requirements, and restrictions that I obviously passed or wouldn’t have even been given a Case number. Not many people even have a U.S. Supreme Court Case on their Record. Do you?

    I’m proud of it. @Rickey if anyone is to believe your ridiculous ridicule they would have to see your credentials and understand your background.

    Since you’re obviously unwilling to submit yourself to your own Records you are really living in the incoherent world that is akin to game-boys and your comments are simply little temper-tantrums and childish rather then intelligent, helpful, and encouraging.

    Everyone can read my Writ here and understand the purpose of a Writ is not to argue the whole case in one Brief, but explain why it’s important to hear, and the very basics and ramifications to the General Public. The Court knows the case law of they want to hear it. The Briefs get deeper.

    The questions are really the most important. Solicitor General’s can also be asked to get more technical with briefs for the Court.

    As far as bringing up the Case? You fail to point out a single Rule that prohibits the SCOTUS from doing it. Thus your assertion has no value in the context of what the Court can and can’t do.

    I’m reading “2015 U.S. Supreme Court Judy v. Obama Writ Certiorari ” on Scribd. Read more: http://scribd.com/doc/262436958

  106. avatar
    Northland10 January 20, 2016 at 7:58 am #

    Cody’s tone most definitely shows his entire concern is not eligibility but being seen as Cody the Crusader. He tries to make everything said about eligibility be about his case. It is quite the unhealthy obsession which rules his every action. Eligibility of Cruz and others is just a side show to his need for attention.

    BTW Cody, when trying to convince people you are correct, your job is to do it in a way others understand, not just that you.

  107. avatar
    bob January 20, 2016 at 4:44 pm #

    CRJ:
    Seems the New York Times now agrees Judy v. Obama 14-9396 SHOULD be heard without an Election in the Balance.

    Except the NYT said no such thing: Judy again “confuses” (read: lies about) generalized concern about Cruz’s eligibility with the notion that anyone cares about his already dismissed frivolous lawsuit.

    It makes only the worst insane kind of sense not to hear this Case before a real Election Crisis tears the Country apart.

    Unless Cruz drops out, which is Trump’s goal in playing this in the court of public opinion instead of an actual court.

    the wisdom of Judy v. Obama 14-9396

    Judy’s case contained no wisdom; just his usual word salad.

    They don’t mention Judy v. Obama 14-9396 which names Cruz half-a-dozen times.

    Because it is a since-dismissed frivolous suit that didn’t even originally challenge Cruz. Judy tacked Cruz on his failed, never-considered cert. petition, but that’s not how the courts operate. As Judy has been repeatedly reminded.

    CRJ:
    All that needs to happen for them to hear my Case is for the Court to say, ” oops! .. Made a little miscalculation there and we rectified it. Reverse the Denial of Forma Pauperis and Cert is Granted!

    That will never happen. Judy simply cannot accept that his case is closed, but it soothes his ego to think that it might be re-opened.

    CRJ: Well, if you think my Writ of Cert was an incoherent mess, that just proves your reading and comprehension skills are very low, or your just a testy jealous little prick who uses insults that don’t make any sense to belittle people to make yourself feel good?

    Rickey is correct: Judy’s cert. petition was an incoherent mess; it is Judy’s usual word salad. Rather than accept the constructive criticism and attempt to improve his writing skills, Judy mindlessly attacks the messenger. Typical.

    I can read it just fine.

    The word salad is always the most tasty for the chef.

    Not many people even have a U.S. Supreme Court Case on their Record.

    Filing a case is easy; most can do it. (But not Judy.) Like most birthers, Judy considers completing the initial task to be a monumental victory, when it is in fact meaningless.

    I’m proud of it.

    Judy should be ashamed for wasting so much effort on something so frivolous and unintelligent.

    Since you’re obviouslyunwilling to submit yourself to your own Records you are really living in the incoherent world that is akin to game-boys and your comments are simply little temper-tantrums and childish rather then intelligent, helpful, and encouraging.

    Oh, the irony: Where’s Judy’s IFP application that he refuses to submit to public inspection?

    Everyone can read my Writ here and understand the purpose of a Writ

    Judy’s petition served exactly one purpose: For Judy to stroke his own ego.

    * * *

    Northland10:
    Cody’s tone most definitely shows his entire concern is not eligibility but being seen as Cody the Crusader.He tries to make everything said about eligibility be about his case.Itis quite the unhealthy obsession which rules his every action.Eligibility of Cruz and others is just a side show to his need for attention.

    Exactly. Everything Judy does is to satisfy his own ego. From terrorizing thousands, to repeated vanity candidacies, and to his failed lawsuits, it is all about Judy craving attention. It is why he continues to post here, despite his failing to convince anyone.

  108. avatar
    Andy January 20, 2016 at 6:45 pm #

    CRJ: I tried. I tried reading your filing. But it was just so terrible. The run-on sentences. The lack of subject verb agreement. The lack of cohesion of thought. All of it, just bad.

    The sad part is, you were denied and your case closed not because of your bad filing, but because your legal arguments are absurd.

    That’s sad. Very, very sad.

  109. avatar
    John Reilly January 20, 2016 at 11:33 pm #

    CRJ: Not many people even have a U.S. Supreme Court Case on their Record.

    And not many people have a conviction for being a terrorist. Was that your point?

  110. avatar
    Notorial Dissent January 21, 2016 at 5:44 am #

    Having a failed case at the USSC is no great cachet, rather more of an embarrassment considering how bad the effort was truth be told. Any fool, i.e. specifically Judy, can file and not get heard at the USSC, it is no great accomplishment, lots of people have been doing it for years. What is an accomplishment is filing something, properly, having it heard, and then winning, something Judy has never yet or ever will accomplish.

  111. avatar
    Rickey January 21, 2016 at 10:18 pm #

    CRJ: Well, if you think my Writ of Cert was an incoherent mess, that just proves your reading and comprehension skills are very low, or your just a testy jealous little prick who uses insults that don’t make any sense to belittle people to make yourself feel good?

    I don’t need to belittle people to make myself feel good, and I haven’t called anyone a “prick” since I was in elementary school.

    As for my reading and comprehension skills, I scored 762 (out of 800) on my English Composition Achievement Test when I was a senior in high school. How did you do on yours?

    I can read it just fine.

    That is because your reading skills are on par with your writing skills. The important thing is whether others can make sense of your writing.

    A Writ of Cert has a limit of argument, a lot of requirements, and restrictions that I obviously passed or wouldn’t have even been given a Case number. Not many people even have a U.S. Supreme Court Case on their Record. Do you?

    SCOTUS receives approximately 10,000 petitions each year, almost all of them written by attorneys, although anyone who has lost a court case can file one. Of those 10,000 approximately 75-80 are granted cert and scheduled for oral arguments. That means that a petitioner has less than a 1% chance of being granted cert. When you file a cert petition, you are competing with the other 9,999 petitions for the court’s interest. Spelling and grammar counts.

    The important statistic isn’t how many cert petitions you can file, it’s how many of the cert petitions that you file are granted. On that score you are batting zero.

    A rational person who tries something multiple times and fails would stop and ask himself, “Where have I gone wrong?” But you are not a rational person. You have no interest in learning where you went wrong. Your reaction to your failures is to accuse SCOTUS of corruption.

    @Rickey if anyone is to believe your ridiculous ridicule they would have to see your credentials and understand your background.

    Since you’re obviously unwilling to submit yourself to your own Records you are really living in the incoherent world that is akin to game-boys and your comments are simply little temper-tantrums and childish rather then intelligent, helpful, and encouraging.

    My ability to express myself speaks for itself.

    Everyone can read my Writ here and understand the purpose of a Writ is not to argue the whole case in one Brief, but explain why it’s important to hear, and the very basics and ramifications to the General Public. The Court knows the case law of they want to hear it. The Briefs get deeper.

    Well, you’re wrong about that. The purpose of a cert petition is to convince SCOTUS that the lower court erred in its application of the law. Your lawsuit was dismissed because the lower court ruled that you failed to show that you were entitled to relief under § 1983. You then filed your cert petition, but you never addressed the lower court’s reason for dismissing your lawsuit.

    As far as bringing up the Case? You fail to point out a single Rule that prohibits the SCOTUS from doing it. Thus your assertion has no value in the context of what the Court can and can’t do.

    The Supreme Court makes its own rules, but I never said that it is prohibited from reopening a closed case. What I said is that it never happens. Once a case is closed, it is closed forever. SCOTUS has moved on, and currently is considering which of the 10,000 petitions it receives during the current term will be granted. Your petition has been consigned to the trash bin.

  112. avatar
    Answer Question January 25, 2016 at 9:12 am #

    Why isn’t this question answered by the blog owner ?

    “Now here’s a puzzle for you and your OBOTS …Dingbat.. How can a person with “UNALIENABLE RIGHTS” go between states to set up new living conditions under the state Constitutions …DINGBAT ?”

    The FACT is “UNALIENABLE RIGHTS” given to American citizens by the CREATOR.

    These rights CANNOT BE GIVEN AWAY NOR CAN ANY ENTITY TAKE THEM AWAY from the RIGHTS possessor.

  113. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 25, 2016 at 1:50 pm #

    It’s not answered because it is not on topic for this blog, or this article. Plus, I’ve not seen anything about “America” in my holy scriptures.

    Answer Question: Why isn’t this question answered by the blog owner ?

  114. avatar
    bovril January 25, 2016 at 2:24 pm #

    I’m curious, would someone be able to list exactly what these magical “UNALIENABLE RIGHTS” are…?

    Any “rights” that can be legislated away are logically not “UNALIENABLE”

    As far as I can see the only inalienable one is, “You’re born and eventually you die and you can believe in the deity of your choice or not as the case may be”

  115. avatar
    Dave B. January 25, 2016 at 2:31 pm #

    It’s too bad we can’t hear how A.Q. pronounces “unalienable,” which can be a dead giveaway that you’re dealing with a sovcit crackpot.

    bovril:
    I’m curious, would someone be able to list exactly what these magical “UNALIENABLE RIGHTS”are…?

    Any “rights” that can be legislated away are logically not “UNALIENABLE”

    As far as I can see the only inalienable one is, “You’re born and eventually you die and you can believe in the deity of your choice or not as the case may be”

  116. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 25, 2016 at 2:46 pm #

    IIRC, there are 4 unalienable rights spelled out in the Declaration of Independence

    – Life
    – Liberty
    – the pursuit of Happiness
    – Using ALL CAPS

    bovril: I’m curious, would someone be able to list exactly what these magical “UNALIENABLE RIGHTS” are…?

  117. avatar
    Scientist January 25, 2016 at 3:38 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: IIRC, there are 4 unalienable rights spelled out in the Declaration of Independence

    – Life
    – Liberty
    – the pursuit of Happiness
    – Using ALL CAPS

    Of course, the fellow who wrote that owned people who didn’t have those rights (though I believe Sally Hemmings could write in all caps in both English and French).

  118. avatar
    Rickey January 26, 2016 at 2:18 am #

    Answer Question:

    The FACT is “UNALIENABLE RIGHTS” given to American citizens by the CREATOR.

    The Declaration of Independence doesn’t mention citizens. It does mention “all men,” however.

  119. avatar
    Dave B. January 26, 2016 at 2:29 am #

    The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family…

    Rickey: The Declaration of Independence doesn’t mention citizens. It does mention “all men,” however.

  120. avatar
    Lupin January 26, 2016 at 3:19 am #

    Answer Question:
    Why isn’t this question answered by the blog owner ?

    “Now here’s a puzzle for you and your OBOTS …Dingbat.. How can a person with “UNALIENABLE RIGHTS” go between states to set up new living conditions under the state Constitutions …DINGBAT ?”

    The FACT is “UNALIENABLE RIGHTS” given to American citizens by the CREATOR.

    These rights CANNOT BE GIVEN AWAY NOR CAN ANY ENTITY TAKE THEM AWAY from the RIGHTS possessor.

    You’re confusing “Natural Rights” and “Unalienable Rights” (look it up).

    Also, this predates “Americans” — it was first put forth by British and French philosophers.

  121. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) January 26, 2016 at 4:27 am #

    Dave B.: It’s too bad we can’t hear how A.Q. pronounces “unalienable,” which can be a dead giveaway that you’re dealing with a sovcit crackpot.

    Would the SovCit pronounce it “un-a-LIEN-able”?

  122. avatar
    Dave B. January 26, 2016 at 10:25 am #

    Yep.

    The Magic M (not logged in): Would the SovCit pronounce it “un-a-LIEN-able”?