Main Menu

Indiana ballot commissioner votes against Cruz

So Cruz is on the ballot in Indiana due to a 3-1 split decision. Some new names appeared on the Indiana challenges, says the Indianapolis Star:

Two of the challenges — one against Cruz and one against Rubio — were filed by 85-year-old Madison resident Richard Carter. Another against Cruz was filed by Bob Kern, a perpetual congressional candidate and former felon.

No votes were cast against Rubio.

And if  you’re in Indianapolis, be sure to visit St. Elmo Steak House and check out the shrimp cocktail.

image

, , , , , ,

137 Responses to Indiana ballot commissioner votes against Cruz

  1. avatar
    gorefan February 22, 2016 at 3:50 pm #

    In the Indiana ballot challenge of Cruz and Rubio, the Election Commission voted to allow both candidates names on the ballot. The vote was 4-0 for Rubio and 3-1 for Cruz.

    http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/19/republican-presidential-candidate-marco-rubio-stays-indiana-ballot-commission-rules/80607168/

    So one of the commissioners thinks Cruz should not be allowed on the ballot. I wonder why.

    One of the commissioners is quoted as saying he has questions about Cruz’s mom’s citizenship but he voted in favor of Cruz.

  2. avatar
    Scientist February 22, 2016 at 4:53 pm #

    The article doesn’t make clear the party affiliation of the vote against Cruz. Does anyone know?

  3. avatar
    Keith February 22, 2016 at 5:13 pm #

    Speaking of shrimp cocktail, have you heard the one about Herr Schicklegruber?

    …The Short End Of History

  4. avatar
    gorefan February 22, 2016 at 5:16 pm #

    Scientist:
    The article doesn’t make clear the party affiliation of the vote against Cruz.Does anyone know?

    That what I was wondering. There are four members and according to the SOS website:

    Members

    (appointed by the Governor upon recommendation by appropriate major political party state chair)

    Bryce H. Bennett, Jr., Chair since February 2014; member since August 2011
    S. Anthony Long, Vice-chair; member since July 1997
    Suzannah Wilson Overholt, member since July 2012
    Zachary E. Klutz, member since February 2014.

    http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/2404.htm

    Here is the political breakdown

    “The current commission members are Republicans Bryce Bennett Jr. and Fort Wayne attorney Zachary Klutz and Democrats S. Anthony Long and Suzannah Wilson Overholt.”

    http://www.journalgazette.net/news/local/indiana/Many-left–stunned–by-ballot-kerfuffle-11441886

    Eventually the transcript for the hearing will show up on the SoS website. The one from the 2012 Orly Taitz witnessing is at the bottom of the page.

    [At http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/2404.htm. Doc]

  5. avatar
    gorefan February 22, 2016 at 11:59 pm #

    Scientist:
    The article doesn’t make clear the party affiliation of the vote against Cruz.Does anyone know?

    I understand it was Suzannah Wilson Overholt (democrat) and she did not give a reason.

  6. avatar
    Thrifty February 23, 2016 at 10:53 am #

    That shrimp cocktail looks like a rather paltry dish.

  7. avatar
    Adrien Nash February 23, 2016 at 3:22 pm #

    Natural Born Citizen explained via the Natural Child Analogy

    I just created this analogy to explain the nature of natural born citizenship as illuminated by natural born children.

    https://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/child-citizen-analogy.pdf

    it’s located at my blog where it is in standard text also: https://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2016/02/23/natural-born-citizen-explained-via-the-natural-child-analogy/

  8. avatar
    Crustacean February 23, 2016 at 5:09 pm #

    Savages!!

    Thrifty: shrimp cocktail

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 23, 2016 at 6:21 pm #

    It’s an appetizer.

    Thrifty: That shrimp cocktail looks like a rather paltry dish.

  10. avatar
    Thrifty February 23, 2016 at 7:04 pm #

    I know but still…. it’s like 3 shrimp. Even for an appetizer that’s terrible.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    It’s an appetizer.

  11. avatar
    OReaLY Factor February 23, 2016 at 8:03 pm #

    For the record, the shrimp cocktail is five large shrimp. And it is excellent

  12. avatar
    CRJ February 23, 2016 at 9:02 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: It’s an appetizer.

    Thrifty: That shrimp cocktail looks like a rather paltry dish.

    Sounds like someone’s Hungary? Just remember where you got the whole meal😉

    https://twitter.com/CodyRobertJudy/status/702312024970145792

  13. avatar
    Reality Check February 24, 2016 at 10:37 am #

    Good lord what a load of logical fallacy. You know Adrien, President Obama is in the final year of his second term. At least a dozen courts have said he is eligible. 99.999999% of the serious Constitutional scholars agree that anyone a citizen by jus soli natural born citizen. You can either accept facts or look foolish.

    Adrien Nash:
    Natural Born Citizen explained via the Natural Child Analogy

    I just created this analogy to explain the nature of natural born citizenship as illuminated by natural born children.

    https://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/child-citizen-analogy.pdf

    it’s located at my blog where it is in standard text also: https://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2016/02/23/natural-born-citizen-explained-via-the-natural-child-analogy/

  14. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater February 24, 2016 at 12:19 pm #

    CRJ: Sounds like someone’s Hungary? Just remember where you got the whole meal

    https://twitter.com/CodyRobertJudy/status/702312024970145792

    Sorry as long as you post links to your twits I can’t view them. Because like a coward you blocked me months ago when I pointed out your failure of photoshop skills.

  15. avatar
    Pete February 24, 2016 at 12:43 pm #

    Reality Check: I just created this analogy to explain the nature of natural born citizenship as illuminated by natural born children.

    Can anyone actually make it through that page of willfully ignorant nonsense without
    either zoning out or wanting to punch the author in the mouth? I mean, really.

    Adrien has been educated as to the truth, but it’s like trying to cut through steel plate with a water pistol full of milk.

    Give it up, Adrien. You lost the argument. Like, years ago.

    In fact, if you want to the know the truth, the argument was lost long before you ever made it. It was lost many decades before you were even born.

  16. avatar
    CRJ February 24, 2016 at 3:05 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Sorry as long as you post links to your twits I can’t view them. Because like a coward you blocked me months ago when I pointed out your failure of photoshop skills.

    Well you shouldn’t have been a $h*t-head about my photoshopping skills.. Why do I have to be the “coward” to be tied to your abusive whipping post on my Accounts? I don’t. You really have to be a jerk for me to block ya. Be glad you didn’t have to do 8 years in Prison for your claim on the 1st Amendment and Religeous Liberty. You obviously have no mercy or defense for me?

    I’m not an enabler like Hillary Clinton. I stand up for myself and defend myself appropriately.

    #Trump2016 Afraid of #Democrats #Birther Secret @realDonaldTrump #SouthCarolinaPrimary #SCOTUS coming up on my next Blog Post.

    https://twitter.com/CodyRobertJudy/status/702576754485907456

  17. avatar
    Benji Franklin February 24, 2016 at 3:10 pm #

    Adrien Nash: Natural Born Citizen explained via the Natural Child Analogy

    I just created this analogy to explain the nature of natural born citizenship as illuminated by natural born children.

    Adrian has constructed a chart that effectively explains his private chain of thought in “explaining” his own take on the term “natural born citizen” as used in the Constitution of the United States of America, as though his interpretation is the manifestly obvious and only correct meaning that the term was intended to have, and does have.

    Adrian does not seem to realize that even in the set of all of the nations on Earth that have only two legs, only the nation that has just Adrian’s two legs can be compelled by his logic to adopt and officially recognize his personal preference for how particular legally significant terms must be interpreted.

    Ironically, Adrian claims the favor of that chameleon of political malcontents, “Natural Law”, for his definition of “Natural Born Citizen”. The irony here, is that “Natural Law” has consistently favored letting such legal terminology be defined by nations having more than two legs.

    Any private individual or group of individuals can declare that what they THINK on the subject constitutes the objectively authentic, natural, or originally intended , minimal requirements that describe a “Natural Born Citizen” of any sovereign state, whether such state is real or imagined. Such declarations do not by their utterance or professed logic limit the REAL and almost universally exercised power of any REAL sovereign state to declare under what positive or negative circumstances of birth (and of course, ANY other factors) an individual will be recognized by that state as a Natural Born Citizen of the nation.

    Analogies constructed to argue the merits of competing unofficial private definitions of “Natural Born Citizen” have no legal significance or other power to change the just previously mentioned normal practice routinely exercised by virtually every sovereign nation, in regards to defining “Natural Born Citizen” (or any other term important to its founding documents or laws) either as precisely or ambiguously as it so chooses.

    Where such a state addresses or avoids addressing any real or imagined residual ambiguity in the terminology, it is similarly up to that state, through its agencies and departments, to accept or reject or ignore private suggestions or DEMANDS concerning if and how such ambiguity should be officially resolved, for example in the course of a lawsuit, or by means of passing clarifying new laws or ratifying Constitutional amendments.

  18. avatar
    Scientist February 24, 2016 at 3:52 pm #

    Benji Franklin: Ironically, Adrian claims the favor of that chameleon of political malcontents, “Natural Law”, for his definition of “Natural Born Citizen”.

    Natural law, if such exists, recognizes a democratic choice of leaders free from artificial restrictions of birth or parentage. You can’t claim that natural law supercedes human legal constructs and then use it to define a requirement which is itself nothing but a human legal construct.

  19. avatar
    bob February 24, 2016 at 4:04 pm #

    CRJ:Be glad you didn’t have to do 8 years in Prison for your claim on the 1st Amendment and Religeous Liberty.

    Judy served eight years in prison because he terrorized thousands by claiming to have an explosive device.

    Such terrorism has nothing to do with the First Amendment or religious liberty.

  20. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater February 24, 2016 at 4:29 pm #

    CRJ: Well you shouldn’t have been a $h*t-head about my photoshopping skills.. Why do I have to be the “coward” to be tied to your abusive whipping post on my Accounts? I don’t. You really have to be a jerk for me to block ya. Be glad you didn’t have to do 8 years in Prison for your claim on the 1st Amendment and Religeous Liberty. You obviously have no mercy or defense for me?

    Calling you Generalissmo “f**ktard was being a s**head? Come on you photoshopped a bunch of unearned medals on your chest and made yourself look like the failed dictator of some third world banana republic? How could we not laugh at you? Obviously you’re too thin skinned for the internet. So let me get this straight you’re perfectly okay with spamming your links all over other people’s websites but then not okay when people engage with you on your twitter? Yes you’re a coward.

    You didn’t do 8 years for free speech. You did 8 years by being a terrorist coward and threatening thousands of people.

  21. avatar
    bob February 24, 2016 at 4:43 pm #

    P&E reporting that the NY ballot challenges failed.

  22. avatar
    Rickey February 24, 2016 at 8:44 pm #

    CRJ:
    Be glad you didn’t have to do 8 years in Prison for your claim on the 1st Amendment and Religeous Liberty. You obviously have no mercy or defense for me?

    You didn’t raise a First Amendment/Religious Liberty defense.

    In a plea agreement with Utah County prosecutors, Judy, 27, entered guilty pleas to one count of aggravated burglary, a first-degree felony; one count of assault, a third-degree felony; and one count of escape, a class B misdemeanor. Prosecutors dismissed one count of aggravated kidnapping and two counts of assault.Judy admitted Wednesday that he threatened Howard W. Hunter, president of the Council of the Twelve of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, with a fake bomb Feb. 7 at a fireside at BYU’s Marriott Center. He admitted walking on the stage and telling everyone he would detonate the bomb if they did not leave.

    Three doctors testified that you have a delusional disorder, which apparently continues to afflict you.

    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/293492/JUDY-PLEADS-GUILTY-TO-BOMB-THREAT.html?pg=all

  23. avatar
    Notorial Dissent February 24, 2016 at 8:54 pm #

    Adrian really shouldn’t expose his mental deficiencies and obvious disturbances and deficiencies in public, it only makes him look like a bigger fool and dipwad than we all already know him to be.

  24. avatar
    Benji Franklin February 24, 2016 at 10:34 pm #

    Scientist: You can’t claim that natural law supercedes human legal constructs and then use it to define a requirement which is itself nothing but a human legal construct.

    By saying, “You can’t claim…..” I think you more specifically mean to say, “an intelligent, logically consistent and sane observer” can’t seriously make such a claim.

    The only thing that stands between Mr. Nash and the ability to notice the self-referential rules he breaks when philosophizing about society, is his inability to see that styling himself an infallible philosopher king, blinds him to most of the consensus seeking mechanisms which constitute the basis of society when liberty is valued.

    Adrian is a patient observer and a serious and intelligent thinker. Such individuals often generate articulately described and elaborately constructed maps of the conceptual territory they wish to address. Adrian is not a raving lunatic; he just casually confuses his maps with the territory. Having such a habit is a flaw that he would probably not fail to notice in any other deity.

  25. avatar
    roadburner February 25, 2016 at 3:43 am #

    Benji Franklin:

    Adrian is a patient observer and a serious and intelligent thinker.

    i’m not too sure about that

    an intelligent thinker doesn’t continually hit their thumb with a hammer thinking the next time i isn’t going to hurt.

    they sit back and work out why it hurt in the first place

  26. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) February 25, 2016 at 5:16 am #

    roadburner: an intelligent thinker doesn’t continually hit their thumb with a hammer thinking the next time i isn’t going to hurt.

    It’s pretty much like with drinking. Every time you get a terrible hangover, swear “I’m never gonna drink again” and next week-end it’s déjà-vu all over again. 😉

  27. avatar
    Scientist February 25, 2016 at 7:03 am #

    Benji Franklin: Adrian is a patient observer and a serious and intelligent thinker.

    Quite the opposite, He is a facile non-thinker who hasn’t even familiarized himself with the basic tenets of the “natural law” philosophy he spouts. He simply uses the term “natural” to mean “that which produces the result I want”. In his hands it has no more meaning than it does when applied to foods produced in a factory.

    The foundation of natural law, as applied by Enlightenment philosophers, was, in fact, that the natural way for humans to pick their leaders was by popular democratic election, rather than by birth-based imposition (AKA, royalty). So, there is nothing “natural” about the natural born citizen restriction and trying to apply “natural law” to something unnatural is doomed from the start. And if Adrien were a serious and intelligent thinker, he ought to have figured that out by now.

  28. avatar
    Adrien Nash February 25, 2016 at 10:37 am #

    Reality Check February 24, 2016

    “Good lord what a load of logical fallacy. You know Adrien, President Obama is in the final year of his second term. At least a dozen courts have said he is eligible. 99.999999% of the serious Constitutional scholars agree that anyone a citizen by jus soli natural born citizen. You can either accept facts or look foolish.”

    Good grief! Have you no shame? What a load of illogical crap! How many lawsuits have resulted in Obama being DECLARED a natural born citizen? I know of ONE in a state court. Name a second if you can. You can’t so you won’t.

    As for “serious constitutional SCHOLARS”.. ARE YOU KIDDING? By your “logic” all of the infallible lawyer-scholars on the Supreme Court would always concur in every “opinion of the court”, wouldn’t they? Dumb. Plus, there has never been a forum or poll to get anywhere near arriving at any percentage of who believes what. You just make up whatever sounds the most authoritative in order to do what you are mentally programmed to do: shut down any logical discussion of the facts.
    And speaking of the facts, how many of my points of fact have you ever bothered to refute? None? Such avoidance is a clear sign of absence of substance and the inability to counter the plain logic that stares you in the face.

    Emotional bluster prompted by emotional frustration are not a reasoned counter to anything. I’m waiting for your refutation of the logic that I presented. But it won’t be coming because it can’t be refuted. If it could, you would have done so, right?

  29. avatar
    Benji Franklin February 25, 2016 at 11:18 am #

    Scientist: Quite the opposite, He is a facile non-thinker who hasn’t even familiarized himself with the basic tenets of the “natural law” philosophy he spouts. He simply uses the term “natural” to mean “that which produces the result I want”. In his hands it has no more meaning than it does when applied to foods produced in a factory.

    I apologize for my unrecognizable sarcasm in writing: “Adrian is a patient observer and a serious and intelligent thinker. Such individuals often generate articulately described and elaborately constructed maps of the conceptual territory they wish to address. Adrian is not a raving lunatic; he just casually confuses his maps with the territory. Having such a habit is a flaw that he would probably not fail to notice in any other deity.”

    I thought that my statement implied that his behavior would cause almost any sane person to guess that he was a raving lunatic, and that it then confirmed their guess by stating that he JUST CASUALLY confuses his articulately described and elaborately constructed maps with the territory of reality, something that only a lunatic thinking his judgement was infallible, would routinely do.

    I hope Adrian can not use my carelessly written comment to recruit disciples.

  30. avatar
    Adrien Nash February 25, 2016 at 11:26 am #

    Scientist wrote: “He simply uses the term “natural” to mean “that which produces the result I want”.

    The problem with that accusation is that there is no “result that I want”. I have always only wanted to know what the truth of the matter is. As for “natural law”, I did not even mention it in the entire page, but I’ll mention these things; natural logic, the law of nature, and the natural meaning of words in the English language which are common language terms and NOT an aggregate artificial legal term, (and cannot baselessly be declared to be a legal term).

    Scientist: “You can’t claim that natural law supercedes human legal constructs and then use it to define a requirement which is itself nothing but a human legal construct.”

    That would be true if it weren’t erroneously based on a fallacy. The fallacy is that everyday words constitute “a human legal construct”. Do these words constitute a human legal construct: natural born leader and natural born child? Show me the authority to declare that they do. Or, since that is ridiculous, show me the authority that declares authoritatively that the similar words “natural born citizen” are a human legal construct.

    You can’t. No one else here can either. No one at all can, and that is why no one, including Mario, has ever attempted to do so, even when challenged. There is simply zero basis for such a gargantuan leap of presumption.

    Words mean what they mean according to the English language and not some fictional, non-existent legal dictionary, and no one can refute that as the basis of constitutional interpretation, but that rule gets thrown out when deniers of reality have to attempt to defend their champion.

    It’s not my role, as a stance, to attack the eligibility of Obama, but to illuminate the facts that determine what the truth is. The truth determines his eligibility by eliminating error, presumption, bias, and distortion.

    The term “Natural law” has never carried any meaning regarding presidential eligibility other than how I have applied it, -to refer to the law of nature.
    By nature’s law, all off-spring are the sum of the parents. If both are of the same origin, then their off-spring will be identical to them. If they are not (donkey and horse, lion and tiger, etc) then the off-spring will not be of one singular nature but will be a combination of both parents, which is directly analogous to dual nationality inheritance.

    Inheriting two competing or separate natures produces a hybrid, and hybrids are not the natural pattern, not examples of the general law of nature, do not conform to “natural law”. They are not natural born members of either group of which the parents are members.

    Those facts are the indisputable source of the meaning of the English language words “natural born citizen”. As for the right of nations to determine by their own fiat the meaning of words first employed by the American founders, that is irrelevant to what those common words meant to the framers of the Constitution. To them, the words meant what they have always meant and still mean: a natural citizen by birth (to citizen parents). Citizens produce natural citizens. Citizen parents produce citizen children. That is their unalienable right.
    Anyone dare to refute their own natural right? To do so is treasonous to one’s own sovereignty as one of the bosses of the government.
    Foreigners can only produce common law legal citizens, not natural citizens. No citizen-by-law is eligible to serve as President. One must be a citizen by natural inheritance via consanguinity.

  31. avatar
    bob February 25, 2016 at 5:04 pm #

    Cruz eligibility lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania.

  32. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 25, 2016 at 5:41 pm #

    Read this page, and give us your revised count:

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

    Adrien Nash: Good grief! Have you no shame? What a load of illogical crap! How many lawsuits have resulted in Obama being DECLARED a natural born citizen? I know of ONE in a state court. Name a second if you can. You can’t so you won’t.

  33. avatar
    Crustacean February 25, 2016 at 6:17 pm #

    Attention, Obots! Henceforth the meaning of all words shall be determined only by me, Adrien Nash. When I tell you that laws of nature and animal husbandry apply to the political realm, you better believe it! If I find you disagreeable, then you are Hitler, micro penis and all, and I will put words in your mouth to show how wrong you are. If you rely on the conclusions of so-called experts, then you are a pathetic sheep, for only through the superior wisdom of me, Adrien Nash, shall you find the truth. If you believe it is natural for a black African to marry a white American, then I shall put even more words in your mouth to prove how wrong you are.

    – Your pal, Adrien Nash

    Dr. Conspiracy: Read this page, and give us your revised count:

  34. avatar
    Scientist February 25, 2016 at 6:31 pm #

    Adrien Nash: Do these words constitute a human legal construct: natural born leader and natural born child?

    Anyone who makes it through the arduous process of at least a year of planning a campaign, attracting supporters and donors, followed by a year of primaries and caucuses spread from Guam to the US Virgin Islands, followed by a general election, is by definition, a natural born leader.

    Adrien Nash: By nature’s law, all off-spring are the sum of the parents. If both are of the same origin, then their off-spring will be identical to them. If they are not (donkey and horse, lion and tiger, etc) then the off-spring will not be of one singular nature but will be a combination of both parents, which is directly analogous to dual nationality inheritance.

    Species are a biological reality. Sequence the DNA, even partially, and it’s a trivial matter to tell whether the individual is a horse, a donkey or a hybrid mule. There is no natural component to citizenship at all-no gene that makes one American vs Canadian vs Chinese vs French, I couldn’t possibly tell your citizenship from a complete sequence of your DNA. There is NOTHING NATURAL IN THE SLIGHTEST ABOUT CITIZENSHIP; IT IS 100% A HUMAN CONSTRUCT.

    I have a PhD in Biochemistry and have worked in molecular biology most of my life. You are less likely to win this argument than the 76ers are to win the NBA championship.

  35. avatar
    gorefan February 25, 2016 at 6:38 pm #

    Adrien Nash: Good grief! Have you no shame? What a load of illogical crap! How many lawsuits have resulted in Obama being DECLARED a natural born citizen? I know of ONE in a state court. Name a second if you can. You can’t so you won’t.

    Dr. Conspiracy: Read this page, and give us your revised count:

    These are my favorites:

    “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986 (1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV); Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678, 684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.” Judge Gordon, Superior Court of Arizona in Allen v. Obama

    “The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion, and as this Court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. While Ms Fair and Ms. Miltenberger may disagree with the holding of the Supreme Court, from a perspective of stare decises, the only means by which an opinion of the Supreme Court concerning substantive law can be overturned is either by a subsequent holding of the Supreme Court or an Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Both have occurred in the past on very rare occasions, but this Court does not believe that it has the discretion to simply disregard a holding which clearly applies to the definition of “natural born citizen” as it applies to President Obama.” Judge Thomas F. Stansfield, Fair v. Obama

    “The eligibility requirements to be President of the United States are such that the individual must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States and at least thirty-five years of age. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1. It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens. See, e.g., United States v. [Wong kim] Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898) (“Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States.”); Perkins v. Elg, 99 F.2d 408, 409 (1938). Moreover, “those born ‘in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’…have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding…and thus eligible for the presidency.” Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63, 66 (D.N.H 2008). Thus, Mr. Tisdale’s contention that President Obama, Governor Romney, and Congressman Paul are not eligible to be President due to their nationalities is without merit.” District Court Judge John A. Gibney Jr. in Tisdale v. Obama

    But while those are my personal favorites, I still believe the single best smack down of the Vattelist was when the New Jersey Court of Appeals said that Apuzzo’s arguments were so without merit that under New Jersey law they were not required to even write an opinion. I still laugh every time I read their ruling.

    And Adrien, guess what – they all cite Wong Kim Ark as being binding precedent on the lower courts.

  36. avatar
    Reality Check February 25, 2016 at 6:44 pm #

    I see Doc and gorefan already corrected you on that error.

    If you were to bother to read all the scholarly opinions on both sides on the controversy over whether Ted Cruz is eligible you would find one thing on which they all agree. That is that native born US citizens like Barack Obama and Marco Rubio are eligible. BTW Mario Apuzzo doesn’t count as a scholar.

    Adrien Nash: Good grief! Have you no shame? What a load of illogical crap! How many lawsuits have resulted in Obama being DECLARED a natural born citizen? I know of ONE in a state court. Name a second if you can. You can’t so you won’t.

  37. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 25, 2016 at 6:46 pm #

    I think that what Nash will do is to say that none of the courts, except the one in Georgia ruled on all the allegations that Obama was ineligible. The other citations deal with the natural born citizen question assuming Obama was born in the United States. The birthers in the Farrar (et al) cases presented sufficient evidence themselves for judge Malihi to conclude that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    gorefan: These are my favorites:

  38. avatar
    Scientist February 25, 2016 at 7:21 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I think that what Nash will do is to say that none of the courts, except the one in Georgia ruled on all the allegations that Obama was ineligible. The other citations deal with the natural born citizen question assuming Obama was born in the United States. The birthers in the Farrar (et al) cases presented sufficient evidence themselves for judge Malihi to conclude that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    I don’t see your point, Doc. Nash says you need 2 citizen parents and all those decisions (and many more) say you do not. Nor does natural law help Adrien. In fact it hurts his case, since natural law says that living citizens should pick their leaders free of constraints from dead guys.

  39. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 25, 2016 at 7:38 pm #

    It isn’t much of a point, but technically those cases don’t literally declare Obama a natural born citizen, even though they don’t help Nash’s particular argument. They just declare persons born in the US to be natural born citizens for Article II purposes.

    Scientist: I don’t see your point, Doc.

  40. avatar
    Daniel February 25, 2016 at 8:00 pm #

    Lets face reality here folks. The only reason Nash is hanging around here is that nobody reads his fail blog anymore, and so he’s not getting the attention he believes he deserves.

    The worst thing possible that could happen to a birther has happened to him. Nobody cares.

  41. avatar
    Pete February 25, 2016 at 9:15 pm #

    Daniel: Lets face reality here folks. The only reason Nash is hanging around here is that nobody reads his fail blog anymore, and so he’s not getting the attention he believes he deserves.

    It would probably go better if he added lots of humorous pictures of cats.

  42. avatar
    gorefan February 25, 2016 at 9:27 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I think that what Nash will do is to say that none of the courts, except the one in Georgia ruled on all the allegations that Obama was ineligible.

    I agree – he will come up with an excuse as to why all these cases are not valid. My guess would be that the plaintiffs did not explain to the court Nash’s theories which are superior to Apuzzo’s.

    But he did ask the question “How many lawsuits have resulted in Obama being DECLARED a natural born citizen?”

  43. avatar
    Joey February 25, 2016 at 9:36 pm #

    I also am fond of judge’s statements in two federal district court rulings: Taitz v Obama (quo warranto): “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as is required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”– Chief U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, April 14, 2010, and Rhodes v MacDonald, U.S. District Court Judge Clay D. Land: “A spurious claim questioning the president’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”—U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, September 16, 2009.

    Birthers were “tilting at windmills and their “spurious claims” were “frivolous.”

  44. avatar
    Keith February 25, 2016 at 9:43 pm #

    Pete: It would probably go better if he added lots of humorous pictures of cats.

    Or even meerkats.

    Or gerbils.

  45. avatar
    Northland10 February 25, 2016 at 11:10 pm #

    Adrien Nash: Good grief! Have you no shame? What a load of illogical crap! How many lawsuits have resulted in Obama being DECLARED a natural born citizen? I know of ONE in a state court. Name a second if you can. You can’t so you won’t.

    How many lawsuits actually asked the court to declare the President a natural born citizen? The question you ask matters. Most of the cases asked the courts to remove Obama from the ballot, or office because he was not an NBC. The responses were, in no particular order:

    1. He is NBC, you’re wrong.
    2. You lack standing.
    3. This court lacks jurisdiction.
    4. He’s the President, still. Your issue is moot.
    5. No, the state is not required to conduct an investigation.
    6. Get help.

  46. avatar
    CRJ February 26, 2016 at 12:49 am #

    Rickey: You didn’t raise a First Amendment/Religious Liberty defense.

    You haven’t either. You continually [use] LDS church sponsored newspapers, LDS BISHOPS as DISTRICT COURT Judges, and partial records as your witness. .

    You don’t have a record of the Doctors who said those Doctors were all confused stipulating different diagnosis basically canceling each other out.

    You don’t document a [Motion to Withdrew the guilty plea] based on attorney recommendations of a frame job.

    Why?

    Because your only interest is proving your own point regardless and in defiance of the Truth. That leaves you subject to nefarious sources who deal in lies, deception.and false accusations.

    It’s very despicable not so much that you dig up dirt processed by the LDS Church, but you promote it as righteousness. . it’s very unconstitutional. .similar to your defenses Obama is eligible. He’s not.

    If you had a sound bone in your body, you would never on God’s Earth be in favor of a Theocracy, but this is what you witness for. Very unconstitutional and unsound.

    No., it is your own witness and propaganda that is betraying you as very un American. Its very sad.
    http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2015/02/fight-over-forgiveness-lds-church.html?m=1

    The sad part is you condone and inlist this awful despicable treatment that is unconstitutional and employ it as a tactic to cover up your own sickness. The danger is you subject yourself as well as others to it.

    That’s really sad!

    It very much defies any respect for freedom of religion. You hate or are hating the Constitution in your own words. Its very evident.

  47. avatar
    Rickey February 26, 2016 at 3:48 am #

    CRJ: You haven’t either.

    Another CRJ non-sequitur. I’m not trying to raise a First Amendment/Freedom of Religion defense. The fact of the matter is that you entered a guilty plea.

    You don’t have a record of the Doctors who said those Doctors were all confused stipulating different diagnosis basically canceling each other out.

    You don’t document a [Motion to Withdrew the guilty plea] based on attorney recommendations of a frame job.

    Why?

    If such documentation exists, and you want me to consider it, let’s see it. I’m perfectly capable of reading and understanding medical reports and a motion to withdraw a guilty plea.

    Why aren’t you in South Carolina, campaigning?

  48. avatar
    Daniel February 26, 2016 at 11:05 am #

    CRJ:

    Because your only interest is proving your own point regardless and in defiance of the Truth. That leaves you subject to nefarious sources who deal in lies, deception.and false accusations.

    And the Irony Meter goes OFF THE SCALE!!!!

  49. avatar
    Arthur February 26, 2016 at 11:26 am #

    Daniel: And the Irony Meter goes OFF THE SCALE!!!!

    The queer fellow can only talk about himself, even when he tries to talk about others.

  50. avatar
    bob February 26, 2016 at 11:40 am #

    CRJ: You haven’t either. You continually [use] LDS church sponsored newspapers, LDS BISHOPS as DISTRICT COURT Judges, and partial records as your witness. .

    Ahhh: So the vast LDS conspiracy fabricated the part where Judy told thousands that he had an explosive device, and then later pleaded guilty to charges associated with his action.

    You don’t have a record of the Doctors who said those Doctors were all confused stipulating different diagnosis basically canceling each other out.

    A reader may draw an inference from the very fact that Judy was psychologically evaluated. And connect that inference to the mental disabilities that Judy continuously displays here.

    You don’t document a [Motion to Withdrew the guilty plea] based on attorney recommendations of a frame job.

    A motion that was denied by the courts. Which of course the totally-not-crazy Judy will say are secretly controlled by the LDS.

    Because your only interest is proving your own point regardless and in defiance of the Truth.

    Says the lying liar who lies about just about everything.

    it’s very unconstitutional.

    Interesting how Judy would deny the LDS its First Amendment right to speak, to associate, to exist.

    similar to your defenses Obama is eligible. He’s not.

    Judy’s continued, baseless insistence of President Obama’s ineligibility only shows that he’s a liar, nuts, or both.

    If you had a sound bone in your body, you would never on God’s Earth be in favor of a Theocracy, but this is what you witness for.

    That is not what is happening: people are witnessing against a lying, unrepentant, callous felon who terrorized thousands.

    I was going to compliment Judy’s leaving several on-topic comments today. And then I got to this article’s comments section.

  51. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater February 26, 2016 at 11:53 am #

    CRJ: You don’t document a [Motion to Withdrew the guilty plea] based on attorney recommendations of a frame job.

    Was there some other idiot named Cody Judy impersonating you while carrying out a terrorist act against the church by claiming they had a bomb?

  52. avatar
    Adrien Nash February 27, 2016 at 1:17 am #

    Scientist wrote: “There is no natural component to citizenship at all.”

    That is a natural thing to write when you do not understand the nature of citizenship nor define the meaning of ‘natural component’. What is the nature of citizenship? It is one thing alone: MEMBERSHIP (in a nation). If one is a member of a country, and that country is organized as a nation, then one’s membership in their country translates to citizenship in their nation.

    That national membership is of two possible types: natural membership; or artificial — legal membership. If one is a member by natural-ization then one is a citizen by adoption and not by family inheritance. All forms of adoption are legal matters, and are not natural connectedness. A “legal child” is an adopted child and vise versa. A natural-ized citizen is a legal citizen and vise versa.

    Citizenship that is natural is citizenship that is inherited from citizen parents. Citizenship that is merely legal, is citizenship by allowance of law. Citizenship that is natural is so via political inheritance –NOT biological inheritance!

    Your vast knowledge of biology and biochemistry are irrelevant to socio-political reality. Take a course in Social Anthropology and your eyes may be opened. Nations are socio-political entities and membership is either natural or contrived, artificial, unnatural, like a white man who joins himself to a Native American tribe. He may be a member of the tribe but he is not a natural member, nor is any child born to him unless he somehow officially becomes a new natural(ized) member of the tribe. It is actually that simple, but unfortunately, you don’t do simple.

  53. avatar
    Adrien Nash February 27, 2016 at 1:28 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Read this page, and give us your revised count:

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

    Well, it’s been a good while since I was cognizant of the list of horribles presented on that page. You are correct as to my recollection being way off, and that reintroduction was an unwelcome reminder of how many thoughtless minds failed to follow the fact that the term ins NOT a term of legal artifice but is simple common English. Presuming otherwise can be defended but can’t be substantiated to any degree of certainty. No one has yet even attempted it, much less succeeded.

  54. avatar
    Adrien Nash February 27, 2016 at 1:33 am #

    Daniel: The worst thing possible that could happen to a birther has happened to him. Nobody cares.

    uhhhh…. that is nothing new. That has pretty much been the case from the beginning, and only rarely has it been otherwise. So no, recognition is not relevant to why I have endeavored to explain the logic that everyone, including birthers, prefer to ignore. You failed to point out that even the Apuzzo crowd has no willingness to learn anything contrary to their dogma, -so acceptance is something I’ve never come across.

  55. avatar
    Adrien Nash February 27, 2016 at 1:49 am #

    gorefan: And Adrien, guess what – they all cite Wong Kim Ark as being binding precedent on the lower courts.

    Ha! I wouldn’t have it any other way because that fact proves the absurdity of their thinking, their “facts”, and their conclusion. And that would be because WKA had nothing at all to do with natural citizenship by birth, but everything to do with legal citizenship via common law.

    Common law could not, cannot, and never will be capable of producing a natural citizen of any nation. It only produces legal citizens. Only political inheritance of national membership produces natural citizenship.

    Natural Citizen; Born Citizen, Born Natural Citizen; Natural Born Citizen. Three of the four are natural citizens, but the second one is ambiguous because it can refer to either a citizen AT birth, or a citizen BY birth. A citizen BY birth is a natural citizen. A citizen AT birth (to alien parents) is a common law citizen and ineligible to serve as President. That inconvenient truth is why the protection for presidential eligibility was dropped from the 1795 Nat. Act.

    Its words meant just what all obots are against, namely that the alien-born of foreign parents are not eligible to serve as President because natural citizenship is via the RIGHT of Citizenship by DESCENT, NOT via native-birth.

    PS. nowhere in the WKA holding is “natural born citizen” even mentioned or implied. But then you all already know that, even while you pretend that you don’t -and that the Supreme Court opinion “settled” the matter (when in fact it never even addressed it).

  56. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 27, 2016 at 8:11 am #

    So explain something to us: A dozen courts have cited Wong on Obama eligibility. They think the issue is “well settled.” A raft of legal scholars concur. You on the other hand think otherwise. How do you explain this disparity of opinion?

    Adrien Nash: PS. nowhere in the WKA holding is “natural born citizen” even mentioned or implied. But then you all already know that, even while you pretend that you don’t -and that the Supreme Court opinion “settled” the matter (when in fact it never even addressed it).

  57. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 27, 2016 at 8:21 am #

    This is the definition of “natural born” from the Oxford English Dictionary:

    “Having a specified position or character by birth; used esp. with subject.”

    One of the OED usage examples comes from George Bancroft’s history. He wrote:

    “Every one who first saw the light on American soil was a natural-born American citizen.”

    Read more:
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/09/framer-v-farmer/
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/obots-in-history-george-bancroft/

    Adrien Nash: that reintroduction was an unwelcome reminder of how many thoughtless minds failed to follow the fact that the term ins NOT a term of legal artifice but is simple common English

  58. avatar
    Scientist February 27, 2016 at 8:27 am #

    Adrien Nash: the fact that the term ins NOT a term of legal artifice but is simple common English.

    In simple common English, “natural born” means “from birth”. The novel and movie, “Natural Born Killers” never implied that the murderers’ parents were themselves murderers. If one says, “Andrew McCutchen is a natural born centerfielder” that doesn’t mean both his parents were centerfielders. His mother almost certainly didn’t.

    Once again, your arguments destroy your own case, since, in plain English, “natural born” means “from birth”. You would do best to stop now, because everything you say to try to make your case weakens it.

  59. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 27, 2016 at 8:31 am #

    But is not law the codification of what people think is right and fair? What is natural?

    In some societies is was considered that the condition of the child follows the parents. In the British system the condition of the child was considered to follow from the allegiance owed the sovereign in a pact of mutual protection and obedience. There is no tablet from on high that chooses one over the other. It is the convention of a particular society that controls. In the United States, we have recognized both values and codified them in our law.

    You may have your own ideas of what is “natural,” but despite your apparent view that you are wiser than everyone else, your ideas and values are only absolutes in your own mind.

    Adrien Nash: Citizenship that is natural is citizenship that is inherited from citizen parents. Citizenship that is merely legal, is citizenship by allowance of law. Citizenship that is natural is so via political inheritance –NOT biological inheritance!

  60. avatar
    Scientist February 27, 2016 at 8:38 am #

    Adrien Nash: Take a course in Social Anthropology and your eyes may be opened.

    I have taken many.

    Adrien Nash: Nations are socio-political entities and membership is either natural or contrived, artificial, unnatural, like a white man who joins himself to a Native American tribe. He may be a member of the tribe but he is not a natural member, nor is any child born to him unless he somehow officially becomes a new natural(ized) member of the tribe.

    If you had taken such courses, you would have learned (assuming you didn’t sleep through the lectures, which you seem to have done) that human societies have a wide range of practices. There are patrilineal and matrilineal groups. There are a whole range of family structures and marital structures. Each group has its own practices and none are more right than others.

    In England and Anglo-Saxon societies around the world (which includes the US), all those born on the land were full citizens, regardless of who their parents were. That IS NATURAL to those societies. Other societies may do the same or different, but that doesn’t change what the rules are in the US.

  61. avatar
    gorefan February 27, 2016 at 10:10 am #

    Adrien Nash: PS. nowhere in the WKA holding is “natural born citizen” even mentioned or implied. But then you all already know that, even while you pretend that you don’t -and that the Supreme Court opinion “settled” the matter (when in fact it never even addressed it).

    And yet the US government in its appellant brief to the Court said that deciding in Wong’s favor would make him eligible to be president.

    And yet the Chief Justice in his dissenting opinion said that the Court’s decision made someone like Wong Kim Ark eligible to be president.

    And yet William Dameron Guthrie who argued cases before the same Supreme Court Justices said that the opinion made the US born children of Chinese alien parents eligible to be president.

    And yet Alexander Porter Morse who also argued before the Supreme Court said that the Wong opinion made the US born children of Chinese alien parents eligible to be president.

    BTW, in 1795 Congressman James Hillhouse of Connecticut said in Congressional debates over the naturalization act that children born in the US of aliens were natural born citizens.

  62. avatar
    Lupin February 27, 2016 at 11:43 am #

    Adrien Nash: Its words meant just what all obots are against, namely that the alien-born of foreign parents are not eligible to serve as President because natural citizenship is via the RIGHT of Citizenship by DESCENT, NOT via native-birth.

    As the philosopher Blaise Pascal wrote: “Vérité en-deçà des Pyrénées, erreur au-delà” which roughly means that depending on whether you’re born on one side or the other of the Pyrenees mountains (which separate France from Spain), then your condition and indeed truth itself may be different.

    To the extent that you argue that there is such a thing as a “natural” state (something which Rousseau and Hobbes discussed at great length) then the notion of citizenship, an artificial man-made construct is totally incompatible with it.

    Therefore a natural-born citizen is exactly what the laws that define citizenship in the first place say it is, no more, no less; there is no anterior state. This is what Montesquieu in the Spirit of the Laws and Vattel in The Law of Nations, were trying to examine, the latter highlighting the differences between France Germany on the one hand and England on the other.

    In effect, your application of a supposed Natural State to the concept of citizenship is not only misguided, it is a contradiction in terms.

  63. avatar
    Reality Check February 27, 2016 at 12:56 pm #

    What Pete said.

    (BTW, I know you were quoting Adrien and not me.)

    Pete: Give it up, Adrien. You lost the argument. Like, years ago.

    In fact, if you want to the know the truth, the argument was lost long before you ever made it. It was lost many decades before you were even born.

  64. avatar
    Scientist February 27, 2016 at 1:02 pm #

    Lupin: To the extent that you argue that there is such a thing as a “natural” state (something which Rousseau and Hobbes discussed at great length) then the notion of citizenship, an artificial man-made construct is totally incompatible with it.

    Even many of the things Rousseau and Hobbes thought were universal to humans have turned out not to be so. I think the closest might be the incest taboo, but even that was violated by the Egyptian Pharaohs and Inca and Hawaiian royalty. A student of anthropology like Mr. Nash surely knows that.

    If you look at the natural way human groups would select their leaders, it would be based on hunting prowess or demonstrated wisdom or some personal traits seen as valuable in that society. I conclude that restricting it to “natural born citizens’ is actually a violation of natural law. Societies are free to adopt such restrictions, of course, but we mustn’t pretend they are in any way natural.

  65. avatar
    Joey February 27, 2016 at 1:21 pm #

    The government’s attorneys in their brief for U.S. V Wong Kim Ark asked the Supreme Court to rule on the following: “Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?

    To hold that Wong Kim Ark is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN within the ruling now quoted, is to ignore the fact that at his birth he became a subject of China by reason of the allegiance of his parents to the Chinese Emperor. That fact is not open to controversy, for the law of China demonstrates its existence. He was therefore born subject to a foreign power; and although born subject to the laws of the United States, in the sense of being entitled to and receiving protection while within the territorial limits of the nation—a right of all aliens—yet be was not born subject to the ‘political jurisdiction’ thereof, and for that reason is not a citizen. The judgment and order appealed from should be reversed, and the respondent remanded to the custody of the collector.”

    The 6-2 majority on the Supreme Court responded to the government’s statement above in their ruling: [An alien parent’s] “allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a NATURAL SUBJECT, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a NATURAL-BORN SUBJECT.”

    “’Subject’ and ‘CITIZEN’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land..”

    “…every child born in England of alien parents was a NATURAL-BORN SUBJECT, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

    “The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”

  66. avatar
    Keith February 28, 2016 at 12:49 pm #

    Adrien Nash: Scientist wrote: “There is no natural component to citizenship at all.”

    That is a natural thing to write when you do not understand the nature of citizenship nor define the meaning of ‘natural component’. What is the nature of citizenship? It is one thing alone: MEMBERSHIP (in a nation). If one is a member of a country, and that country is organized as a nation, then one’s membership in their country translates to citizenship in their nation.

    That is actually correct, Adrian, as far as it goes. Congratulations.

    What you miss, of course, is that ‘country’ and ‘nationhood’ are human constructs, and are no more ‘natural’ than corn flakes.

  67. avatar
    Northland10 February 28, 2016 at 9:18 pm #

    Keith: That is actually correct, Adrian, as far as it goes. Congratulations.

    What you miss, of course, is that ‘country’ and ‘nationhood’ are human constructs, and are no more ‘natural’ than corn flakes.

    I can personally attest that Corn Flakes are not natural constructs. Back in the day when Kellogg used to give tours of their Battle Creek plant, multiples times I saw Corn Flakes being made.

    The best smelling factory tour ever.

  68. avatar
    Scientist February 29, 2016 at 9:18 am #

    Northland10: I can personally attest that Corn Flakes are not natural constructs.

    To be completely accurate, corn itself is a human construct, bearing almost no resemblance to its natural progenitor, teocinte, which is native to parts of Mexico and Central America.

  69. avatar
    Crustacean February 29, 2016 at 3:47 pm #

    McCutchen’s dad was a baseball player in high school, and he taught young Andrew how to play ball. But his mom was a volleyball star. So it looks like the Pirates’ star player is just your run-of-the-mill NATURALIZED center fielder. But didn’t Vattel say center-fielder-ness is only passed down by the father?

    Scientist: If one says, “Andrew McCutchen is a natural born centerfielder” that doesn’t mean both his parents were centerfielders. His mother almost certainly didn’t.

  70. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 1, 2016 at 2:05 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: So explain something to us: A dozen courts have cited Wong on Obama eligibility. They think the issue is “well settled.” A raft of legal scholars concur. You on the other hand think otherwise. How do you explain this disparity of opinion?

    “courts have cited Wong” Regarding what?? Regarding citizenship and native-birth.
    “They think the issue is “well settled.”” What issue?? Citizenship via native-birth.
    Scholars agree. About what? About citizenship and native-birth.

    So far I am in almost complete agreement with them, but they remain ignorant regarding the issue of subjection, FULL subjection to the FULL authority (jurisdiction) of American governments (State and Federal).

    Full subjection includes the most fundamental obligation of all able-bodied male citizens of the nation; which is the duty to defend, -to defend women and children, the elderly and the disabled, the nation and liberty. Where have you found ANY discussion or mention by any of the pontificators regarding that primal duty? Answer: no where.

    They are all oblivious because they are and were all of the elite class that always somehow escapes having to answer the call of duty that mere normal CITIZENS are obligated to hear and heed.

  71. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 1, 2016 at 2:20 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: This is the definition of “natural born” from the Oxford English Dictionary:

    “Having a specified position or character by birth; used esp. with subject.”

    One of the OED usage examples comes from George Bancroft’s history. He wrote:

    “Every one who first saw the light on American soil was a natural-born American citizen.”

    That definition is exactly what I stated: common English language; NOT legal artifice. If you add the word “citizen” you also do NOT get a term of legal artifice. It is still common English, and no one on Earth can prove that it is not, nor even give convincing evidence otherwise. None exists.

    George Bancroft was just one more common mind deluded by the common misconception that everyone else was also deluded by. That is seen in the fact that he could not articulate a single logical reason for his dogmatic statement. And also, his delusion is evident in the fact that he erroneously inserted a hyphen where none belongs.
    A hyphen is needed in the legal term of art: ‘natural-born subject”, which represented an artificial system of nationality assignment that the members of the new constitutional national government totally rejected.

    In its bastardized place, they returned to the natural bond of unity that holds people together in natural groups, -the bond of natural membership, as in a family, a clan, a tribe, and a country. That membership becomes known as “citizenship” when a country installs a central government and becomes a nation.
    There is no bond between citizens unless they are all natural citizens, otherwise they are just as unrelated as people on a subway.
    Those born of citizens are all natural citizens, and those who they allow to join their group (their nation) become new natural citizens via natural-ization. Then they also are a part of the bond that holds the nation together.

  72. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 1, 2016 at 2:35 am #

    Scientist: In simple common English, “natural born” means “from birth”. The novel and movie, “Natural Born Killers” never implied that the murderers’ parents were themselves murderers.

    Your logic is flawed. The element of TIME has nothing to do with that which is natural, thus “from birth” is unrelated and irrelevant. That which is natural is so because of innate nature, inherent traits, born with a certain characteristic, whether it be membership or criminality or talent.
    ORIGIN is what it is all about, not timing. “from birth”, “from the age of 5”, “from the age of 10”, all are irrelevant to that character which one was born with.

    In-born character, personality, or talent need not be the result of reflecting one’s parents. Good and loving parents might have a monstrously uncivilized child; a “bad seed”. Whether something is natural born or not is not related to the issue of political unity of origin (a single nationality). That is separate although related.

    The focus is not on parentage but on source; source of character, -whether it is of a natural source or a developed, attributed, or bestowed source. An adopted child has no source connection with the adoptive parents. Its connection is not natural but legal. Legal vs natural. THAT is the focus.

  73. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 1, 2016 at 3:21 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: What is natural?

    In some societies is was considered that the condition of the child follows the parents. In the British system the condition of the child was considered to follow from the allegiance owed the sovereign in a pact of mutual protection and obedience.

    The British system was just that: a system, -an artificial system concocted to allow the Scots to benefit from laws which otherwise naturally excluded them. The invented system served the kingdom and the king, but it was a bastardization of the natural pattern of national membership. Natural national membership was the inclusion of one’s progeny in the groups to which the father belonged, including his region and his nation.

    The artificiality of the British system is seen in its asinine logic, logic that was totally illogical since it pretended that babies were born with allegiance to government because it protected them and they were too vulnerable to protect themselves, -as if they hatched from an egg into the government’s incubator.

    All that line of thinking is absurd because babies owe no one allegiance, and are under no jurisdiction other than their parents. They answered to no one representing the government, and that extended to older children as well, until the age of adulthood, or close to it.
    Minors, like foreigners, are exempt from government political jurisdiction over adult citizens, -which had always been understood to be referring only to adult males since wives and children were merely extensions of the husband and father, in a category similar to property.

    ” the condition of the child follows the parents”
    The modern mind fails to grasp what is perceived as being a legally assigned “condition” is actually anything but. The off-spring of all creatures of all of nature, including humans, DO follow the condition of the parents. Even far back before government existed, there still were laws; laws of nature which rule the biological universe.

    Everyone is aware of the biological connection between parents and child, just as an apple seed does not produce orange trees, but apple trees, so children are cast from the mold supplied by their parents.
    But what doesn’t readily come into one’s consciousness is that fact that there are laws other than biological laws. There are and always were sociological laws which are almost never broken when reproduction is confined to marriage or monogamous unions.

    Those laws are seen in the relationships of both animals and humans. The off-spring of the parents absolutely are ALWAYS Members of the parents’ group (their family and their greater family, -or herd or tribe). No child is born as an alien to his or her mother and father. Family membership is natural and automatic, and it extends up the sociological ladder all of the way to membership in their nation.

    Every stage of membership is natural and automatic because it is inherited, being passed-down to the next generation. That is the law in the animal kingdom and the human one as well. That is why natural citizens and natural citizenship are real and not a figment of my imagination.

    The problem is that the subject is like an empty desert with no signs or roads or maps. No one has charted it, described it, revealed it, or explained it. It is essentially never mentioned by anyone other than yours truly. But it is the sole basis of national membership for all who were not born of aliens or hybrid couples.

  74. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 1, 2016 at 3:50 am #

    Scientist: all those born on the land were full citizens, regardless of who their parents were. That IS NATURAL to those societies

    “full citizens” Is that a legal term or a sociological term? Is that an explicitly clear term or an ambiguous term? It’s the latter to both questions. An ambiguous sociological term which lacks definition.
    It is a fundamental principle of American Organic Law that all citizens are equal, even when they aren’t. Those who are NOT inherently equal are those born of aliens and not citizens, but that real-world “otherness” is erased via the American legal fiction of natural-ization. By it, outsiders become insiders.

    By that fiction, all citizens are natural citizens and therefore equal. That means that regardless of being alien-born, those born within the borders of the natural citizens’ nation are deemed to be born with citizenship and that bestowed citizenship is deemed to be natural by legal fiction. They therefore have “full citizenship” and cannot be discriminated against, not denied any rights of citizenship. Mexico has no such legal fiction, and their citizenized foreigners have no right to serve in most positions of government.

    BUT… there is one thing which is NOT a right and is allowed ONLY on the basis of discrimination: the US presidency. “NO PERSON…except…” That is pure discrimination, excluding all who weren’t citizens when the Constitution was ratified unless they were natural citizens by birth, -NOT by legal fiction based on native-birth.

    Being a natural citizen by birth is completely different from being a “citizen at birth” or a native-born citizen, or a “natural citizen” by legal fiction based on birth place.
    Natural citizens are just that due to a factor apart and beyond the realm of law, and it is familial sanguinity, aka: a blood connection. It is not given by law, dependent on law, nor vulnerable to the whims of lawyers in Congress or the courts. It is membership that is inviolable, untouchable, and unrescindable.

    That is why no American terrorist has been stripped of his US citizenship even when targeted for assassination. No one has the authority to strip a fellow citizen of their citizenship because it is the citizen himself who owns his citizenship, not the government. (learn from Afroim v Rush as Congress was forced to)

  75. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 1, 2016 at 3:59 am #

    Keith: ‘country’ and ‘nationhood’ are human constructs,

    Well, you got it half right. Nations certainly are constructs but countries are not. Australia is a country, a continent, and a nation. Without the nation, the country still exists because it is comprised not of the people and the government, but solely of the land and the people. The land is 100% natural. So are the people. Together they would form a country interconnected by familial history if they were like the Japanese and Koreans. Such ancient blood-line origins form natural ties, but Australia was not naturally formed since it was fabricated as a prison colony. The only natural members of Australia were the aboriginals.

  76. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 1, 2016 at 4:40 am #

    gorefan: And yet the US government in its appellant brief to the Court said that deciding in Wong’s favor would make him eligible to be president.

    Excellent counterpoint. It would constitute a check-mate argument if it were not for the fact that human understanding exists in a realm rife with ambiguity and misconception. The unseen and unknown alternate truth never entered those lawyers’ minds after they initially were informed in their youth that “all native-born American sons can grow up to be eligible to be President”.
    That was the most beneficent attitude, but it was not the attitude of the framers and John Jay who feared European aristocracy coming to command all of the American military power by raising a creature of their own who would win the right to control the chief magistracy of the nation.

    Their interest was the opposite of inclusion, being instead EXCLUSION. How did they manage that? By prohibiting naturalized citizens from being President? That did not need to be prohibited explicitly since it was a given from the git-go. After all, the oath of Renunciation and Allegiance required the renunciation of all foreign titles of nobility and aristocracy. So it was not immigrant-citizen nobility that they feared, it was sons born to them on American soil and automatically given citizenship per established colony-state law. It was the sons born of royalty or nobility, -sons not required to renounce any titles because they were not required to ever take the oath of naturalization.

    It was the alien-born in America that were the potential threat because their father and mother could take them back to Europe, raise them as loyal royalists, and then ship them to America after completing their European education, where, after 14 years, they could run for the presidency. That is why they were excluded by the employment of the word “natural” instead of “native”. They are not synonymous because the former insure American patrimony while the latter insures nothing.

    But that truth was not known or understood by those steeped in common law and not natural law, and common law was everywhere in the political and legal environment, while natural law was nowhere to be seen.
    Could all of those top-tier lawyers be wrong? Sure. Easily. That is the history of all of science. Everyone was wrong until they all had to finally admit that they had always been wrong.

    Consider the word “culinary”. Everyone, including yourself, mispronounce it. It is not “kul-in-air-ee”. It is like “peculiar”, -correctly pronounced: “Q-lin-air-ee”. Even the “experts” from the culinary colleges mispronounce the very word representing their profession.
    Ingrained errors are ingrained permanently, including institutionalized errors about citizenship and its origins.

  77. avatar
    Scientist March 1, 2016 at 9:12 am #

    Adrien Nash: Well, you got it half right. Nations certainly are constructs but countries are not. Australia is a country, a continent, and a nation. Without the nation, the country still exists because it is comprised not of the people and the government, but solely of the land and the people. The land is 100% natural. So are the people. Together they would form a country interconnected by familial history if they were like the Japanese and Koreans. Such ancient blood-line origins form natural ties, but Australia was not naturally formed since it was fabricated as a prison colony. The only natural members of Australia were the aboriginals.

    You kind of destroyed your argument there, Adrian, The US is no more natural than Australia, and arguably less so, since at least Australia has natural geographic boundaries. Long stretches of the US border follow no natural geographical feature at all-the 49th parallel, the 45th parallel, the line in the Sonoran desert. Even the First Nations in the US are not unique to the US as the aborigines are to Australia-many of them also ranged through Canada and northern Mexico. Bottom line, the US is NOT a natural country.

    You really ought to stop, because each word you type undermines your argument.

  78. avatar
    Scientist March 1, 2016 at 9:17 am #

    Adrien Nash: Consider the word “culinary”. Everyone, including yourself, mispronounce it. It is not “kul-in-air-ee”. It is like “peculiar”, -correctly pronounced: “Q-lin-air-ee”.

    I pronounce it Q-lin-air-ee so your claim of how EVERYONE pronounces it is a lie. Like everything else you claim.

  79. avatar
    Thrifty March 1, 2016 at 9:56 am #

    You certainly have some colorful definitions of these terms, but they’re irrelevant. All that matters is what established case law says, as determined through legislation and the interpretation of that legislation through the courts.

    Adrien Nash: Well, you got it half right.Nations certainly are constructs but countries are not.Australia is a country, a continent, and a nation.Without the nation, the country still exists because it is comprised not of the people and the government, but solely of the land and the people. The land is 100% natural.So are the people.Together they would form a country interconnected by familial history if they were like the Japanese and Koreans.Such ancient blood-line origins form natural ties, but Australia was not naturally formed since it was fabricated as a prison colony.The only natural members of Australia were the aboriginals.

  80. avatar
    Scientist March 1, 2016 at 10:41 am #

    Thrifty: You certainly have some colorful definitions of these terms,

    “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

    If I were Adrian, I wouldn’t sit on any walls.

  81. avatar
    gorefan March 1, 2016 at 12:19 pm #

    Adrien Nash: That was the most beneficent attitude, but it was not the attitude of the framers and John Jay who feared European aristocracy coming to command all of the American military power by raising a creature of their own who would win the right to control the chief magistracy of the nation.

    That was the close to the point made by James Hillhouse in the Congressional debates in 1795. He spoke of the dangers of an alien noblemen’s U.S. born children being “natural born citizens”. And yet none of the other congressmen including James Madison stood up and told him his worries were unfounded.

  82. avatar
    Reality Check March 1, 2016 at 1:53 pm #

    You need to find a better example. Either pronunciation for “culinary” is correct. Kul-in-air-ee is listed first in several dictionaries I checked.

    Adrien Nash: Consider the word “culinary”. Everyone, including yourself, mispronounce it. It is not “kul-in-air-ee”. It is like “peculiar”, -correctly pronounced: “Q-lin-air-ee”. Even the “experts” from the culinary colleges mispronounce the very word representing their profession.
    Ingrained errors are ingrained permanently, including institutionalized errors about citizenship and its origins.

  83. avatar
    gorefan March 1, 2016 at 5:05 pm #

    Reality Check:
    You need to find a better example. Either pronunciation for “culinary” is correct. Kul-in-air-ee is listed first in several dictionaries I checked.

    Yep, some (Oxford Dictionary for example) even provide sound bites for both pronunciations.

    Merriam Webster

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/culinary

    Dictionary.com

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/culinary

    Free Dictionary

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/culinary

    Macmillan

    http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/culinary

    Oxford Dictionary

    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/culinary

  84. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 1, 2016 at 7:20 pm #

    In what year do you think such a system was “concocted”?

    Adrien Nash: The British system was just that: a system, -an artificial system concocted to allow the Scots to benefit from laws which otherwise naturally excluded them.

  85. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 1, 2016 at 7:26 pm #

    Bancroft interviewed James Madison for his book on the American Constitution. What’s your source?

    Adrien Nash: George Bancroft was just one more common mind deluded by the common misconception that everyone else was also deluded by.

  86. avatar
    Northland10 March 1, 2016 at 9:04 pm #

    Adrien Nash: That was the most beneficent attitude, but it was not the attitude of the framers and John Jay who feared European aristocracy coming to command all of the American military power by raising a creature of their own who would win the right to control the chief magistracy of the nation.

    American military power is a rather odd term for the 1780s. We had a very, very small standing army and absolutely no Navy, even though one allowed for in the Constitution.

  87. avatar
    Northland10 March 1, 2016 at 9:18 pm #

    Adrien Nash: In its bastardized place, they returned to the natural bond of unity that holds people together in natural groups, -the bond of natural membership, as in a family, a clan, a tribe, and a country. That membership becomes known as “citizenship” when a country installs a central government and becomes a nation.

    Tribalism went away in the western world over a thousand years ago to replaced by a legal construct, feudalism. Feudalism was eventually replaced by a new legal construct of the nation-state.

    Nation-states, especially those derived from Western European tradition are legal entities (based upon a contract, such as a Constitution) and, therefore, membership in those nation-states are based upon law, weather statutory or common law.

    There is no natural bond of unity in the USA, but a bonds of affection based upon shared values (liberty) and shared law (such as the US Constitution).

  88. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 1, 2016 at 9:28 pm #

    Adrian’s special talent is his completely inept analogies and examples. He can’t find a better one as it is against his nature. I’ll bet he could easily find a half a dozen that are worse, though.

    Reality Check:
    You need to find a better example. Either pronunciation for “culinary” is correct. Kul-in-air-ee is listed first in several dictionaries I checked.

  89. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 2, 2016 at 3:02 am #

    Thrifty: You certainly have some colorful definitions of these terms, but they’re irrelevant. All that matters is what established case law says, as determined through legislation and the interpretation of that legislation through the courts.

    None of that is relevant. To understand the truth you have to understand the understanding of the founders and framers. What the three words that determine presidential eligibility mean is the same as what they meant when they were penned. Nothing that came later alters what they meant when the Constitution was written. The issue isn’t about what later people thought or think, but what the founders thought, -or didn’t think.
    They didn’t think that alien-fathered children with no right to be viewed as Americans (since they were under the jurisdiction of a father who was under the jurisdiction of his foreign government) were natural citizens of America even though they were legal citizens.
    The founders only viewed those Americans as being citizens who became citizens via their siding with the revolution, along with the children born to them, thereby inheriting their national membership, plus the small minority who took the oath of renunciation & allegiance.
    But aliens, and children born to them, were not viewed by the national government as being U.S. citizens because they were born being subject to another government. The States didn’t care because they weren’t involved in international relationships as were Congress and the Dept. of State., so there was great confusion because there were two totally different views about who was an American and who was not.
    That confusion was supposed to be settled by the 14th amendment, but wasn’t, until the WKA opinion was given.

  90. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 2, 2016 at 3:08 am #

    gorefan: James Hillhouse in the Congressional debates in 1795. He spoke of the dangers of an alien noblemen’s U.S. born children being “natural born citizens”. And yet none of the other congressmen including James Madison stood up and told him his worries were unfounded.

    I have never before heard of his speech, and cannot believe what you claim until I read his actual words saying what you claim he said. If he actually said such a thing then he was oblivious to the meaning of the term that he failed to comprehend.

  91. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 2, 2016 at 3:12 am #

    Reality Check: You need to find a better example. Either pronunciation for “culinary” is correct. Kul-in-air-ee is listed first in several dictionaries I checked.

    I suggest that you check the date of publication of those dictionaries. I don’t doubt that recent ones include the common erroneous pronunciation which is a widely accepted error. Why would they not since language evolves? But wide acceptance of an error is not evidence that no error exists. All one needs do is to consider the erroneous nature of the Nazi belief system, or that of the Communists, to see how true that is in history.

  92. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 2, 2016 at 3:23 am #

    Scientist: The US is no more natural than Australia, and arguably less so

    Where did you get the misguided concept that I claim that the U.S. is a natural nation? I have only used natural nations as clear examples of the law of nature, which is that off-spring are the same as the parents across all of nature.
    The only exceptions are rare hybrids which are not examples of the natural norm. My point being that a natural off-spring is innately tied to those who produced it, unlike adopted off-spring, and are new natural members of their family.
    And that is directly analogous to natural membership in any and all natural groups, including nations. National membership can be purely ethnically based, sociologically based, or philosophically based, i.e., based on principles held in common. All who are of the same political mind and attitude are members of one political group which can be a nation that has fundamental principles.
    That group’s members naturally produce new members when they have children. Their child are natural citizens by birth.

  93. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 2, 2016 at 3:26 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    In what year do you think such a system was “concocted”?

    In the year that the court opinion in the Calvin case was implemented. Around 1608.

  94. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) March 2, 2016 at 4:32 am #

    Adrien Nash: The unseen and unknown alternate truth never entered those lawyers’ minds after they initially were informed in their youth that “all native-born American sons can grow up to be eligible to be President”.

    Did you ever attend university? The belief that university teaches students to blindly follow axioms instead of thinking for themselves and actually *understanding* the subject they’re studying is typically held by people who have never even set foot into one as a visitor.
    Law students study the law and come to their own conclusions (otherwise lawyers for two parties would never disagree in court).

    [I got a Master’s Degree in mathematics. For my diploma thesis, my professor told me a good preparation would be to prove a theorem from a book by a known authority in the field (the book only said the proof was “straightforward” which is mathematician-speak for “takes 5-10 pages of tedious calculations”). After failing to prove it for two weeks, I started to consider the theorem might be wrong and took about two days to construct a counter-example. My professor agreed I was correct and we sent the publisher a letter.
    If universities taught us to blindly believe, both me and my professor would instead have concluded I was too stupid to understand the “god-given truth” and should better pursue another career.]

  95. avatar
    Scientist March 2, 2016 at 7:05 am #

    Slartibartfast: Adrian’s special talent is his completely inept analogies and examples. He can’t find a better one as it is against his nature. I’ll bet he could easily find a half a dozen that are worse, though.

    So that means he’s a natural born boob, I guess. But I wouldn’t necessarily say that requires his parents to have been boobs.

  96. avatar
    Scientist March 2, 2016 at 12:34 pm #

    Adrien Nash: Where did you get the misguided concept that I claim that the U.S. is a natural nation? I have only used natural nations as clear examples of the law of nature, which is that off-spring are the same as the parents across all of nature.

    Offspring of sexually reproducing organisms are a recombinatory product of the parental DNA. They can quite easily show qualities not manifested in either parent. That isn’t rare, it’s common. Try again.

    To give you an analogy, short pea plants are Bolivian citizens, tall pea plants are American citizens. Cross them and you can end up with tall offspring (Americans), short offspring (Bolivian) or medium offspring (say, Ghanaian citizens, just for fun). Now you will say, but they’re all pea plants (human beings). Yes, they are, aren’t they.

    Adrien Nash: National membership can be purely ethnically based, sociologically based, or philosophically based, i.e., based on principles held in common. All who are of the same political mind and attitude are members of one political group which can be a nation that has fundamental principles.

    Thus, anyone who shares the values of a nation is a member. Artifacts like passports and citizenship papers are not determinative, since they are not natural.

    You see, Adrien, every time you open your mouth you end up undermining your position. You really, really, really ought to quit while you are only as far behind as you already are,

  97. avatar
    gorefan March 2, 2016 at 3:52 pm #

    Adrien Nash: I have never before heard of his speech

    In the debates in Congress over the 1795 Naturalization Act, Congressman Giles of Virginia proposed an amendment that would require immigrants which titles of nobility to renounce the titles before becoming a citizen. The amendment read as follows:

    “And in case such alien applying for admission to become a citizen of the United States, shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility in the Kingdom or State from which he came, in addition to the requisites of this, and the before recited act, he shall make an express renunciation of his title, or order of nobility, in the Court to which his application shall be made, before he shall be entitled to such admission; which renunciation shall be recorded in the said Court.” Annuals of Congress House of Representatives, 3rd Congress, 2nd Session, pg 1041

    Renouncing the title was necessary to complete naturalization. Mr. Hillhouse of Connecticut said that the amendment wasn’t strong enough as alien nobles could come to the US refuse to renounce their titles and then pass their titles through inheritance to their natural born children.

    “If we pass the present amendment, the construction must be, that an alien, after residing in this country, abjuring his allegiance to his own, offering to become a citizen of, and taking the oath of fidelity to, the United States, is in the possession of the rights of a privileged order to which he may have belonged; and further that their rights are hereditary, unless he shall, agreeably to the amendment, come forward and renounce them. But what will be the consequences of him not renouncing? Most clearly that he retains and possesses them. A nobleman, then, may come to the United States, marry, purchase lands, and enjoy every other right of a citizen, except of electing and being elected to office. His children, being natural born citizens, will enjoy, by inheritance, his title, and all the rights of his nobility and a privileged order he possessed, an idea which ought not, either explicitly or impliedly, to be admitted.” Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 3rd Congress 2nd Session, January 2nd, 1795 page 1046

    Hillhouse understood the terms as they meant in 1795.

    Adrien Nash: If he actually said such a thing then he was oblivious to the meaning of the term that he failed to comprehend.

    He was a Connecticut lawyer so his understanding is much stronger than yours. You are oblivious to the meaning of the term that you fail to comprehend.

  98. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 2, 2016 at 5:43 pm #

    I thought you would give that answer. Now, explain to me why a law was proposed in 1580 (25 Eliz. I), which was not enacted, to make the children of aliens born in England not natural born subjects, if indeed they were not previously so.

    Adrien Nash: In the year that the court opinion in the Calvin case was implemented. Around 1608.

  99. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 3, 2016 at 5:26 am #

    The Magic M (not logged in): Adrien Nash: The unseen and unknown alternate truth never entered those lawyers’ minds after they initially were informed in their youth that “all native-born American sons can grow up to be eligible to be President”.

    Did you ever attend university? The belief that university teaches students to blindly follow axioms instead of thinking for themselves and actually *understanding* the subject they’re studying is typically held by people who have never even set foot into one as a visitor.

    You misinterpreted my use of the word “youth”, by which I meant childhood and teen years. I doubt you would care to argue that the impression I mentioned was not essentially universally dispensed into our consciousness while growing up.

  100. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 3, 2016 at 5:29 am #

    Scientist: So that means he’s a natural born boob, I guess.But I wouldn’t necessarily saythat requires his parents to have been boobs.

    And again, as usual and always, we see a total lack of response to a single thing that I wrote. That has been the pattern because the irrefutable can’t be refuted.

  101. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 3, 2016 at 5:38 am #

    Scientist: Offspring of sexually reproducing organisms are a recombinatory product of the parental DNA.They can quite easily show qualities not manifested in either parent.That isn’t rare, it’s common.
    Thus, anyone who shares the values of a nation is a member.Artifacts like passports and citizenship papers are not determinative, since they are not natural.

    “Qualities” (Plural); “Values” (again, Plural) Nationality is a single thing, it is not plural. Nationality is one thing; membership. Breed and Species are one thing each, not plural. Please inform us of off-spring from any time in world history that were different from their parents’ uniform species or uniform breed. This should be most informative.
    But you accidentally hit one nail on the head, since passports and citizenship papers truly are NOT determinative of nationality; they are merely representative proof of citizenship that already exists. But you could have figured that out if you had actually thought about it.
    Well, you see that you can’t because it can’t happen, just as a child is naturally of the same group as his or her parents, including their citizenship group.

  102. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 3, 2016 at 6:03 am #

    gorefan: His children, being natural born citizens, will enjoy, by inheritance, his title, and all the rights of his nobility and a privileged order he possessed, an idea which ought not, either explicitly or impliedly, to be admitted.” Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 3rd Congress 2nd Session, January 2nd, 1795 page 1046

    Hillhouse understood the terms as they meant in 1795.

    Adrien Nash: If he actually said such a thing then he was oblivious to the meaning of the term that he failed to comprehend.

    He was a Connecticut lawyer so his understanding is much stronger than yours. You are oblivious to the meaning of the term that you fail to comprehend.

    You fail to comprehend the context of the matter we are discussing. His perspective was purely that of a State representative indoctrinated with British common law, but that was not the perspective of the first Congress and presidency, nor that of the framers of the Constitution. They viewed nationality quite differently and it did not include the possibility of nationality bigamy, i.e., dual-citizenship and dual-allegiance. That was anathema to them, just as was having two husbands.

    So don’t pretend that there was and is only one perspective regarding the issue of American citizenship because from the very beginning there were two. One was the State perspective and the other was the federal perspective, which was the only one from which the meaning of the words “natural born citizen” could be found. That great dichotomy was the source of the great national desideratum regarding who was and was not a citizen.

    To illustrate a little of the logic of that fact, just ask yourself: why did Mr. Hillhouse of Connecticut use the word “natural” instead of “native”? Why not “native born citizen”? Answer: Because of his background, which always conflated the two because of the term “naturalborn subject” which indeed conflated the two as a legal fiction of British law.

    The founders and framers did NOT conflate the two, and did NOT write that “No person, except a native-born citizen…” nor “a natural-born subject”.

    Also, just try to explain how in the world John Jay could have underlined an individual word within a “legal term of art” as espoused by you and Mario Apuzzo? It is irrational and impossible to do that. You can only underline words that have individual meaning, -not words that have no individual meaning since the meaning of the phrase of which they are a part is a fictional construct. You cannot underline an individual word in “natural-born subject” because it is a legal term of artifice meaning anyone and everyone who was a subject.

    Was anyone and everyone who was a citizen also a “natural born citizen”? You already know that no one born of aliens could possibly be accurately referred to as being a natural member of a national group to which they were strangers and outsiders (tied to foreign parents by birth, by blood lineage, and paternal ownership).

  103. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 3, 2016 at 6:23 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I thought you would give that answer. Now, explain to me why a law was proposed in 1580 (25 Eliz. I), which was not enacted, to make the children of aliens born in England not natural born subjects, if indeed they were not previously so.

    Society, common law courts, and bureaucrats may have gradually evolved the attitude of accepting all native-born children as being British since they would have been raised in Britain and been viewed as subjects of the Crown from birth. So such a proposed law was an attempt to differentiate actual foreigners born to aliens (regardless of native-birth) from those born to Englishmen. In that context, the term used (natural born subject) was NOT a legal term of artifice but was a literal term of the English language. Such children were subjects by birth to subjects, subjects by blood lineage or inheritance, not by acquiescence of society and government.

    I’ve written an entire exposition on the significance of the hyphen in the term “natural-born subject”. Its significance is huge and vitally important, and necessary. It is an unrecognized error to conflate the similar terms because the first is from the natural realm while the latter is from the legal realm, with a legal meaning. That hair absolutely must be, and can be, split, because without doing so, one will flounder in the misconception that the word “natural” does not modify the noun “subject” or “citizen”.
    A natural subject is a subject by birth to subjects, a subject born of subjects, and similarly with citizens.
    “Citizen” does NOT modify the word “born”; it has no necessary attachment to it. Born was added as an expanded version of “natural citizen”.

    “Natural citizen” can hardly be found anywhere because of the history of “natural-born subject” being present in everyone’s mind via the inherited common law from Britain. But if you go back farther and farther, eventually you have to ask yourself why the word “natural” was used at all. The answer is that it was used because it was meant in a literal sense, and that sense had no connection to the location where one left the womb, just as it has no relationship to membership in a Native American tribe. Or would someone dare to argue that you cannot be a natural member of an Indian tribe unless born on their reservation land? Including anyone and everyone?

  104. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 3, 2016 at 6:55 am #

    Lord Coke cites Aristotle to prove that the allegiance one owes to the sovereign comes from natural law. Was Aristotle one of the long line of your imagined confused persons?

    Adrien Nash: But if you go back farther and farther, eventually you have to ask yourself why the word “natural” was used at all.

  105. avatar
    Scientist March 3, 2016 at 7:22 am #

    Adrien Nash: Nationality is one thing; membership.

    And membership can be decided as the members choose. The members of the US have chosen, whether you like it or not, that all those born in the US regardless of their parents’ status are members and can be President. They did so in the colonial days, they did so after Independence and they later codified this in the 14th Amendment. They have elected 2 Presidents whose fathers were not members and could potentially elect a third this year. If not this time, they will doubtless do so in the future. That is their ABSOLUTE RIGHT as members. If members don’t have those rights then membership is an empty shell.

    Adrien Nash: Please inform us of off-spring from any time in world history that were different from their parents’ uniform species or uniform breed.

    I already did and I see no need to repeat myself because a dullard named Nash cannot read.

  106. avatar
    Northland10 March 3, 2016 at 7:44 am #

    Adrien Nash: You fail to comprehend the context of the matter we are discussing.

    Gorefan was giving examples, with citations, of what representatives were actually saying. You’re just claiming what the “founders” thought based only on your beliefs.

    We comprehend your “context” but when discussing law, “making things up according to our beliefs” is not a valid argument. Actual statements and facts matter.

  107. avatar
    Crustacean March 3, 2016 at 12:35 pm #

    Well said, Scientist. As Neal Katyal and Paul Clement put it in the Harvard Law Review:

    “All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time.”

    It’s really not that complicated. Unfortunately for Mr. Nash, he does not rate as a source routinely used to interpret the Constitution. Mr. Nash, you can spit in the wind all day long, and please do tell us more about the universe-shattering importance of hyphens (I’m interested in hearing your take on semicolons, too, but we can save that for another time). At the end of the day it all adds up to exactly zero. No one here is buying what you’re selling.

    But you seem like a very intelligent person. Would you please do the world a favor and focus that intelligence and your seemingly inexhaustible energy on something useful? For example, I could really use a sure-fire way to get my kid’s friends to stop leaving their broken skateboard parts all over my garage – without resorting to corporal punishment, of course. Please let me know when you have a solution to that problem. I thank you in advance.

    Scientist: The members of the US have chosen, whether you like it or not, that all those born in the US regardless of their parents’ status are members and can be President.

  108. avatar
    gorefan March 3, 2016 at 1:06 pm #

    Adrien Nash: You fail to comprehend the context of the matter we are discussing.

    And you fail to comprehend the context of his speech. It was not about a state matter but about national citizenship. The Act and amendment they were discussing was the Naturalization Act, they were discussing aliens becoming US citizens. His understanding of how US citizenship was acquired in the 1790s is vastly superior to yours.

    Adrien Nash: His perspective was purely that of a State representative indoctrinated with British common law, but that was not the perspective of the first Congress and presidency, nor that of the framers of the Constitution.

    And your perspective is of someone trying to read the minds of people long dead. No matter how many seances you hold or turns at the Ouija board you take all of your musings are speculation and conjecture.

    Adrien Nash: why did Mr. Hillhouse of Connecticut use the word “natural” instead of “native”? Why not “native born citizen”?

    For the same reason James Iredell in 1788 said the president had to be a native. For the same reason St. George Tucker said the president had to be native-born. For the same reason James Kent said the president had to be native born.

  109. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 3, 2016 at 3:50 pm #

    I’m sorry, but could you explain how the framers of the Constitution were NOT representatives of states who were steeped in the British common law?

    You may be blissfully unaware, but to the rest of us, you are just making stuff up.

    Adrien Nash: His perspective was purely that of a State representative indoctrinated with British common law, but that was not the perspective of the first Congress and presidency, nor that of the framers of the Constitution.

  110. avatar
    Scientist March 3, 2016 at 5:28 pm #

    Challenge to Cruz Eligibility for NY Ballot Heard in Albany County Supreme Court

    I might have gone just for a laugh, but some things came up. A ruling is expected on Monday

    http://news10.com/2016/03/02/cruz-presidential-eligibility-case-to-be-heard-in-albany-co/

    By the way, Adrien, I have little doubt the ruling will displease you and you will consider the judge a fool. But if citizenship is like membership in a club, and the other members are all fools, perhaps the wise thing to do is to resign from that club and find a new one?

  111. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 4, 2016 at 2:09 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Lord Coke cites Aristotle to prove that the allegiance one owes to the sovereign comes from natural law. Was Aristotle one of the long line of your imagined confused persons?

    Now I’m confounded. “Sovereign”? What sovereign? Greece was a democracy of sorts, and the sovereign was the State itself since they didn’t didn’t owe allegiance to a man, -with the known except of Alexander during the empire phase. But you err by using the word “prove”. Opinions prove nothing. Allegiance owed is a subject that has no natural connection to babies. It only relates to adults, not minors. Although the Spartans included youths as well, but they were a very abnormal society.
    Also, you err by pretending that there is no such thing as any perspective other than that of Aristotle. There is and was a new and unique perspective that was held and defended by the American people, and it viewed “the sovereign” not as some royal despot but as themselves. They were the sovereigns. They were the makers and children of the makers of a new nation conceived in Liberty, not monarchy. As sovereigns, we possess the right to share our national membership with all of our children from birth and by birth.

    Monarchs possess the right to share their royalness with their children who are born being royal by blood, -and with no consideration given to the soil on which their children entered the world. Same with Indians and tribal membership.

  112. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 4, 2016 at 2:35 am #

    Scientist: And membership can be decided as the members choose.The members of the US have chosen, whether you like it or not, that all those born in the US regardless of their parents’ status are members and can be President.They did so in the colonial days, they did so after Independence and they later codified this in the 14th Amendment.They have elected 2 Presidents whose fathers were not members and could potentially elect a third this year.If not this time, they will doubtless do so in the future.That is their ABSOLUTE RIGHT as members. If members don’t have those rights then membership is an empty shell.

    I already did and I see no need to repeat myself because a dullard named Nash cannot read.

    “And membership can be decided as the members choose.”
    Hey genius, how did the members that did the choosing become members in the first place before they did the choosing? What the heck made them members? Answer: they were born to members of a prior order and those members were natives by being born of natives (or adopted by the native population). Such births produce natural members who have no attachment to any other country, nation, government, and society.

    “The members …have chosen…that all those born in the US regardless of their parents’ status are members and can be President.They did so in the colonial days,…”

    Wow! I didn’t know that the office of President existed during colonial days! Thanks for educating me!
    Here’s a news flash for you: the natural members of the sovereign States of America chose delegates to the convention what produced the Constitution. By the personal vote of each citizen that voted for each State legislator that voted to approve the Constitution, they bound themselves to the work produced by their representatives in ratifying it. They were bound by its mandates and limitations, one of which was in regard to the office of President. Such limitation is known as the rule of law, and not men.

    You now claim that the rule of men is what rules the roost, and law be damned. That is a treasonous attitude toward the foundation of your own nation.
    The People can choose who they want BY LAW! Not by personal fiat. If they do not like the limitations that the framers built into the Constitution, they are free to alter or abolish them, but until they do, they are bound by them. That’s called “civilization”.

    One more insult to add to your injury; are you aware of the fact that “peas” do NOT have parents??? To have parents means one has animal or human progenitors. And when was it decided that plants are divided into species and breeds?? Are these scientific facts too far over your head?

  113. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 4, 2016 at 2:51 am #

    Crustacean: “All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm…

    Here’s an arcane factoid: all the routine sources have no vetting in the matter because all they all did was regurgitate what they were taught by men who did likewise. None of it is or was based on anything of any substance. I have shared with you the substance of the matter but you prefer ignorance and arrogance. If not, then why have you not disputed or refuted a single statement that I have written about the meaning of “natural born citizen”?

    Like I could say about almost every single response to what I’ve written, you have said nothing in response to what I wrote, and you will not say anything in response because you cannot refute the irrefutable. You lose. Not in court but in the court of truth. What is the truth? You don’t care. You only care about consensus opinion. but as in science, consensus is not science. It is opinion, not fact.

    Obama & A $40,000,000 Comma
    https://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/obamacomma/

  114. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 4, 2016 at 3:23 am #

    gorefan: His understanding of how US citizenship was acquired in the 1790s is vastly superior to yours.

    You cannot possibly prove that contention. What he, and you, fail to comprehend is that the term “US citizenship” had no determinable meaning because without an explicit presented context, “U.S.” had no known meaning. The fact that you are unaware of that fact reveals the extent of your ignorance about nationality in the early American context.
    “the united STATES of AMERICA (Declaration of Independence, hand-written.) You think of the words as a title, but they are more. I’ve counted at least five separate meaning to the words “United States”. So throwing that term around as if anyone can know how it was intended by the mind that spoke or wrote it is absurd. Was federal citizenship intended, or was State citizenship mutually recognized by the members of the Union intended?

    Understanding the nature of “citizenship” in the new nation was confused by the continuing presence of British common law in the States, and that confusion was present in the minds of many State representatives. But there was no confusion when the first Nat. Act was authored, at least not in the majority.
    To understand the truth about American citizenship one must read the dissertation by Dr. David Ramsay who was a founder and historian, and doctor. I’ve transcribed it and annotated it here: The David Ramsay Dissertation Revelation
    https://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/the-david-ramsay-dissertation-revelation/

    Adrien Nash: why did Mr. Hillhouse of Connecticut use the word “natural” instead of “native”? Why not “native born citizen”?

    For the same reason James Iredell in 1788 said the president had to be a native. For the same reason St. George Tucker said the president had to be native-born. For the same reason James Kent said the president had to be native born.

    Is that supposed to be an explanation? How does an explanation explain nothing? Answer the question please. Why use the word “NATURAL” instead of “native”?????? You have no answer, hence the obfuscation of quoting misguided men, including St. George Tucker whom I have demolished on the subject of citizenship in one of my expositions mostly devoted to debunking his errors.

    Adrien Nash: His perspective was purely that of a State representative indoctrinated with British common law, but that was not the perspective of the first Congress and presidency, nor that of the framers of the Constitution.

    Gorefan: And your perspective is of someone trying to read the minds of people long dead. No matter how many seances you hold or turns at the Ouija board you take all of your musings are speculation and conjecture.

    response: You fail to comprehend the process of disputation. I made a statement, and instead of factually refuting it, (which is impossible) you run around waving your psycho-analysis of me instead. How does that refute what I claimed? It doesn’t. Get a clue. And some facts.

  115. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 4, 2016 at 3:32 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I’m sorry, but could you explain how the framers of the Constitution were NOT representatives of states who were steeped in the British common law?

    Adrien Nash: His perspective was purely that of a State representative indoctrinated with British common law, but that was not the perspective of the first Congress and presidency, nor that of the framers of the Constitution.

    You missed the context. It wasn’t one of some being steeped and some not being steeped. It was one of some ONLY (“purely”) having that perspective while the founders and signers of the Declaration of Independence came to abandon and reject the British artificial system of nationality assignment and embraced Natural Rights in its place, one of which is the unalienable right to pass one’s national membership to their progeny, aka; the Right of Citizenship by Descent. Whatever right of State and Union-wide membership they possessed, so did the children born to them. Their children were under the sovereignty of their American father’s political umbrella.

  116. avatar
    Adrien Nash March 4, 2016 at 3:39 am #

    Scientist: if citizenship is like membership in a club,…

    Sorry, that is a really off-base hypothetical since citizenship is NOT like a club. Clubs are voluntarily joined. Did you join your family when you were born? Do American Indians join their tribe when they are born? The only people who do any joining are outsiders (the 3%) while the insiders are those born already being members (the 97%). Get it yet? The natural group members are members by natural membership (meaning automatic membership by nature). Read that again so it can sink in.

  117. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 4, 2016 at 7:25 pm #

    In America there was little or no difference between natural law and the English Common Law. So it is really nonsense to say that they switched from one to the other.

    The fact that BOTH the English and the Americans passed statutes to make their progeny born overseas citizens/subjects underscores the similarities in the systems and the views of those operating in their legislatures. Indeed, the debate over the American 1790 Naturalization Act explicitly references an English act. A rough paraphrase is “shouldn’t we do what the British did?”
    .

    Adrien Nash: You missed the context. It wasn’t one of some being steeped and some not being steeped. It was one of some ONLY (“purely”) having that perspective while the founders and signers of the Declaration of Independence came to abandon and reject the British artificial system of nationality assignment and embraced Natural Rights in its place, one of which is the unalienable right to pass one’s national membership to their progeny, aka; the Right of Citizenship by Descent. Whatever right of State and Union-wide membership they possessed, so did the children born to them. Their children were under the sovereignty of their American father’s political umbrella.

  118. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 4, 2016 at 7:29 pm #

    You haven’t read Lord Coke’s decision in Calvin’s Case, have you.

    Adrien Nash: Now I’m confounded. “Sovereign”? What sovereign? Greece was a democracy of sorts, and the sovereign was the State itself since they didn’t didn’t owe allegiance to a man, -with the known except of Alexander during the empire phase. But you err by using the word “prove”.

  119. avatar
    Scientist March 4, 2016 at 9:09 pm #

    Adrien Nash: One more insult to add to your injury; are you aware of the fact that “peas” do NOT have parents??? To have parents means one has animal or human progenitors.

    parent: an animal or plant that is regarded in relation to its offspring

    Merriam-Webster

    You are still batting .00000 and for someone who claims to be guided by natural law, you know virtually nothing about nature.

  120. avatar
    Scientist March 4, 2016 at 9:30 pm #

    Adrien Nash: The People can choose who they want BY LAW! Not by personal fiat.

    And the law says all those born in the United States are eligible to be President. Court decisions and the 14th Amendment among other sources of law. The personal fiat that says otherwise is in fact YOUR PERSONAL FIAT ONLY.

    Still batting .0000. Coach get Nash off the field and get someone who can hit please.

  121. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 4, 2016 at 9:44 pm #

    Certainly all of Mr. Nash’s comments about the law are way beyond inane, but if this is any indication his lack of legal acumen may be dwarfed by his scientific illiteracy. I think Adrien may be the exact opposite of a Renaissance man—someone with significant incompetence in every field. I suspect that no one on the planet is more confident of their own abilities for less reason than Mr. Nash.

    Scientist: parent: an animal or plant that is regarded in relation to its offspring

    Merriam-Webster

    You are still batting .00000 and for someone who claims to be guided by natural law, you know virtually nothing about nature.

  122. avatar
    Scientist March 4, 2016 at 10:01 pm #

    Slartibartfast: I suspect that no one on the planet is more confident of their own abilities for less reason than Mr. Nash.

    As described by Dunning and Kruger, there is an inverse correlation between competence and confidence. Sadly, Nash is not alone, but I grant you he may be an extreme example. I understand there is even a current presidential candidate who demonstrates this theory very well.

  123. avatar
    gorefan March 4, 2016 at 10:12 pm #

    Adrien Nash: To understand the truth about American citizenship one must read the dissertation by Dr. David Ramsay who was a founder and historian, and doctor.

    Dr. Ramsay was wrong on how citizenship was acquired by birthright – at least that is what James Madison said. So if he got that most basic of ideas wrong – whjy should we think the rest of his theories are correct?

    Adrien Nash: Is that supposed to be an explanation?

    It is a simple explanation but I can understand why you can’t figure it out. I should have written 10,000 words on the subject.

    Adrien Nash: St. George Tucker whom I have demolished on the subject of citizenship in one of my expositions mostly devoted to debunking his errors.

    Yes, I’m sure in your mind you demolished him.

    Adrien Nash: I made a statement, and instead of factually refuting it,

    Actually you didn’t. You speculated that you know the perspective of someone you have never met, who died long before you were born and up until a day or so ago you had never heard of. So why am I required to provide facts to refute your speculation?

    Back to the Ouija board for you maybe you can contact Mr. Hillhouse. Say hi for me.

  124. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 4, 2016 at 10:19 pm #

    You’re not wrong as regards presidential candidates, but I think Mr. Nash is like a dozen standard deviations from the mean. Saying he’s an outlier is like saying Pluto is father away from the sun than Mercury.

    Scientist: As described by Dunning and Kruger, there is an inverse correlation between competence and confidence.Sadly, Nash is not alone, but I grant you he may be an extreme example.I understand there is even a current presidential candidate who demonstrates this theory very well.

  125. avatar
    Notorial Dissent March 5, 2016 at 1:36 am #

    Is there even such a thing as a dozen standard deviations as a quantifiable number?

  126. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 5, 2016 at 1:43 am #

    Sure. You can calculate the probability of a sample being a million standard deviations from the mean if you like. It is very small, but still positive.

    Notorial Dissent:
    Is there even such a thing as a dozen standard deviations as a quantifiable number?

  127. avatar
    Notorial Dissent March 5, 2016 at 4:40 am #

    I seem to remember that we never bothered with more than three or four at the most as anything beyond that didn’t amount to anything worth bothering with, and I think three is the most I ever remember seeing.

  128. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 5, 2016 at 6:55 am #

    So I was thinking of founding the Dunning-Kruger Foundation for the chronically arrogant, but dunning-kruger.org is already taken.

    Scientist: As described by Dunning and Kruger, there is an inverse correlation between competence and confidence. Sadly, Nash is not alone,

  129. avatar
    Scientist March 5, 2016 at 8:11 am #

    Adrien Nash: You now claim that the rule of men is what rules the roost, and law be damned. That is a treasonous attitude toward the foundation of your own nation.

    It is presumptuous to assume what nation(s), but be that as it may, let’s examine the rest of your statements just so there is nothing unclear. You say, “Rule of law, not men”. Guess what? I agree. But here’s the problem. The meaning of the law is often a subject of disagreement. The relevant question is how are such disagreements to be resolved? One can imagine several mechanisms:

    1. Courts
    2. Expert opinion, including but not limited to courts.
    3. Elected bodies (Congress).
    4. Voters
    5. Adrien Nash

    The problem you have is that 1-4 all agree that 5 is wrong.

    Now I’m sure you will say, what about all the scientific geniuses who were ridiculed and then shown to be right? (See, I anticipate your arguments). When you make that case, you show your misunderstanding of the history of science. In fact, the really great discoveries, those of people like Newton, Darwin and Einstein were almost always greeted very quickly by the scientific community with something like, “OMG, that’s brilliant and really quite obvious now that he published it. I wish I had thought of that.” There was no real opposition to Galileo or Darwin from their fellow scientists, only from religious bodies. When Einstein published Special Relativity in the annus mirabilis of 1905 it was universally acclaimed as true, because its logic was irrefutable. And of course Alamogordo provided all the experimental proof one could ask for. General Relativity had a bit of a tougher go, because it’s frightfully complex and hard to understand, but when Eddington showed that light was bent passing the Sun, the few sceptics folded their tent. And of course, as recently as this year, the demonstration of gravitational waves validated Einstein once again, not that anyone really doubted him.

    So, if you fancy yourself a Newton, a Darwin, an Einstein of presidential eligibility, I would say, “Not so much”…

  130. avatar
    Scientist March 5, 2016 at 9:06 am #

    Notorial Dissent: I seem to remember that we never bothered with more than three or four at the most as anything beyond that didn’t amount to anything worth bothering with, and I think three is the most I ever remember seeing.

    In manufacturing, six sigma (6 standard deviations) is a common quality goal. It means no more than 3.4 defects/million processes.

  131. avatar
    Northland10 March 5, 2016 at 2:30 pm #

    Adrien Nash: Do American Indians join their tribe when they are born?

    Not necessarily. Membership in Native American tribes are based upon the rules laid out in their own constitutions. They tribes determine the rules for membership in the tribe. Currently, most probably consider some level of tribal “blood” but it is based upon tribal rules, not some unspoken “natural law.”

    Here are a couple examples:
    http://www.sagchip.org/council/images/TribalConstitution/1986-amended-tribal-constitution.htm#.VtsxgZwrLDc

    http://standingrock.org/data/upfiles/files/SRST%20Constitution.pdf

  132. avatar
    y_p_w March 5, 2016 at 6:05 pm #

    Northland10: Not necessarily.Membership in Native American tribes are based upon the rules laid out in their own constitutions.They tribes determine the rules for membership in the tribe.Currently, most probably consider some level of tribal “blood” but it is based upon tribal rules, not some unspoken “natural law.”

    Here are a couple examples:
    http://www.sagchip.org/council/images/TribalConstitution/1986-amended-tribal-constitution.htm#.VtsxgZwrLDc

    http://standingrock.org/data/upfiles/files/SRST%20Constitution.pdf

    Really depends. Also – look up the term “disenrollment”. It’s gotten really ugly here in California with several tribes and their gaming revenues. One in the Sierra Nevada disenrolled the majority of its former membership rolls, including one of the last fluent speakers of the language – claiming that she was likely descended from members of another tribe. Others have been disenrolled for simply not responding in time with no recourse.

    Possibly the most lucrative tribe gets about $30K a month per adult member, and they suspended the membership of a group of prominent and vocal detractors for varying terms including banning them from the reservation.

    One tribe opened a casino in the last few years, and their tribal chairman likely has no native ancestry. The native ancestry he claims is not of the tribe anyways.

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

  133. avatar
    Northland10 March 5, 2016 at 7:35 pm #

    y_p_w: Really depends. Also – look up the term “disenrollment”. It’s gotten really ugly here in California with several tribes and their gaming revenues.

    No doubt. The casinos have caused various issues in regards to membership. I recall the Saginaw Chippewa tribe having some real problems some years ago.

    My point that Nash does not understand membership in a tribe still stands. It is actually even more complex than birth into a group since there it is entirely possible for people to have equal blood in two or more tribes which causes even more issue with casino profits.

  134. avatar
    y_p_w March 5, 2016 at 8:08 pm #

    Northland10: No doubt.The casinos have caused various issues in regards to membership.I recall the Saginaw Chippewa tribe having some real problems some years ago.

    My point that Nash does not understand membership in a tribe still stands.It is actually even more complex than birth into a group since there it is entirely possible for people to have equal blood in two or more tribes which causes even more issue with casino profits.

    My understanding is that “enrollment” in such a case must be selected by the individual.

    The big one I recall was the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians. The individual share of the casino profits was small, but got larger as members got disenrolled. The various controversies have included local law enforcement being involved in breaking up fights, the BIA reappointing the tribal council, and their casino closing down after an armed group of tribal members tried to take it over.

    The issue with the Thunder Valley Casino and United Auburn Indian Community wasn’t on as grand a scale. That was more about punishing tribal member.

  135. avatar
    Scientist March 6, 2016 at 9:26 am #

    Adrien Nash: One more insult to add to your injury; are you aware of the fact that “peas” do NOT have parents??? To have parents means one has animal or human progenitors.

    Couldn’t resist this. From today’s NY TImes, NYC Nature column in the Metropolitan section: “In the plant kingdom, if conditions are right where your parents put down roots, they will probably suit you too.”

  136. avatar
    Crustacean March 7, 2016 at 3:26 pm #

    Adrian, I will concede that when it comes to arcane factoids, you are out of my league. But let’s consider the sources that you claim give us nothing but regurgitated nonsense: The First Congress of the United States, British Common Law, and the United States Supreme Court. Not vetted? Lacking substance? You can not be serious.

    And not all consensuses are created equal. I get that same “consensus of opinion” crap every time I’m pounding a climate-change denier into a fine mist in debate. In science, as in other fields, a consensus of experts carries weight, whether you like it or not. Their conclusions are not the result of capricious opinions, but rather extensive scientific research and observation. Just because some armchair meteorology hobbyist who doesn’t really understand the science can use “radiative forcing” in a sentence, it doesn’t make his or her conclusions better than those of real scientists; quite the contrary, in fact. And just because Adrian Nash says “natural born citizen” means this or that doesn’t make it so.

    A consensus of idiots will be naturally idiotic. A consensus of amateurs will be amateurish. A consensus of one is not a consensus.

    Adrien Nash: Here’s an arcane factoid: all the routine sources have no vetting in the matter because all they all did was regurgitate what they were taught by men who did likewise. None of it is or was based on anything of any substance.

    You only care about consensus opinion. but as in science, consensus is not science. It is opinion, not fact.

  137. avatar
    Crustacean March 7, 2016 at 3:42 pm #

    Apologies for misspelling your name, Adrien.

    Crustacean: And just because Adrian Nash says “natural born citizen” means this or that doesn’t make it so.