Managing comments in WordPress is a challenge. In order to reduce page load times, I have divided comments into pages. The problem is that the nice Recent Comments widgets break when the recent comment is not on the most recent page. This is a most vexing limitation. There are Recent Comment widgets that work, but they are limited to only 15 comments.
So, as an experiment, I have turned off paging. Now you’ll get ALL the comments on one page. I think that makes things more readable, but some of the pages returned will now be HUGE.
Let me know what you think.
All one page is good. Thanks!
All in one page makes it so much easier to search for comments I KNOW are there somewhere.
All one page is more useful to me than the Recent Comments widget.
Looks good Doc.
All in one page is perfect!
But have we lost the nesting of the comments? I was just browing in the Nordyke Twins, and everything after a certain date isn’t nested.
After having tested it out, I too prefer all on one page – even with the ridiculously bloated threads, such as “Nordyke twins…”
I found the scroll bar works just fine in zipping through even the huge threads.
Prolific tRSoL poster Linda calls Doc Conspiracy a liar.
Yes..I addressed that in the other thread…She did not like that Dr. C’s research trumped her ridiculous claims. You have to look at how unhinged she became….Her most recent post is below…
Linda says:
January 21, 2010 at 1:08 pm
I will respond, but it will not be here. Look for your Comandant Dr Conspiracy to be exposed as the liar & fraud he is at my site as well as many others. I will debunk every single one of his unlinked lies one by one, right down the entire list!
Black Lion: I will debunk every single one of his unlinked lies one by one, right down the entire list!
Heh, that won’t take long, given that there are no (I HOPE) falsehoods among my articles.
I replied:
Doc, as I stated before Linda is just upset that by citing research by you, I was able to debunk her ridiculous theories regarding citizehsnip, early writers like Kent and Blackstone, and the Wong ruling.
In other words your work is appreciated and your research is impressive. That is why Linda is so upset. She just can’t deal with her theories being eviserated…
Whatever4: But have we lost the nesting of the comments?
I saw the nesting issue with the bottom part of the Nordyke Twins discussion. Nesting and paging shouldn’t be related. There are nested comments entered today in this thread that display properly, so they haven’t gone away in general.
The nesting seems fine today, and everywhere else. Just that specific article seemed odd.
While I do much prefer the faster load, I do miss the expandable menu when I go to look for articles. The site map isn’t quite the same as they are sorted by year and not topic. Is it possible to have an index page by topic? (Lawsuits, Birth Certificate, Birth Location, etc.)
I miss the expandable menu too. I will continue to look for better widgets.
Linda is back attempting to show that she knows more about citizenship law than anyone else…Take a look at her post…
Linda says:
January 22, 2010 at 3:03 pm
I’m going to leave a bit more history for folks to ponder over the weekend while I finish the 1st part of my next series of essays.
Remember that I said that we had to look to the original common law’ adopted by England. The commom law’ of English history that our founders were taught as youths. Here is a sneak peak into Part I:
The Origin of the English, Germanic and Scandinavian Languages, and Nations, ice. by be Bev. Joseph Bosworth, DO
LONDON :
JOHN EUSSELL SMITH,
4, OLD COMPTON STREET, SOHO SQUARE
MDCCCXLVIII (1848)
To:
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
FRANCIS (GOWER) EGERTON,
EARL OF ELLESMERE.
With boasted liberty superficially on the lip, there is often licentiousness, and consequent oppression,—but we feel Freedom to be more deeply seated, even in the heart :—here Freedom is not only enjoyed, but cordially permitted, and extended to all. This is true, heartfelt Freedom, and we derived it from our Anglo-Saxon forefathers. Every Englishman who glories in the vigour of his Father land,—who would clearly understand, and feel the full force of his Mother tongue, ought to study AngloSaxon
And this from:
Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, 1791
As a citizen of a republican government owes obedience to the laws ; so he owes a decent, though a dignified respect to those who administer the laws. In monarchies, there is a political respect of person : in commonwealths, there should be a political respect to office. In monarchies, there are ranks, preeminences, and dignities, all personal and hereditary. In commonwealths, too, there are ranks, preeminences, and dignities; but all official and successive. In monarchies, respect is paid without a prospect of return. In commonwealths, ‘one may, next year, succeed, as an officer, to the respect, which, this year, he pays as a citizen. The dignities of office are open to all.
You will be pleased to hear, that, with regard to this as well as to many other subjects, we have renewed, in our governments, the principles and the practice of the ancient Saxons.
Yes, its going to get very interesting for the koolaide drinkers to try and deny our founding fathers their heritiage and our government based on a commom law’ that included equity for all that held NO room for dual citizenship. The natural borns were those born to fathers who were citizens of the society, not mere inhabitiants passing through. And that was the law in Anglo-Saxon England before the monarchy took over.
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2010/01/21/eligibility-no-deal-response-more-states-create-bills-kerchner-v-obama-update/#comment-32361
Wait, we’re supposed to believe that the Founders, who quoted liberally from Calvin’s Case in making their arguments for their civil rights as full citizens of England (taxation without representation, anyone?) reached back around all of English Common Law to Anglo-Saxon Common Law?
How retarded are these people?
I’ve got a copy of one of the most comprehensive treatises on 4th Amendment law. It goes back to the 6th Century, but even it doesn’t believe that you can ignore the 700 years after the Norman Conquest!
Darn you, BL! I clicked on that link and was exposed to some serious stupid!
I love that the birthers are so bassackwards that they think that since the Federal Courts have dismissed on standing grounds that the State Courts cannot issue precedential rulings on the issues for the same reasons. Real scholars believe that the state courts are the only possible route to get the issue into court.
Greg, you are confusing the birthers with individuals that have common sense. Remember in order to be a birther you have so suspend belief and common sense and believe in the most ridiculous and craziest conspiracy theories…
Greg, sorry. But you had to see the ignorance for yourself. That is what happens when you have individuals that have no experience with the law or legal research trying to pretend to understand how the law works. And when you attempt to educate them they ignore common sense and prefer to believe in Legal lightweights like Mario or Leo or in the faulty research of our buddy Linda…
Oh the ignorance.
More ignorance over at tROSL…
Who Are You Kidding says:
January 22, 2010 at 5:27 pm
“[Hawaii DoH] wouldn’t say [Obama’s vital records were delayed or amended], it would violate their vital records disclosure law…Leo and MsTickly only inferred it…” earl
1 HRS §338-18 “To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.”
“or by rules adopted by the department of health“: disclosure of information contained in vital records is governed by Vital Records Regulations of DoH’s own devising (with the approval of the governor).
2 According to DoH Vital Records Regulations Chapter 8B Section 2.5(B)(2) a non-certified copy of a Hawaii birth certificate “may be issued to any person or organization requesting it.” Until November 2009, although contrary to Hawaii law, DoH withheld from the public its Vital Records Regulations which included this rule.
3 HRS §338-18 may assign to DoH the authority to craft its own information disclosure rules for vital records, but not for administrative records attaching to or concerning vital records: these are unquestionably subject to non-discretionary disclosure under Hawaii law (UIPA). Fukino’s July statement (about Obama’s “vital records“, now plural) was issued in response to MissT’s request for records concerning fees paid by Obama to amend his registration. Fukino denied access and a lawyer at Hawaii Office of Information Practices (which enforces UIPA and holds a record of MissT’s correspondence) confirmed to MissT that denial of access was a legal admission that the record (concerning Obama’s fees) existed. In contravention of its own regulations, DoH now claims it no longer retains the documentation of Obama’s amendment fees which were the subject of MissT’s UIPA request.
Given Obama was charged fees to amend his filing this can only mean he was not born in a Hawaii hospital, as he (or his family) would not have been held responsible for any error in those circumstances (DoH Vital Records Regulations Chapter 8B Section 3.11); given Obama was not born in a Hawaii hospital this corroborates the DoH confirmations that his filing was “delayed” (in 1961 terminology, but now called “late”) and for which no supplementary evidence was supplied to complete registration. (As noted on Obama’s alleged COLB: “FILED” rather than “ACCEPTED”.) Even assuming hypothetically that Obama’s registration may have been completed, HRS §338-17 (in 1961 §57-20) withholds the status of evidence from the resulting certificate until so determined by an authority other than Hawaii DoH.
Given only major amendments to vital records incur fees and such amendments must be summarized on a COLB, but online scans and images of Obama’s alleged COLB depict no amendment summary, then Obama’s COLB (in the versions depicted by online scans and images) can only be “unofficial” (see point 2) or illegal and a forgery.
4 Multiple UIPA requests unconnected to Donofrio or MissT for access to various records have been denied by DoH; these denials (according to OIP advice) confirm the records’ existence, with the implications as just described. Despite repeated invitations no Obama loyalist has supplied UIPA responses in which Hawaii DoH dis-confirm these records and their implications.
“[Obama’s alleged COLB] carries the seal of the Hawaii Department of Health…” brygenon
Both the Daily Kos and Fight The Smears scans of Obama’s alleged COLB and Factcheck’s “COLB” Photograph #3 [ http://tinyurl.com/FC-File-woSeal ] contain no official Hawaii seal. No official seal means that Obama’s alleged “COLB” is either not official (see point 2 above) or not genuine. The latter conclusion is supported by the fact that the purported seals in two other Factcheck “COLB” images involve several anomalies which cannot be reconciled with genuine Hawaii seals of the same year of issue.
Until brygenon can cite some formal acknowledgement by DoH authorities (which Hawaii law does allow) that DoH issued to Obama a COLB in the form depicted by the alleged online scans and photographs then brygenon’s claim that the online images are genuine is no more than a confession of faith.
“[Obama’s alleged COLB] carries…[an] attestation by the record keeper, Alvin T. Onaka.” brygenon
i The context in which brygenon wrote that Obama’s alleged COLB has been authenticated is Article IV of the US Constitution (and consequently through the implementing statute, 28 USC 1739). As previously described, the statute specifies an exact procedure for certifying records, but one which can only be assumed hypothetically for Obama’s alleged COLB (a problem brygenon ignores) since, judging from the online scans and photographs, this procedure has not been followed given no certification from a judge (and clerk of the court) or a state officer is depicted in any image. In a bizarre exegesis of 28 USC 1739, brygenon wants readers to share the belief that further certifications, in addition to the custodian’s attestation, are not required and that Obama’s alleged COLB is due Full Faith and Credit under Article IV. Against the evidence of readers’ own eyes when confronted with 28 USC 1739 (”together with a certificate of a judge [etc]…or of the Governor [etc]…further authenticated by the clerk [etc]…“), sharing this interpretation with brygenon would be delusory.
ii Black’s Law Dictionary defines “attest” as being “To witness the execution of a written instrument…[when] a certifying officer gives assurance of the genuineness and correctness of a copy…which has been examined and compared with the original [and] signed by the person who examined it.“http://tinyurl.com/BLD-Attest-p103
In line with the accepted canons of statutory interpretation, if SCOTUS holds that Congress never intended an implementing statute of Article IV to apply to entities and circumstances which postdate the statute then (following SCOTUS’ logic) Congress had only one understanding of the word “attestation” when it enacted 28 USC 1739: that of Black’s Law Dictionary above, which requires that the custodian as “certifying officer gives assurance of the genuineness and correctness of a copy [by having personally] examined and compared [it] with the original” and “subscribed [with a handwritten signature] the same as a witness.” As SCOTUS opined in US v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84 (1985), when the (apparently trivial) regulation that mining claims which should be filed “prior to December 31‘ could not satisfied by a filing on December 31 was upheld:
“…the fact that Congress might have acted with greater clarity or foresight does not give courts a carte blanche to redraft statutes in an effort to achieve that which Congress is perceived to have failed to do. There is a basic difference between filling a gap left by Congress’ silence and rewriting rules that Congress has affirmatively and specifically enacted.’ Nor is the Judiciary licensed to attempt to soften the clear import of Congress’ chosen words whenever a court believes those words lead to a harsh result. On the contrary, deference to the supremacy of the Legislature, as well as recognition that Congressmen typically vote on the language of a bill, generally requires us to assume that the legislative purpose is expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used.’ Going behind the plain language of a statute in search of a possibly contrary congressional intent is a step to be taken cautiously’ even under the best of circumstances.’ When even after taking this step nothing in the legislative history remotely suggests a congressional intent contrary to Congress’ chosen words, and neither appellees nor the dissenters have pointed to anything that so suggests, any further steps take the courts out of the realm of interpretation and place them in the domain of legislation. The phrase prior to’ may be clumsy, but its meaning is clear.” [citations omitted]
Given machine-made facsimile signatures were designed to be (and are) applied to many thousands of COLBs by non-custodial clerks, the absence of a handwritten signature means there can no assurance that a non-routine examination and comparison by the custodian (e.g. Registrar Onaka) of Obama’s COLB dataset with its alleged printout ever really happened and that the requirements of 28 USC 1739 were truly met.
“[Who Are You Kidding is] all confused.The one further statement one needs under 28 USC 1739 is…verified externally to the certificate itself.” brygenon
The further certification by handwritten signature and seal of a judge (and clerk of the court) or a state political officer is exactly what we do not have right now and, even assuming hypothetically a birth record could be authenticated under 28 USC 1739, it has not been done. Therefore the repeated claim that Obama’s alleged COLB is “proof” that must be accorded Full Faith and Credit under Article IV is without basis in fact. Indeed, the authentication of evidence is concerned only with its admissibility into court and does not not affect the weight (or “believability”) that will be accorded to it by the court. I hope this resolves any perceived confusion.
It guess Steve Craig is back commenting with his usual delusions…
slcraig says:
What I find fascinating with the ‘0′ supporters and the Judges is that they so cavalierly ignore the structure of citizenship that is implicit within the body of the Constitution inclusive of the 14th Amendment.
The Constitution made the Founding generation that were citizens of the Colony States citizens’ and with the words of the Grandfather Clause made themselves eligible for President. Beyond the Founding generation no 1st generation citizens, naturalized were to be eligible
The 14th Amendment made citizenship possible to those born to parent(S) that were not already citizens, but not being of the Founding Generation are NOT made’ NBC’s being a 1st generation citizen.
Persons born of two citizen parents derive their citizenship naturally’ from their parents without the need of the 14th Amendment or Statute and if born within the Jurisdiction of the US are NBC’s.
It is true that Vattel helps put the structure in context, Birth of a Nation, National Security and the importance of the Family Unit to the health of a civil society.
And I suppose it is the last item that so frustrates those opposed to the Constitutional structure of citizenship’, being a coalition of the Homeless, Homosexuals, Pro-Abortion, Pro-Single Parenthood, Anti-God, Marxist-Communist Collectivists, Anti-Capitalist.
Well, maybe not fascinating. Sad. Sad that I am put in a position of defending what I have taken for granted all my life, totally unaware that there was such a large conspiracy afoot from within.
Reinstate the Smith Act!
Please SHOW me the words that states that the decision in WKA made WKA a NBC for A2S1C5 purposes.
Never mind, you can NOT. The case was to determine if WKA was a citizen’, which was affirmed.
The judgement DID NOT SAY WKA was a natural born citizen in spite of your inability to understand that the court did not say they affirmed’ more than WKA asked.
The CONSTITUTION its-self makes the distinction between NBC and Citizen, and as much as Ol Judge Gray tried, he did not Amend the 14th Amendment and the 14th Amendment did not Amend A2S1C5 and the FF’s wrote the Clause to keep 1st generation foreigners out of the office and the ‘0′ is a 1st generation Foreign Dual-Citizen.
Deal with it.
slcraig, preening before the mirror:
what I find fascinating with these birfoons is that they so cavalierly ignore that they have no case, no grasp of the law and no results to show for all their sturm und drang, except for having their sanctimonious arses handed to them more than sixty times.
Black Lion: quoting Who are you Kiding: Until November 2009, although contrary to Hawaii law, DoH withheld from the public its Vital Records Regulations which included this rule.
I sent in such a request and it was ignored, so at least in some cases it is true that the DoH refused to issue a Verification in Lieu of a Certified Copy. However, the law doesn’t actually give ANYONE the right to ask for a verification. There are classes and purposes stated in the law. My request, according to an attorney I consulted, probably was not quite up to the standard. However any legitimate news organization should be able to get one.
Ha! Sturm und Schwäche would be more appropriate 🙂
aarrgghh, agreed. Guys like Craig, who lost his case, belive that because they can’t find any judge or legal expert that agrees with them, then everyone has been “drinking koolaid”….They can never accept the fact that maybe they are just wrong…
Here’s an article on the Chrysler dealers. It appears they are contesting their case through normal legal channels-arbitration- on normal legal grounds. Their beef is with Chrysler management and not “the usurper”. No mention of Donofrio or his non-sensical claims or his cases which I suspect hasn’t even been filed and will go exactly nowhere.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/business/23dealer.html
Or maybe one of the birthers should get off their arse and request one Doc. The birthers make me laugh. The claim every conspiracy imaginable but very few of them are willing to do the work and the research to support their claims. And legitimate news orginazations know that the issue has been resolved. Maybe WND could put their money where their mouth is and do it. But I doubt it. They need this controversy to continue so that they can continue to exploit it for economic purposes…
Good catch scientist…I linked the article over at tROSL…It will be interesting to see the Leo supporters come out of the woodwork…
More Linda and her nonsense…
Linda says:
January 23, 2010 at 6:48 pm
bystander,
You come back nitpicking a typo error in years, if that’s all you have, I am most amused.
Also, if you think you can understand & interpret early AMERICIAN common law aka the Constitution without learning the history of the English Saxons, you are more ignorant than I thought.
Every reputable law school teaches Saxon history & Saxon law. It is the base of ALL British law, even after William & Norman. It was williams bringing Roman law that put the Brits under subjectship stripping the English of their freeman status.
The three tribes, the Jutes, the English, and the
Saxons, had not yet, apparently, advanced far enough
in the idea of national unity to possess a separate
general name, distinguishing them altogether from the
other tribes of the Germanic stock. Most probably
they did not regard themselves at this period as a
single nation at all, or even as more closely bound to
one another than to the surrounding and kindred
tribes. They may have united at times for purposes
of a special war ; but their union was merely analogous
to that of two North American peoples, or two
modern European nations, pursuing a common policy
for awhile. At a later date, in Britain, the three
tribes learned to call themselves collectively by the
name of that one among them which earliest rose to
supremacy the English; and the whole southern
half of the island came to be known by their name
as England.
It was the Saxon law that the new English used, thereafter known as Anglo-Saxon law aka English common law.
Enjoy your socialized utopia of ignorant bliss!
William & Norman? Like they are two people ala William & Mary? Not William and the Normans? Linda’s history seems a bit off on a major point there.
Black Lion, quoting Linda: It was the Saxon law that the new English used, thereafter known as Anglo-Saxon law aka English common law.
OK, I understand her now: only Ango-Saxons can be president.
You have to realize that most of the birthers are not very bright or knowledgable of real history…
All that matter is what the founders conception of english law was. Can she point to any English or american authority from the period defining natural born subject other than in accordance with Blackstone. There were many early american authorities who wrote about english law and I have seen none that question Blackstone’s definition. The same is true with the major english authorities of the time. It goes without saying that Blackstone was the most influential authority on the common law in the founding period. It is simply a fact that in the federal convention and the virginia ratifying converntion, when a question was raised on the common law, it was Blackstone they looked to.
“Or as described by Blackstone, whose Commentaries were widely read and “accepted [by the framing generation] as the most satisfactory exposition of the common law of England,” see Schick v. United States, 195 U.S. 65, 69 (1904), …” Justice Scalia, ROGERS V. TENNESSEE 532 U.S. 451, 472 (2001) (Scalia, dissenting).
“I will refer you to a book which is in every man’s hand–Blackstone’s Commentaries.” James Madison, Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention18–19 June 1788, Elliot 3:499–515
“Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws, introduced in 1766, became the law book of the Founding Fathers. [ref – footnote 8] (In fact, so strong was its influence in America that Thomas Jefferson once quipped that American lawyers used Blackstone’s with the same dedication and reverence that Muslims used the Koran. [ref – footnote 9 – Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, A E Bergh, ed, 1904, Vol XII, p. 392, to Governor John Tyler on May 26, 1810.]
JUSTICE SCALIA: I use British law for those elements of the Constitution that were taken from Britain. The phrase “the right to be confronted with witnesses against him” — what did confrontation consist of in England? It had a meaning to the American colonists, all of whom were intimately familiar with my friend Blackstone. And what they understood when they ratified this Constitution was that they were affirming the rights of Englishmen. So to know what the Constitution meant at the time, you have to know what English law was at the time. And that isn’t so for every provision of the Constitution. The one you mentioned — what does sovereignty consist of? — that is probably one on which I would consult English law, because it was understood when the Constitution was framed that the states remained, at that time in 1789, separate sovereigns. Well, what were the prerogatives of a sovereign, as understood by the framers of the Constitution? The same as was understood by their English forebears. So that’s why I would use English law — not at all because I think we are still very much aligned legally, socially, philosophically with England. That’s not the reason. Cass Sunstein, A Constitution of many minds: why the founding document doesn’t mean what it meant before, pg. 200-01 (2009)
“It is apparent from all this that the traditional English understanding of executive power, or, to be more precise, royal prerogatives, was fairly well known to the founding generation, since they appear repeatedly in the text of the Constitution in formulations very similar to those found in Blackstone.” Justice Antonin Scalia, Originalism, the Lessor Evil, 57 U. Cin. L. Rev. 849, __ (1989).
http://www.joink.com/homes/users/ninoville/lesserevil.asp
Somebody better tell Scalia to stop quoting Blackstone.
Upon further thought, the statute of 11 & 12 Will. III (1700) was adopted in most of the original states. In fact there was a multitude of litigation on application of this statute in the early republic. See, e.g., Palmer v. Downer, 2 Mass. 179 (1806), Jacksons v. Sanders, 2 Leigh 109 (1830), McCreery v. Somerville, 9 Wheat. 354 (1824), Lessee of Levy v. McCartee, 31 U.S. 6 Pet. 102 (1832).
The statute read:
“That all and every person or persons, being the King’s natural born subject or subjects within any of the King’s realms or dominions, should and might, thereafter, inherit and be inheritable, as heir or heirs, to any honors, &c., lands, &c., and make their pedigrees and titles, by descent, from any of their ancestors, lineal or collateral, although the father and mother, or father or mother, or other ancestor, of such person or persons by, from, through, or under whom he, she, or they should or might make or derive their title or pedigree were or was or should be born out of the King’s allegiance and out of his Majesty’s realms and dominions as freely, fully, and effectually, to all intents and purposes, as if such father and mother, or father or mother, or other ancestor or ancestors, by, from, through, or under whom he, she, or they should or might make or derive their title or pedigree, had been naturalized, or natural born subjects.” McCreery v. Somerville, 9 Wheat. 354, 356-57 (1824).
This statute thus says that a natural born subject can inherit from parents even if they are aliens. I guess Parliament and all the states who adopted this statute did not get the Birther memo that one cannot be a natural born subject if one’s parents are aliens.
I wrote about this in March of 2009.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/natural-born-in-south-carolina/
This is news to me! My law school, consistently one of the top-20, offers no such course. They do, however, offer an American Legal History course, which, as one of the four topic areas, discusses, “the authority of English common law
after the American Revolution.”
Greg and Ballantine…
I don’t think that Patriot Linda is lucid. In reading her latest interpretation of English history I can’t fathom where she is going with her diatribe…
Linda says:
Sorry I forgot the link…
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2010/01/23/chrysler-bankruptcy-donofrio-defense-distracting-over-psychoanalyzed-birther-allegations/#comments
Nothing more tragic than someone who doesn’t have a clue trying to “play smart.”
And what in God’s name is “inadmissable ramblings under Marbury v. Madison” supposed to mean? “They flee like flies when the kill bait gets even close”???? Sounds like this woman has been drinking too much bong water.
I think that it all boils down to this: the framers of the Constitution were damn sure that “natural born citizen” meant “white guy.” (And somewhere along the way there must be something in writing to be found that proves it.)
Or better yet we know that is what the founders intended…Now if we can just get a court to issue a ruling supporting our contention then we can go and take back our country…
You notice how at the end she gets around to the “Law of Nations”…In her warped mind the Law of Nations is more important to the founding of this country than Blackstone and English Common law…
I was wondering when they would get around to that language from Wilson. If you read Wilson’s writings, whatever his disagreement with Blackstone, he doesn’t seem to disagree with Blackstone’s description of English nationality law or what is meant by “natural born.” Of course, Wilson does not define “natural born citizen” nor does he endorse any rule based upon descent. He defines citizen by who the states confer the right to vote, a definition that you won’t find anywhere else in the republic. This was contrary to state and federal naturlization acts, the statute in virginia that conferred cotizenship on anyone born in the commonwealth or children of citizens and the multitude of early caselaw defining citizenship in accordance with English law. She can’t possibily contend that a natural born citizen was defined by the sufferage laws of the individual states as such would make a the uniform power of naturalization of Congress meaningless. This is yet another attempt to read some support for their theory into something that provides no actual support.
Again, the birther crowd apparently can find no one in the early republic defining “natural born” in accordance with their theory, including Wilson. They can point to no early court case that says America abandoned the jus soli principles of the english common law. And, of course, can find no court that every said a natural born citizen required citizen parents.
You should try Drupal CMS, it has more power and flexibility then WordPress, comments can be customized too.