At first glance, the Wikipedia has two rules that seem counterintuitive: “no original research” and “no primary sources.” Why wouldn’t the Wikipedia want people doing original research and using primary sources? The answer goes to reliability and bias. There is a presumption that mainstream news articles, textbooks and other published sources have gone through some sort of review before they appear. A Wikipedia editor’s research doesn’t have the extra assurance of such review, nor are Wikipedia editors necessarily experts. The prohibition of primary sources prevents raw data that is subject to interpretation from appearing in the Wikipedia without some expertise and fact checking. (The Wikipedia articles go into much more detail.)
The exception to the prohibition of primary sources is:
A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.
The reason I bring up the topic is that the folks who argue that Barack Obama is not eligible to the Presidency because his father was not a US national make essentially an argument based on primary research and original sources. Constitutional Law is a specialized discipline, and except for “straightforward, descriptive statements of facts” non-specialists are not well-qualified to make legal arguments from primary sources.
Judge Bent in Vermont, commenting in his decision of Paige v. Obama about such arguments from attorney Mario Apuzzo said:
Mr. Apuzzo argues that originalist thinking as to the meaning of the phrase "natural born citizen" was consistent with an intent on the part of the authors of the constitution to adopt a jus sanguinis citizenship model rather than the jus soli model of the English common law…. While Mr. Apuzzo mightily attempts to distinguish the conclusion of the United States Supreme Court in Wing Kim Ark, that English common law was adopted as to which model of citizenship was intended by the original framers, this court concludes that his arguments are, in the face of such a decision, academic only.
The Court in essence rejected an argument from primary sources in favor of precedent. The Court deferred to the expertise of the Supreme Court, rather than reading newspaper articles from 1787, historical cases about shipping disputes, or legal essays from Switzerland.
When it comes to deciding, in area where I am not an expert and where we are not dealing with “straightforward, descriptive statements of facts,” I prefer to rely on secondary sources—in this cases judges and published law review articles. As a matter of academic interest, I have made originalist arguments, for example:
I think they are good articles and well-argued, but I am not so arrogant as to rely on my own original research, as extensive as it is, to stake out a position and back it with my reputation (as small as that is). I look to authorities who know more than I do.
Let me hasten to add that the same flaw of unqualified and biased original research that leads to idiosyncratic legal views on Presidential eligibility (and on many other unrelated topics), also leads to claims that Obama’s documents are forgeries, that he was born abroad, that he is a Muslim, that he is using mass hypnosis to fool people and all the rest of the crazy theories we talk about on this web site. Original research is the essence of all conspiracy theories.
Read more on this site:
Doc, I appreciate your moving my comments to an appropriate thread. I’ll try to remain on topic when on other threads.
As for some who believe that birtherism is evidence of mental or critical thinking defect…well, I think that a lazy, if not rude, method of closing the discussion. I may not be the sharpest knife, but I have given the question considerable thought and been open minded to the conclusion that most of the conspiracy theories are bunk and some of their advocates (i.e. Orly) a menace to the greater effort for closure.
Birth certificates, birth in Kenya, Frank Marshall paternity, his mom in nudie photos, Mr. Obama a Soviet plant, and other topics of irrelevance are just that, monstrously stupid.
I know that members of this forum are tired to a point of nauseum of those who uphold the ridiculous…I share that opinion.
If the matter is merely a question if the child of a foreign national is eligible for the presidency, I do not see this as being entirely unreasonable.
Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and Senator Lindsey Graham are both on record saying that those born citizens in the US are natural born citizens. 7 judges in cases relating to Obama have said the same thing. Various legal scholars affirm. Justice Scalia, in an oral argument at the Supreme Court stated that presidential eligibility was “jus soli” (place of birth).
You’re welcome to make the argument that your idiosyncratic interpretation of history and the law is right, but given all of the authority that disagrees, I don’t see that there is a serious dispute here.
I’m going to be writing an article shortly called “original research” and this might be a good place for you to raise your argument.
Doc C has expended a lot of effort collecting answers to many of the ridiculous claims made by birthers. If you haven’t checked out his “Debunkers Guide to Obama conspiracy theories” under the Features tab at the top of the page, please do so. Particularly, read the section on “Obama is not a natural born citizen because of his parentage”. If you are as open minded as you claim, the evidence Doc C has assembled there should put an end to your “question.”
Thanks, Doc.
Have you read Rogers v Bellei? Interesting case that captures the ineligibility of those born abroad to American citizens while opening the door to “anchor babies” if WKA’s reflection on the 14th definitive for presidential eligibility.
“Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.”
Personally, I find it repugnant that popular understanding would consider the child of an illegal immigrant eligible and that of someone like McCain questionable.
I look forward to your upcoming article on “original research”.
See:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/?s=Rogers+v.+Bellei&submit.x=7&submit.y=10
Thanks, Paper.
McCain “probably” and “retroactively” a NBC? Not terribly definitive is it in light of the 1971 USSC case of RvB? The point is that we live in constitutional republic subject to judicial review…the court upheld that those born abroad to American citizens were born statutory and not natural born citizens. I mentioned this case to point out the restrictiveness of presidential eligibility is not subject to congressional review or statute but that of the court’s understanding. MvH and WKA are key to our hope of closure with RvB an example of the exclusion of some per understanding of the 14th.
Not everything is subject to judicial review. For example, impeachment. Who says what constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors”? A majority of the House + 2/3 of the Senate. Could they impeach the President or a judge and remove them over something that you and I and the Deans of all the major law schools and every talking head thought was not up to what that phrase should mean (like a b.j. from an intern)? Yes. Could that party appeal in court? Nope. What is the check on Congress abusing that authority? The voters.
IMO, under the 12th and 20th amendments, determining whether a President is qualified is similarly in the domain of Congress and beyond judicial review. Except, here, there is no real debate among recognized legal authorities (sorry, but you are not one, nor is Apuzzo) as to whether Obama is qualified. But even if there were, the determination made by Congress is the final word.
It was over as of noon. You can spend the next 4 years complaining or get on with life. Your choice.
A number of Constitutional Law Professors disagree with you,
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/the-silence-of-the-sheepskins/
In September, Kansas SoS Kris Kobash (also a Constitutional Law Professor) said that Minor v. Happersett is not binding precedent on the definition of NBC.
And there is this statement about the eligibility of Senator Ted Cruz born in Canada to citizen mother and non-citizen father,
“He’s a birthright citizen but his birthright citizenship derives from his parents, and the question is, does that fit with the definition of natural born citizen?” added University of Pennsylvania law professor Kermit Roosevelt. “I think it does.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/cruz-draws-presidential-buzz-but-is-he-eligible-85873_Page2.html#ixzz2IXhTVPnb
Scientist, thanks very much for your point of view and desire for me to get on with my life.
The President has been duly elected and sworn to be my commander in chief for the next four years…as Vonnegut would say, so it goes.
The question exists as to whether he is eligible for that said office. MvH holds that only there was never a question that those born to US citizens on our soil were in fact natural born. WKA held that those lawfully resident who gave birth to young did in fact give birth to US citizens. RvB answered that the 14th is the only definitive example of citizenship without statute that excludes some from office in question.
Am I happy that Mr. Obama is my president on the basis of his politics, no. Am I happy that folks like yourself are absolutely closing the door on his eligibility based on ignorance of USSC precedent, no. Am I happy that no case has gone before the highest court for review on this matter, no.
Mr. Obama is my President and commander in chief until an authoritative body determines otherwise. You, Sir, are thankfully not of that importance or measure.
Like I said, so it goes.
gorefan,
Perhaps you are right. I would suggest otherwise regarding MvH;
“The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone. We might, perhaps, decide the case upon other grounds, but this question is fairly made.”
What other grounds do you think this case decided? I think it her political rights based on her citizenship per Art II natural born eligibility.
I pointed out to you that Congress is the body that decides and they did. I gave the impeachment analogy. I explained how certain questions are not open to judicial review. No matter how much you would like them to be, they simply are not. The matter is closed. Really it is. I don’t know what other words I can use to explain this.
Do you even understand what that case was about? Do you know that it has long since been overturned? Tell me Pieter, do you think the court in MvH ruled correctly or incorrectly in that case? Why?
Scientist, Congress is not the authoritative body to determine constitutional eligibility. If you believe this to be so, then why have so many laws been struck down as incompatible with our constitution? I await the USSC to overcome its’ cowardice and make the eligibility call whether I agree with it or not. The court made a call some time ago regarding reproductive rights that resulted in 50+ million fetal deaths…it’s a tough job, but that is their lot.
Jim, I’m not smart enough to determine if the decision in MvH was made properly. I can say that it makes sense to the layman, me. Virginia was recognized as born in the United States to American citizens as specifically held by the courts as reflective of Art II NBC and as such a person to be afforded certain political rights. Unfortunately for her, the court recognized the respective state the right to afford voting privilege.
Then it’s up to you Pieter to show us in the Constitution where it says anyone other than Congress has the Constitutional authority to determine eligibility and remove a sitting President. Because, as Judge England showed, the Constitution leaves that question solely to Congress. Now, if your opinion is to just ignore parts of the Constitution you don’t like, then we can just ignore the natural born part too.
Even if you could argue that MvH was a citizenship case, it does not address the issue of child of non citizen parents.
There is this:
Justice Morrow, Wong Kim Ark, District Court Northern District of California, January 3, 1896 No. 11, 198.
“But the supreme court has never squarely determined, either prior to or subsequent to the adoption of the fourteenth amendment in 1868, the political status of children born here of foreign parents. In the case of Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 168, the court expressly declined to pass upon that question.”
The Indiana Court of Appeals said exactly the same thing in Ankeny.
And the single statement in Minor about natural born citizens is clearly dicta.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit in United States of America v. John Allan Crawley, 837 F.2d 291
“So instead of asking what the word “dictum” means we can ask what reasons there are against a court’s giving weight to a passage found in a previous opinion. There are many. One is that the passage was unnecessary to the outcome of the earlier case and therefore perhaps not as fully considered as it would have been if it were essential to the outcome. A closely related reason is that the passage was not an integral part of the earlier opinion–it can be sloughed off without damaging the analytical structure of the opinion, and so it was a redundant part of that opinion and, again, may not have been fully considered. Still another reason is that the passage was not grounded in the facts of the case and the judges may therefore have lacked an adequate experiential basis for it; another, that the issue addressed in the passage was not presented as an issue, hence was not refined by the fires of adversary presentation. All these are reasons for thinking that a particular passage was not a fully measured judicial pronouncement, that it was not likely to be relied on by readers, and indeed that it may not have been part of the decision that resolved the case or controversy on which the court’s jurisdiction depended (if a federal court).”
The single sentence about the definition of natural born “can be sloughed off without damaging the analytical structure of the opinion”.
Try it, read the passage from Minor and omit the one sentence about “These are the native…” nothing in the decision changes. The sentence is superfluous to the decision.
Jim, I mean this in no way insulting…the congress has been wrong on numerous occasions per constitutional understanding. Are you not aware of this? Which body would you prefer to render a definitive eligibility opinion, the United States Congress or the Supreme Court?
They are. It isn’t me who says so, it’s judges; read the cases. Read the 12th and 20th amendments.
Legisation is different. Actually, there is a case to be made that the power of courts to strike down laws is not in the Constitution and wasn’t the intent, but was taken by the Court in Marbury v Madison and no one stopped them. Anyway, it’s a done deal now. But, as I explained and explained again, presidential qualifications and impeachment and treaties and a few other areas are beyond judicial review. it really isn’t that hard to understand. If you want your views enshrined, amend the Constitution.
It isn’t cowardice to stay out of matters that aren’t your purview. Besides, it is clear they don’t agree with you, since Chief Justice Roberts just swore Obama in for the 3rd time and will do #4 tomorrow. So either he believes him eligible or he thinks it’s none of his business. Likely both.
When Congress and the Court disagree, how do you know which one is right? But here they don’t disagree. Both say Mr Obama is eligible. And both say the decision lies with Congress. As does the Constitution. It’s a triple play where everyone agrees except you and a few malcontents.
Really? Then what makes you smart enough to determine if the President is eligible? So, it makes sense to you that someone who would be eligible to run for President would not be eligible to vote for President? And, btw, you missed an important piece of MvH…
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that “No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
So you see, if you’re born in this country you are a citizen at birth and eligible, so MvH actually agrees that the President is eligible. Furthermore, the part right after the part you quoted says, “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
So Minor says that natural born is not exclusively for children born of citizen parents, and they are not going to go into all the other possibilities because it isn’t necessary for the case before them. So, the court in MvH agrees that the President is eligible.
gorefan,
A question of dictum regardless of your ability to reason. You find fault based on whether those born on US soil are citizens without wonder to their eligibility to be commander in chief. Which argument are we having, are they citizens or are they permitted to be President of the United States?
Jim, just a citizen like you. I have the presence of mind to wonder on the facts I understand. What is your motivation? I think it your sheer horror that anyone would question in the first place. Thanks for you open mindedness, civics is not dead.
So I have written the article, and move the “natural born citizen” comments over. Sorry for the temporary disruption, but I think it will be better for them to have their own place, now that I have made one.
Great, then you’ll have no problem showing me in your civics lessons where anyone but Congress has the Constitutional authority to remove a sitting President. Also, could you explain to me the following:
“In order to clarify whether or not President Obama is eligible for the Office of the President, I consulted constitutional law scholar, Mr. Jesse Choper. Mr. Choper is the Earl Warren Professor of Public Law at UC Berkeley. He is the former Dean of Boalt Hall and served as law clerk to Chief Justice Earl Warren of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
“I asked Mr. Choper about the language in Article II, “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President…” Mr. Choper responded that “natural born” simply meant “not naturalized.””
“When in doubt, it helps to consult an expert.”
http://www.examiner.com/article/constitutional-law-scholar-on-natural-born-issue
A simple question…what experts have you heard from about the 2 parent theory and how do their credentials match up against Constitutional Scholars and a Retired Supreme Court Justice?
What you find “repugnant” might well be the natural born citizenship requirement, if indeed a court had decided that birth in the United State was necessary to meet it and that McCain was ineligible. It’s not reasonable to think that a very general rule is going to correspond to popular sentiment in every case. That’s why we elect our presidents, and not select them by some algorithm.
Mzungu, am I daft for asking a simple and narrow question devoid of the idiocy that we both deplore? What exactly is beyond the pale for wondering on an eligibility question premised on USSC opinion? Perhaps you are the definitive voice of reason, pray tell let me know thy wisdom.
Ask away Pieter. But when you weigh the overwhelming evidence the the President was born in Hawaii against the total lack of evidence he was born anywhere else and add to that the fact that every Constitutional expert, a majority of the people, the Electoral College, Congress, and the SCOTUS all agree he is eligible…then I have to worry about your ability to weigh the evidence. But, really, that isn’t a problem. The Constitution gives ordinary citizens a way to let their voice be heard…even the ones that don’t care about real vs. imaginary evidence, every voice is equal. It’s called the vote. President Obama won. He’s our President. Only Congress can remove him.
Ummmmm…both. Didn’t you read Judge Carter and Judge England’s opinions?
Jim, some of us do accept without question the birth of President Obama in HI to an American citizen mother…it’s the rest that give us qualms. Mr. Obama readily admits that he is the progeny of a foreign national father that had no intent to naturalize. Why is it so difficult for you to see that some of us are bothered per MvH?
You’re bothered by a case about Women’s suffrage that has been overturned by the 19th amendment and yet the clear ruling in WKA that is about citizenship and is still being quoted in citizenship cases to this day doesn’t make you stop and think?
Jim et al,
Let me be succinct. Natural born citizenship is a reflection of the constitutional authors’ understanding of natural law philosophy per Vattel. An understanding acknowledged by our State Department;
“Press Statement
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
July 29, 2011
On behalf of President Obama and the people of the United States, I am delighted to congratulate the people of Switzerland on the 720th anniversary of your republic this August 1.
In the seven centuries since the first Federal Charter was signed, the Swiss Confederation has played an important role in world affairs. Your rich history of neutrality gives you the ability to mediate and reconcile difficult conflicts. You have been a vital partner for over 30 years representing American interests in Iran and other countries throughout the world.
America’s Founders were inspired by the ideas and values of early Swiss philosophers like Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui and Emer de Vattel, and the 1848 Swiss Constitution was influenced by our own U.S. Constitution. Swiss commitment to democracy is an example for nations and people everywhere who yearn for greater freedoms and human rights.
As you celebrate this special day, know that the United States stands with you and we look forward to a future filled with friendship and cooperation.”
The discussion of whether our understanding of NBC is premised on English common law (i.e. perpetual allegiance) or that of an intense philosophical difference (i.e. individual sovereignty) is a valid one.
Some of you would bury your heads in deference to something we recanted with our revolution. I think this pigheaded and ignorant in light of supreme court review.
If you are open minded, then prove it.
Well, I could quote people in the know who have a lot more understanding, however let’s let SCOTUS lay it out for you…
“The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. ”
When I was in Africa (years ago), I had a very bright friend who argued in all seriousness that the earth was flat. He was still a great guy and otherwise productive member of society. The question whether the earth was flat or round was a simple, straightforward question that could be debated seriously in the Middle Ages, but it was a daft argument to make in the 20th century.
Four plus years ago I found interesting the question whether both parents had to be citizens or whether birth on American soil was sufficient to confer natural born status. For constitutional lawyers this may have been settled law, but as a legal layman I was open to hearing the evidence. I tried to be open and weigh the evidence, and found it to be overwhelming. I think to persist in raising this question at this point is daft.
I hope you are a good soldier.
“The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. ”
This quote differentiates between natural born and that born a citizen otherwise. It only equates that they are both citizens.
Does it ever state that the “child of an alien, if born in the country,” is in fact eligible to be president? Nope.
What exactly was your point, Jim?
How many different types of citizens are there in the US according to MvH?
“Four plus years ago I found interesting the question whether both parents had to be citizens or whether birth on American soil was sufficient to confer natural born status. For constitutional lawyers this may have been settled law, but as a legal layman I was open to hearing the evidence. I tried to be open and weigh the evidence, and found it to be overwhelming. I think to persist in raising this question at this point is daft.”
Overwhelmed by what, Mzungu? Were you browbeaten by those on this forum into submission to a view unpopular by the status quo? I think it cowardice to have doubts that you purport and not have them resolved by a competent body…this forum is far from such.
Jim, have you read or understand MvH? Virginia was recognized to have standing for political rights per her Art II birth. Unfortunately, this proved insufficient in her hope for the right to vote per the court’s intentional want to not reflect on the 14th and desire to reaffirm the 10th.
Justice Gray wrote in his opinion in Wong:
“Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics: “British subject’ means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the crown. ‘Permanent’ allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien, who, because he is within the British dominions, owes ‘temporary’ allegiance to the crown. ‘Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.’ ‘Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.’ The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two: ‘(1) Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such person’s birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.’ ‘(2) Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person’s birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the crown by the sovereign of a foreign state is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.’ And he adds: ‘The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person’s birth, it in theory at least depended, not upon the locality of a man’s birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the king of Enl and; and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of the crown.’ Dicey, Confl. Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.”
That sounds mighty familiar to me. Do you think it sounds like “something we recanted with our revolution”? If you think it does, what about (again from Justice Gray’s opinion):
“In 1871, Mr. Fish (President Grant’s highly esteemed Secretary of State), writing to Mr. Marsh, the American minister to Italy, said: ‘The fourteenth amendment to the constitution declares that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.’ This is simply an affirmance of the common law of England and of this country, so far as it asserts the status of citizenship to be fixed by the place of nativity, irrespective of parentage. The qualification ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof was probably intended to exclude the children of foreign ministers, and of other persons who may be within our territory with rights of extraterritoriality.’ 2 Whart. Int. Dig. p. 394.”
Dave B, are your aware of the premise of the war of 1812? Perhaps it concerned permanent allegiance vs the human right to expatriate. What is your point other than to select a quote that affirms an un-American concept?
Interesting…can you show me any other article births in the Constitution? Oh wait, that’s a made-up term! Gotcha! MvH says…and this is YOUR case, that there are only 2 types of citizen. Born or naturalized. Directly from the constitution. You now admit that President Obama was born a citizen so he is definitely eligible…according to MvH. Thanks for playing, make sure to tip your waitress.
May I take it you’re trying to presume some kind of Article II definition of natural born citizen? Again according to Justice Gray:
“The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that ‘all persons born r naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.’ Amend. art. 14. In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417, 422, 5 Sup. Ct. 935; Boyd v. U. S., 116 U. S. 616, 624, 625, 6 Sup. Ct. 524; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 8 Sup. Ct. 564. The language of the constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent, Comm. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. U. S., 91 U. S. 270, 274.”
You will note Justice Gray’s reference to Minor, which in the context of his citations of English common law should make it patently obvious that he doesn’t subscribe to your interpretation. And you will note that what didn’t exist for Justice Gray in 1898 was not available to Chief Justice Waite in 1875, either.
The only ignorance is the ignorance displayed by you, your ilk, and your “even more absurd” comrades.
You guys crack me up. You try to have intellectual conversations with nothing. You have no case. You have nothing but ridiculous viewpoints.
It’s sort of like debating Flat Earth Society members.
“The word “citizen” is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.
In that sense, women, of born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution as since.”
Just a dumb syllabus…especially when it notes that particular political rights are noted prior to the advent of the 14th.
Dictum and suffrage. It has nothing to do with a reflection of political rights based solely on Art II. Gee, might those same rights be pertinent to the court’s reflection on eligibility since they were emphatically stated regarding that Article?
We’re not talking about the right to expatriate. Are you saying that “permanent allegiance” is an un-American concept?
Again, how many different types of citizens are there in the United States of America? It’s in the Constitution! It’s a simple question.
Yes, permanent allegiance is an un-American concept. A sovereign person should be allowed to choose the nation deserving of their allegiance.
Jim, in my understanding there are natural born citizens and citizens (i.e. statutory or naturalized). All of them to be afforded the liberties of citizenship save that only those NBC are allowed access to the presidency.
NBC is only mentioned once in the entirety of the constitution, for good reason.
Actually Pieter, you are free to move out of country and renounce your citizenship if that’s what you choose to do. Actually, I hear a lot of the well-to-do French are doing that exact thing to avoid taxes. You could do it to avoid President Obama.
Show me in the constitution where there is mentioned statutory citizens. Natural born is mentioned. So is Naturalized. You don’t get to make up things in the Constitution..you want changes, get it amended like everyone else has to!
You’re either a natural born or naturalized citizen of the U.S. There is no third option. President Obama is a natural born citizen.
“All of our Presidents have, to date, been born in the 50 states. Notably, President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, and so is clearly a natural born citizen.”
– former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor
They have much in common-both are the sole purview of Congress and not subkect to judicial review per the Constiitution. But continue trying to give magical owers to black robes, powers those wearing the robes don’t believe they have.
If a child of an illegal immigrant even becomes a serious candidate for President, you will be free to vote for his or her opponent.
I hope you realize that when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an “illegal immigrant.”
Majority, what make your understanding of the types of citizenship conclusive? Two types, perhaps due the 14th that MvH purposely ignored in their opinion?
I suggest you read 8 USC 1101(a)(22)(B).
Gosh. I seem to remember a certain supreme court ruling stating flat out that suffrage is not a right of citizenship. It still remains very important, as it means states can remove the right to vote from ex convicts and so on and they still remain US citizens.
What was that Supreme court case called…
Oh yes, Minor V Happersett. You might have heard of it.
*hint this is where you wind up looking like a fool*
Oh, now you’re claiming they PURPOSELY avoided something! Ahhhhhhhh, let me guess…you stole the Tardis from Dr Who and went back to the Minor court and listened in on their meetings using the cloak of invisibility you stole from Harry Potter! Now I see, you just make things up and we’re suppose to believe you? That’s your evidence? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Dave B, do you believe congressional statute regarding who is a born citizen defines NBC? If so, at what point to do you ignore supreme court precedent (MvH and RvB) as immaterial to what is constitutional? I take it everything that congress believes to be constitutional is such even after challenge in the courts? Are you truly that unaware of how things work in our republic?
Purposely ignored? That’s asinine.
It’s not a question of which one we might prefer. The Constitution makes it clear (and every court which has considered the issue has concurred) that Congress is the ultimate arbiter of who is or is not eligible to be President.
You realize, I hope, that birthers have never been able to cite a single civics text, history text, or Constitutional law text which states that a natural-born citizen must have two citizen parents (or even one citizen parent).
If you don’t like it, petition your Representative or Senator to introduce a Constitutional amendment to change the eligibility requirements. That makes more sense than continuing to file doomed lawsuits.
You seem to be the unaware one, Pieter. You keep plugging the long debunked and discredited Minor case, which plainly does not say what you birthers disengenuously — the kindest term — contine to insist it does say. It would be nice if you would spell out cases. I don’t recall offhand what RvB is.
No it doesn’t. It really doesn’t.
No it doesn’t. MvH holds that the Constitution, as it stood at the time, did not guarantee the right to vote to any citizen and therefore the States are permitted to decide who is an eligible voter and who is not, and specifically, they could deny women the right to vote. In reaching their decision they first had to ensure that the person in question, Ms. Minor, was in fact a citizen, otherwise she would have had no standing for her complaint (see, ‘standing’ is not made up to exclude birthers from the courts, it has always been important). The Court acknowledged that there was no doubt that Ms. Minor was a citizen, she was born here and her parents were citizens. There was no need to examine citizenship any further for the purposes of the case; her citizenship was not at issue, only her right to vote.
The court held that she had no such right. The discussion of citizenship in MvH is ‘dicta’ and acknowledged in the decision to be incomplete.
WKA held that persons born on U.S. soil under the jurisdiction of American law are Natural Born Citizens. The Constitution defines two kinds of citizenship: born and naturalized. Since it was clear that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen since he was born on U.S. soil but not a naturalized citizen (Congress has the Constitutional authority to make naturalization laws, and Chinese were, at the time, legally excluded from eligibility for naturalization) he had to be a born citizen, meaning he was, as acknowledged by the opposition to the ruling, a natural born citizen.
This is the law of the land, Pieter, settled law for over 100 years. Live with it.
RvB held that the 14th amendment does not apply to people that are not born on U.S. Soil, and Congress does have the authority to legislate about the citizenship of those people. Congress grants “citizenship at birth” to people who are born overseas and meet certain other specified conditions. In Bellei’s case those conditions included one U.S. Citizen parent and residency in the U.S. for at least 5 years between the age of 14 to 28; Bellei failed the residency requirement.
RvB doesn’t have anything what-so-ever to do with eligibility for any office what-so-ever. It had to do with whether or not Congress can place such conditions on people granted citizenship in this way and nothing more. Whether or not such citizens, having satisfied all conditions, are Natural Born Citizens, was not addressed in anyway shape or form.
There is a certainly an academic debate about whether people granted ‘citizenship at birth’ due to Congressional Legislation should be considered ‘Natural Born’ or ‘Naturalized’, but Rogers v Bellei did nothing to answer the question.
However, the debate was (mostly) answered by the McCain case, where Congress declared that they would not accept a challenge to his election based on his Citizenship status. You might recall that the Constitution gives the Congress sole authority to judge the eligibility status of the President. While the McCain ‘non-binding resolution’ does not bind any future Congress from accepting challenges in similar cases, it does establish a fair minded precedent that future Congresses would find very hard to overrule.
No one has avoided MvH…except you. Why is that? Now, show me where in MvH it says that someone born in the country to a non-citizen parent is NOT a natural born citizen.
JD, who exactly “discredited” MvH? Popular belief that the case did not affirm their political worldview? Please specify your motivation to adhere to the popular conviction. Personally, I thought the case was explicit in its opinion on the matter of who was considered an Art II natural born citizen. You and your immaterial opinion, not so much.
Because it is well settled law. Your lack of comprehension is your fault and problem.
Exactly. It was a voting rights question, not a citizenship question. Minor argued that since she was a citizen she should had the Constitutional right to vote.
That she was a citizen was not in doubt, and the Court did not examine that question fully, and acknowledged that it did not do so.
The germane question at issue is “does the Constitution grant the right to vote to all Citizens?”.
The Court answered no, it does not, it is therefore a decision reserved to the States.
Once more for emphasis, Pieter: There was NO controversy about Ms. Minor’s citizenship, the case was not about citizenship. The case was about voting rights and the holding was about voting rights.
Any citizenship discussion in the case is to establish the standing of the petitioner to bring the question to the court and on that basis it is DICTA, not HOLDING.
Of course it is. Read the Constitution please.
A law is not a candidate for President. The Constitution specifically gives Congress the last word on the eligibility of Candidates for office and the Courts the last word on the Constitutionality of laws.
Would you have us believe that you seriously don’t understand the difference between a law and a person running for office? For a while you sounded almost sane, mistaken, but sane, and as such worthwhile engaging. Perhaps I was mistaken.
“The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone. We might, perhaps, decide the case upon other grounds, but this question is fairly made.
There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are expressly declared to be “citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision.
To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership.
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” [n7] and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
1. The case was decided on standing other than originally stated.
2. The 14th is not applicable to plaintiff’s political rights.
3. The plaintiff meets the criteria of Art II and should be afforded political rights.
4. There is no doubt as to those born in the United States to citizen parents to meet the condition of the plaintiff.
5. With the doubts stated, does the WKA case 20 years later answer who else might be considered NBC? Does the court acknowledge congressional statute as being able to define NBC?
I still think the congress’ ability to naturalize does not grant them to say who is natural born. WKA only answered who might be considered a citizen at birth in context of our 14th without reflection on Art II presidential eligibility in the same way both courts (MvH and WKA) explicitly referenced the matter in question, to wit the earlier court to intentionally fail to reflect on the pertinence of the 14th or the later to specifically include Art II presidential eligibility.
Agreed. And that really is the bottom line here. Obama is serving as President in his second term now. There are NO “magic reset buttons” out there. Nothing takes away the fact that he’s serving as President this term, nor that he did in the previous one.
Nor would any court overrule such clearly established valid precedent, regardless. Nor do they have any reason to further waste time considering the issue.
If some folks don’t like how our existing laws work and are enforced, then on the NBC issue, they need a Constitutional Amendment to CHANGE that.
If you want the courts to care, then they will need some NEW future “gray area” eligibility issue that hasn’t already been contested AND a legitimate, relevant and concrete legal reason why the courts would have to even hear it in the first place…
…not to mention that particular future “someone” would have to get far enough in the very difficult and intensely competitive process of a Presidential Campaign, to even be considered a “serious contender” for the position; which requires them to have amassed a substantial amount of support among the electorate to back them in the first place…
…In other words, a lot of extreme and unlikely “what ifs” that aren’t really worth wasting any time foolishly pining hopes upon…and barely worthy of any serious further “academic debate” either…
…But in terms of “text books”, I wouldn’t put it past the types of denialists who love revisionist history, to try to plant their fan-fiction in that direction. So for clarity, I would say that NO “text book” prior to the 2008 invention of Birtherism Mythology says any of that garbage… and that no serious commonly accepted text book since then says such nonsense either.
Noz, if you are trying to argue a case, kindly don’s use an edited version of the ruling of Minor V Happersett. Yes I’ve read it and yes I see where you have edited it and chopped bits off and added NBC where there was none.
Its not my fault you are talking through your posteriour
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html
Seriously, why canbt birthers argue a case without slyly altering it. Oh yeah, they have no case if they don’t
Pieter, and I’m beginning to get the idea that I should start insulting you but I won’t, and I can’t answer for Jim, but for what it’s worth, my answer is that I want Congress to do the job the Constitution assigns it and nothing more, and I want the Courts to do the job the Constitution assigns it and nothing more.
The two wisest things the Framers did (IMHO) when they wrote the Constitution was the concept of the “Separation of Powers” and the Amendment process. It is apparent that you don’t understand the Separation of Powers as defined in the Constitution, and your comments would really benefit from a little study in this area.
4> Ok…but it doesn’t say who isn’t a natural born citizen does it?
Considering Congress only has 2 choices, either you’re born a citizen or you gain citizenship later through naturalization, it makes sense that they can say who is born a US Citizen and who would need to be naturalized.
Member of the Supreme Court Suranis, my apologies for doubting your valued point of view on constitutional law.
Your understanding is more valued for what reason? Uhuh. Got it, you’re convinced beyond all argument because you find it “tiresome” to think when it has always been “resolved” to a point no longer worthy of any consideration.
In fact, they haven’t been able to (correctly) cite an 18th Century Swiss law treatise that says that.
My understanding is more valued because its based on what the rulings actually said rather than what you would like them to have said but actually dont. Sorry I ruined your little game by actually pointing out that you were trying to sucker everyone with an edited quotation.
And sadly, regardless of what sov cits would like to think, the law is not mailable by the power of your thought patterns.
Jim, some hold that inference only exists that WKA allows those merely born in the United States to meet Art II eligibility. No where in the decision was it the court’s intent for this to be construed. Hence the relevance of RvB in that it is ludicrous that anchor babies could be president while those born abroad as statutory citizens are not.
Sorry, my language was imprecise. It’s not the decision itself that has been discreditied, but you birthers’ interpretation of it. What part of “it is not necssary for us to resolve these doubts” do you not understand? After the court said it was not necessary to resolve such doubts, but did so anyway, I’m sure it would have said so. What you think is explicit in the Minor case hasn’t been upheld by the courts, has it? So YOUR statement as to what the Minor case meant is not only irrelevant but flat wrong. Exhibit A: Barack Hussein Obama was sworni in for a second term today.
Well said.
Whats mildly interesting to me is that the constitution is very clear on 2 things (a) The presidents eligibility is the responsibility of congress and not the courts and (b) the responsibility for vetting Hawaiian documentation is the responsibility of the courts of Hawaii and everywhere else is required to take them at face value.
Which of course means that Birthers (a) pursue eligibility through courts and not congress and (b) try to prove the BCs as forgeries in every state BAR HAWAII.
Its almost like they both don’t understand the constitution and are actively and deliberately going through the wrong venues and setting themselves up for failure.
Stunning when you think about it.
Ewwww…this looks good Pieter. Where did you read it? What does the rest of it say? After I read it, how much you wanna bet that it doesn’t say what you think it says and actually agrees that there’s no question that the President has always been eligible? Come on, this dream world you keep making up in your mind needs work!
Have any of you the power to wonder and doubt? If the political climate were different, I think some of you would seem hypocrites. Obama v Bush. I was never a fan of Bush other than his commitment to fight AIDS in Africa. Other than that, everything else was suspect.
You, well, I wonder. If it weren’t Mr. Obama…would your ability to wonder be more credulous? MvH and WKA are specific in their scope, yet you cling to that which gives you the most political solace. I ask only that you wonder without the hope of political advantage. I know, impossible. Solace is where you find it. Whatever makes you sleep well in your beds while rough men stand on the ramparts prepared to do violence on your behalf.
Wow, i don’t recall people reading hundreds of years of established case law backwards and claiming that bush wasn’t the president and making up imaginary variations of settled case law so they could skip in the happy rainbows of a fantasy where he wasn’t the president.
Sorry dude. The BCs aren’t fakes, there’s nothing on them that remotely indicates they are, and the dissent on WKA spent pages bitching that the case copperfastened WKA as eligible for the presidency despite zero citizen parents. You can go lalalalalalala for the next 4 years if you want, but the black guy is the president.
The ruling-that women have no right to vote-discredits every bit of logic used to reach that decision. Similarly, the ruling in the Dred Scott case discredits anything used to arrive at that odious decision. Both cases were overturned by amendments, so I don’t think they are really of anything other than historical interest.
I’ve always wondered in the case of male brthers whether they are married and what their wives think of them going around praising a case that denigrated women. I don’t have to wonder what my wife would think.
Give me a good reaon why would you base your entire argument on a fictional Minor V Hapersett ruling and lie through your ass about WKA, not to mention insist you are right despite being told not so by the courts 200 times.
Methinks your self awareness ain’t too hot, old boy.
Scientist, hmmm. Does an understanding of history denigrate women. At one time in the US, foreign women who married American citizens were granted automatic US citizenship. Conversely, dual citizenship was a repugnant concept and only recently recognized as palatable. Sure it is only a relatively recent affectation of suffrage compared to blacks gaining citizenship and the vote. I don’t judge harshly, I leave that to you and your finer sensibilities. It is only worth noting that similar to the acknowledgment of male import, such was the case when natural law, as noted by Vattel, was considered when natural born citizen was included in the constitution.
Are you aware of Mexican law with regards to NBC? No, bet you don’t…too sexist for consideration.
That’s really your REAL issue and hangup here, isn’t it Pieter? “Anchor Babies”??
Just come out and admit that your worldview is driven by a form of perceived xenophobia already. Just be honest.
Look, your entire hangup of your arguments rests with you simply not liking how the existing US laws on citizenship happen to work. Particularly in respect to the NBC clause…which only has one very, very limited use – those seeking the specifc office of President (or VP by extent). A particular position certainly with great responsibilities and power…but also with lots of limitations, checks and restraints.
Yet somehow you have this irrational “fear” of some sort of dangerous “otherness” that you perceive is unacceptable to you…despite what the electorate or the actual working application of our laws and legal system have repeatedly shown.
Sorry, but the final part of your statement (in bold below) is nothing more than your mere exotic personal contrarian opinion and has NO actual basis in our working laws as they exist and function.
While it may not “personally sit well with you”, we’ve had a number of folks who were “born abroad” who actually RAN for President and would have been viewed as NBC (via virtue of their parentage, since they didn’t have the easier condition of native birth).
This includes Mitt’s father – George Romney as well as John McCain. If TX Senator Cruz attempts to run for President in the future, this will include him too. Outside of a few angry cranks (note: the ONLY documented real opposition to John McCain’s NBC “eligibility” came from Birther cranks), the vast majority of the populace and the legal community would easily accept these people as “eligible” based on our EXISTING laws.
Now, actually WINNING an election (i.e. getting the most votes) is another matter. McCain came in second, so he lost. Simple as that. Had he received more votes in 2008, he would be President. That analogy holds true for other similar examples in the past as it does for those in the future.
Which brings us back to “Anchor Babies”. The WHOLE reason that the term “Anchor Babies” even exists and has been an “issue” for the past several decades is because these kids ARE born on US soil and therefore *are* NBC by mere virtue of that alone.
While it is very true that doesn’t “sit well” with a lot of folks, it remains equally true that is how our laws work. Therefore, to reduce or revoke the American citizenship that “anchor babies” receive at birth, would require a Constitutional Amendment. Nothing less.
Your problem is that you don’t honestly just admit that you are “unhappy” with the REALITY of our existing system and that you would desire to see it changed to something more restrictive and comforting to your personal worldview.
No, you get legitimately criticized and critiqued because you are denying reality and obstinately pretending that you know some special “magical secret” that allows you to rewrite history to your personal whims….the rest of the world be damned.
And yes, I view your obsessive and intransigent to be both bizarre and unhealthy and nothing to be proud of. It stems not from reason but some emotional weakness of your own that I simply do not understand. Either you have a condition that I should be sympathetic to or you are being intentionally disingenuous and deceptive with us here. So which is it? You ask for reasonable dialogue, yet you’ve been given repeated explanations that surely are not beyond your grasp. Therefore, it becomes hard to remain polite and reasonable, when your pattern of self-initiated behavior here belies that such is really your intent.
Mmm, you know, if the birthers were actually about getting a law passed to change birth on soil citizenship I probably would be more or less on their side. It would be hypocritical of me not to, since I was pretty much in favour of the law passed in Ireland in 2003 that removed Jus Soli citizenship.
But instead its about pretending that the law is something different than it is, which is the stupidest form of wishful thinking. (Oh and if the US adopted the laws passed by Ireland in 2003, Obama would still be a born citizen. The horror)
Of course we do! Don’t be so silly. Nearly everyone does, of course. But there is a difference between rational “wonder” and “doubt” and what eventually becomes extremely irrational behavior, based on mere emotion and inability to adapt beyond the weakness of your own fragile worldview.
Yes, I and many others came to this issue originally with questions (which fits the categories of “wondering” and having possible “doubts”. The evidence we found has been deemed more than sufficient and conclusive to our concerns on the matter. Further, no REAL evidence out there weighs up against these “sufficient” standards to merit further doubts for us. It really is as simple as that.
No. Not for me at least. I wasn’t happy with many prior election results. Bush just being one of them. But I accepted it as soon as the votes were tallied. Even the 2000 results. As soon as Gore conceded, that was it for me. While I was never a “fan” of GWB and after 2003, became very skeptical of his administration’s abilities and actions, I couldn’t stand all the BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) crap that was going on…even when I was also unhappy with how things were going. I simply wanted my country and my President to succeed and for things to get done right and resolved…even when I disagreed with the ways they were doing it. To wish for failure is something I just don’t understand and find to be petty and not worthy of respect – period.
You see hypocrisy because you project it. Your own petty limitations to your worldview and how you would handle things are not an excuse to assume the rest of us behave and think the same way.
NO. Your failing because YOU can’t get beyond your petty politics and worldview, not us. MvH and WKA and their scope say the same thing, regardless. McCain is eligible. Rubio is eligible. Jindal is eligible. An “anchor baby” is eligible. Senator Cruz is eligible. Etc.
Now this part is just a childish “woe is me” tantrum on your part. “Violence on your behalf” indeed. Spare me. I sleep just fine, thank you… as I assume most of the rational adults on this forum do as well. You (and those like you) are the one who can’t seem to emotionally adapt. Grow up and learn to deal with reality and you will be better off. Your current attitude is neither becoming nor impressing anyone…and most importantly, it is certainly not healthy.
No, just an irrelevant non-sequitur by you, as you attempt to dodge and change the subject.
We aren’t discussing “Mexican law” here, period. That has nothing to do with Obama nor the issues of NBC in America at all. America’s citizenship laws in regards to how it views its own citizens have ZERO to do with what any other country deems as their citizens.
Wow, you really are retreating into juvenile defensiveness now, aren’t you?
I’m sorry, but what does your ability to work or be promoted have to do with the simple reality that you have xenophobic views and fears about US citizenship rights? Answer – NOTHING.
But that doesn’t change the fact that you have been advocating xenophobic concerns here. Look up the definition of xenophobia if you can’t grasp that… and then re-read your own posts. Hint: I didn’t call you a “racist”…the terms are very distinct.
YOUR stated issue remains connected, by your own admission, to concerns of some perceived “foreign influence” and irrational worries about “anchor babies” and such. THAT is clear xenophobia right there. No bones about it.
So sorry that I’m being straight and blunt with you by merely stating the obvious. Seems you are the one who can’t be open and honest about your own motivations. Pity. That self-limitation is your personal insecurity weakness, not ours.
Senators Rubio, Santorum and Governor Jindal are eligible to be President. But you say they are not.
Head meet wall.
Silly nonsense is one my favorite pastimes. The joy of civic responsibility coupled with an ability to read and discern is a wonderment. I trouble myself not with the real chaff of birth certificates, selective service registration, or his unlikely birth in Kenya. Some of us can separate the questions of fraud from that of eligibility.
It is my sole contention that doubt exists per earlier USSC decisions and precedent of prior office holders that bear want for a robust discussion among the citizenry. Your lot has closed the door on any hope of such with the sentence that any form of contrary view is racist, illiterate, or by those with mental defect. Wow.
I thought folks like yourselves were the example for us lesser peons hoping someday to be such as you. Am I to believe that there is absolutely no room for discussion? My, how middle ages.
Live and learn.
Rogers v Bellei.
Held that persons born overseas are not protected by the 14th amendment and Congress can pass laws granting the foreign born children of citizens citizenship at birth, yet still impose conditions like residence thresholds in order to keep that citizenship.
Left unanswered is whether or not such citizens are “Natural Born” or “Naturalized”. The McCain case seems to have established a non-binding and non-judicial precedent for the “Natural Born” side.
gorefan, no those mentioned are not eligible. Political expediency, regardless of my respect and admiration, is not a criteria for their eligibility.
I’m with you on that. I might not agree with their “prescription”, but at least I could respect an honest argument and rational intent.
I’ve had my share of personal concerns with illegal immigration and the implications of “anchor babies” in the past, myself. However, I understand and have learned what our laws are and how they work and have actually listened with an open mind. As a rational adult person, my personal views have adapted over time as I’ve listened to the various SERIOUS arguments being made.
In particular, while I support (and of course accept) the existing function of the NBC clause in the US Constitution, I’ve found a lot of good reasoning in the much broader positions that Scientist in particular takes on this issue.
(Scientist thinks that specific part of the clause has become obsolete and would favor an Amendment that allows someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger or a Jennifer Granholm to run for President… in other words, open it up to perhaps all US citizens of certain age and years of residency here).
Now personally, I still remain fine with the NBC clause as it is now. But I see his POV and think it is very reasonable… and most importantly, HE knows that his POV is NOT how the laws here work…just that he’d support and advocate a broader change to them.
Me personally, I’d be fine either way and accept the law as the law is. I’m certainly LESS in favor of putting in any restrictions to our existing citizenship laws (I find it hard to see where stripping away rights is a “good thing” at all) than I am in broadening them.
But yes, the bottom line is that a real and serious adult conversation starts with accepting the current reality framework as a starting point and only THEN making a position for why a certain change in direction would be better… along with being open and honest about considering the consequences and concerns that always come with change as well.
Sadly, Pieter has not been willing (or perhaps capable) of admitting the current reality framework and thus, is not providing honest dialogue here in true good faith. All I see is someone hiding behind a veneer of civility, yet only coming across as a sanctimonious troll.
There is no ability to have a sincere “robust discussion” when you simply stick your head in the sand and ignore issues that have been seriously parsed and explained to you countless times. There are many such threads on these topics here.
You are the one who has been insincere, as you simply wish to repeat irrelevant talking points and pretend that our laws aren’t currently actively functioning in a certain way… simply because you don’t like how they actually work.
No, you aren’t having a real discussion about advocating for change and discussing why it might be better or not or analyzing the implication.
No, you simply wish to stick your head in the sand and pretend that MvH claims some magical things, which it does not. You simply insist on premises that you cannot support and only defend with dishonesty.
That sir, is not a proper nor honest discourse. The failings so far here have been your own.
G, what’s not admitted? I freely and clearly acknowledge that the status quo holds that Mr. Obama is unequivocally the United States President and commander in chief of the Armed Forces.
He is the fount of authority for command in the military.
This is one of my motivations to dispel doubt and clarify that said authority. What motivates you? Screwing with those on this forum that are not of your mindset for the simple pleasure of being a…
Good for you for reaching deep within your character and finding the framework to interact with your fellow citizen.
This is where your “Personally, I thought” process breaks down: the case was explicit in its opinion that it was NOT defining every possible situation that produced a natural born citizen.
It was enough for the case in front of the court to acknowledge that Virginia Minor was a citizen. It had no cause or reason to discuss citizenship any further and explicitly acknowledged that there were other possible paths to NBC that it was not going to pursue.
Why is this so hard for you to understand? Your ‘personal’ blindness to the Court’s clear and explicit language on that topic is irrelevant to the discussion and just makes your argument, such as it is, look foolish.
Yes and yes.
In some ways, deliberately doing it wrong allows them to maintain their fantasy… because they simply can’t handle definitive results and answers that don’t conform to their preconceived desires.
Keith, god bless you.
So you believe that our modern court would uphold the popular understanding that WKA reflects an understanding of Art II eligibility?
RvB holds that those foreign born to US citizens are not eligible per the restrictive nature of the 14th.
Does this mean that those born to illegal immigrants are eligible where those like McCain are not? Regardless of the non-binding conjecture of the congress, we should all look to the wisdom of the court. Do you agree?
Actually, I think the Court would look to the wisdom of Congress…since this is a Political question. Actually, according to the Court, the Court would defer to Congress…if you read Judge England’s ruling on Orly’s TRO.
Jim, thanks for the candor.
Do you not think it sad that the matter should be left to an inference that the congress has been left to decide the matter and in very indirect way done so?
I get no warm fuzzy that a body that hasn’t passed a budget in four years has the intestinal fortitude or competence to definitively decide the matter.
I understand that when the electoral votes were certified that congress had the responsibility to consider eligibility. The issue was never explicitly made, so I consider this aspect unresolved.
Personally, other than the power to establish naturalization laws, they lack the authority to determine natural law. Time for the court to chime in.
No offense to some in the congress that deserve to hold their office, but I would feel better if the USSC weighed in.
What it says is that such foreign born citizens are not guaranteed citizenship through the fourteenth amendment. It does not say they are ineligible for the presidency.
This remains an untested question, but if you search the site, starting with the link I provided earlier, you will find various authorities that suggest it is likely they would be considered eligible. Some will disagree, or wonder. After much review on my part, I personally think being born a citizen will ultimately prove the critical requirement, if or when it becomes an issue.
Those born here to illegal aliens are indeed unquestionably eligible. Nothing to wonder about there. Those born abroad but not born citizens (because the law excludes their particular circumstances) are not eligible. McCain, born abroad, nonetheless was born a citizen.
One of the other issues well hashed out on this site, and spelled out by Judge England, is that ultimately it is up to Congress to determine if eligibility has been met, not the courts. Some of us have speculated how a Supreme Court case might arise (a novel based on that premise was even highlighted on this blog), but in the end, it seems extremely unlikely at best.
Jim, thanks for the candor.
Do you not think it sad that the matter should be left to an inference that the congress has been left to decide the matter?
I get no warm fuzzy that a body that hasn’t passed a budget in four years has the intestinal fortitude or competence to definitively decide the matter.
I understand that the when the electoral votes were certified that congress had the responsibility to consider eligibility. The issue was never explicitly made, so I consider this aspect unresolved.
No offense to some in the congress that deserve to hold their office, but I would feel better if the USSC weighed in.
Paper, it is the providence of the congress to define NBC? Perhaps. If congress is to be challenged in their understanding, where do you go? Many have questioned popular understanding (i.e. SOS, etc.) and look to the USSC for definitive resolution with no hearing by the highest judicial body. Or is this lost on you?
The signature symptom of Birfoonistry Pieter presented was the “3rd type of citizen” tic. Once “statutory citizen” is uttered, the conversation is over.
Born a Citizen & Naturalized as a Citizen. That’s it. That’s what can be drawn from the Constitution without torturing it, and that’s how all Courts and Legislators have interpreted it.
John McCain was a citizen at birth. He’s eligible. Marco Rubio would be too. Same for Bobby Jindal and Tom Vilsack, who has been a candidate without anyone questioning his Article II eligibility. Vilsack was born here to unknown parents– a foundling. Were his parents foreigners? Citizens? One of each? Here illegally? No one knows.
I figure his lily-white skin is why nobody questions his Americanness.
If a child of Mexican illegal immigrants made the choices in life Barack Obama did– excelled in school, walked the walk of public service, ran brilliant campaigns, displayed leadership, and then ran for President– the fact that Pieter finds the notion to be repugnant?
THAT’s what’s really repugnant.
Rubio was born in Miami. Santorum was born in Virginia. Jindal was born in Louisiana. Thus, all three are eligible.
Pieter Nosworthy:
gorefan, no those mentioned are not eligible. Political expediency, regardless of my respect and admiration, is not a criteria for their eligibility.
Yes, here are the requirements to be President of Mexico:
To be eligible to serve as president, Article 82 of the Constitution specifies that the following requirements must be met:
Be a natural-born citizen of Mexico (“mexicano por nacimiento”) able to exercise full citizenship rights, with at least one parent who is a natural-born citizen of Mexico.
Be a resident of Mexico for at least twenty (20) years.
Be thirty-five years or older at the time of the election.
Be a resident of Mexico for the entire year prior to the election (although absences of 30 days or fewer are explicitly stated not to interrupt residency).
Not be an official or minister of any church or religious denomination.
Not be in active military service during the six months prior to the election.
Not be a secretary of state or under-secretary of state, attorney general, governor of a State, or head of the government of the Federal District, unless “separated from the post” (resigned or been granted permanent leave of absence) at least six months prior to the election.
Not have been president already, even in a provisional capacity (see Succession below).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Mexico
Natural born citizen (mexicano por nascimiento)-I checked with my wife who is a Spanish teacher. That means “Mexican by birth”. They also require that one parent be a natural born citizen. A Mexican Barack Obama would qualify to be President of Mexico.
I’m not sure what your point was, but you didn’t help your argument.
I regret to inform you that the Supreme Court really doesn’t give a crap about your feelings. Nor should they.
Now back to the important stuff-Tom Brady and the boys. I have to ask if a real American would be sitting on this blog while the NFL conference championships are on.
It certainly appears, in light of Senator McCain’s very viable candidacy, that in substance “congressional statute regarding who is a born citizen defines NBC.” While I’m aware of the difference between being naturalized in the statutory sense and in the Constitutional sense, I’ve certainly seen more compelling arguments for that stated proposition than against it. Not that it has anything at all to do with President Obama, whose citizenship doesn’t depend upon statute.
You see, I’m not all that unaware of how things work– I’m not unaware that you’re trying to confuse the issue.
And I’m not ignoring any precedent. There’s no relevant precedent in either case you refer to. Minor’s been done to death; and in the words of Judge Jeff Masin, “It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here; the subject has been thoroughly reviewed and no new legal argument on this issue has been offered here.” As to Rogers v. Bellei, the case didn’t have anything at all to do with persons born in the United States. Isn’t your point about persons born in the United States with an alien parent? After all, you said
“I purport that Mr, Obama is not eligible for his office due his dad and nothing else.”
What in the world would Rogers v. Bellei have to do with that?
Now about that “permanent allegiance”– have you looked that one up yet? You might want to put some time in on the basics here before you comment further.
Are you sure those foreign born to US citizens are “natural born”? That is why I mentioned RvB.
No one blinked when Mr. Obama ran for the presidency considering his unprecedented open admission of being born to a foreign father. He was born in the jurisdiction and obviously a citizen per the 14th. McCain’s situation had to be a matter of congressional consideration.
Why these two cases were treated the way they were is beyond my ken. Some would hold that neither were remotely eligible for the office. Unfortunately the highest court never had a chance to consider.
Because he was born in Hawaii, and thus his father’s status is irrelevant. There is nothing to wonder about here.
Scientist, it is not a mere parent…it is the father who must be a citizen. Those Mexicans sure can be racist, huh?
Ask your Spanish wife what the laws are regarding who can inherit property? No doubt she is a valuable fount of such knowledge per Mexican jurisprudence.
Per your comments, I’m tracking that those merely born on our soil are eligible for the presidency. RvB states that if such is so, those foreign born to US citizens are not while anchor babies are. Sad.
Have you lost your ability to be struck dumb by something that appears to make no sense? Perhaps those merely born in the jurisdiction are just citizens and not necessarily eligible for the presidency. The 14th could be more statutory than a definitive understanding of NBC for our post revolution-post natural law understanding worldview.
Do you know what the Spanish word for “parents” is?
Now, back to “permanent allegiance”– I’ll make it easy for you:
8 USC 1101 – Definitions
(21) The term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.
(22) The term “national of the United States” means
(A) a citizen of the United States, or
(B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.
Just because they didn’t have a discussion, doesn’t mean it wasn’t resolved. For an example – my wife and I don’t have a discussion on whether the sun rose each morning. We both see that it does. It doesn’t bear discussion.
Our Congresscritters know that Obama is eligible. No discussion necessary.
Natural law isn’t really involved here. So you needn’t worry about it.
They did. In 1898. No need to continue discussing something decided a century ago.
No, it didn’t. Are you proposing that Senator McCain’s candidacy depended upon a non-binding Senate resolution, and without it would’ve ground to a halt?
Is that your equivalent of Twain’s “solitary esophagus”, sleeping upon motionless wing?
Yes, in relation to ’14th Amendment’ citizens.
No it doesn’t. It holds that Congress can set conditions for non-naturalized foreign born citizens to satisfy in order to retain that citizenship. It does not answer the question of whether such citizens are natural born citizens or not.
WKA has bearing on persons born on American soil whose parents are not American citizens, whether the parents are in the country legally or not. It explicitly acknowledges that they are natural born citizens. WKA has no bearing on persons born overseas like John McCain.
RvB has bearing on persons born overseas but granted American citizenship ‘at birth’ because it says that that citizenship can be affected by conditions set by Congress. RvB has no bearing on persons born in the United States or naturalized persons.
RvB also does not answer the question of John McCain’s eligibility, and there is no court case that has done so. All we have to enlighten us on this question is:
(1) common sense (which you seem to be trying to argue even though you are not making any sense what-so-ever),
(2) the vast majority of both scholarly and common opinion that ‘natural born citizen’ simply means ‘not naturalized’ and therefor a person declared to be a citizen at birth and not needful of naturalization must be a ‘natural born citizen’
(3) Congresses explicit statement that it considers John McCain a natural born citizen and eligible to hold the office of President of the United States, and therefore, by extension, every other ‘statutory’ citizen at birth.
No I do not agree.
What is so hard to understand? It is not the Court’s business to vet the eligibility of Presidential candidates; the Constitution gives that job to Congress.
The non-binding nature of the McCain resolution is an acknowledgment that it is the Congress’ Constitutional prerogative to make naturalization law. It follows that Congress, when making that law may define the conditions persons must satisfy to be naturalized (as confirmed in Bellei) and which persons ‘need’ to be naturalized in order to be citizens. Congress can change those conditions and categories any time it wishes. At the time of the WKA case Congress excluded Chinese people from naturalization.
Currently, Congress defines several groups of people born overseas who are ‘born citizens’ and do not need to be naturalized. Since they are ‘born citizens’ they are natural born citizens. Congress may, in its wisdom, change those conditions and criteria.
The next Congress may decide that people born in the Canal Zone are not U.S. Citizens and never have been. That would make McCain ineligible, however, had McCain won in 2008 and they changed the law in 2010, it would not have changed the fact that he was President and there is no magic reset button.
Congress may decide that there should no longer be, and should never have been a residency threshold to retain the citizenship and that would restore Mr. Bellei’s citizenship – and make him eligible to hold the Office of the President of the United States.
The children (born in Mexico) of Henry S. Schreck, a naturalized citizen of the United States, claimed before the United States and Mexican claims commission, convention of 1868 (15 Stat, at L. 679), as his heirs, damages from Mexico for the seizure and sale in that country of certain goods belonging to the estate of their father. The umpire decided: “As children of a naturalized citizen of the United States, they may be considered to be citizens of the United States in the United States and in every other country except the country of their birth; but the fact of their being born in Mexico gives to the government of that country the right to claim them in Mexico as citizens of that Republic. The umpire is, therefore, of opinion that, as against Mexico, the heirs of Henry S. Schreck, being born in that Republic, have no standing before the mixed commission, and cannot claim, as citizens of the United States, against the government of their birth.” Upon motion for rehearing, however, Mr. Ashton, agent and counsel of the United States, showed that by the Mexican law persons born in Mexico are not natural-born Mexicans unless their fathers before them were Mexicans; that the heirs of Schreck, therefore, not being claimed by the municipal law of Mexico as Mexican citizens, must be deemed to possess in that country the national character attributed to them by the law of the United States. The umpire adopted this view, and made an award in favor of the heirs of Schreck. Moore, International Arbitrations, 2450-2453.
Well said.
You know, I misoverestimated you. I thought you were merely mistranslating “padres”. Then I remembered reading Article 82 of the Mexican Constitution, the relevant part of which is (current to November 30 of last year):
Artículo 82. Para ser Presidente se requiere:
I. Ser ciudadano mexicano por nacimiento, en pleno goce de sus derechos, hijo de padre o madre mexicanos y haber residido en el país al menos durante veinte años.
That’s
Article 82. To be President requires
That one is a Mexican citizen by birth, in full possession of one’s rights, child of a Mexican father or mother and having resided in the country at least twenty years.
Mistyped that sentence. It should be:
Well, the most likely answer is nowhere. Except of course to the ballot box. That is how displeasure with your Representatives and Senators is expressed most directly.
I have speculated that the Supreme Court might get involved if Congress did something absurd, like declaring a fourteen year old eligible. And if you search the site you will find much discussion of what it might take, including, as mentioned, a novel based on that very premise. But that is mostly, if not entirely, neither here nor there.
Moreover, there is no doubt what the Supreme Court would say about *anyone* born in this country.
As for me, it matters not what may be lost on me. But before you continue asking such arch questions, try reading what has been written on this site for the last four years. There is a search bar. All of the topics you have mentioned so far have been researched and discussed in great detail already.
RvB does not actually state that.
So birther Pieter lied again. Shocking.
But this scenario you are discussing makes sense.
Born here = NBC. There is no perhaps about that.
Born aboard to an American parent while meeting the legal requirements as set by Congress = most probably NBC. There is your perhaps, though a slight one. Because I agree, and many authorities do, that it makes most sense, and would be most likely, that such foreign born Americans would be NBC.
If you want to wonder about that, okay, but Rogers v Bellei does not say otherwise. It says they are not *guaranteed* citizenship by way of the fourteenth amendment.
The big point is we have never had such a president, so the issue has been irrelevant. McCain was a possibility. Congress expressed a non-binding opinion, which nonetheless is likely to express their ultimate view if push ever comes to shove.
Both. Even Chief Justice Fuller in his dissent of the majority opinion said that someone like Wong would be eligible to be President. The appellant’s said the the lower court ruling was that Wong was a natural born citizen even though the lower court never used that term to describe Wong.
Be that as it may, Congress is the body most responsive to voters. The Supreme Court, by design, is not. As this is ultimately a question of power, giving such power to the most responsive body makes a lot of sense. That is what is inherent in such points as expressed by Judge England that this is a *political* question.
What in the world is the relevance of this anecdote? Never mind going into the translation or interpretation of “padres”, the Mexican Constitution of 1857 was repealed nearly a century ago.
Do you find your inability to understand the laws of one country at a time insufficient?
Be that as it may, it has absolutely nothing, zip, zero, nada, to do with American law and practice, does it?
Sounds pretty much exactly what would have happened were the claim the other way.
They had dual citizenship. Mexico doesn’t care that another country grants citizenship to a person, only whether they are a Citizen of Mexico. Likewise, the USA doesn’t give a darn about mulitple citizenships either, only whether or not you are a US citizen.
Are you suggesting that the laws of Mexico should decide who is eligible to be President? You might like to discuss that with the Mitt Romney who was the son of a natural born citizen of Mexico and who may have been able to claim Mexican citizenship himself.
Your entire argument is ludicrous.
No, sir! You lie!
To be eligible to serve as president, Article 82 of the Constitution specifies that the following requirements must be met:
Be a natural-born citizen of Mexico (“mexicano por nacimiento”) able to exercise full citizenship rights, with at least one parent who is a natural-born citizen of Mexico.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Mexico
That is ONE parent must be a citizen. ONE
You said you serve in the US Army. Since you are now proven a liar, I call you a disgrace to the uniform. A disgrace. You should tender your resignation first thing in the morning, soldier. Or should I say ex-soldier.
Let me add Mr Pieter Nosworthy that the Supreme Court isn’t interested in your opinion as to what cases they should and should not take. Not in the least. Not one of the 9 Justices is losing a wink of sleep over whether Mr Obama is the President and whether that pleases or displeases you. Got it?
Chief Justice Fuller who wrote the dissent in Wong Kim Ark lamented that Wong Kim Ark could run for the office of the President when he observed:
Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, WERE ELIGIBLE TO THE PRESIDENCY, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark,169, U.S. 649, 715 (1898) (C.J. Fuller, dissenting)(emphasis added)
As such, even the DISSENT in Wong Kim Ark acknowledged that the majority’s holding would allow Wong Kim Ark to be eligible to the presidency.
You’re like gum. Put in it your mouth, chew it up, and just keep chewing it and chewing it until you just can’t stand it any more.
Obama is not a natural born citizen then what is he?
Before you answer, consider the following:
Courts do not recognized “partial” citizenship nor do they acknowledged “defective” 14th Amendment citizenship. Either Obama is a natural born citizen or is an alien.
There is no “hybrid citizen” in that a person who is born in the United States is a “citizen” but not a “natural born citizen.” In other words, stating that Obama is an United States citizen but not a natural born citizen is similar to being “partially pregnant” either he is a natural born citizen or not.
If he is not a natural born citizen because of misguided notion that he was not born under the 14th Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States phraseology due to the status of his alien father then he must be an alien.
However, numerous courts have held that native born children of alien parents come within the 14th Amendment citizenship clause. Podea v. Marshall, 83 F. Supp. 216, 219-220(ED NY 1949) (“It is a long recognized and well established principle that plaintiff acquired American citizenship upon his birth on September 21, 1912, at Youngstown, Ohio, even though his parents were immigrant aliens. Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1” ;Benny v. O’Brien 32 Atl 696, 697(New Jersey 1895)(“Two facts must concur: the person must be born here, and he must be subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States according to the fourteenth amendment, which means, according to the civil rights act, that the person born here is not subject to any foreign power. Allan Benny, whose parents were ‘domiciled here at the time of his birth, is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and is not subject to any foreign power.”; Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 US 454, 457 (1920)(“It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649. But while it is conceded that he is certainly the same person who, upon full investigation was found, in March, 1915, by the then Commissioner of Immigration, to be a NATURAL BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN”)(emphasis added); Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F. 3d 1017, 1019 (6th Cir. 1999)(“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are NATURAL BORN CITIZENS of the United States.”)(emphasis added)
As such, there has not been one decision by United States courts that they have held that a native born child of an alien father or alien parents was not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” under the 14th Amendment and thus was not a United States citizen.
Courts have never recognized “natural born citizen” as being classified as an ubercitizen or super-citizen in that the natural born citizen has special endowed legal powers far superior to those of mere mortal native born citizens.
Courts have never distinguished native born citizens from natural born citizens.
“There are only two classes of citizens of the United States, native-born citizens and naturalized citizens; and a citizen who did not acquire that status by birth in the United States is a naturalized citizen. Zimmer v. Acheson, 191 F. 2d 209, 211 (10th Cir. 1951)
“The Constitution of the United States provides as a qualification for the offices of President and Vice-President that the person elected must be a native-born citizen.” ex parte Garland, 71 US 333, 395 (1866)(Miller, J. dissenting)
In Luria v. United States, 231 US 9(1913), the court observed: Several contentions questioning the constitutional validity of 15 [Naturalization Act of 1906] are advanced, but all, save the one next to be mentioned, are sufficiently answered by observing that the section makes no discrimination between the rights of naturalized and native citizens.” Id at 24.
The Luria court further noted that a native citizen is the same as a natural born citizen: “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the NATIVE CITIZEN in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.(internal citations omitted)(emphasis added) Id at 22
Similarly, the court in United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 649 (1929) observed: “Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do NATIVE BORN CITIZENS.” (emphasis added)
As such, the drafters of the Constitution never intended to create a “SUPER CITIZEN” who was different from a native born citizen. If they had the courts would have recognized three classes of citizens: natural born, native born and naturalized.
The problem with Vattelites in their argument that the term Natural Born Citizen is founded on Roman or Civil Law instead of English Common Law is that their argument demonstrates their disregard that the Constitution provisions are framed in the language of the English Common Law and their argument ignores the historical development of Anglo-American jurisprudence that is rooted in the English Common Law.
Courts have recognized that the drafters of the constitution of whom most were lawyers were influenced by the principles and history of the common law that we inherited from the English. “The principles and history of the common law were well known to the framers of the Constitution and the members of the First Congress; it was from that system that their terminology was derived; and the provisions of the Constitution and contemporaneous legislation must be interpreted accordingly.” Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 US 205, 230 (1917)
Moreover, Chief Justice Taft stated in Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 76, 108-09 (1925):“The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted.”
Since the drafters of the Constitution wrote it in the language of the English common law then according to statutory construction that unless otherwise defined in the Constitution, words are to be taken at their ordinary and contemporary meaning.“ A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.” Perrin v. United States, 444 US 37,42 (1979).
Moreover, if the use of words in the Constitution had a common law meaning
then the courts must infer the incorporation of this common law meaning unless the language of the Constitution compels a different meaning.
“[G]uided by the principle that where words are employed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning at common law or in the law of this country they are presumed to have been used in that sense unless the context compels to the contrary.” Standard Oil Co. of NJ v. United Sates, 221 US 1, 59 (1911);
Furthermore, if words were created not by positive law but rather by judicially created concept then any interpretation of those words other than their common law meaning must be specific and clear. “The normal rule of statutory construction is that if Congress intends for legislation to change the interpretation of a judicially created concept, it makes that intent specific.” Stillians v. Iowa, 843 F.2d 276, 280 (8th Cir.1988)(internel citations omitted)
In other words, If drafters of the Constitution used words in the Constitution that have a common law meaning then it is PRESUMED that drafters intended common law application of the words UNLESS there is language in the Constitution that intended a contrary interpretation of the words.
As such, the term natural born citizen is a derivation of the term natural born subject that was a judicially created concept as articulated by Blackstone in his Commentaries of the Laws of England (1765) then UNLESS the founding fathers intended a different meaning other than the common law rule meaning of natural born citizen it was the responsibility of drafters to incorporate this different meaning.
The failure of the drafters to indicate a different meaning other than the common law meaning of natural born citizen in the Constitution demonstrated that the drafters intended to incorporate the established common law meaning of natural born citizen.
Not remotely eligible, eh? We’ve seen some of those “some” who would hold such.
Interesting that you chose that, since it mentions both Vattel and Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui.
I wrote an article on the latter, and he’s not really sympathetic with your viewpoint.
Why don’t you read my article:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/06/another-early-writer-on-natural-law-and-citizenship/
and offer your comments on it.
I would also point out a fallacy in your citation, which is that it was given in the context of congratulating the Swiss, which of necessity required singling out the contribution of the Swiss and the exclusion of the contributions of others. To say, as you have, that your citation is proof of the State Department’s support for the view that “Natural born citizenship is a reflection of the constitutional authors’ understanding of natural law philosophy per Vattel” is patently absurd and a gross misrepresentation of the context and the content of the statement.
If you think your citation really implies what you said, I suggest you’re wasting your time on this blog, because most of us aren’t that dim.
The premise of the article above is that the answer to your question is “yes.” Beliefs in the nutty things we all deplore stem from the same errors in thinking that your ideas about natural born citizen come from.
Someone is not daft for asking a question, but when an unqualified person thinks that they know the answers better than all the qualified persons, based on their original research, then I would call that daft.
A truly vacuous and useless comment.
The first Congress, many members drafters of the Constitution, seem to disagree with you, having declared in the Naturalization Act of 1790 that certain persons born to US fathers overseas were “natural born citizens.”
Of course that action is not evidence of what “you think” but it is evidence of what they thought, and suggests that you should think again.
Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “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. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”
Well, I’d say General Jedi Pauly, “the only person alive who has cracked the code of the Constitution and has discovered the objective definition of Article II natural born Citizen,” would be the ne plus ultra of that.
This shows a profound ignorance of American History. One of the issues that precipitated the American Revolution was the denial of the English Common Law protections to the Colonies. The Colonists regarded the Common Law as their birthright, and after the Revolution all of the 13 new states adopted the English Common law either in their constitutions, by statute, or by judicial fiat.
Your research is shallow and you overestimate your knowledge. It leads to mistakes.
Answer a direct question:
How many judges does it take ruling that Obama is eligible given that his father was not a US citizen, in order to consider the issue resolved?
I am asking for a number, a specific number, or are you saying that no number of judges will ever settle it?
A little learning is a dangerous thing.
Is there a FogBow badge for “most comically clinical understatement”?
@ Mr Nosworthy:
Much has been written on Vattel here, including some detailed analysis/translation by myself, a French attorney who has edited published translations of Vattel in the English language before.
Suffice it to say that Vattel does not say what the American birthers (e.g. Mario Apuzzo) want him to say, but quite the contrary. There is no doubt that, had Mr Obama been born in Switzerland from similar parentage during Vattel’s lifetime, Vattel would have considered him a naturel or indigene according to his own definitions of such terms.
(Whether this is relevant or not to US law, I’ll leave to others more qualified than I to argue. Also, I will leave to others to decide whether American birthers mistranslate Vattel in good faith because they do not really understand what he wrote, or, like Mr Apuzzo, purposefully distort the meaning of what he actually wrote.)
Second, I have established through links to authentic period documents that James Madison at least was also a French citizen, ie a dual citizen, BEFORE he was elected US President. This may also have been true of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, but the clearest, least open for discussion case is that of Madison, who warmly accepted the grant of French citizenship publicly in writing before he became President.
Your fourth president was therefore a dual citizen WHEN ELECTED TO THE OFFICE, which puts to the lie any theories about such citizens being barred from the Presidency.
Lupin, first of all thanks for your thoughts here. Second, I’m wondering could you recommend a decent English language book on Vattel, as from what reading I’ve done on the book to debunk birthers I did find there is a fair amount to admire in Vattel’s thought and I’d like to learn a little bit more.
You do know what Burlamaqui had to say about citizenship, don’t you? I will give you a hint: you can find it here, google Burlamaqui Obamaconspiracy.org.
As for Vatel, he did not really write about “two parents” (meaning the present-day meaning in English of parents). He thought one male relative who was a citizen was enough. Another hint: President Obama actually physically resembles that male relative who was a citizen at the time of his birth.
And what you all conveniently forget: Vatel was totally unambiguous about the need to be born in the country. Ted Cruz is not un naturel. And probably neither was McCain.
No, the Court affirmed a right to privacy, and reproductive freedom. The Court affirmed a woman’s uterus is not the property of the State.
There is no such thing as an “anchor baby.” That is a pejorative created by bigots. There are only natural born citizens and naturalized citizens.
And lets not forget how in stanza 214 Vattel directly identifies England as a jus soli nation.
In the Game Over thread, Doc C said:
“I am not saying that just because the game is over (and has long been over) that the birthers will admit defeat and move on: That’s not what they do; but the election is over, all of the lawsuits are either lost or moot, and there’s really nothing left for the birthers beyond old news echoing in their own ranks. I think the image of the chicken running around after its head has been cut off is an apt analogy. Eventually the chicken stops moving. Let’s see how long it takes with the birthers.”
I think we were treated to some last flops of the birther chicken by Pieter Nosworthy yesterday. Just some old-news echoing of Vattel. Nothing to new to see here; let’s move on.
Could this be one of the very reasons Wikipedia does not allow original research?
Before some birther tries something new in defending their arguments as appropriately reviewed, peer-reviewed does not mean having your birther peers nod in agreement to your claims.
Mexico has no law with regards to NBC for two simple reasons:
1) Mexico doesn’t have citizenship at birth – one can be a Mexican by birth but one is not a citizen until one comes of age;
2) NBC is an English term and surprising as it may seem Mexican law is written in Spanish.
At the University I go to, Wikipedia is not to be used as a source when writing papers. And from what I hear, it is enforced by many Universities. I usually cringe when I see folks use Wikipedia as a sole source. I do use Wikipedia for recreational purposes, but never in a serious debate or discussion (Maybe I am too old-school).
Please provide a source that shows where in the debates they discussed natural law, especially Vattel, in developing the NBC clause or any other citizenship definition. Otherwise, we will have to assume you made it up.
And no, citing the use of natural law in a debate about equal suffrage between the states does not count. It is not citizenship.
A difference between me and you: I have read the source material, and you have obviously not, since your comment is demonstrably false. See:
Max Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
Years ago, long before Obama came on the scene, I had a web site where I discussed things and offered evidence and opinion. One day I got an email from a college professor who mentioned that one of his students had used my web site as a reference in a paper he had written. The professor recounted his explanation to the student about sources, and then said he really enjoyed my JOKES page.
This site, like the Wikipedia, is a way to quickly find out a lot of information with a compilation of links to authoritative sources, primary and secondary. I have had some serious professionals, whose names you would recognize, thank me for the this site because it allowed them to quickly “deep dive” into the subject and to locate what they needed. This is why I have gone to a fair amount of trouble in tagging articles and building index lists. I want the site to be a research tool, but not a substitute for research itself.
Finally, I cannot overemphasize the power of the Search box. My goal is that on a birther topic, my search box is an easier way to find what you want than Google on the Internet.
When I was at Uni, we couldn’t use E. Britannica or other encyclopedia either. It isn’t the way the content is built, its what it is: a summary. It is OK to use it as a starting point but it isn’t a substitute for academic research.
I appreciate that. I am not a lawyer or judge, I am a technician/engineer. I am a person of logic, its the only way to understand computing (for me). When it comes to understanding conspiracies, I often have to suspend disbelief and throw logic out the window.
Correct.
Despite the rhetoric from the Vattelities there is a reason why our legal system is referred to as Anglo-American jurisprudence instead of Roman-American jurisprudence or Franco-American jurisprudence. Since the founding of our nation, courts have acknowledged our common law heritage that is rooted in the English common law.
Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in McDonald v. City of Chicago 561 U.S. ____ (2010) observed: ”After declaring their independence, the newly formed States replaced their colonial charters with constitutions and state bills of rights, almost all of which guaranteed the same fundamental rights that the former colonists previously had claimed by virtue of their English heritage.. . . . .. Several years later, the Founders amended the Constitution to expressly protect many of the same fundamental rights against interference by the Federal Government. Consistent with their English heritage, the founding generation generally did not consider many of the rights identified in these amendments as new entitlements, but as inalienable rights of all men, given legal effect by their codification in the Constitution’s text. “
Furthermore, courts have acknowledged that the common law was a barrier to arbitrary power of the government. ”Those who emigrated to this country from England brought with them this great privilege “as their birthright and inheritance, as a part of that admirable common law which had fenced around and interposed barriers on every side against the approaches of arbitrary power.” Thompson v. Utah, 170 US 343, 349-350 (1898) quoting 2 Story’s Const. 1779
Moreover, “When it is said that we have in this country adopted the common law of England, it is not meant that we have adopted any mere formal rules, or any written code, or the mere verbiage in which the common law is expressed. It is aptly termed the unwritten law of England; and we have adopted it as a constantly improving science, rather than as an art; as a system of legal logic, rather than as a code of rules. In short, in adopting the common law, we have adopted its fundamental principles and modes of reasoning, and the substance of its rules as illustrated by the reasons on which they are based, rather than by the mere words in which they are expressed.’ Fung Dai Kim Ah Leong v. Lau Ah Leong, 27 F. 2d 582, 584 (9th Cir. 1928 ) (internal citation omitted)
Doc, very interesting and apt post on original research. I think the media, courts, and most Americans would consider the issue as you have illustrated…the contrary view is “academic” in its focus and without merit in any meaningful sense. Not that the academic POV is wrong, just inapplicable for judicial review.
I like academic and philosophical discussions. I think most of you do also.
Is that any more ludicrous than your belief that a person born in the USA to American parents who moves to a foreign country as a youth, spends time in that nation’s military and then moves back to the USA as a 30 year would be eligible to be president once he has been a resident for 14 years but a person born in the USA to illegal immigrant parents who subsequently joins the army and rises to the rank of four star general would be ineligible?
Hi MattR, did the person who was born here reaffirm their citizenship at 18, did they lose their citizenship by enlisting in a foreign military, did that person vote in foreign elections, etc.?
As for the child of the illegal immigrant, I’d thank them for their service and consider the condition of their citizenship at birth insufficient for eligibility to be president.
I think the situation unfair and requires resolution. I mentioned RvB as an example of the inequality of eligibility per the 1971 USSC decision.
You really have no idea what you’re talking about do you? There is no requirement for someone to reaffirm their citizenship at age 18 anymore. Just moving overseas doesn’t affect your status. Several US Supreme Court cases have addressed your claims ranging from Afroyim V Rusk, Vance V Terrazas, Mandoli V Acheson, Schneider V Rusk.
It takes an actual renounciation of US Citizenship to remove it.
http://thenaturalbornpresidency.blogspot.com/2011/01/dual-nationality-and-state-department.html
Having watched yesterday’s official oath takings by President and Vice-President, and now watching today’s ceremonies, I find a philosophical (?) parallel to this idea of original research. In that, original research is important, but it also requires incorporation into society; otherwise it comes to nothing. In terms of research, that comes to peer review. In terms of democracy (with yesterday being the equivalent of original research), it comes to this kind of ceremony.
Doc KN, no I don’t always know what I’m talking about…no doubt you have your moments. Thanks for the feedback. I am aware there are circumstances in which a citizen can be stripped of that status.
The fact that I can come up with a ludicrous scenario using your rules for NBC invalidates your complaint that our understanding of NBC cannot be correct because it leads to the ludicrous scenario you described.
PS. All your questions in the first paragraph are irrelevant. None of those things automatically revoke citizenship (or NBC status). (EDIT: here’s a link from the State Department on this issue)
MattR, perhaps you’re right…I think the key point would be condition of citizenship at birth. Per RvB, both were born in the US and have commonly understood eligibility whereas those born abroad to our citizens are not. I find fault with the idea that those who are born with dual allegiances are still popularly considered eligible. Do you believe NBC can be retroactively determined (i.e. born with dual citizenship but renounces the foreign at majority)?
IMO, born with dual citizenship makes you a NBC for life regardless of whether you renounce the other citizenship as long as you never renounce the American one.
MattR, fair enough. Do you have any qualms whatsoever that a candidate for consideration who owes/owed allegiance to another country might not be the right person to be our president?
Depends on the candidate. I think it is up to the voters to make that decision for themselves.
There is a singular instance and that’s renounciation. The scenarios you just described do not result in someone losing their US Citizenship and haven’t since the Supreme Court ruled on them decades ago. There is no requirement for one to reestablish their citizenship after being overseas.
They aren’t just “popularly considered eligble”, they ARE eligible. You, however, are free to vote against anyone holding that status. You might find that it rather limits your choices-Mitt Romney was born with dual US and Mexican citizenship. A significant number of the potential candidates from both parties for 2016 fall into that class. Your best bet would probably be to vote for a Native American-after all, it sort of is their country, so isn’t it about time one became President?
The real answer for you is to amend the Constitution so that it clearly states that anyone holding public office in the US must renounce all other citizenships. If such an amendment were to pass, your worries would be eliminated. It amazes me that people who think like you will “demand” that courts do this or that (as if any court cares about your demands) when the real remedy, the one envisioned in the Constitution sits right in front of your noses.
MattR, another fair enough. Should that person be put before the voting electorate as a viable candidate? Why not include the naturalized citizen as a candidate (at least they took an oath to renounce all prior fealties)?
We are not solving the problem, but the “academic” discussion is interesting.
No relation to Obama even if he was born with dual citizenship his potential kenyan citizenship expired under their laws when he was 23. He has singularly been a United States Citizen the whole time since then. Also you’re not aware of Spiro Agnew are you?
President Madison (principal author of the Constitution) didn’t seem to have any qualms. He was a citizen of France when he served as President of the US.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/10/monsieur-le-prsident/
When it comes to qualms, I’m most worried by politicians who appear to owe allegiance to the Confederate States of America.
Obviously the American people had no problem with Spiro Agnew when he ran as Nixon’s VP even though he had dual Greek and American citizenship.
Barack Obama holds no citizenship other than US. His British citizenship disappeared when Kenya became independent and his right to elect Kenyan citizenship (which he nver exercised) lapsed when he turned 23. So you should be overjoyed to have him as President.
By the way, with the spelling of your first name, I suspect you have a claim on Dutch/Belgian citizenship. You should research their laws.
Scientist, some of us would contend that our history of electing presidents displays precedent and understanding of NBC constraints. Don’t be a snob regarding some of us who think the matter unresolved. I respect your opinion, show a little reciprocity.
Is that your page? The author apparently wasn’t aware of all the US Presidents who were dual citizens. Tsk, tsk, As I say, shallow research leads to mistakes.
Doc, I’ve been wrong regarding a lot of stuff. My understanding has been a work in progress. Fueled by questions, I’m still trying to learn and see if others share my curiosity.
Pieter: Work to amend the Constitution to read in accordance with what you think it should be. Make your case as to why that would be good. The amendment process is there for that very reason. If you took that honest route then I might respect you (though I would likely still disagree).
But your opinion that it is unresolved is unfounded and shows a total lack of research on your part.
Yes, the first person should be on the ballot since they are an NBC. The naturalized candidate is a bit trickier. S/he wouldnt meet the eligibility requirements but I am not sure if there are any laws or regulations preventing a non-eligible candidate from appearing on the ballot. Seems like it would be up to the nominating party to make that decision, then up to the voters to choose if they would vote for that candidate and finally Congress would have the ability to object to the candidate if they so chose. Strange as it might be to say, I don’t think there is a judicial remedy if the voters and Congress choose to ignore the Consitution’s eligibility requirements.
Obama doesn’t owed allegiance to any other country except his place of birth which is the United States.
The status of Obama’s dual citizenship at the time of his birth is completely irrelevant as to his natural born citizenship status.
What is relevant is the fact that he was born in the United States.
Obama was born in the allegiance of the United States. ““All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. United States v. Rhodes, 27 F Cas 785,818 (1866)
Courts on numerous times have held that a native born citizen is a citizen who is not naturalized. United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 649 (1929)(“Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native born citizens.”)
In fact, the courts on numerous occasions observed that native born citizens are natural born citizens and thus are eligible to the Presidency. Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, 22 (1913) (“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.”) See also ex parte Garland, 71 US 333, 395 (1866)(“The Constitution of the United States provides as a qualification for the offices of President and Vice-President that the person elected must be a native-born citizen.”)
Furthermore, if Obama was not a natural born citizen then he is either a naturalized citizen or an alien. But this is a false dilemma fallacy since Naturalization Acts do not confer citizenship on native born citizens in the United States nor is he an alien since courts have held that children born in the United States to alien parents are natural born citizen.
In Podea v. Marshall, 83 F. Supp. 216, 219-220(ED NY 1949 )
the court noted:
“It is a long recognized and well established principle that plaintiff acquired American citizenship upon his birth on September 21, 1912, at Youngstown, Ohio, even though his parents were immigrant aliens. (internal citations omitted) And it is equally well established in our law that the plaintiff, while an infant could not divest himself of such citizenship, whether by his own acts, or the acts of his parents. (internal citations omitted)
Similarly the court in United States v. Richmond, 274 F. Supp. 43 , 56 (CD Ca. 1967) observed:
“Obedient primarily to that unequivocal constitutional language, but also to the lately quoted Title 8 U.S.C., section 1401(a) (1), it has consistently been held judicially that one born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is, from birth, a citizen of the United States; that such citizenship does not depend upon like citizenship of his or her parents, or of either of them (except in the case of the children of ambassadors etc.); and that upon the subject, his or her color or racial origin is immaterial.”(internal citation omitted)
Furthermore, Justice Jackson in his concurring opinion in Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941) noted:
“The language of the Fourteenth Amendment declaring two kinds of citizenship is discriminating. It is: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” While it thus establishes national citizenship from the mere circumstance of birth within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States,” Id. at 183.
In the New Jersey Supreme Court case Benny v. O’Brien, 32 Atl 696 (1895), Justice Van Syckel addressed the issue before the court: “The question presented is whether a person born in this country of alien parents, who, prior to his birth, had their domicile here, is a citizen of the United States?”
In answering in the affirmative Justice Van Syckel declared: “The words of the fourteenth amendment are, “born in the United States and subject to the Jurisdiction thereof.” Those provisions by implication concede that there may be instances in which the right to citizenship does not attach by reason of birth in this country. Two facts must concur: the person must be born here, and he must be subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States according to the fourteenth amendment, which means, according to the civil rights act, that the person born here is not subject to any foreign power. Allan Benny, whose parents were ‘domiciled here at the time of his birth, is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and is not subject to any foreign power.” Id
As such, Obama’s dual citizenship status at birth is legally irrelevant and immaterial since courts have held that mere birth in the United States is sufficient to confer natural born citizenship status.
Let’s say we make anyone with “dual citizenship” ineligible to hold office, even if they never claimed or exercised that right. Can you imagine the chaos when so other nation decides to jerk US around and make whoever is in office a citizen of their nation.
A child born in the United States has only one allegiance and that allegiance is the United States. To have a “dual allegiance ” at birth a child must be under the jurisdiction and control of TWO sovereignties at birth in the United States which is a legal impossibility since the United States doesn’t share its jurisdiction of its citizens with another country.
Unlike hair color or eye color, a child doesn’t inherit a parent’s allegiance at birth. “[I]t has consistently been held judicially that one born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is, from birth, a citizen of the United States; that such citizenship does not depend upon like citizenship of his or her parents, or of either of them (except in the case of the children of ambassadors etc.). United States v. Richmond, 274 F. Supp. 43, 56 (CD Ca 1967). See also Von Schwerdtner v. Piper, 23 F. 2d 862 (D. MD 1928) (child born in the United States to German nationals)
“A person who is born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, becomes an American citizen not by gift of Congress but by force of the Constitution. U.S.C.A., Constitutional Amendment 14, Section 1.” In re Gogal, 75 F. Supp. 268, 271 (WD Pa 1947)
As such, the allegiance of parents whatever their situation is irrelevant in determining the citizenship status of a child born in the United States. “ At common law, a native is a person born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of a country, irrespective of the allegiance of his parents, except the child of an ambassador. Ex parte Palo, 3 F. 2d 44, 45 (W.D. Wa 1925) (internal citation omitted)
There’s a process that deals with that.
And you now have the precedent of a man who indisputably was born with just one citizen parent and who was elected and re-elected to the office of President of the United States. Get used to it.
Your comment is the same as asking for evolution deniers and other science deniers to be granted respect. I don’t think so.
There is a nice article at the Tucson Citizen web site on what a natural born citizen is:
http://tucsoncitizen.com/arizona-lincoln-republican/2013/01/09/is-ted-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen/
Even speaking of allegiance for a newborn is a bit silly. Have you ever tried to teach one to say the Pledge of Allegiance?
Well, I was curious too, in 2009. I did a lot of work, read several scholarly works on citizenship, law review articles, and a lot, I mean a lot of court cases. I didn’t do this to prove a point, but to arrive at the correct answer. But what I did not do was just make stuff up, or rely on non-authoritative sources who just made stuff up. If I argued that a case said something, or a debate said something, or that a law said something, I had read it.
The question of Obama’s eligibility was really pretty easy, and all the authorities pretty much say that it’s a slam dunk.
The interesting case is that of citizens born overseas. That one left me undecided for a long time. The scholars mostly say yes to those persons, but acknowledge that there is an argument on the other side.
Reminded of this article about a parent who flew off the handle because he believed the kindergarten class was saying the pledge incorrectly (which was probably directly related to the fact it was kindergarteners reciting it).
You might be correct. Certainly ineligible persons have served in Congress.
Historically, some state secretaries of state have excluded ineligible candidates for President from their states’ ballots. The constitutionality of this has not been appealed to the Supreme Court. States have a lot of authority on the conduct of elections.
Why don’t you just make your points already and stop with your concerns about decorum? You’ll never get Scientist to be less caustic, for one thing. Nor does his manner have any bearing on the facts and realities. Make your case, and leave it at that.
In the end, you may prove that this or that person here, or elsewhere, doesn’t treat you or your arguments with respect. So? Leaving aside whether or not any given argument actually deserves respect, that’s them. Your underlying arguments still fail.
Civility has its merits, but when you’re wrong, you’re wrong.
Or to put it another way:
Dear Sir, your arguments are misguided and your interpretations are in error. Please pardon my own inadequacy in pointing out the failings of your concerns. It pains me deeply to draw attention to your impotent explorations of well-settled matters. I particularly am concerned about your ineffectual refrain of keeping an open mind, as openness is a vice when practiced unduly and unreservedly in matters clear. I would be open to consideration of a child born here not being a natural born citizen, except there is no basis for such consideration (barring diplomats and the like). It is well established that parentage is irrelevant in such circumstances. There is no opening for anyone to be open about.
As for your contention about our history of elections displaying precedent of NBC constraints, as has been noted (by Dr. Conspiracy above and elsewhere previously on this blog), precedent demonstrates dual citizenship is fine in terms of eligibility. In terms of politics, certainly that depends on each generation? Whereas some would not appreciate a dual citizen as president, we have had such presidents before, in the very beginnings of our fabled land. Shall we not leave this concern to the voters?
Certainly anyone may have qualms, and speak of and vote according to their qualms. However, our current President is not an example of such qualms. There is no virtue in being open minded about a fallacy that he is.
And, pardon me again, but I must ask: at what point does recalcitrance negate decorum? I appreciate that you are a human being in toto, with whole riches of which I am unaware. I appreciate the value in turning the other cheek. But while I gain much in so turning, you gain little, and it disheartens me to see you stuck in repetitive error.
Indeed, let us discuss the vagaries of government. But let us not be beholden to nonsense.
I am reminded of what Teddy Roosevelt wrote about dual citizenship. He considered it an abhorrent concept and railed against the US State Department for even recognizing it. Roosevelt wrote:
http://books.google.com/books?id=3KQZAAAAYAAJ
I tried to teach my newborn to say “I am going to the post office to mail a letter” in Russian, but he didn’t respond. And to this day he rarely answers my emails.
Just add some vinegar and you will neutralize my caustic properties. Add enough and I will be downright acidic.
In other words, if we add some hydrochloric acid to your sodium hydroxide, you will become salty! More like Misha, then…
GUM!
No, you’re gum. And you’re like dust on a table – it serves absolutely no purpose, and is annoying as hell.
You mistake ‘eligibility’ for ‘electability’.
Timothy McVeigh was a natural born citizen by anyone’s measure and not a dual citizen as far as I know.
Although he was eligible to hold the office of President, I doubt very much that anyone, even his mother, would have voted for him.
Well, I do have to renew my passport every 10 years. If I were to take out Australian citizenship, like all my friends keep beating me up about, I might not need to do that. Except that I think the American Immigration folks pretty much insist on Americans entering and exiting the country with an American passport even if they have a second passport.
Dunno about that. I’ll have to check it out. Paying for two passports would be a bummer, but then I pay for the US passport and the Australian visa now anyway, and a second passport would probably be cheaper than the visa.
Yes, exactly.
Say “hey!” to Scout for me when you see her.
Not too sure about the bolded part. A couple years ago, a Canadian customs officer suggested that I get a Canadian passport to make my entry into Canada easier instead of using my American passport with the Canadian citizenship card I was issued when I was 5 (I also list myself as Canadian on the customs form as I enter Canada and American as I come back to the US). There was definitely a period of time when I was using only the Canadian card to enter Canada and then my American passport to re-enter the US. I can’t imagine that the customs officer would have made that suggestion if it was going to cause me problems crossing back into the US.
OTOH, if you are trying to come into the US as an American without an American passport (or with an expired one), you are probably going to have some hoops to jump through (I would guess involving a visit to an embassy or consulate to get some alternate documentation)
My recollection is that Obama’s mother entered the US on an expired US passport, and had to get some kind of a waiver approved.
Oh my Dr. Ignorance speaks about research.
What’s so hard to understand that Barry is not a natural-born citizen that you have to turn to a straw-man argument?
I went and looked that fellow up. It’s truly a sad case, and one that could go south in a bad way.
And there go those irony meters…
Banned from the school, not charged. I don’t know how the other parents who know him will react.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-01-18/news/chi-pledge-of-allegiance-complaint-20130118_1_pledge-school-parents-allegiance
I really love the hit and run birthers we’ve been having here lately. They hit and miss every single time.
What’s so hard to understand that when you lose 198 court cases and win ZERO, you’re just plain wrong?
The problem is not understanding it; the problem is that it is not true.
I wonder if they are folks left homeless by the closing of some of the birther factories, wandering aimlessly around the Internet.
I find it impossible to intentionally ‘understand’ untruth. To proceed based on error. Even trying makes me feel like your icon looks . *cough* All plugged up and stuff!
My son is a dual US / UK citizen, and got into trouble trying to fly from London to the US on his UK passport. They let him fly in the end, but would have been within their rights to refuse. When he arrived in the US, officials were waiting to admonish him. So yes you should always use your US passport when entering or leaving the US, unless you want a lot of hassle.
join the club, i’m a motorcycle mechanic and builder, so on more than one occasion has my ghast been flabbered
😀
Alas I know of no such thing.
It seems like this is another example of trying to enter the country without a US passport. I haven’t seen any examples of problems caused by leaving the country using a foreign passport and then trying to use an American passport to re-enter the US.
Numerous judges who have slapped down your Birther BS have been Republican Appointees, Libertarians, and/or lifelong Conservatives. It is to their credit that, despite how much they’d like to see BHO out of office, they nevertheless followed the LETTER OF THE LAW.
Really? That’s all you got? Is this you projecting your experience when you’re alone in a room with another man? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Perhaps there is an opening for you to write one or to find an existing one to translate.
I’m sure the WND bookstore would carry it!
Better hurry though. There might be a shelf life for the overwhelming interest he is generating at the moment.
That would explain a great deal.
🙂
If I may be allowed a little free publicity, the last book I edited which contained materials by Vattel (albeit not of a legal nature — the man was also a gifted Voltairean writer) is here:
http://www.blackcoatpress.com/nemoville.htm
Vattel’s story, Voyages in the Microcosm (1757), is a ground-breaking tale of exploration of “inner space” ahead of its times by almost two centuries.
Taitz has a new article up: “One of the SSNs linked to Obama in National databases found by investigators Sankey and Daniels belongs to Lucille Ballantyne, the mother of the Chief Actuary of SSA Harry C. Ballantyne, resident of CT. Did he aid and abet Obama?” in which she shows the SS-5 from Ms. Ballantyne with a social-security number different from Obama’s, thereby proving that the public databases she relies on contain junk.