The occasional open thread: Cowabunga!

Posted on May 3, 2013 by Dr. Conspiracy

Put your Obama Conspiracy comments not related to the current articles here. Comments on this thread will close in two weeks.

About Dr. Conspiracy

I'm not a real doctor, but I have a master's degree.
This entry was posted in Open Mike and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

294 Responses to The occasional open thread: Cowabunga!

  1. scott e says:
    May 3, 2013 at 10:31 am  (Quote)

    how about the new larry sabato position on ted cruz’s eligibility?

    http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/05/02/does-tx-sen-ted-cruz-qualify-for-president-though-was-born-in-canada/

    university of virginia is a formidable thinktank, no ?

  2. richCares says:
    May 3, 2013 at 10:46 am  (Quote)

    if Zullo wants to be taken seriously why does he show up for meetings in a clown car?

  3. Scientist says:
    May 3, 2013 at 10:47 am  (Quote)

    scott e-I believe Cruz is eligible. I also laugh at the conservative fantasists who think that his extremist views represent more than a small minority of the US public. The truth is that Romney only made the election semi-competitive when he pretended to be a centrist in the 1st debate (and only because a half-asleep Obama allowed him to do so). Once Obama came awake in the second debate and pointed out the nonsense the GOP was spewing, it was over (except in skewed pollsters’ dreams). Cruz would be stomped by Hillary. Annihilated. He would also be trounced by Smilin’ Joe Biden, Boy Andy Cuomo, Gov O’Malley, Sens. Klobuchar, Gillibrand, or almost anybody else the Dems would nominate.

    Just look at today’s jobs numbers, the Dow over 15k, etc. GOP is toast….

  4. Thomas Brown says:
    May 3, 2013 at 10:59 am  (Quote)

    Dow over 15K? I guess Obama is the world’s worst communist. Remember when the wingnuts were claiming he would destroy Wall St. and gas would soon be over $6/gallon?

  5. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    May 3, 2013 at 11:02 am  (Quote)

    Scientist: scott e-I believe Cruz is eligible. I also laugh at the conservative fantasists who think that his extremist views represent more than a small minority of the US public. The truth is that Romney only made the election semi-competitive when he pretended to be a centrist in the 1st debate (and only because a half-asleep Obama allowed him to do so). Once Obama came awake in the second debate and pointed out the nonsense the GOP was spewing, it was over (except in skewed pollsters’ dreams). Cruz would be stomped by Hillary. Annihilated. He would also be trounced by Smilin’ Joe Biden, Boy Andy Cuomo, Gov O’Malley, Sens. Klobuchar, Gillibrand, or almost anybody else the Dems would nominate. Just look at today’s jobs numbers, the Dow over 15k, etc. GOP is toast….

    I think the third debate was the funniest where Romney was coming off as a peace loving liberal. The debates showed the cynical nature of Romney front and center that he was willing to say anything, take any position no matter how much it contradicted his previous position to get elected. He failed miserably.

  6. Scientist says:
    May 3, 2013 at 11:22 am  (Quote)

    Cruz and his Tea Party friends favor the austerity that has brought 25% unemployment (50% among youth) to Spain, Portugal and Greece. Let’s see him try to sell that to the US electorate. Where he was born and who his Daddy was is the least of his problems.

    Frankly, if they want to run a TP nut-job, they are better off with Junior Paul, who at least might attract a few independents with his stand on drones (though he would still get stomped). The only GOP candidate with even the slightest chance is Jersey Fats and they will never nominate him because he shows occasional flashes of sanity.

  7. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    May 3, 2013 at 11:47 am  (Quote)

    Ok, I was a kid in the 80s, so when I see the word Kowabunga(or rather Cowabunga), I instantly think of this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDQzALOH9iU

  8. donna says:
    May 3, 2013 at 12:01 pm  (Quote)

    You’ll Find Koch Dollars At the Root Of the Calls for Armed Revolution Against Obama

    On Tuesday, a Fairleigh Dickinson University poll revealed that despotism is rampant among the Republican rank and file who are following the lead of Republicans in Congress who have taken extraordinary steps to bring America’s democracy to a halt through not-so-devious machinations and with stunning impunity.

    Nearly half of Republicans believe armed revolution might be necessary to enforce Christianity on the population. In Republican-controlled states, the loss in two general elections enraged Republicans who tasked the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to write template legislation restricting Democratic-leaning voters from exercising their right to vote, and because the Department of Justice enforces the right to vote it is interpreted as an infringement of Republicans’ liberties; their solution is “armed revolution” to “protect their liberty” to eliminate voting rights.

    Michelle Bachmann said she wanted residents of her state “armed and dangerous” to oppose President Obama “because we need to fight back and do everything we can to thwart Democrats at every turn to make sure they aren’t able to secure a power base.”

    If Americans are foolish enough to believe the Republican’s use of armed revolution to install a permanent Republican government is predicated on the right to unrestricted firearm possession, democracy is already doomed and all that is left is ceding control of the government to the Koch brothers and their fascist regime.

    http://www.politicususa.com/find-koch-dollars-root-calls-armed-revolution-obama.html

    give more “good” 5-year olds a “cricket”

  9. JPotter says:
    May 3, 2013 at 12:44 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: The only GOP candidate with even the slightest chance is Jersey Fats and they will never nominate him because he shows occasional flashes of sanity.

    “Jersey Fats” LMAO!

    C’mon, the GOP has plenty of viable candidates. Not many they seem inclined to nominate, but so long as the party remains fractured amongst personality cults and single-interest factions, then everyone’s 2nd choice (by definition the blandest of the bunch….) will come out on top again. The blandest repub will be the least objectionable to the middle and the most competitive choice nationally.

    That’s what happened in 2012, and unless a truly inspirational candidate that can overcome faction by charisma (rather than by default!) shows up, the same will happen in 2016.

  10. donna says:
    May 3, 2013 at 12:48 pm  (Quote)

    taitz: FOX News censored/heavily edited my interview and removed all evidence of Obama’s use of all forged IDs and a stolen CT Social Security number of Harrison J. Bounel

    I spent at least half an hour with the reporter for FOX News Victor Garcia. I begged him not to remove from he article the evidence, the fact that Obama is not eligible not only because he had a foreign citizenship from birth, but also because he is using all forged IDs and a stolen Social Security number. I explained to him that this is a crime for which people go to prison. He said that his assignment was to write about Cruz. I asked,why for 5 years they are righting about anything and everything, but refusing to write about Obama’s forged IDs and his use of a stolen CT Social Security number 042-68-4425. I gave him the number by memory. BLAH BLAH

    she’s still posted the SSN?

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=418198

  11. Reality Check says:
    May 3, 2013 at 2:02 pm  (Quote)

    I created a page on my blog based on several posts written by Verbalobe at the Fogbow to track claims and promises made by the Cold Case Posse. Verbalobe did an excellent job putting this together and gave me permission to use it.

    http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/mcso-cold-case-posse-timeline/

  12. misha marinsky says:
    May 3, 2013 at 2:31 pm  (Quote)

    scott e: how about the new larry sabato position on ted cruz’s eligibility?

    http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/05/02/does-tx-sen-ted-cruz-qualify-for-president-though-was-born-in-canada/

    Cruz is eligible – he is a citizen by birth, not by naturalization.

    “Larry Sabato, a national political expert who directs the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said considering its volatile nature, the issue should not be left in limbo. The Supreme Court should make a final and definitive call, he noted.
    “There has to be some kind of way to get a ruling on this,” Sabato said. “We need one now.”

    There was a ruling. I doubt the Supremes would visit that again.

  13. nbc says:
    May 3, 2013 at 2:55 pm  (Quote)

    misha marinsky: Cruz is eligible – he is a citizen by birth, not by naturalization.

    Uh… He is a citizen by virtue of an enactment of statute which would make him a good candidate of being naturalized.

    Remember that the Constitution allows Congress to provide for uniform rules of naturalization.

    Also under Common Law practices, birth abroad to citizen parents did not lead to a natural born citizen and required explicit statute.
    The question is: Can Congress extend the natural born status to such children?

    The ruling in US v Wong Kim Ark suggests strongly that it could not. We do know that such children are NOT 14th Amendment citizens due to the fact that they were not born or naturalized in the US.

    The dissenting Judge in Rogers v Bellei observes

    Bellei was not “born . . . in the United States,” but he was, constitutionally speaking, “naturalized in the United States.” Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word “naturalize” in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen. The first congressional exercise of this power, entitled “An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” was passed in 1790 at the Second Session of the First Congress. It provided in part:

    Citing

    As shown in Wong Kim Ark, naturalization, when used in its constitutional sense, is a generic term describing and including within its meaning all those modes of acquiring American citizenship other than birth in this country. All means of obtaining American citizenship which are dependent upon a congressional enactment are forms of naturalization. This inclusive definition has been adopted in several opinions of this Court besides United States v. Wong Kim Ark, supra. Thus, in Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 167 (1875), the Court said:
    “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. . . . [N]ew citizens may be born, or they may be created by naturalization.”
    And in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884), the Court took the position that the Fourteenth Amendment
    “contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. . . . Persons
    Page 401 U. S. 842
    not . . . subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”

  14. nbc says:
    May 3, 2013 at 3:00 pm  (Quote)

    misha marinsky: There was a ruling. I doubt the Supremes would visit that again.

    Where was this ruling? Wong Kim Ark is not very helpful in this area, actually, it is somewhat harmful to the conclusion that Cruz is eligible.

  15. Rickey says:
    May 3, 2013 at 3:11 pm  (Quote)

    scott e:
    how about the new larry sabato position on ted cruz’s eligibility?

    http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/05/02/does-tx-sen-ted-cruz-qualify-for-president-though-was-born-in-canada/

    university of virginia is a formidable thinktank, no ?

    Larry Sabato is a political scientist, not a Constitutional lawyer.

    The only way for the question of Cruz’ eligibility to be adjudicated by a court would be if he were to be denied having his name placed on a ballot due to eligibility. He would then have standing to challenge the denial because he could show a particularized injury.

    However, I don’t foresee the issue ever making it to the Supreme Court. I believe that Cruz is eligible because he was a U.S. citizen at birth. The only way it would get to the Supreme Court is if he were denied a ballot spot, appealed the denial and lost his appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals. Under those circumstances, SCOTUS would probably take up the case. However, the more likely scenario is that Cruz would appeal and win in the Court of Appeals. In that case, the losing party might appeal to SCOTUS, but SCOTUS would probably refuse to grant cert.

    And then we would be back where we started, except that there would be U.S. Court of Appeals precedent that a citizen at birth is a natural-born citizen, regardless of the place of birth.

  16. misha marinsky says:
    May 3, 2013 at 3:13 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: Wong Kim Ark is not very helpful in this area, actually, it is somewhat harmful to the conclusion that Cruz is eligible.

    Oops. IANAL – I stand corrected. What scenario would get Cruz and Rubio a Supremes ruling?

  17. Scientist says:
    May 3, 2013 at 3:32 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: Also under Common Law practices, birth abroad to citizen parents did not lead to a natural born citizen and required explicit statute.
    The question is: Can Congress extend the natural born status to such children?

    In Britain, Common Law can be overruled and/or modified by Parliament (for example under current British law, those born in the UK require one parent to be a legal resident in order to be automatic citizens, because Parliament modified the Common Law rule). Congress is the functional equivalent of Parliament in the US and has the power to overrule or modify Common Law. They are also the only branch mentioned in the Constitution as regards to determining presidential qualifications.

  18. Dave B. says:
    May 3, 2013 at 3:42 pm  (Quote)

    I see at that Fox article they say “Children born abroad to American parents have what’s legally called “derivative” U.S. citizenship.” No, not if they acquire U.S. citizenship at birth. According to the USCIS, derivative citizenship is “Citizenship conveyed to children through the naturalization of parents or, under certain circumstances, to foreign-born children adopted by U.S. citizen parents, provided certain conditions are met.” Derivative citizenship is in both the Constitutional and the statutory senses citizenship by naturalization.

    scott e:
    how about the new larry sabato position on ted cruz’s eligibility?

    http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/05/02/does-tx-sen-ted-cruz-qualify-for-president-though-was-born-in-canada/

    university of virginia is a formidable thinktank, no ?

  19. Rickey says:
    May 3, 2013 at 4:02 pm  (Quote)

    scott e:
    how about the new larry sabato position on ted cruz’s eligibility?

    Incidentially, a major supporter of Larry Sabato’s think tank is none other than Virgil Goode, co-plaintiff in the Alabama ballot challenge. Goode and Sabato have been friends since college. Could it be that Larry has an agenda here?

    http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=F5EA641B-18FE-70B2-A8CA7099244C65DC

  20. nbc says:
    May 3, 2013 at 4:19 pm  (Quote)

    Sure congress has the power to pass uniform naturalization laws, however it would require a constitutional amendment to overcome Wong Kim ark and the 14th.

  21. nbc says:
    May 3, 2013 at 4:36 pm  (Quote)

    not that I believe that Cruz would have any troubles getting nominated. But this issue remains poorly resolved at best.

  22. Paper says:
    May 3, 2013 at 4:42 pm  (Quote)

    I used to be more on the fence with regard foreign born citizens, but I am convinced by Maskell’s report. I remember that you disagree, and the nice thing about a Cruz run is we might get at least a little more further down the road of seeing what the final verdict would be. But it also may ever get to the point of a clear challenge or of being kept off a state’s ballot. He’s it going to win so we won’t find out what. Congress has to say when it vets the votes.

    Maskell/Congressional Research Report:

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf

    nbc: Uh… He is a citizen by virtue of an enactment of statute which would make him a good candidate of being naturalized.

    Remember that the Constitution allows Congress to provide for uniform rules of naturalization.

    Also under Common Law practices, birth abroad to citizen parents did not lead to a natural born citizen and required explicit statute.
    The question is: Can Congress extend the natural born status to such children?

    The ruling in US v Wong Kim Ark suggests strongly that it could not. We do know that such children are NOT 14th Amendment citizens due to the fact that they were not born or naturalized in the US.

    The dissenting Judge in Rogers v Bellei observes

    Citing

  23. Scientist says:
    May 3, 2013 at 4:45 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: Sure congress has the power to pass uniform naturalization laws, however it would require a constitutional amendment to overcome Wong Kim ark and the 14th.

    Congress can always grant rights above those in the Constitution; the Constitution is a floor, not a ceiling on the rights of the people, which include the right to vote for whom they choose and have those votes mean something. Anyway, there really is no appeal of the decision of Congress as to who is “qualified’ under the 12th and 20th amendments. There is no question in my mind that had McCain won in 2008, he would have served (God help us) and no court would have had any jurisdiction to stop him even if one had wanted to (which none would have).

    Now, I happen to think Cruz is loony and that the Constitution, as all legal contracts, contains an implicit sanity clause. So he is disqualified under that.

  24. ballantine says:
    May 3, 2013 at 4:48 pm  (Quote)

    nbc:
    not that I believe that Cruz would have any troubles getting nominated. But this issue remains poorly resolved at best.

    I agree. Solely as an academic question I believe the better argument is the founders did not intend to include someone like Cruz as almost all evidence points solely to jus soli. In addition, as NBC points out, there is almost no case law that helps him in any way at all by any court at any level.

    However, I don’t believe any court will find him ineligible. First, one can make a pretty good argument that the founders might have considered him eligible. Second, it seems almost every modern scholar has approved of the “citizen at birth” argument. Such should be enough to carry the day. The birthers don’t understand that the courts will not want to interpret this clause narrowly and be seen as interfering in the electoral process. Thus, I believe that they will always interpret it broadly if there is a plausible argument to do so and it is plausible the founders thought being a citizen at birth was sufficient to be natural born as being a subject at birth in England essentially made one natural born even if such status was conferred by Parliament.

  25. scott e says:
    May 3, 2013 at 4:58 pm  (Quote)

    richCares:
    if Zullo wants to be taken seriously why does he show up for meetings in a clown car?

    do you have pictures ??

  26. ballantine says:
    May 3, 2013 at 5:07 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: Congress can always grant rights above those in the Constitution; the Constitution is a floor, not a ceiling on the rights of the people, which include the right to vote for whom they choose and have those votes mean something.Anyway, there really is no appeal of the decision of Congress as to who is “qualified’ under the 12th and 20th amendments.There is no question in my mind that had McCain won in 2008, he would have served (God help us) and no court would have had any jurisdiction to stop him even if one had wanted to (which none would have).

    Now, I happen to think Cruz is loony and that the Constitution, as all legal contracts, contains an implicit sanity clause.So he is disqualified under that.

    That argument would be stonger if Congress said persons naturalized at birth were “natural born citizens” like the 1790 Act as I agree one can make a plausible argument that Congress has the power to bestow “natural born” status like Parliament did. However, Parliament said they were making such persons “natural born subjects for all intents and purposes,” not just “subjects” like our post-1790 laws state.

    I think McCain is a bad example to bring up as, serving in the military, there are numerous arguments one can make for McCain that one cannot make for Cruz.

    And you may be right about the role of Congress. It is not clear to me what the role of Congress or the Courts are on this issue and there is really no definative authority to look to. However, there are circumstances where I think a court would hear such a case. For example, I think if a state prevented Cruz from being on a ballot, the courts would have jurisdiction to hear such a case.

  27. scott e says:
    May 3, 2013 at 5:09 pm  (Quote)

    Thomas Brown:
    Dow over 15K?I guess Obama is the world’s worst communist.Remember when the wingnuts were claiming he would destroy Wall St. and gas would soon be over $6/gallon?

    I think there is a black market day headed our way. i’m dumping everything but ford, which I bought for less than 2 $/share, just before Obama took the reins.

    no bailout. plus my grandfather was friends with henry ford, when he was with majestic radio co.

    we’ll see six dollar per gallon gas and milk within a year.

  28. nbc says:
    May 3, 2013 at 5:19 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: Congress can always grant rights above those in the Constitution;

    Sure, it’s called a constitutional amendment. However under your argument, Congress could simply pass a law making everyone a natural born citizen, undermining a constitutional provision which was meant to exclude naturalized citizens.

    No cigar.

  29. nbc says:
    May 3, 2013 at 5:23 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: Anyway, there really is no appeal of the decision of Congress as to who is “qualified’ under the 12th and 20th amendments.

    I disagree. Congress cannot find someone of age 25 to be eligible to be our President. They are bound by our constitution. Furthermore, such issues can be resolved at much lower level. See for instance the cases in CA where people under the age of 35 were removed from the ballot.

    So if a SOS refuses to add Cruz’s name to the ballot, Cruz has standing to pursue and the Court will accept that the SOS may refuse candidates and will have to resolve the meaning of the eligibility requirements.

    Hypothetically speaking of course because this will never happen. Next best scenario is that another candidate objects to Cruz’s eligibility in a State and manages to overcome the standing requirements. A national candidate could have such a position.

  30. Scientist says:
    May 3, 2013 at 5:24 pm  (Quote)

    ballantine-The citizenship laws do not distinguish between the children of citizens sent abroad by the military and those born to citizens abroad for civilian work or other reasons.

    Fundamentally, where I come down is that the will of actual living voters ought to be deferred to unless it is 100% or very close to 100% certain that such a person is ineligible. Where there is doubt, the voters should speak.. They ought to count at least as much as 16th century English judges or even dead US founders.

  31. Scientist says:
    May 3, 2013 at 5:28 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: I disagree. Congress cannot find someone of age 25 to be eligible to be our President.

    Of course they could. They shouldn’t and doubtless wouldn’t, but they could

  32. ballantine says:
    May 3, 2013 at 5:38 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist:
    ballantine-The citizenship laws do not distinguish between the children of citizens sent abroad by the military and those born to citizens abroad for civilian work or other reasons.

    Fundamentally, where I come down is that the will of actual living voters ought to be deferred to unless it is 100% or veryclose to 100% certain that such a person is ineligible.Where there isdoubt, the voters should speak..They ought to count at least as much as 16th century English judges or even dead US founders.

    I understand your argument and am not saying it is wrong. While our citizenship laws don’t distinguish between people in the military and civilian parents, the common law did. Lord Coke talked about persons in 1608 who were overseas but still were in the allegiance of the crown, not the alalegiance of the nation they were in. They were not regular subjects, but persons who still were under the protection of the crown and owed not even a temporary allegiance to the nation they were in. Lord Coke didn’t contemplate soldiers being assigned overseas in time of peace but our soilders on any military base certainly owe their sole allegiance to the United States and not the nation they are in. There is no doubt they fall under the common law. In addition, I believe the status of forces agreements we put in place for our troops overseas generally make clear our soldiers don’t owe allegiance or subjection to such nation. If so, they should fall under the rationale of Calvin’s Case as well even if not on a military base. In addtion, being born in Panama arguably made one natural born under the common law since such nation was under our control of the United States. Of course, the Insular Cases said such nations were not the United States for purposes of the 14th Amendment, but such was not the common law. I’m not saying these arguments will carry the day. My point is that there are more arguments available to McCain than there are for Cruz.

  33. nbc says:
    May 3, 2013 at 5:42 pm  (Quote)

    Lohman, “Presidential Eligibility: the Meaning of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause” addresses Jill Pryor’s conclusion that natural-born includes those born abroad to US citizens.

    While Ms. Pryor’s explanation of the clause certainly makes its interpretation effortless and unambiguous, her approach allows Congress to change a constitutional provision without following the amendment procedures set forth in Article V of the Constitution. Her position allows the NaturalBorn Citizen Clause to mean one thing today, and something quite different tomorrow. This possibility does not reflect bright-line guidance, but rather suggests that the meaning of the Constitution is alterable at the whim of Congress. In fight of Article V, this may not be a reliable method of interpreting the Natural-Born Citizen Clause.

    Lohman still concludes that such children are natural born but I find his arguments less than convincing.

    Especially given WKA

    This sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is declaratory of existing rights and affirmative of existing law as to each of the qualifications therein expressed — “born in the United States,” “naturalized in the United States,” and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” — in short, as to everything relating to the acquisition of citizenship by facts occurring within the limits of the United States. ,b>But it has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents, and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.

  34. nbc says:
    May 3, 2013 at 5:53 pm  (Quote)

    Negotiating a SOFA begins with the assumption that the presence of U.S. military forces is in the interests of the host government as well as the U.S. government. The starting proposition is that the host country exercises complete authority over all of its territory and over anyone who is in that territory, subject to any agreements that make exceptions to that authority.

    Although each SOFA is unique, all SOFAs normally deal with issues necessary for day-to-day business, such as entry and exit of forces, entry and exit of personal belongings (i.e. automobiles), labor, claims and contractors, and susceptibility to income and sales taxes. In situations where U.S. forces will be present for a lengthy period, SOFA’s may also deal with ancillary activities such as postal offices, and recreation and banking facilities.

    More importantly, SOFAs deal with civil and criminal jurisdiction. They are a vital means by which the Department of Defense carries out its policy directive “to protect, to the maximum extent possible, the rights of United States personnel who may be subject to criminal trial by foreign courts and imprisonment in foreign prisons.”

    Most SOFAs recognize the right of the host government to “primary jurisdiction,” which is to say the host country exercises jurisdiction for all cases in which U.S. military personnel violate the host country’s laws. There are two exceptions, however, which generally apply only in criminal cases involving U.S. forces personnel: When the offense is committed by Americans against Americans (“inter se” cases), and when the offense is committed by Americans in carrying out official duty. In these situations, the United States has primary jurisdiction over the accused American.

    http://194.90.114.5/publish/press/security/archive/april/ds2_4-15.htm

  35. Scientist says:
    May 3, 2013 at 6:20 pm  (Quote)

    ballantine: Lord Coke didn’t contemplate soldiers being assigned overseas in time of peace but our soilders on any military base certainly owe their sole allegiance to the United States and not the nation they are in.

    In general, US soldiers based abroad are subject to host country laws. In a few cases (I believe Afghanistan is one) treaties may exempt them but those are the exception. Certainly US soldiers in Germany, South Korea, Japan and elsewhere have been prosecuted under local laws.

    ballantine: In addtion, being born in Panama arguably made one natural born under the common law since such nation was under our control of the United States.

    I don’t believe that was correct for Panama. It is and was an independent republic, though the US “helped” it to separate from Colombia in order to gain rights to the Canal Zone. The Canal Zone itself was leased.

    But the actual citizenship statutes make no distinction between those children whose parents are military vs civilians.

    Of course Cruz is a Canadian citizen and could run for Parliament and even become Prime Minister as well as Congress and President

  36. misha marinsky says:
    May 3, 2013 at 6:51 pm  (Quote)

    richCares: if Zullo wants to be taken seriously why does he show up for meetings in a clown car?

    scott e: do you have pictures ??

    As a matter of fact, I do:

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sqSnw7OVxMc/T0KlFD6eOmI/AAAAAAAAEbM/VKgfemH1K6I/s1600/clown+car.jpg

  37. Greenfinches says:
    May 3, 2013 at 7:30 pm  (Quote)

    I see that on Daily Kos a recent posting ‘how is it possible?’ about an Obama supporter (honest) who believes that he was born in Iraq…..

    An exciting new lead for the birthers to follow! Will they wait until Monday? Orly’s gotta be busy at the moment, right?

  38. scott e says:
    May 3, 2013 at 7:50 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: Uh… He is a citizen by virtue of an enactment of statute which would make him a good candidate of being naturalized.

    Remember that the Constitution allows Congress to provide for uniform rules of naturalization.

    Also under Common Law practices, birth abroad to citizen parents did not lead to a natural born citizen and required explicit statute.
    The question is: Can Congress extend the natural born status to such children?

    The ruling in US v Wong Kim Ark suggests strongly that it could not. We do know that such children are NOT 14th Amendment citizens due to the fact that they were not born or naturalized in the US.

    The dissenting Judge in Rogers v Bellei observes

    Citing

    round and round …. in which presidential election cycle did wong kim ark run ??

  39. scott e says:
    May 3, 2013 at 7:51 pm  (Quote)

    misha marinsky:
    richCares: if Zullo wants to be taken seriously why does he show up for meetings in a clown car?

    As a matter of fact, I do:

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sqSnw7OVxMc/T0KlFD6eOmI/AAAAAAAAEbM/VKgfemH1K6I/s1600/clown+car.jpg

    that’s bozo the VP

  40. scott e says:
    May 3, 2013 at 7:52 pm  (Quote)

    hey doc have you noticed any browser problems with i e w/lightspeed ?

  42. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    May 3, 2013 at 9:11 pm  (Quote)

    They are server problems, not browser problems, and yes, I am aware of them. I have an open ticket with the hosting company. If you get any more, leave a comment.

    scott e: hey doc have you noticed any browser problems with i e w/lightspeed ?

  43. Rickey says:
    May 3, 2013 at 11:17 pm  (Quote)

    scott e: round and round …. in which presidential election cycle did wong kim ark run ??

    He didn’t, but he could have.

    The Federal Government conceded in its Supreme Court brief that the Court of Appeals ruled that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen.

    Guess what? SCOTUS upheld the Court of Appeals ruling, without exception.

  44. Keith says:
    May 4, 2013 at 3:35 am  (Quote)

    Scientist: The only GOP candidate with even the slightest chance is Jersey Fats and they will never nominate him because he shows occasional flashes of sanity.

    I wouldn’t mind John Huntsman getting a guernsey (as opposed to the ‘jersey’, get it? 😎 ). I find it unlikely that Utah will get hit with a cyclone that he can handle properly in contrast to the rest of the party nuts though.

    I don’t like his politics all that much, some of his ideas are on the wrong side of the angels, but they are head and shoulders above the rest of the idiots and that’s why he doesn’t have a chance of course.

    At least a campaign dominated by Huntsman and Christy might be a campaign of ideas instead of ideology and theology.

  45. nbc says:
    May 4, 2013 at 4:11 am  (Quote)

    scott e: round and round …. in which presidential election cycle did wong kim ark run ??

    The dissenting judge lamented that it was unfair that WKA could run for the office of the President while children born abroad to US citizens could not.

    What the court in WKA found is that there are two sources of citizenship: birth and statute. The former makes one a natural-born citizen, the latter a naturalized citizen.

    By finding WKA to be a citizen and observing that WKA could not be a naturalized citizen, they ruled him to be natural born

    It’s that simple.
    Rogers v Bellei helps further understand the ruling. But sadly enough it seems to have been lost on you

  46. Keith says:
    May 4, 2013 at 4:16 am  (Quote)

    ballantine: I think McCain is a bad example to bring up as, serving in the military, there are numerous arguments one can make for McCain that one cannot make for Cruz.

    I disagree that McCain’s family being in the military has any bearing. What McCain has that Cruz doesn’t is 8 USC 1403. Cruz only has 8 USC 1401 while McCain has both.

    But both have citizenship from birth.

  47. Keith says:
    May 4, 2013 at 4:19 am  (Quote)

    nbc: Sure, it’s called a constitutional amendment. However under your argument, Congress could simply pass a law making everyone a natural born citizen, undermining a constitutional provision which was meant to exclude naturalized citizens.

    No cigar.

    Constitutional amendment is not required, but Congress doesn’t ‘grant’ rights, it can only recognize them.

    Amendment IX

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

  48. Keith says:
    May 4, 2013 at 4:25 am  (Quote)

    ballantine: In addtion, being born in Panama arguably made one natural born under the common law since such nation was under our control of the United States.

    No. Children born in Panama, even in the Canal Zone, were not U.S. Citizens until 8 USC 1403 was passed making “Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904” (to at least one American parent) made them so.

  49. nbc says:
    May 4, 2013 at 4:30 am  (Quote)

    Keith: Constitutional amendment is not required, but Congress doesn’t ‘grant’ rights, it can only recognize them.

    The Constitution recognizes that there are citizens and includes natural-born and naturalized citizens. The 14th recognizes that birth or statute are the two kinds of citizenship, the former leading to natural-born status, the latter leading to natural-ized status.

    The Courts have found the meaning of natural-born citizenship, remaining undefined in the Constitution, had to be found in common law which, as the courts showed, recognized that children born on US soil, with minor exceptions are natural-born.

    So if Congress wants to extend or limit this, Congress will have to use a constitutional amendment.

    It’s that simple. Surely you must understand how our Constitution works?

  50. nbc says:
    May 4, 2013 at 4:32 am  (Quote)

    Keith: But both have citizenship from birth.

    Which should not necessarily be confused with natural-born citizen. We all know that the statute can take away these citizenships and in fact, for some time in the early 1800’s children born abroad to certain US citizen parents were not even considered citizens. Of course, mere statute cannot really make persons not covered by our Constitution, suddenly natural born, or Congress could simply extend natural born citizen status to all those naturalized.

    And that does not make sense.

  51. nbc says:
    May 4, 2013 at 4:34 am  (Quote)

    misha marinsky: Oops. IANAL – I stand corrected. What scenario would get Cruz and Rubio a Supremes ruling?

    Likely if either one gets denied access to the ballot or through a national candidate filing an objection. But standing will continue to remain a tricky topic and it is not clear if in either case, the Supreme Court would get involved.

  52. nbc says:
    May 4, 2013 at 4:41 am  (Quote)

    Keith: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    There is no right to be declared a citizen of the United States. Every nation has the right to determine for itself who are and are not its citizens. The US recognizes two sources: Birth and statute and the former leads to natural-born status, the latter to natural-ized status.

    The Courts have interpreted the meaning of the 14th to include all those children born on US soil as natural born and together with those naturalized in the United States make up the citizenship of the United States. The Court recognizes that under the power to provide for uniform laws of naturalization, congress can extend citizenship to those born outside the United States, under certain circumstances. And the court also recognizes that without such statutes, such citizenship does not survive.

    If you want to appeal to the ninth amendment then I suggest you present an argument that can be reconciled with the Court’s findings and the passing of the 14th Amendment. But since the constitution clearly excludes natural born citizenship to those naturalized, it will require a bit more effort to repeal this, one way or the other: those who hope to exclude children born to illegal aliens as well as those who hope to include any citizen to the office of the Presidency, will require some hard work to get a constitutional amendment considered and passed.

    The likelihood of that is quite small.

  53. Keith says:
    May 4, 2013 at 5:37 am  (Quote)

    nbc: Which should not necessarily be confused with natural-born citizen.

    “Citizenship at Birth” is not ‘confused’ with ‘natural-born citizen’. It IS natural born citizenship.

    Yes the law can change for FUTURE births, but once born a citizen, always a born citizen.

    Born Citizen = Natural Born Citizen. That is my opinion, of course. An opinion held by the vast majority of the qualified commentators too. I acknowledge that there is an actual academic debate about it and I can live with that.

    However, Congress set a powerful precedent, non-binding for sure, but very difficult to ignore, when they acknowledged McCain as a Natural Born Citizen. That really does, for all practical purposes, end the academic debate.

    nbc: There is no right to be declared a citizen of the United States.

    Correct. I didn’t think that was the assertion to which I responded. If I misunderstood, sorry.

    There is however, a right to not lose your citizenship without due process. And one cannot lose ‘natural born citizenship’ under any circumstances other than self-renouncement.

  54. nbc says:
    May 4, 2013 at 6:31 am  (Quote)

    Keith: “Citizenship at Birth” is not ‘confused’ with ‘natural-born citizen’. It IS natural born citizenship.

    Both Wong Kim Ark and Rogers v Bellei put some doubt on that.

    Yes the law can change for FUTURE births, but once born a citizen, always a born citizen.

    Born Citizen = Natural Born Citizen. That is my opinion, of course. An opinion held by the vast majority of the qualified commentators too. I acknowledge that there is an actual academic debate about it and I can live with that.

    However, Congress set a powerful precedent, non-binding for sure, but very difficult to ignore, when they acknowledged McCain as a Natural Born Citizen. That really does, for all practical purposes, end the academic debate.

    Correct. I didn’t think that was the assertion to which I responded. If I misunderstood, sorry.

    There is however, a right to not lose your citizenship without due process. And one cannot lose ‘natural born citizenship’ under any circumstances other than self-renouncement.

    Very true. I think we mostly agree other than on the meaning of the term natural born 🙂 However I do accept that the issue may very well have been settled, although a non binding resolution does not appear to be that strong of a foundation. There was at least one judge who considered McCain natural born, especially since the plaintiff had not really argued the case in much detail.

    Since I however disagree that congress can extend natural born citizenship to those not originally covered, I do not believe that the academic debate is over. It’s just that the question has become mostly academic. 🙂

  55. Dave says:
    May 4, 2013 at 6:34 am  (Quote)

    Keith:
    Born Citizen = Natural Born Citizen. That is my opinion, of course. An opinion held by the vast majority of the qualified commentators too. I acknowledge that there is an actual academic debate about it and I can live with that.

    I don’t know that a “vast majority” hold this opinion — did someone take a poll? But it’s certainly a widely held opinion.

    But I agree with your comments about the Senate resolution about McCain. I would guess most Americans would be surprised that a Senate resolution could settle a Constitutional question, and yet it does. Though perhaps I shouldn’t use the word “settle” — there’s no guarantee they will act consistently in the future, though we can hope.

  56. Keith says:
    May 4, 2013 at 7:08 am  (Quote)

    Dave: I would guess most Americans would be surprised that a Senate resolution could settle a Constitutional question, and yet it does. Though perhaps I shouldn’t use the word “settle” — there’s no guarantee they will act consistently in the future, though we can hope.

    I agree.

    If, for example.Cruz were to be denied, he would be justified in arguing ” ‘McCain’! Shouldn’t the American system be consistent? “. Of course opponents could then point to the fact that McCain’s parents were in Panama on military business and Cruz’ weren’t in Canada on military business.

    That is not the point however, the point is when citizenship was obtained, not how or why. For both Cruz and McCain the ‘when’ is ‘at birth’.

  57. Keith says:
    May 4, 2013 at 7:27 am  (Quote)

    nbc: Since I however disagree that congress can extend natural born citizenship to those not originally covered, I do not believe that the academic debate is over. It’s just that the question has become mostly academic. 🙂

    I agree that Congress cannot ‘extend’ natural born citizenship. They can however define what people are aliens that need to be naturalized in order to become citizens.

    People who are citizens and have not been naturalized to become citizens, must, by the process of elimination, be natural-born citizens. There is no other option. Natural-born or Natural-ized..

    The academic debate is whether or not citizens such as McCain or Cruz are technically ‘naturalized at birth’ without any bureaucratic process or if Congress is saying that they are citizens that do not need to be naturalized.

    That question is, fundamentally, unanswerable. It is as pointless arguing about it as was the medieval ‘how many angels could dance on the head of a pin’. Since the Constitution give Congress the task of making laws for naturalizing aliens, I find it persuasive that they can define who is an alien requiring naturalization, and if Congress says that you aren’t an alien and don’t need to be naturalized, that is their Constitutionally assigned task in action.

    If Congress defines a class of foreign born children as citizens from birth, and back it up with declarations that such children are indeed natural born citizens, what else is there to argue?

  58. Bobj says:
    May 4, 2013 at 8:05 am  (Quote)

    Scott E. said

    “we’ll see six dollar per gallon gas and milk within a year.”

    and it reminded me of a sign I saw at a bar. The sign said ” free beer tomorrow. ”

  59. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    May 4, 2013 at 8:27 am  (Quote)

    Well, in 1789 people born in what is today Louisiana were not eligible to be President, but due to an act of Congress Louisiana became a state and persons born there subsequently became eligible. Congress didn’t change the definition of who is eligible, but they changed who is eligible, and extended natural born citizenship to those not originally covered.

    And of course in the Act of 1790 Congress explicitly said that they were so extended who were natural born citizens.

    I use the Louisiana analogy to emphasize the difference between a definition of “natural born citizen” and the particulars of who meets the definition. There seems a broad consensus that Congress has the power to pass laws making someone a citizen at birth and if as I hold that “natural born citizen” means “citizen at birth” then Congress can make a law that makes people natural born citizens who would not have been in 1789.

    nbc: Since I however disagree that congress can extend natural born citizenship to those not originally covered, I do not believe that the academic debate is over. It’s just that the question has become mostly academic.

  60. Paper says:
    May 4, 2013 at 9:53 am  (Quote)

    I finish work, go to sleep, and you guys have solved all the problems of the universe! Well, I want to jump back in here, and I think I’ll take it element by element at first, though without contrary evidence of what exactly was meant at the time by natural born citizen, I think the big picture coheres around the view that a “natural born citizen” is a person who is a citizen by or at birth.

    Regarding Lohman, I find birth as a citizen (by or at birth) to be a bright-line that is stable and does not change day-by-day. If “natural born citizen” means at or by birth, that is about as bright a line as we can get (even with our advanced technology today changing who can be born, and with arguments about sustainability within the womb, birth itself remains fairly clear, even when it is premature).

    Dr. C’s example of Lousiana in 1789 seems very much on point, and better than mine, but I’ll make mine anyway. ;-}

    Legal airspace is clear, nautical boundaries are clear. But the air and water contained by those borders is constantly changing. All the resources within these borders belongs to us, but there are substantial resources that ignore those lines and constantly move within and without those lines. And yet those lines remain bright. Those resources that do not stay put within the bright lines get addressed in laws and agreements that change as necessary or as matters develop over time, without any erasure of the borders. As well, when our borders themselves shift, in any number of ways, we continue to apply the same rules uniformly within those borders.

    In other words, the definition of “what is America,” or “where is America,” is changing all the time through acts of Congress, the Executive branch and the Judiciary, in all kinds of ways. Constantly.

    Therefore, if the bright line of applying the Constitution to America can deal with the contents of “what is America” constantly changing, and thus also necessarily changing who is a citizen, without changing the Constitution, then we can deal forthrightly with “who” is America in similar fashion without changing the meaning of the Constitution by whim.

    Birth is a clear, bright line, and as a criterion it is stable. So this concern about changing the Constitution by whim seems unwarranted to me.

    nbc: Lohman, “Presidential Eligibility: the Meaning of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause” addresses Jill Pryor’s conclusion that natural-born includes those born abroad to US citizens:

    “While Ms. Pryor’s explanation of the clause certainly makes its interpretation effortless and unambiguous, her approach allows Congress to change a constitutional provision without following the amendment procedures set forth in Article V of the Constitution. Her position allows the NaturalBorn Citizen Clause to mean one thing today, and something quite different tomorrow. This possibility does not reflect bright-line guidance, but rather suggests that the meaning of the Constitution is alterable at the whim of Congress. In fight of Article V, this may not be a reliable method of interpreting the Natural-Born Citizen Clause.”

  61. CarlOrcas says:
    May 4, 2013 at 10:38 am  (Quote)

    misha marinsky:
    richCares: if Zullo wants to be taken seriously why does he show up for meetings in a clown car?

    As a matter of fact, I do:

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sqSnw7OVxMc/T0KlFD6eOmI/AAAAAAAAEbM/VKgfemH1K6I/s1600/clown+car.jpg

    That’s Zullo…..with the official MCSO sunflower in his hat.

  62. Paper says:
    May 4, 2013 at 11:03 am  (Quote)

    I do not think it is clear that the Constitution excludes natural born citizenship to those who have been naturalized. Hear me out! We often think so, as a kind of shorthand, but I think that shorthand misses a couple important points.

    First, if natural born citizenship means a citizen by or at birth that definition is not contingent upon how one becomes a citizen at birth. That being the case, citizens born abroad per statute also are natural born citizens. After all, “natural born citizen” is not defined, so where does it say that it excludes naturalized citizens? It would exclude a whole bunch of such citizens, but not necessarily all.

    Clear enough, but is the process by which they become citizens naturalization or something else?

    I think the answer is that they are naturalized at birth. It is handled differently, much more transparently, but still ultimately under the Congressional authority “to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization.” Wong Kim Ark makes just this case, but does not make the case that such citizens are excluded from natural born citizenship. It says the fourteenth amendment leaves that power in the hands of Congress. It doesn’t touch upon whether or not those children are natural born citizens.

    Were this not so, would we not have a larger constitutional issue (which some birthers like to try and manipulate as it is)? Namely, wouldn’t we have a case to make that Congress abuses its powers by prescribing who are such citizens born abroad? Clearly, the founders thought not, and even with all the chances at hand over the centuries, that power has never been overturned.

    If not under the authority to naturalize, then we have to say something along the lines of 1) every country has the right to determine who its citizens are, even if no one is expressly given that power by the Constitution, at least within those areas not constrained by the Constitution (14th amendment), or 2) such statutes are merely declarative of natural law whereby birthright is the individual’s natural birthright (by parentage or some other criteria).

    I used to lean toward option #1. Option # 2 (prior to the 14th at least) is a non-starter in my book. (These same founders thought it was necessary to write declarative laws merely to avoid confusion but yet left natural born citizenship undefined?)

    I think #1 is a good enough *starting* place, except why would the founders leave such a gap in the constitutional fabric? They clearly were aware of it, and considered it within their powers, in passing the 1790 and 1795 acts. If they thought this was part of the inherent right and power of every country to define its citizenship, even if unspecified constitutionally, they also could have left it understood, without addressing it in those acts, just as they left birth on American soil unaddressed. But they felt they needed to spell it out and to do so in acts pertaining to naturalization, acts which read as integrated texts, all of a piece.

    This conundrum would apply to any form of citizenship–namely, by what power do they do so?

    Options I can think of presently: 1) Congress has the power inherently. 2) Congress does not have the power to remove such inherent citizenship. 3) Congress has the power under its naturalization authority. 4) Congress has no such power and is acting unconstitutionally. Tough luck for children born abroad to citizens. 5) The founders just forgot.

    The 1790 Act reads like a quickly passed law. Hey, we’re a new country, we have to set some rules quick. We’ll hash it out a bit more later, say five years from now.

    Both acts nonetheless are Naturalization acts, and both include prescriptions for children of citizens born abroad. It is fairly clear that these acts were designed as acts to deal with all instances of those born abroad. In this sense, naturalization means the process by which those born abroad become citizens (by birth or otherwise).

    I have been trying to find some other way of looking at it that works, or is supported, but keep coming back to this basic outlook. As such, within this view, Wong Kim Ark has nothing to say about the effect of naturalization on natural born citizenship. It accepts the power of Congress to establish regulation pertaining to children born abroad to citizens.

    In short, I think we let our shorthand notion that natural born citizenship excludes naturalized citizens misguide us.

    nbc: There is no right to be declared a citizen of the United States. Every nation has the right to determine for itself who are and are not its citizens. The US recognizes two sources: Birth and statute and the former leads to natural-born status, the latter to natural-ized status.

    The Courts have interpreted the meaning of the 14th to include all those children born on US soil as natural born and together with those naturalized in the United States make up the citizenship of the United States. The Court recognizes that under the power to provide for uniform laws of naturalization, congress can extend citizenship to those born outside the United States, under certain circumstances. And the court also recognizes that without such statutes, such citizenship does not survive.

    …But since the constitution clearly excludes natural born citizenship to those naturalized…

  63. Scientist says:
    May 4, 2013 at 11:18 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: Well, in 1789 people born in what is today Louisiana were not eligible to be President, but due to an act of Congress Louisiana became a state and persons born there subsequently became eligible.

    So, Cruz’s problems could be solved by the US annexing Canada, or better yet, Alberta, which has most of Canada’s oil anyway. That would have the effect of removing Prime Minister Harper, who, as a resident of Calgary, who would then become an American and would no longer have to pretend to moderate his neo-Con views.

    As far as nbc’s arguments, Congress, as a body that actually is accountable to the people, is as entitled to an opinion as to what undefined phrases in the Constitution mean as nbc, Doc, or the Supreme Court is, Obviously, if they were to interpret 35 years to mean 25, that would be stretching those powers too far. Interpreting natural born citizen to mean someone who became a citizen as an adult is probably also too far. But for those born to US citizens abroad, where opinions vary, but whom a large majority of scholars would consider eligible, I consider that well within the discretion of Congress, which has spoken on the matter (in re McCain).

    Fundamentally, every question has a default position that would hold where there are solid arguments on both sides. Innocent unless guilt can be established. Respect the rights of individuals unless there is a clear public purpose to limit them. In an election, to me, the default is to respect the choice of the voters. You don’t overturn 70 million votes on a doubt or a question that somebody posed 100 years ago. Only where it absolutely clear (a 25 year old, someone born abroad to foreign parents) should you even think of doing that (and even then I’m not sure you should). I’ve argued this as regards Obama and Apuzzo’s arguments. Even if the Putz were right that possibly natural born citizen in some people’s minds required 2 citizen parents (he isn’t) that seems to me grossly insufficient to negate an election.

    So, if the voters were dumb enough to pick a fool like Cruz (and I honestly don’t think they are), their decisions should stand and they should suffer the consequences.

  64. Paper says:
    May 4, 2013 at 11:37 am  (Quote)

    I would agree with you that Congress cannot extend natural born citizenship to those not originally covered, but I just that there is a very strong case that natural born citizenship originally covered such individuals born abroad to citizens.

    I disagree that Wong Kim Ark adds doubt (as noted above). Similarly, I disagree about Rogers v. Beilei, in that the possibility of losing citizenship does not change one’s status as being born a citizen, by whatever means, as even those of us born under he fourteenth amendment’s rule may lose our citizenship (most egregiously for treason). The mere fact that a citizen naturalized by birth may more readily lose their citizenship than a citizen born on soil does not change their birth status.

    nbc: Both Wong Kim Ark and Rogers v Bellei put some doubt on that.

    …

    Since I however disagree that congress can extend natural born citizenship to those not originally covered, I do not believe that the academic debate is over….

  65. Keith says:
    May 4, 2013 at 11:50 am  (Quote)

    Paper: First, if natural born citizenship means a citizen by or at birth that definition is not contingent upon how one becomes a citizen at birth. That being the case, citizens born abroad per statute also are natural born citizens. After all, “natural born citizen” is not defined, so where does it say that it excludes naturalized citizens? It would exclude a whole bunch of such citizens, but not necessarily all.

    Clear enough, but is the process by which they become citizens naturalization or something else?

    I think the answer is that they are naturalized at birth.

    Then you are making an argument just for the sake of arguing.

    If the essential outcome is ‘foreign born children of citizen parents are natural born citizens’ is the same for both sides of the argument, WTF are you arguing about. It is no longer an academic discussion, it is a ‘how many angels’ discussion.

    I say foreign born citizen at birth is not naturalized therefore NBC.
    You say foreign born citizen at birth is naturalized, but special, therefore NBC.

    It seems that I like wine, you like fermented grape juice.

    And anyway I’m pretty sure there are several SCOTUS decisions that have said that natural-born and natural-ized are mutually exclusive, but I’m too sleepy right now to track it down.

  66. JD Reed says:
    May 4, 2013 at 12:08 pm  (Quote)

    Keith: “Citizenship at Birth” is not ‘confused’ with ‘natural-born citizen’. It IS natural born citizenship.

    Yes the law can change for FUTURE births, but once born a citizen, always a born citizen.

    Born Citizen = Natural Born Citizen. That is my opinion, of course. An opinion held by the vast majority of the qualified commentators too. I acknowledge that there is an actual academic debate about it and I can live with that.

    However, Congress set a powerful precedent, non-binding for sure, but very difficult to ignore, when they acknowledged McCain as a Natural Born Citizen. That really does, for all practical purposes, end the academic debate.

    Correct. I didn’t think that was the assertion to which I responded. If I misunderstood, sorry.

    There is however, a right to not lose your citizenship without due process. And one cannot lose ‘natural born citizenship’ under any circumstances other than self-renouncement.

    I agree with Keith. If Cruz was born a citizen, he is a citizen by the nature of his birth, that is, a natural born citizen.
    The interesting thing in Cruz’s case is that he has not, to my knowledge, naturalized. Thus if he wasn’t a citizen at birth, and didn’t become one via naturalization, he’s not a citizen at all. In this scenario, he would be ineligible to serve as U.S. senator, as well as president.
    (If naturalization documents were to crop up for Cruz, that would be powerful evidence that he is not an NBC.)

  67. Paper says:
    May 4, 2013 at 12:22 pm  (Quote)

    I’m not sure we can argue that the determining factor is the right for the voters to be heard, for their will to be expressed. I would argue, along with Akhil Amar, that the various amendments together do make for an actual right to vote, with our favorite the fourteenth yet again being the linch-pin. But I would disagree that the will of the voter should override when there is doubt.

    I think the branches of government could by inaction take such a position of letting the voters’ choice prevail, for that or other reasons, but not that that is inherently the voters’ right.

    I think the duty is to be faithful to the Constitution. Where there is doubt, the branches of government should do their best to faithfully resolve the question in doubt. Not just arbitrarily impose their view of the moment. I think the government is structured to encourage just that kind of faithfulness, as much as we may fail to do so at times, or for a time. But it is in their purview to do or not do what they think is best for the Constitution, and then we all can get in a tizzy (or not), agreeing and disagreeing, and end up sorting it out.

    I have come to the view that the faithful application of the Constitution is that natural born citizenship means by or at birth (regardless of any other factors). I don’t think Congress just has to make an arbitrary decision in this regard. I think history, our founding culture, the spirit and frame of the Constitution itself, all direct us toward defining natural born citizenship as being by or at birth. I’m not particularly argumentative about the matter, and would almost certainly go with whatever it came down to, but I also think that if this issue ever is addressed seriously at all, it will be, or end up being, by amendment to open eligibility even to those who become citizens after birth.

    I think the default position you mention more directly applies to the definition of what is a natural born citizen, rather than in this case to the outcome of a vote. I do give voters a large say, but think doubts need to be resolved separately, in whatever way. If it just is about the right to vote, part of such a right is the votes (through representatives) that lead up to an amendment being passed. There thus already is a path for the right of voters to be heard, without just letting us decide gray areas out of hand. I think it is entirely possible that it would be the government’s duty to prevent such a default decision, even after 70 million votes have been cast in an election. I don’t say necessarily. But *if* it were clear that two citizen parents were required to be a natural born citizen, I would say the voters shouldn’t be able to trump that without amendment.

    A clearer example may be referendums, say in California? We may give the voters a lot of weight, and they may operate, at least for a time in constitutional gray areas, but ultimately if voters conflict with a deliberate resolution of that gray area, then the voters do not prevail. Checks and balances against mob rule, as well. Because ultimately the voters could express their will and trump any decision by way of electing representatives to amend the *U.S.* Constitution. That way, we over time, say, are you sure, are you sure, are you sure, then, finally, okay, that’s that.

    Scientist:

    …As far as nbc’s arguments, Congress, as a body that actually is accountable to the people, is as entitled to an opinion as to what undefined phrases in the Constitution mean as nbc, Doc, or the Supreme Court is,Obviously, if they were to interpret 35 years to mean 25, that would be stretching those powers too far.Interpreting natural born citizen to mean someone who became a citizen as an adult is probably also too far.But for those born to US citizens abroad, where opinions vary, but whom a large majority of scholars would consider eligible, I consider that well within the discretion of Congress, which has spoken on the matter (in re McCain).

    Fundamentally, every question has a default position that would hold where there are solid arguments on both sides.Innocent unless guilt can be established.Respect the rights of individuals unless there is a clear public purpose to limit them.In an election, to me, the default is to respect the choice of the voters.You don’t overturn 70 million votes on a doubt or a question that somebody posed 100 years ago.Only where it absolutely clear (a 25 year old, someone born abroad to foreign parents) should you even think of doing that (and even then I’m not sure you should).I’ve argued this as regards Obama and Apuzzo’s arguments.Even if the Putz were right that possibly natural born citizen in some people’s minds required 2 citizen parents (he isn’t) that seems to me grossly insufficient to negate an election….

  68. Paper says:
    May 4, 2013 at 1:43 pm  (Quote)

    Interestingly, I thought I was agreeing with you in this discussion! While disagreeing with NBC.

    Your point of saying Congress can “define what people are aliens that need to be naturalized in order to become citizens” is very close to my argument. In some ways, it is my argument. As such, I might be splitting hairs with *you* to take it a step further, but not with NBC. I’m certainly not splitting hairs with the likes of Nash, who also thinks such citizens are natural born, but who specifically says Congress has no such power.

    I am arguing (and not declaring) that my view (and perhaps yours) represents a *faithful* application of the constitution, not just a later day redefinition, nor just practical acceptance. In terms of your point, though, indeed, the only part of your argument with which I disagreed is about it being an argument about “how many angels fit on a pin” (in your disagreement with NBC , that is). I decry labeling such naturalized citizens as “special,” but if you go that route, how are your natural born citizens born abroad not special? I think I could go either route, but both nonetheless fall under the Congressional power to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization, and that’s the important bit that makes neither approach “special.”

    As an aside, we also have different categories of people born as citizens here on our soil. I don’t say the children of undocumented aliens are “special.” They are natural born citizens made so (or enforced) by the fourteenth amendment. Citizens-by-birth/natural-born-citizens born to citizens abroad are made so (or enforced) by naturalizations laws.

    Be that as it may, what I was arguing is that the linch-pin is as it always was, the definition of “natural born citizen,” which does not seem to be anywhere tied to whether or not a person is naturalized. You mention SCOTUS cases, and I would be interested in any. NBC mentions WKA and Rogers v Bellei as cases he thinks shine a negative light on naturalized citizens being natural born, and I don’t see how they actually do that.

    I’m just saying it looks like naturalization by itself is irrelevant. Am I wrong? Perhaps. I am just exploring the matter.

    Keith: Then you are making an argument just for the sake of arguing.

    If the essential outcome is ‘foreign born children of citizen parents are natural born citizens’ is the same for both sides of the argument, WTF are you arguing about. It is no longer an academic discussion, it is a ‘how many angels’ discussion.

    I say foreign born citizen at birth is not naturalized therefore NBC.
    You say foreign born citizen at birth is naturalized, but special, therefore NBC.

    It seems that I like wine, you like fermented grape juice.

    And anyway I’m pretty sure there are several SCOTUS decisions that have said that natural-born and natural-ized are mutually exclusive, but I’m too sleepy right now to track it down.

  69. Scientist says:
    May 4, 2013 at 2:03 pm  (Quote)

    Paper: A clearer example may be referendums, say in California? We may give the voters a lot of weight, and they may operate, at least for a time in constitutional gray areas, but ultimately if voters conflict with a deliberate resolution of that gray area, then the voters do not prevail. Checks and balances against mob rule, as well. Because ultimately the voters could express their will and trump any decision by way of electing representatives to amend the *U.S.* Constitution. That way, we over time, say, are you sure, are you sure, are you sure, then, finally, okay, that’s that.

    I find the term “mob rule” to be a canard (and not in the sense of a delicious French dish). “Mob rule” involves the violation of fundamental human rights. The citizens of Boston seizing Dzokhar Tsarnaev out of jail and lynching him without a trial would be mob rule. The voters choosing someone as their leader who was born outside the sacred soil does not qualify in my books. There is a fundamental human right for people to elect their leaders-it’s recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There is no such fundamental right to have such leader born only in one particular place.

    As for referendums, sure they have their problems, but that is more due to their co-option by special interest groups and their money. In the case of Prop 8, we are again dealing with a fundamental human right (the right to marry the person of one’s choice). Of course, the matter could be resolved by simply holding another referendum. Given the change in public opinion in the last several years, it’s highly likely that the voters in a blue state like California would pass same-sex marriage by a comfortable margin today. To me the great thing about trusting the people is that they may get things wrong, but they can fairly easily correct things. Courts seem to take much longer to correct their errors-the Supreme Court that approved segregation in the 1890s took 60 years to correct its error.

    Having courts involved in choosing the President seems a terrible idea-i.e., Bush v Gore. I read a couple of days ago that Justice O’Connor now regrets her vote. Gee, thanks. The proper thing to do would have been to let Congress resolve the matter. Since the Republicans controlled Congress, the result would have been the same, but a decision by 538 people accountable to the voters would have been more legitimate than a 5-4 vote of unaccountable judges.

  70. nbc says:
    May 4, 2013 at 3:05 pm  (Quote)

    Paper: Your point of saying Congress can “define what people are aliens that need to be naturalized in order to become citizens” is very close to my argument. In some ways, it is my argument. As such, I might be splitting hairs with *you* to take it a step further, but not with NBC. I’m certainly not splitting hairs with the likes of Nash, who also thinks such citizens are natural born, but who specifically says Congress has no such power.

    Congress cannot deny citizenship when the Constitution clearly contradicts. A statute cannot be used to circumvent the Constitution. Congress can propose uniform rules to naturalize aliens, and can decide for itself who they can exclude, but they cannot deny the right of citizenship to a citizen born.

  71. nbc says:
    May 4, 2013 at 3:09 pm  (Quote)

    JD Reed: I agree with Keith. If Cruz was born a citizen, he is a citizen by the nature of his birth, that is, a natural born citizen.

    Based on what legal or logical argument? From common law, which was used to define the meaning of the term natural born, we know that it is birth on soil and allegiance which defines the status.

    The idea that Congress can somehow expand the rights of who are natural born through statute runs counter to any logic, as it would allow congress to grant and take away something which under our constitution is well defined. In fact, this would lead to the untenable conclusion that Congress can somehow grant natural born citizenship to those naturalized, clearly in contradiction of the intent.

  72. nbc says:
    May 4, 2013 at 3:11 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist:

    As far as nbc’s arguments, Congress, as a body that actually is accountable to the people, is as entitled to an opinion as to what undefined phrases in the Constitution mean as nbc, Doc, or the Supreme Court is,Obviously, if they were to interpret 35 years to mean 25, that would be stretching those powers too far.Interpreting natural born citizen to mean someone who became a citizen as an adult is probably also too far.But for those born to US citizens abroad, where opinions vary, but whom a large majority of scholars would consider eligible, I consider that well within the discretion of Congress, which has spoken on the matter (in re McCain).

    Congress is entitled to its opinion but cannot violate our Constitution in doing so. Your suggestion means that we enter a slippery slope where Congress gets to interpret the meaning of our Constitution.

    There is just no foundation for such a notion. The only way for congress to proceed is through a constitutionally prescribed method of amendment to our Constitution.

  73. nbc says:
    May 4, 2013 at 3:21 pm  (Quote)

    Including those who are merely naturalized? But your reference to Louisiana is somewhat irrelevant as the power of the treaty to define who are citizens is well established in our history and constitution.
    But lacking a treaty, the power of Congress is extremely limited. Congress used to be able to name individuals to be citizens and even natural born citizens but even this does not grant the wide power to bring a group to be natural born. Congress has the power to naturalize and we know that naturalization is at odds with being a natural born citizen.

    One can be a citizen at birth, but that does not make one a citizen by birth.

    Dr. Conspiracy: I use the Louisiana analogy to emphasize the difference between a definition of “natural born citizen” and the particulars of who meets the definition. There seems a broad consensus that Congress has the power to pass laws making someone a citizen at birth and if as I hold that “natural born citizen” means “citizen at birth” then Congress can make a law that makes people natural born citizens who would not have been in 1789.

  74. nbc says:
    May 4, 2013 at 3:44 pm  (Quote)

    Keith: If, for example.Cruz were to be denied, he would be justified in arguing ” ‘McCain’! Shouldn’t the American system be consistent? “.

    In court that would not be very impressive, but he too could ask for a non-binding resolution from Congress which has but limited value I believe.

  75. nbc says:
    May 4, 2013 at 3:47 pm  (Quote)

    Paper: Regarding Lohman, I find birth as a citizen (by or at birth) to be a bright-line that is stable and does not change day-by-day. If “natural born citizen” means at or by birth, that is about as bright a line as we can get (even with our advanced technology today changing who can be born, and with arguments about sustainability within the womb, birth itself remains fairly clear, even when it is premature).

    But citizen at birth can be taken away by acts of Congress just as happened in the earl 1800’s through a mistake. So if congress can give and take away such citzenship, it appears to fall under its naturalization powers. The question as to whether Congress can make such citizen fully equivalent to natural born citizenship is one I still doubt.

  76. Paper says:
    May 4, 2013 at 4:12 pm  (Quote)

    Okay, let the term “mob rule” drop.

    As able as we are to course correct, I still, however, believe in the protection of the minority against the majority. We can discuss, argue, whatever, about that, how to do, not do.

    But the Constitution is clear that only natural born citizens are eligible to the presidency. I find it unproductive to just side-step that requirement, by saying the voters’ choice wins. I think, as you do, that it would be better to open that requirement up, but I also think we have a duty to be as faithful as we can to our governing document. Or change it.

    The way to resolve the matter is to clarify the definition of natural born citizen, not just default to the voters. It’s a clear (if undefined in the text) requirement, just as much a part of the constitution as the Bill of Rights. The question is who gets to determine what it means. The people, by electing such a person, may be saying this is what we think it means, but I don’t think that is a good way to do it (not just constitutionally, but as a society).

    The key player in this regard would be Congress, as you have yourself championed. I think they have a large say in this matter. I don’t think, if they had the will, they would have to accept the outcome of an election if they felt the president-elect was ineligible. Would that rejected president-elect then (be able to) take it to the Supreme Court? Would the Court accept the case? At any step along the way, it could be resolved, or be pushed further. I just don’t think there’s a spot in there to just give it up to the election results. Certainly not if it is obvious. And if it is a more ambiguous decision, and Congress wanted to find a way to agree with the people, which they very well might, they could very easily do so, not by abdicating to the election results, but by defining the term. Kind of like how like the Senate set the stage with McCain.

    Scientist: I find the term “mob rule” to be a canard (and not in the sense of a delicious French dish).“Mob rule” involves the violation of fundamentalhuman rights.The citizens of Boston seizing Dzokhar Tsarnaev out of jail and lynching him without a trial would be mob rule.The voters choosing someone astheir leader who was born outside the sacred soil does not qualify in my books.There is a fundamental human right for people to elect their leaders-it’s recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.There is no such fundamental right to have such leader born only in one particular place….

    Having courts involved in choosing the President seems a terrible idea…

    I still stand by the principle that in the normal course of events, majority rules, but not when there is a constitutional question. In which case, the people through their representatives and the amendment process already have the final say if they desire to use it.

    I agree courts getting involved in elections is not good.

  77. Paper says:
    May 4, 2013 at 4:17 pm  (Quote)

    Our citizenship can be taken away even if we are born on American soil. It’s limited but it can be done. Treason would be the most egregious reason.

    If even a natural born citizen can lose their citizenship, loss of such cannot be the distinction between natural and naturalized.

    nbc: But citizen at birth can be taken away by acts of Congress just as happened in the earl 1800′s through a mistake. So if congress can give and take away such citzenship, it appears to fall under its naturalization powers. The question as to whether Congress can make such citizen fully equivalent to natural born citizenship is one I still doubt.

  78. Paper says:
    May 4, 2013 at 4:40 pm  (Quote)

    We are talking about citizens born abroad, and Congress does deny that right to varying people (over time). There is no clear contradiction with the Constitution about citizens born abroad. There is nothing in the Constitution that says such citizens are born American.

    My argument is that the Constitution through the Naturalization clause gives Congress the power to say how any of *all* those born abroad can become American, that that is the meaning, intent and practice of “naturalization.” Either plainly and directly, or by logical inference by way of defining aliens and excluding those not considered alien (as Keith suggests). But that the power originates in the Naturalization clause, either way.

    One such way to become American is by birth to American citizens abroad (with or without other qualifications). Whether that means they are naturalized or that they are set aside from naturalization, I don’t see any disqualification from “natural born citizenship” if it is defined as citizenship by or at birth. Statutes regarding naturalization then are not circumventing the Constitution, but fulfilling it as manifestations of that Constitutional power. The Constitution does not define “natural born citizen” and does not itself exclude citizens born per statute from that definition. So there is no contradiction there.

    As always, we return to the definition of natural born citizen.

    nbc: Congress cannot deny citizenship when the Constitution clearly contradicts. A statute cannot be used to circumvent the Constitution. Congress can propose uniform rules to naturalize aliens, and can decide for itself who they can exclude, but they cannot deny the right of citizenship to a citizen born.

  79. Paper says:
    May 4, 2013 at 4:50 pm  (Quote)

    Such a resolution just sets the stage, to give notice that when it comes down to it they intend to certify the candidate should they win.

    That certification would be within their powers, and given the lack of definition of “natural born citizen” in the Constitution, they certainly can take into account the various arguments about it before and during certification (such as Maskell’s Congressional Report which favors the case that citizens born abroad are or would be considered natural born.)

    The question is would someone contest their certification? A president-elect who benefits might not, but a rejected president-elect might try. What if anything would the Supreme Court do then, that would be the question.

    nbc: In court that would not be very impressive, but he too could ask for a non-binding resolution from Congress which has but limited value I believe.

  80. scott e says:
    May 4, 2013 at 4:50 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: The dissenting judge lamented that it was unfair that WKA could run for the office of the President while children born abroad to US citizens could not.

    What the court in WKA found is that there are two sources of citizenship: birth and statute. The former makes one a natural-born citizen, the latter a naturalized citizen.

    By finding WKA to be a citizen and observing that WKA could not be a naturalized citizen, they ruled him to be natural born

    It’s that simple.
    Rogers v Bellei helps further understand the ruling. But sadly enough it seems to have been lost on you

    so naturaised and natural born are the same. cool, someone just needs to update wikepedia.

  81. scott e says:
    May 4, 2013 at 4:54 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: The dissenting judge lamented that it was unfair that WKA could run for the office of the President while children born abroad to US citizens could not.

    What the court in WKA found is that there are two sources of citizenship: birth and statute. The former makes one a natural-born citizen, the latter a naturalized citizen.

    By finding WKA to be a citizen and observing that WKA could not be a naturalized citizen, they ruled him to be natural born

    It’s that simple.
    Rogers v Bellei helps further understand the ruling. But sadly enough it seems to have been lost on you

    Bobj:
    Scott E. said

    “we’ll see six dollar per gallon gas and milk within a year.”

    and it reminded me of a sign I saw at a bar. The sign said ” free beer tomorrow. ”

    i once played in a band named “free beer” looked good on the marquis “free beer tonite !” we were very popular. phish played across the street at nectar rorris’es.. they were pretty popular too…. eventually.

  82. Rickey says:
    May 4, 2013 at 6:19 pm  (Quote)

    scott e:

    we’ll see six dollar per gallon gas and milk within a year.

    If oil hits $200 a barrel, which is the upper end of Goldman Sach’s prediction for prices over the next six months to two years, the gasoline picture changes quite dramatically. At $200 a barrel, crude alone would cost $4.76 a gallon. Add on the costs of refining and distributing as well as taxes, and pump prices could rise to a range of $6 to $7 a gallon.

    U.S. drivers haven’t radically changed their behavior, and it is unclear at what price it becomes unprofitable for Americans to go about their usual day-to-day activities, said Eric DeGesero, executive vice president of the Fuel Merchants Association of New Jersey.

    “Maybe at $6 or $7 a gallon, it becomes less attractive to go to work,” Mr. DeGesero said. “We haven’t hit that point yet, but we might soon.”

    Oh, I forgot to include the date of the above story: May 26, 2008.

  83. donna says:
    May 4, 2013 at 6:37 pm  (Quote)

    June 6, 2012 Fox News made some outrageous predictions of $5, $6, $7 and even $8 a gallon (April 5, 2012 ) gasoline by summer. But these predictions have proven to be nothing more than wishful thinking by a network that hoped to use high prices at the pump as a campaign issue against President Obama.

    Since peaking in early April, the price of gasoline has steadily declined. Over Memorial Day weekend, which marks the start of the summer driving season, the national average was $3.67 a gallon — less than this time last year. And analysts expect prices will continue to drop this summer as a result of easing tensions in the Middle East, rising domestic production and decreasing global demand.

    But now that prices are falling, Fox has changed its tune. Stuart Varney summarized Fox’s contradictory narratives, saying:

    STUART VARNEY: [Obama] has had nothing to do with bringing the gas price down the last few days. He’s had everything to do with pushing the gas price up over the last three years.

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/06/06/video-foxs-gas-price-predictions-fall-flat/185133

  84. misha marinsky says:
    May 4, 2013 at 7:11 pm  (Quote)

    scott e: i once played in a band named “free beer”

    Let me guess: You played the washboard.

  85. US Citizen says:
    May 4, 2013 at 7:47 pm  (Quote)

    scott e: i once played in a band named “free beer” looked good on the marquis “free beer tonite !” we were very popular.

    Sure. I’m sure all the owners of the clubs were dieing to hire you with marquees that said “Free Beer.”
    Too bad you didn’t change the name to “Free show! Free parking. The drinks are on us!”
    You could have been *really* popular with all those bookings.

  86. Northland10 says:
    May 4, 2013 at 7:52 pm  (Quote)

    scott e: i’m dumping everything but ford, which I bought for less than 2 $/share, just before Obama took the reins.

    Would that be the Ford that is 368% since Obama took the reigns? How about that Dow Jones since Obama “ruined the economy?”

    So now you have gone to.. the economy will tank.. any day now.

  87. misha marinsky says:
    May 4, 2013 at 8:00 pm  (Quote)

    Northland10: How about that Dow Jones since Obama “ruined the economy?”

    The Dow Jones industrial average crossed 15,000…

    Obama is a terrible Marxist.

  88. donna says:
    May 4, 2013 at 8:08 pm  (Quote)

    VIDEO:

    Ted Cruz was born in Canada. Could he still run for president?

    http://video.msnbc.msn.com/now-with-alex-wagner/51764830#51764830

  89. Scientist says:
    May 4, 2013 at 9:43 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: Your suggestion means that we enter a slippery slope where Congress gets to interpret the meaning of our Constitution.

    Why is it slippery for Congress to interpret it but not for the Supreme Court to do it? I lack your abiding faith in the unassailable wisdom of unaccountable judges.

  90. Scientist says:
    May 4, 2013 at 9:51 pm  (Quote)

    Paper: I don’t think, if they had the will, they would have to accept the outcome of an election if they felt the president-elect was ineligible.

    I agree they could reject the result (and should if the matter is clear). But they are the proper body to do so IMO, because the voters can hold them to account if they acted wrongly, either by accepting an eligible person or rejecting an eligible one.

    Paper: Would that rejected president-elect then (be able to) take it to the Supreme Court? Would the Court accept the case?

    IMO opinion no. Some of the judges in some birther cases have indicated that they do not have such a power. But I suppose a higher court could say differently, though I doubt they would.

    By the way, I agree with your definition of natural born citizen as meaning citizen by birth. The English adjective “natural born” means by birth, so a natural born citizen is logically a citizen by birth. I find nbc’s argument precious in its disregard of the plain English meaning, which even in law, counts for a great deal,.

  91. Keith says:
    May 5, 2013 at 12:03 am  (Quote)

    Paper:
    Our citizenship can be taken away even if we are born on American soil.It’s limited but it can be done.Treason would be the most egregious reason.

    If even a natural born citizen can lose their citizenship, loss of such cannot be the distinction between natural and naturalized.

    No it can’t. The government can kill you, but it can’t take away birthright citizenship, even for treason.

  92. nbc says:
    May 5, 2013 at 1:57 am  (Quote)

    Scientist: Why is it slippery for Congress to interpret it but not for the Supreme Court to do it? I lack your abiding faith in the unassailable wisdom of unaccountable judges.

    As I said, a slippery slope. We cannot let ever changing congress determine how to interpret our Constitution as the Constitution becomes a meaningless document. The reason why the Court is preferable is because they are not accountable. Do have have faith in their wisdom? Far more than I have faith in the wisdom of Congress.

  93. nbc says:
    May 5, 2013 at 2:19 am  (Quote)

    Keith: No it can’t. The government can kill you, but it can’t take away birthright citizenship, even for treason.

    Well, according to 8 USC 801 it could (the act was repealed) but I believe that with the US Supreme Court’s rulings on loss of citizenship, it will take very specific acts of a citizen to renounce its US citizenship.

    In Afroyim v Rusk the Supreme Court revisited Perez ruling and rejected it.

    First we reject the idea expressed in Perez that, aside from the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress has any general power, express or implied, to take away an American citizen’s citizenship without his assent. This power cannot, as Perez indicated, be sustained as an implied attribute of sovereignty possessed by all nations. Other nations are governed by their own constitutions, if any, and we can draw no support from theirs. In our country the people are sovereign and the Government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship. Our Constitution governs us and we must never forget that our Constitution limits the Government to those powers specifically granted or those that are necessary and proper to carry out the specifically granted ones. The Constitution, of course, grants Congress no express power to strip people of their citizenship, whether in the exercise of the implied power to regulate foreign affairs or in the exercise of any specifically granted power. And even before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, views were expressed in Congress and by this Court that under the Constitution the Government was granted no power, even under its express power to pass a uniform rule of naturalization, to determine what conduct should and should not result in the loss of citizenship.

    Nowadays it requires specific intentions on the part of a citizen, to be able to lose one’s US citizenship.

  94. nbc says:
    May 5, 2013 at 2:20 am  (Quote)

    Note that those not born or naturalized in the US are not similarly protected by the 14th Amendment.

    The Afroyim court also quote from US v Wong Kim Ark

    The entire legislative history of the 1868 Act makes it abundantly clear that there was a strong feeling in the Congress that the only way the citizenship it conferred could be lost was by the voluntary renunciation or abandonment by the citizen himself. And this was the unequivocal statement of the Court in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649. The issues in that case were whether a person born in the United States to Chinese aliens was a citizen of the United States and whether, nevertheless, he could be excluded under the Chinese Exclusion Act, 22 Stat. 58. The Court first held that within the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment, Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States, and then pointed out that though he might “renounce this citizenship, and become a citizen of . . . any other country,” he had never done so. Id., at 704-705. The Court then held[22] that Congress could not do anything to abridge or affect his citizenship conferred by the Fourteenth Amendment. Quoting Chief Justice Marshall’s well-considered and oft-repeated dictum in Osborn to the effect that Congress under the power of naturalization has “a power to confer citizenship, not a power to take it away,” the Court said:

    “Congress having no power to abridge the rights conferred by the Constitution upon those who have become naturalized citizens by virtue of acts of Congress, a fortiori no act . . . of Congress . . . can affect citizenship acquired as a birthright, by virtue of the Constitution itself . . . . The Fourteenth Amendment, while it leaves the power, where it was before, in Congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship.” Id., at 703.

  95. nbc says:
    May 5, 2013 at 2:26 am  (Quote)

    Scientist: By the way, I agree with your definition of natural born citizen as meaning citizen by birth. The English adjective “natural born” means by birth, so a natural born citizen is logically a citizen by birth. I find nbc’s argument precious in its disregard of the plain English meaning, which even in law, counts for a great deal,.

    Actually the phrase natural born is well understood in English Common Law which does not include children born abroad to citizen parents. You need to understand how these terms are being used rather than how you wish them to be used.

    Remember the argument in WKA that its meaning had to be found in common law? That should have been your hint.

  96. nbc says:
    May 5, 2013 at 2:33 am  (Quote)

    In US v WKA

    A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case [p703] of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

    So the Court considered such children to be naturalized.

  97. nbc says:
    May 5, 2013 at 2:37 am  (Quote)

    scott e: so naturaised and natural born are the same. cool, someone just needs to update wikepedia.

    Of course not. Naturalized beans through statute, natural born means through birth (on soil). For most practical purposes these are the same, except for eligibility for the office of the President.

    What confused you about my clear statements?

  98. Paper says:
    May 5, 2013 at 3:06 am  (Quote)

    I refer you to Tomoya Kawakita, born in California in 1928. A bit of a fascinating case with various nuances, but the end result was his citizenship was revoked.

    http://uniset.ca/other/cs5/190F2d506.html

    http://home.comcast.net/~eo9066/Kawakita.html

    Keith: No it can’t. The government can kill you, but it can’t take away birthright citizenship, even for treason.

  99. nbc says:
    May 5, 2013 at 3:29 am  (Quote)

    Paper: I refer you to Tomoya Kawakita, born in California in 1928. A bit of a fascinating case with various nuances, but the end result was his citizenship was revoked.

    Yes, that was the past… May want to check on some more recent SCOTUS rulings though…

  100. Paper says:
    May 5, 2013 at 3:58 am  (Quote)

    nbc (in response to Scientist):
    Actually the phrase natural born is well understood in English Common Law which does not include children born abroad to citizen parents. You need to understand how these terms are being used rather than how you wish them to be used.

    Remember the argument in WKA that its meaning had to be found in common law? That should have been your hint.

    See: Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement by Jack Maskell, November 14, 2011.

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf

    excerpt:

    Other legal scholars have contended that long-standing and commonly accepted principles incorporated into English law by statute over several centuries, even if they did not merely “declare” already-existing English common law, actually modified the corpus of the common law to incorporate such principles, and that this body of law was the one known to the framers, such that the provisions of the Constitution must be interpreted in that light. Charles Gordon, who was then general counsel for the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, explained in 1968 that in addition to recognizing birthright citizenship as to the
    place of birth (jus soli), “the consistent practice over several centuries, in England and the United States, [was] to recognize citizenship status by descent.” Gordon thus concluded that “[t]he common law, as it had developed through the years, recognized a combination of the jus soli and the jus sanguinis,” and that the English common law adopted by the United States had been expanded by the long-standing statutory inclusions over the centuries in England:

    “[T]here were doubts concerning the applicability of the jus sanguinis
    under the early common law. But those doubts were eliminated by statutes enacted in England before the American Revolution, which became part of the body of law followed in England and passed on to this country. It can be argued that this total corpus was the common law which this country inherited, and that it persevered unless specifically modified.”

    That the United States was not confined to only the narrow common law of England in our usages and applications, was noted by the Supreme Court in an opinion authored by Justice Story in 1829:

    “The common law of England is not to be taken, in all respects, to be that of America. Our ancestors brought with them its general principles, and claimed it as their birthright; but they brought with them and adopted, only that portion which was applicable to their situation.”

    It was, in fact, common in the states after independence, upon the adoption of their constitutions and statutes, to incorporate both the common law of England, as well as the statutory laws adopted by Parliament and applicable in the colonies up until a particular date.

    There is thus some argument and indication that it was common for a “modified” English common law—modified by long-standing provisions of English statutory law applicable in the colonies—to be among the traditions and bodies of law incorporated into the laws, applications, usages, and interpretations in the beginning of our nation.

    *Common Understanding in 18th Century…*

    Concerning specifically the issue of children born abroad of English subjects, Blackstone explains clearly that such children are then (in 1765) considered under the law of England as “natural born” subjects, and have been considered as such for most purposes since at least the time of Edward III (1350), because of the development of statutory law in England to “encourage also foreign commerce.”

    As stated by Blackstone in his 1765 treatise,

    “[A]ll children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.”

    The “commonly understood” meaning of the term “natural born” in the United States at the time of the drafting of the Constitution might thus be broader than the early, strict English “common law” meaning of that term.

    As noted by Charles Gordon, former Chief Counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, whether the body of English law in the 1770s was fromearly common law, from statutory law, or from the common law modified over the years by statutory law, these provisions “were part of the corpus of the English law in existence at the time of the Revolution, which was substantially recognized and adopted by our forefathers.”

    This common usage and popular understanding to the framers of the term “natural born” subject (as employed in England), and the term’s apparent evolution and broadening of meaning through statutory law, has thus led several other legal commentators and historians to conclude: “The constitutional Framers had a broad view of the term ‘natural-born’ and considered all foreign- born children of American citizen parents eligible for the Office of the Presidency”; or, as stated by another: “[T]he delegates meant to apply the evolved, broader common law meaning of the term when they included it in the presidential qualifications clause.”

  101. nbc says:
    May 5, 2013 at 4:12 am  (Quote)

    Yes, the idea that some of the statutes were accepted as well in the US makes some sense but they were statutes, not common law and the court in US v WKA was clear that its meaning was to be found in common law. See Binney Aligenae.

    Unless one can show that it was part of common law, we do seem to have a proble,

  102. nbc says:
    May 5, 2013 at 4:23 am  (Quote)

    Now it is tempting to claim that statutory law was included in the definition of natural born but why did Congress feel it necessary to pass explicit laws to extend citizenship to such children. If the Founders believed that such children were covered, there would not have been a need for these acts.

  103. Paper says:
    May 5, 2013 at 4:38 am  (Quote)

    First, the point is that citizenship can be revoked, even if not out-of-hand, meaning irrevocability is not the difference between citizen by birth and naturalized citizen. Treason is just the most egregious.

    In terms of Kawakita, he was stripped of his citizenship in 1963. What rulings would you suggest?

    Conviction of treason is rare and revocation of citizenship is not required. As far as I can see at the moment, Kawakita seems to be the only person convicted of treason who lost his citizenship as a result. He was sentenced to death, but in the end, he spent time in jail, lost his citizenship and was deported. Much preferable. The absence of more recent revocations does not change anything, unless you can point to some specific ruling where the Court says such revocation is unconstitutional.

    In the meantime, see the law:

    8 USC 1481 – Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1481

    nbc: Yes, that was the past… May want to check on some more recent SCOTUS rulings though…

  104. Paper says:
    May 5, 2013 at 4:57 am  (Quote)

    Okay. Afroyim v. Rusk. I don’t know how I forgot that. The voluntary factor. So you can ignore my link to 8 USC 1481.

    That changes things.

    Though it still would remain a question of how the framers thought of it. As if in their minds citizenship was revocable, perhaps only in principle and not likely in practice, that still would hamper revocation as a distinguishing feature between natural born citizenship and naturalization.

    nbc: Yes, that was the past… May want to check on some more recent SCOTUS rulings though…

  105. nbc says:
    May 5, 2013 at 5:02 am  (Quote)

    Paper: Though it still would remain a question of how the framers thought of it. As if in their minds citizenship was revocable, perhaps only in principle and not likely in practice, that still would hamper revocation as a distinguishing feature between natural born citizenship and naturalization.

    Good question. Although the 14th amendment changed a lot. When the framers wrote the constitution, the courts were not even convinced that one could voluntarily expatriate oneself.

    But still an interesting question for which I have no answer.

  106. nbc says:
    May 5, 2013 at 5:13 am  (Quote)

    Paper: Okay. Afroyim v. Rusk. I don’t know how I forgot that. The voluntary factor. So you can ignore my link to 8 USC 1481.

    The supreme court has not made it easy to understand its reasoning. See Rogers v Bellei :-O

  107. donna says:
    May 5, 2013 at 12:00 pm  (Quote)

    Oyez, oyez

    Looking For Harrison (Harry) J. Bounel

    taitz: Ad placed in Bronx Times, searching for Harry J. Bounel, whose CT social Security number 042-68-4425 was used by Obama in his 2009 tax returns. $125 was paid for the ad. Donations to cover this and other ads are greatly appreciated

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=418773

    i sent her a $3 bill

  108. Paper says:
    May 5, 2013 at 12:02 pm  (Quote)

    (I just typed a whole response, more on the nature of the question than on these cases per se, and then when I went to post it, I lost it. Was that for the better? I don’t know.)

    Need to get out of the house. More later…

    nbc: The supreme court has not made it easy to understand its reasoning. See Rogers v Bellei :-O

  109. Scientist says:
    May 5, 2013 at 4:27 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: The reason why the Court is preferable is because they are not accountable. Do have have faith in their wisdom? Far more than I have faith in the wisdom of Congress.

    Not this Court. I have zero faith in them, based on their record in recent years. They are as political as Congress. I actually have more faith in the wisdom of the American people as a body than in either Congress or the Courts, which is why I think the voters are the best judge (though they are certainly imperfect).

    Just for fun, what would you say if tomorrow the Supreme Court took one of Mario’s cases and ruled in his favor 5-4 along the predictable lines? Obviously a fictional scenario, but I wonder if you would then say, “Well, I was wrong and the 5 judges who ruled on partisan lines are right”?

  110. nbc says:
    May 5, 2013 at 4:33 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: Just for fun, what would you say if tomorrow the Supreme Court took one of Mario’s cases and ruled in his favor 5-4 along the predictable lines?

    As much a predictable mess or more if Congress had done the same. Yes, the Supreme Court has had its problems and yet I see far more problems with the ever changing Congress. Most of the supreme court rulings lead to more stability, even if it is not the kind I like.

    However I do accept that in our Nation, the interpretation of the Constitution is to be left to the Supreme Court, not Congress.

  111. Scientist says:
    May 5, 2013 at 4:36 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: Actually the phrase natural born is well understood in English Common Law which does not include children born abroad to citizen parents.

    The US as a sovereign country can deviate from English Common Law. Even the UK does not follow Common Law in every respect. Numerous statutes supercede various provisions of Common Law (Including that not everyone born in the UK today is automatically a citizen).

    Common Law has been added to and subtracted from over the years. For example, Common Law allows squatting in any unoccupied building. Statutes forbid it. Those statutes are the current law in both the UK and the US and you can’t squat in a building just because no one is occupying it. Try it and see and then go to court and claim Common Law rights. I will visit you in the pokey.

  112. Scientist says:
    May 5, 2013 at 4:38 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: However I do accept that in our Nation, the interpretation of the Constitution is to be left to the Supreme Court, not Congress.

    I would sooner trust 12 names picked from the phone book than either of those.

  113. Scientist says:
    May 5, 2013 at 4:42 pm  (Quote)

    nbc:
    Now it is tempting to claim that statutory law was included in the definition of natural born but why did Congress feel it necessary to pass explicit laws to extend citizenship to such children. If the Founders believed that such children were covered, there would not have been a need for these acts.

    That’s a bit silly. It’s like arguing that the Founders knew murder was wrong, so why pass laws against it. Laws must make explicit and codify even the things we all know perfectly well. The statutes also mention that people born here are citizens. We all know they are, but there is certainly no harm in making it explicit in the laws.

  114. donna says:
    May 5, 2013 at 4:46 pm  (Quote)

    there’s weren’t 4 justices to grant cert nor one justice to request reply papers from appellants

  115. nbc says:
    May 5, 2013 at 4:53 pm  (Quote)

    Rogers v Bellei

    Over 70 years ago the Court, in an opinion by Mr. Justice Gray, reviewed and discussed early English statutes relating to rights of inheritance and of citizenship of persons born abroad of parents who were British subjects. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 668-671 (1898). The Court concluded that “naturalization by descent” was not a common-law concept but was dependent, instead, upon statutory enactment.

    and

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S., at 688. Then follows a most significant sentence:

    “But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.”
    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.

    Therefor, if Congress has the power to withhold citizenship to children born abroad to US parents, it will be hard to argue that they can make such children natural born as they fall under the naturalization statutes and would lead to the situation where statutory enactments can narrow and expand the class of who are natural born citizens.

    And Congress actually did withhold citizenship by descent in the past

    And the Court has specifically recognized the power of Congress not to grant a United States citizen the right to transmit citizenship by descent. As hereinabove noted, persons born abroad, even of United States citizen fathers who, however, acquired American citizenship after the effective date of the 1802 Act, were aliens. Congress responded to that situation only by enacting the 1855 statute. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U. S., at 311. But more than 50 years had expired during which, because of the withholding of that benefit by Congress, citizenship by such descent was not bestowed

  116. nbc says:
    May 5, 2013 at 5:48 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: That’s a bit silly.It’s like arguing that the Founders knew murder was wrong, so why pass laws against it.Laws must make explicit and codify even the things we all know perfectly well.The statutes also mention that people born here are citizens.We all know they are, but there is certainly no harm in making it explicit in the laws.

    No, what I am saying is that when the Constitution limits the eligibility for the office of the President to natural-born citizens, Congress cannot circumvent this through statute as this would make the status of these ‘new citizens’ dependent on statutory enactment. Under the Constitution, Congress has the power to prescribe uniform laws of naturalization. Under these powers, congress extended citizenship to children born abroad to US citizen parents under varying requirements, even to the extent that such children would not be citizens at all.

    What if Congress somehow suggests that the House is no longer composed of members elected every 2 years, or that our President can run for a third time. The Constitution clearly makes limitations on what is and is not acceptable and when it comes to the term natural born citizen, the court precedents are quite clear.

    Why do you think Congress passed a non binding resolution for McCain?… It cannot proceed into law and merely expressed the approval of Congress on some topic.

  117. nbc says:
    May 5, 2013 at 5:50 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: I would sooner trust 12 names picked from the phone book than either of those.

    I understand your position but that does not make it constitutionally relevant. Your personally feelings have little impact on our political and constitutional reality.

  118. Rickey says:
    May 5, 2013 at 6:05 pm  (Quote)

    donna:
    Oyez, oyez

    Looking For Harrison (Harry) J. Bounel

    taitz: Ad placed in Bronx Times, searching for Harry J. Bounel, whose CT social Security number 042-68-4425 was used by Obama in his 2009 tax returns. $125 was paid for the ad. Donations to cover this and other ads are greatly appreciated

    As I have mentioned before, I don’t believe that the correct spelling of the man listed in the 1940 census is “Bounel.”

    Currently there isn’t a single telephone listing in the United States for a person with the surname “Bounel.” It is far more likely that the man’s name was “Bonnel” or possibly “Borrel.”

    The important thing about the census entry is that “Bounel” never spoke with the census taker. The census page notes that the information was provided by his landlady. She may not have known the correct spelling of her tenant’s last name, or the census taker may have written it down phonetically. The other possibility is that people have been mis-reading the census taker’s handwriting.

    The census taker also got the street name wrong. He thought that the building address was Daly Avenue, but actually it was E. Tremont Avenue. The building is located at the corner of Daly Avenue and E. Tremont Avenue and there is an entrance on Daly Avenue, which would explain the confusion. 915 Daly Avenue is a non-existent address in the Bronx.

  119. nbc says:
    May 5, 2013 at 6:10 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: The US as a sovereign country can deviate from English Common Law. Even the UK does not follow Common Law in every respect. Numerous statutes supercede various provisions of Common Law (Including that not everyone born in the UK today is automatically a citizen).

    Missing the point. First of all you agree that statutes can be used to extend common law, or even replace.

    However, the Court in WKA found that since the term natural-born was undefined in the Constitution, its meaning had to be found in common law which did not include citizenship by descent.

    Citing Binney

    “The acquisition,” says Mr. Dicey, (p. 741) “of nationality by descent is foreign to the principles of the common law, and is based wholly upon statutory enactments.”

    Also finding

    “But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.”

    Uniform rule of naturalization…

    Various people have confused the ruling in WKA wrt common law as to mean that such law even exists or remains immutable.

  120. Rickey says:
    May 5, 2013 at 6:27 pm  (Quote)

    Regarding Harry Bounel, it’s also worth noting that a man named Harrison Bonnel, born in 1897, died in Fort Lauderdale, Florida in 1978. His SSN had a New Jersey prefix, so it’s not unreasonable that he could have been living in the Bronx in 1940.

    We can’t rely too much on the census information when it comes to years of birth, particularly when the information is provided by someone who is not related to the subject.

  121. Paper says:
    May 5, 2013 at 7:03 pm  (Quote)

    But this aspect of how Congress would logically handle such a matter has nothing to do with passing a law. They would handle through their constitutional power to certify the election. In doing so, they inherently could consider the arguments, facts, as well as the exact definition of “natural born citizen” and how it should be applied. By passing a simple resolution, the Senate merely but effectively gave notice that for their part they were ready to certify McCain if he won, thus saying to the electorate that they could feel comfortable voting for him.

    There is no need for any law in this regard.

    When it comes to whether or not the Court would address a potentially rejected president-elect’s petition, despite Bush v. Gore, the Court might operate under the principle of not touching it if they don’t need to do so. That would rule out any clear and obvious certifications or rejections by Congress. If Congress made a clear argument for “natural born citizenship” as including those born abroad to citizens, something along the lines of Maskell’s Congressional Report on the matter, the Court might not want to mess with another branch’s authority, perhaps even considering it a plenary power. But we could also imagine a Court wanting to speak up, and it certainly at least would be interesting to hear the arguments about whether or not it could, should or would.

    But short of the Court deciding it may intervene and that it needs to intervene, the process itself of Congress debating and deciding the legitimate criteria of eligibility is certainly constitutional.

    nbc: No, what I am saying is that when the Constitution limits the eligibility for the office of the President to natural-born citizens, Congress cannot circumvent this through statute as this would make the status of these ‘new citizens’ dependent on statutory enactment. Under the Constitution, Congress has the power to prescribe uniform laws of naturalization. Under these powers, congress extended citizenship to children born abroad to US citizen parents under varying requirements, even to the extent that such children would not be citizens at all.

    What if Congress somehow suggests that the House is no longer composed of members elected every 2 years, or that our President can run for a third time. The Constitution clearly makes limitations on what is and is not acceptable and when it comes to the term natural born citizen, the court precedents are quite clear.

    Why do you think Congress passed a non binding resolution for McCain?… It cannot proceed into law and merely expressed the approval of Congress on some topic.

  122. Northland10 says:
    May 5, 2013 at 7:54 pm  (Quote)

    And now, for something different.

    Be a Birther:

    https://soundcloud.com/mike-in-raleigh/im-a-birther-2

  123. nbc says:
    May 5, 2013 at 8:15 pm  (Quote)

    Paper: But short of the Court deciding it may intervene and that it needs to intervene, the process itself of Congress debating and deciding the legitimate criteria of eligibility is certainly constitutional.

    We are now confusing two issues. Yes, when it comes to eligibility, the court may very well lack jurisdiction but the courts could hear the case before this happens. Now, as I said, I doubt that anyone will file or that there will be sufficient standing but if the case ever gets to a court, things could get interesting…

    My argument is that Congress cannot declare children born to citizens abroad natural born through a naturalization statute when common law restricts it to children born on soil, subject to our jurisdiction. Of course, Congress can ignore the Constitution and do whatever it wants, and yes, the courts would be very reluctant to revisit such a decision.

    As I said, such a case will unlikely be heard but I am not arguing the likelihood of such a suit as much as how the status of children so born meet the natural born status.

    I am still not convinced. But I also realize that such arguments are mostly academic.

  124. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    May 5, 2013 at 8:58 pm  (Quote)

    Nice article on Cruz eligibility at the Washington Times:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/3/president-cruz-poses-constitutional-conundrum

    Exceeds expectations.

  125. Keith says:
    May 5, 2013 at 9:08 pm  (Quote)

    Interesting ‘article’ on Australia’s “Radio National” this morning about registering births and obtaining birth certificates.

    UN criticises Australia’s lax ID policy

    At one school in an Aboriginal community, they found that 90% of the kids did not have a birth certificate and 60% weren’t even registered.

    Causes lots of problems down the track, and they are working to clean it up.

    One thing that strikes me about the discussion (other than what it was actually about) was the way they specifically drew a distinction between ‘registering a birth’ and ‘getting a birth certificate’.

    I have consistently remarked that the piece of paper bound into a folder in the Hawai’ian DoH archives is NOT a Birth Certificate because it isn’t certified; it is ‘only’ the registration. Birther’s want access to that document, claiming it is THE ‘original’ Birth Certificate when in fact each Birth Certificate produced, whether a ‘copy or abstract’, is AN original Birth Certificate.

  126. Paper says:
    May 5, 2013 at 9:12 pm  (Quote)

    Right.

    I have gathered from previous posts that Scientist focuses, as I do, on the certification process. So I was responding on that level.

    In this regard, I don’t think Congress would be ignoring the Constitution to decide that the definition of natural born citizen includes those born abroad to citizens. Clarifying such definitions would seem precisely the kind of thing that belongs in a certification of a presidential election.

    In terms of statutes, though, Congress did just that in 1790. Is there any actual record of why they dropped the term in 1795?

    nbc: We are now confusing two issues. Yes, when it comes to eligibility, the court may very well lack jurisdiction but the courts could hear the case before this happens. Now, as I said, I doubt that anyone will file or that there will be sufficient standing but if the case ever gets to a court, things could get interesting…

    My argument is that Congress cannot declare children born to citizens abroad natural born through a naturalization statute when common law restricts it to children born on soil, subject to our jurisdiction. Of course, Congress can ignore the Constitution and do whatever it wants, and yes, the courts would be very reluctant to revisit such a decision.

    As I said, such a case will unlikely be heard but I am not arguing the likelihood of such a suit as much as how the status of children so born meet the natural born status.

    I am still not convinced. But I also realize that such arguments are mostly academic.

  127. Deborah says:
    May 5, 2013 at 9:19 pm  (Quote)

    Armed march on Washington, D.C. planned for July 4th. I am not sure who they think is going to pay for this re-enactment of the American Revolution. I doubt France will do it.

  128. CarlOrcas says:
    May 5, 2013 at 10:15 pm  (Quote)

    Deborah:
    Armed march on Washington, D.C. planned for July 4th. I am not sure who they think is going to pay for this re-enactment of the American Revolution. I doubt France will do it.

    Here is more on it:

    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/05/1965191/open-carry-washington-march/

    If they get serious about this (beyond shooting their mouths off) they are walking a fine line. Conspiring to break the gun laws of the District of Columbia is a crime in and of itself and since it appears they are going to do all this across state lines they have some potential issues with the feds.

    I put my money on this all going up in smoke.

  129. CarlOrcas says:
    May 5, 2013 at 10:23 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Nice article on Cruz eligibility at the Washington Times:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/3/president-cruz-poses-constitutional-conundrum

    Exceeds expectations.

    It’s entirely reasonable. Gee….we can’t have any of that!

  130. Keith says:
    May 5, 2013 at 11:01 pm  (Quote)

    Cool rant about the sequestration over at HuffPo:

    Repeal the Sequester! Let’s Do It!

    Money shot:

    You know, no one wanted Old Yeller to get infected with rabies either. The fact that Old Yeller caught rabies was a result of a lot of institutional failures pertaining to wolf-protection. There was a lot of blame to go around, frankly. But in the end, Travis Coates nutted up and went out into the yard and put Old Yeller down. What he did not do, is say, “Well, I know that this situation isn’t ideal, but we should consider basing all future discussions about budgetary matters on the fact that we have this crazy, dangerous dog in the yard.”

  131. Black Lion says:
    May 6, 2013 at 9:09 am  (Quote)

    Not sure if anyone caught this article, but the state of HI via a local newspaper has responded to Sheriff Coltrane and his fake posse….Note the birthers are out in force in the comments section….

    Hawaii Attorney General Responds to Sheriff Arpaio’s Allegations About Obama’s Birth Certificate

    BY JOSHUA A. WISCH – The State of Hawaii has repeatedly confirmed the indisputable evidence of President Obama’s birth in Hawaii.

    An exhaustive accounting of this is provided on the State Department of Health (DOH) website – http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

    When this issue last arose in May, the Washington Post noted that “the Hawaii Department of Health has released both the short and long forms of the president’s birth certificate; and that all this information, along with clear-as-a-bell explanations, is available to the public online.”

    President Obama was born in Honolulu, and his birth certificate is valid… (continued)

    http://www.hawaiireporter.com/hawaii-attorney-general-responds-to-sheriff-arpaios-allegations-about-obamas-birth-certificate/123

  132. Rickey says:
    May 6, 2013 at 10:47 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Nice article on Cruz eligibility at the Washington Times:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/3/president-cruz-poses-constitutional-conundrum

    Exceeds expectations.

    I have one quibble with the article:

    “The citizenship issue continues to haunt President Obama…”

    I don’t believe that Obama is even close to being haunted by the issue. I doubt that he even thinks about, except when he wants to make a joke about it.

  133. gorefan says:
    May 6, 2013 at 10:50 am  (Quote)

    Black Lion: Not sure if anyone caught this article,

    Apparently no one caught that article. It is date July 19th, 2012 but all the comments are from the last several days.

  134. The Magic M says:
    May 6, 2013 at 11:23 am  (Quote)

    Another bit of thought that my psychologist friend came up with when we discussed birtherism the other night:

    Remember the spoof video of Obama’s “Kenyan birth”? I remember how I wondered that *none* of the birthers fell for it. Not even the most deluded ones on ORYR. That struck me as odd back then.
    My friend gave an explanation for that:

    Do you know the (fictional) story of the murder trial where the victim’s body hadn’t been found? The defendant’s lawyer said “you all think she is dead, but in fact she is ENTERING THIS COURTROOM RIGHT NOW”. When everybody turned their head to look towards the door, he said “So you all do not actually believe the woman is dead, therefore you must acquit”, but the prosecutor replied “But the defendant was the only one to not turn his head, so he knew she couldn’t be alive, so he must be guilty”.

    My friend thinks the reaction to the birther video was the same among birthers – they KNOW Obama wasn’t born in Kenya, therefore the video had to be fake, therefore they didn’t latch onto it.

  135. Black Lion says:
    May 6, 2013 at 11:28 am  (Quote)

    gorefan: Apparently no one caught that article.It is date July 19th, 2012 but all the comments are from the last several days.

    Good catch…I didn’t see the date I just saw some birthers referencing the article….

  136. Lupin says:
    May 6, 2013 at 11:34 am  (Quote)

    Cruz is toast. (IMHO)

  137. nbc says:
    May 6, 2013 at 2:07 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: Nice article on Cruz eligibility at the Washington Times:

    Prof. Dorff

    “This is all sort of framed on the fact that we do not have any case law and it is quite likely that the courts would stay out of it — even if someone brought a challenge,” Mr. Dorf said. “The place that this would be solved ultimately would be the Electoral College.”

    Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/5/as-buzz-mounts-ted-cruzs-white-house-eligibility-a/#ixzz2SXMa6zIU
    Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

    Yes, I agree with his assessment.

  138. gorefan says:
    May 6, 2013 at 3:23 pm  (Quote)

    Alabama Vital Statistic codes (similar in most provisions to Hawaii):

    Alabama
    http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/alcode/22/1/9A

  139. misha marinsky says:
    May 6, 2013 at 3:29 pm  (Quote)

    Lupin: Cruz is toast. (IMHO)

    I want to see Cruz and Rand Paul lock horns. Who can be the biggest RWNJ.

  141. donna says:
    May 6, 2013 at 4:23 pm  (Quote)

    Doc: New NRA head calls Obama “fake President.”

    the youngest member present was a 3-year old

    were there no pregnant women there whose zygotes they could enroll as a “person”?

  142. misha marinsky says:
    May 6, 2013 at 5:12 pm  (Quote)

    donna: whose zygotes they could enroll as a “person”

    Remember, blastocysts and zygotes have civil rights! Anyone who disagrees is a communist.

    How does Sarah Palin feel about clinic violence? Let’s listen:

    Palin won’t call abortion clinic bombers ‘terrorists’

    WILLIAMS: Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist under this definition, Governor?

    PALIN: Now, others who would want to engage in harming innocent Americans or facilities that it would be unacceptable to—I don’t know if you’re going to use the word terrorist there, but it’s unacceptable, and it would not be condoned, of course, on our watch.

    http://www.dailykos.com/tv/w/001804/

  143. Dave B. says:
    May 6, 2013 at 5:21 pm  (Quote)

    A little nugget from the comments by “BirtherPro”:

    “NOTE: “JK” in internet shorthand is “JUST JOKING”.”

    Which does sound like something a Birther Pro would come up with.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Nice article on Cruz eligibility at the Washington Times:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/3/president-cruz-poses-constitutional-conundrum

    Exceeds expectations.

  144. misha marinsky says:
    May 6, 2013 at 5:31 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: New NRA head calls Obama “fake President.”

    Colbert Makes a Mockery of Santorum Refusing to Refute Elderly Birther at Campaign Stop

    Stephen Colbert had a field day with Rick Santorum and his refusal to refute an elderly birther lady

    http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/colbert-makes-mockery-santorum-refusing-re

  145. Dave B. says:
    May 6, 2013 at 5:35 pm  (Quote)

    Hey, I saw that on Matlock the other day. I love Matlock, although I no more confuse it with actual lawyering than I confuse all those Zombie books I read with… wait, maybe I do confuse them with something, a little bit. Something appropriate. But I digress. The way it went there, it was a Perry Mason kind of deal, and it was the murderous witness on the stand who didn’t look. And Ben won again. What a guy.

    The Magic M:
    Another bit of thought that my psychologist friend came up with when we discussed birtherism the other night:

    Remember the spoof video of Obama’s “Kenyan birth”? I remember how I wondered that *none* of the birthers fell for it. Not even the most deluded ones on ORYR. That struck me as odd back then.
    My friend gave an explanation for that:

    Do you know the (fictional) story of the murder trial where the victim’s body hadn’t been found? The defendant’s lawyer said “you all think she is dead, but in fact she is ENTERING THIS COURTROOM RIGHT NOW”. When everybody turned their head to looktowards the door, he said “So you all do not actually believe the woman is dead, therefore you must acquit”, but the prosecutor replied “But the defendant was the only one to not turn his head, so he knew she couldn’t be alive, so he must be guilty”.

    My friend thinks the reaction to the birther video was the same among birthers – they KNOW Obama wasn’t born in Kenya, therefore the video had to be fake, therefore they didn’t latch onto it.

  146. donna says:
    May 6, 2013 at 7:22 pm  (Quote)

    misha marinsky: Remember, blastocysts and zygotes have civil rights! Anyone who disagrees is a communist.

    except when you’re the catholic church and about to lose money – Lawyers for Catholic hospital argue that a fetus is not a person

    Life begins at conception, according to the Catholic Church, but in a wrongful death suit in Colorado, a Catholic health care company has argued just the opposite.

    Lori Stodghill was 28 weeks pregnant when she went to the emergency room of St. Thomas More Hospital in Canon City vomiting and short of breath, according to a court document.

    She died at age 31. Her unborn twin boys perished with her. Jeremy Stodghill, left behind to raise their then-2-year-old daughter alone, sued the hospital and its owner, Catholic Health Initiatives, for the wrongful deaths of all three.

  147. donna says:
    May 6, 2013 at 8:16 pm  (Quote)

    ‘Questions Are Being Asked’: Chuck Todd Takes On Sen. Ted Cruz’s Potential ‘Birther Controversy’

    “It’s pretty clear that he qualifies as natural born,” Peter Spiro, a professor at Temple University, stated in response to Todd’s earlier question about how the term is defined. To clarify, Todd summed up: “If you are born to U.S. citizens abroad, no matter where, if they are U.S. citizens, if…one of your parents is a U.S. citizen — then that should qualify as natural born.”

    Again revisiting previous candidates’ scrutiny, Todd questioned whether we need “legal clarity” on the matter whether Congress needs to step in. But Spiro said we’ve been developing a consensus in “an organic way” that doesn’t necessitate that the courts intervene. Because the courts have avoided it, he added, the door will always remain slightly ajar for political opponents who want to use issue as a point of contention.

    Todd chimed that somebody will file a lawsuit, but Spiro maintained “the courts won’t touch this with a 10-foot pole.”

    “Ted Cruz, apparently eligible,” Todd remarked.

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/questions-are-being-asked-chuck-todd-takes-on-sen-ted-cruzs-potential-birther-controversy/

    it appears to MOI that people on the left are raising the cruz birther issue but instead of supporting it they are advancing legal eagles who dispel it –

    the ragin cajun, carville, said “I think he’s the most talented and fearless Republican politician I’ve seen in the last 30 years,”

    what would be a more dream ticket for democrats in 2016 than hillary v cruz?

  148. Majority Will says:
    May 6, 2013 at 8:45 pm  (Quote)

    donna: “It’s pretty clear that he qualifies as natural born,” Peter Spiro, a professor at Temple University, stated in response to Todd’s earlier question about how the term is defined. To clarify, Todd summed up: “If you are born to U.S. citizens abroad, no matter where, if they are U.S. citizens, if…one of your parents is a U.S. citizen — then that should qualify as natural born.”

    But I thought El Putzo, the famous graduate from Temple swore two citizens is mandatory.

    Professor Spiro:
    http://www.law.temple.edu/Pages/Faculty/N_Faculty_Spiro_Main.aspx

  149. Majority Will says:
    May 6, 2013 at 8:53 pm  (Quote)

    donna: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/questions-are-being-asked-chuck-todd-takes-on-sen-ted-cruzs-potential-birther-controversy/

    And the typical birther morons in the comments blaming Hillary for birtherism (as if that would make all the other idiots’ actions o.k.) and the usual b.s. about the “born in Kenya” statements, etc.

  150. donna says:
    May 6, 2013 at 9:23 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will:

    i rarely read the comments on other websites but just did – i’m now drinking maalox on the rocks – after 5 years of losses, don’t they ever advance with new information?

  151. JPotter says:
    May 6, 2013 at 10:28 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: New NRA head calls Obama “fake President.”

    “War of Northern Aggression” …. a classic! That guy really is from Alabama.Like it’s a football rivalry.

  152. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    May 6, 2013 at 10:33 pm  (Quote)

    And thus the NRA’s reputation as a bunch of volatile crazies, remains intact.

  153. gorefan says:
    May 6, 2013 at 10:43 pm  (Quote)

    Orly has taken out an ad in the classified for a website called the BronxTimes.

    http://www.bronx.com/classifieds/classifieds-other/2882.html

    She says that Harrison Bounel immigrated from Russia in 1912 but Ellis Island has no record for anyone with that name passing through their facility.

  154. gorefan says:
    May 6, 2013 at 11:01 pm  (Quote)

    Here is Ellis Island search for last name Bounel

    http://www.ellisisland.org/search/wsese_02a.asp?LNM=BOUNEL&PLNM=BOUNEL&first_kind=1&last_kind=0&TOWN=null&SHIP=null&RF=0&

    “No records in the archive match the name Bounel.”

  155. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    May 6, 2013 at 11:16 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan:
    Orly has taken out an ad in the classified for a website called the BronxTimes.

    http://www.bronx.com/classifieds/classifieds-other/2882.html

    She says that Harrison Bounel immigrated from Russia in 1912 but Ellis Island has no record for anyone with that name passing through their facility.

    The problem is the number she put on the ad calls Puerto Rico. She couldn’t even get a simple ad right.

  156. Rickey says:
    May 6, 2013 at 11:29 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan:
    Orly has taken out an ad in the classified for a website called the BronxTimes.

    http://www.bronx.com/classifieds/classifieds-other/2882.html

    She says that Harrison Bounel immigrated from Russia in 1912 but Ellis Island has no record for anyone with that name passing through their facility.

    In typical Orly fashion, she got the name of the street wrong. It is Daly Avenue, not Daly Street.

  157. misha marinsky says:
    May 7, 2013 at 12:17 am  (Quote)

    gorefan: “No records in the archive match the name Bounel.”

    Of course. He crossed over the Peace Bridge. [bada-bing]

  159. Keith says:
    May 7, 2013 at 2:08 am  (Quote)

    Dave B.:
    The worst Ted Cruz article yet:
    http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-05-01/if-ted-cruz-runs-for-president-he-wont-be-a-duke-of-york

    May he won’t be a Duke of York, but will he be a Duke, Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl?

  160. J.D. Sue says:
    May 7, 2013 at 2:59 am  (Quote)

    Dave B.: The worst Ted Cruz article yet:

    —-
    And it’s a completely obnoxious article, that takes a gratuitous shot at Hillary Clinton.

    Also, a commenter had to correct the authors sloppy research on the sons of King George III: “Prince Frederick, Duke of York, was the Bishop of Osnabrugh. They weren’t two different sons of George III.”

  161. Majority Will says:
    May 7, 2013 at 4:53 am  (Quote)

    donna:
    Majority Will:

    i rarely read the comments on other websites but just did – i’m now drinking maalox on the rocks – after 5 years of losses, don’t they ever advance with new information?

    And remember that Farah’s deliberate smear tactics in WND is responsible for creating and promoting so much of the birther’s repeated lies.

  162. The Magic M says:
    May 7, 2013 at 6:57 am  (Quote)

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.de/2013/05/vermont-supreme-court-hearing-obama-eligibility.html

    Check out Ed Noonan’s comment at the bottom (as of the time of this writing).
    He’s probably the first birther to have gone full circle and arrived at the terminus of crankdom – the claim that no court and government has any authority at all until the crank’s perceived “wrongs” are righted.
    Isn’t it lovely how, once again, a birther claim resolves to “while we have an ineligible President (something that actually is dealt with in the Constitution), we have no legal authority at all, so y’all can commit whatever crime you want, our enemies can come invade us, there’s anarchy now!”? Doesn’t sound very patriotic to me.

  163. donna says:
    May 7, 2013 at 1:15 pm  (Quote)

    another cruz article: Meet the Most Important Ted Cruz Birther: Ted Cruz Ted Cruz is eligible to be president under almost any reading of the Constitution—except his own

    Here’s Cruz’s problem: Under further questioning, Spiro conceded that Cruz’s case isn’t really clear cut if you limit yourself to the actual wording of the Constitution.

    it ends with: As Cruz put it at the 2013 National Rifle Association convention last week in Houston: “The Constitution matters. All of the Constitution. It’s not pick and choose. It’s not take what part you like and get rid of the parts you don’t like. … Every word of the Constitution matters.”

    Such a bummer. All this time I assumed we would be debating the constitutional flaws inherent in gun control, domestic drone strikes, and Obamacare if Cruz were to run for president. But, in deference to Cruz’s own principles, it turns out we’ll first have to debate whether the founders would have even allowed him to serve. If you read the Constitution the way Cruz does, it’s not at all clear that they would have.

    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113135/ted-cruz-2016-hes-his-own-worst-birther

  164. Rickey says:
    May 7, 2013 at 1:52 pm  (Quote)

    Interesting story about Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, who besides being a state employee is on the payroll of a cancer treatment company run by one of the board members of FreedomWorks.

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/05/arizona_ken_bennett_freedomworks.php?ref=fpb

  165. Suranis says:
    May 7, 2013 at 2:33 pm  (Quote)

    donna:
    misha marinsky: Remember, blastocysts and zygotes have civil rights! Anyone who disagrees is a communist.

    except when you’re the catholic church and about to lose money – Lawyers for Catholic hospital argue that a fetus is not a person

    Life begins at conception, according to the Catholic Church, but in a wrongful death suit in Colorado, a Catholic health care company has argued just the opposite.

    Lori Stodghill was 28 weeks pregnant when she went to the emergency room of St. Thomas More Hospital in Canon City vomiting and short of breath, according to a court document.

    She died at age 31. Her unborn twin boys perished with her. Jeremy Stodghill, left behind to raise their then-2-year-old daughter alone, sued the hospital and its owner, Catholic Health Initiatives, for the wrongful deaths of all three.

    Which would make sense IF it was a court of Canon Law. But it wasn’t. It was a court of state law, and under the state law the 2 babies were not legal beings. If their lawyers had not pointed that out, they would not be doing their jobs in vigorous defense of their client, especially since the plaintiffs were seeking relief under the law of the State.

    “Hey Your honour, I know this is a court of law, but lets just ignore what the law says about the status of unborn children of a certain gestation period for this one, M’kay?”

    Rule of law is a 2 edged sword.

  166. Majority Will says:
    May 7, 2013 at 2:36 pm  (Quote)

    Rickey:
    Interesting story about Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, who besides being a state employee is on the payroll of a cancer treatment company run by one of the board members of FreedomWorks.

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/05/arizona_ken_bennett_freedomworks.php?ref=fpb

    And some interesting information on that cancer treatment company:

    Special Report: Behind a cancer-treatment firm’s rosy survival claims
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/06/us-usa-cancer-ctca-idUSBRE9250L820130306

    Making a Profit from Offering Ineffective Therapies to Cancer Patients
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/12/31/making-a-profit-from-offering-ineffective-therapies-to-cancer-patients/

  167. Suranis says:
    May 7, 2013 at 2:51 pm  (Quote)

    misha marinsky: WILLIAMS: Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist under this definition, Governor?

    PALIN: Now, others who would want to engage in harming innocent Americans or facilities that it would be unacceptable to—I don’t know if you’re going to use the word terrorist there, but it’s unacceptable, and it would not be condoned, of course, on our watch.

    To be slightly fair here, I’d like to know what definition they were talking about before screaming in outrage. The Daily Kos link does not have the definition either.

    I’m not sure whether people who kill abortion docs are “terrorists” under the strict definition of the term, meaning people who use fear and terror to achieve a political aim. I think they are more likely people who simply want to kill certain kinds of doctors for reasons of ideology and hatred, and who cares what the long term consequences are.

    Orly Taitz is a terrorist by the true definition, and she hasn’t bombed a building in her life.

  168. justlw says:
    May 7, 2013 at 3:20 pm  (Quote)

    Suranis: To be slightly fair here, I’d like to know what definition they were talking about before screaming in outrage. The Daily Kos link does not have the definition either.

    You can find the video here (actual interview starts around 0:55). Here’s how Williams opens the segment:

    WILLIAMS: Back to the notion of terrorists and terrorism; this word has come up in relation to Mr. Ayers: hanging out with terrorists, domestic terrorists. Are we changing — it’s been said that it gives it a vaguely post-9/11 hint, using that word, that we don’t normally associate with domestic crimes. Are we changing the definition? Are the people who set fire to American cities during the ’60s terrorists in — under this definition? Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist under this definition, Governor?

    Palin then explains that a terrorist is anyone who tries to destroy our Capitol or the Pentagon, “as Ayers did via his own admittance.”(*) Mere blowing up of “facilities” and “Americans” does not count. So: Ayers, terrorist. The Boston guys, not terrorists.

    Me personally? I would say that Eric Rudolph, who was not just “killing abortion docs” but bombed the Centennial Park in Atlanta, two abortion clinics and a lesbian bar, just might be considered a terrorist, even though none of those in fact are our Capitol or the Pentagon. He killed two people in the process, neither of whom were “abortion docs.”

    (*)I’m not entirely clear that Ayers actually admittanced that.

  169. justlw says:
    May 7, 2013 at 3:36 pm  (Quote)

    …and of course, anyone whose husband joins a political party dedicated to seceding from the union, started by this guy, or themselves speaks at their convention, really has a lot of nerve accusing others of “palling around with terrorists.”

  170. justlw says:
    May 7, 2013 at 3:40 pm  (Quote)

    justlw: (*)I’m not entirely clear that Ayers actually admittanced that.

    Yeah, he did, actually.

  172. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    May 7, 2013 at 3:55 pm  (Quote)

    I would say that someone who kills an abortion provider to prevent that person from performing abortions is not a terrorist. Someone who kills an abortion provider to to dissuade others from performing abortions is a terrorist.

    Suranis: I’m not sure whether people who kill abortion docs are “terrorists” under the strict definition of the term, meaning people who use fear and terror to achieve a political aim. I think they are more likely people who simply want to kill certain kinds of doctors for reasons of ideology and hatred, and who cares what the long term consequences are.

  173. donna says:
    May 7, 2013 at 4:19 pm  (Quote)

    Texas Birther Bill Debated By State Lawmakers

    Texas lawmakers debated a bill Monday that, if passed, would require presidential hopefuls to prove they are natural born U.S. citizens, Austin’s KTBC reports.

    Introduced in January by Texas State Rep. Bill Zedler (R), House Bill 650 would mandate that presidential and vice-presidential candidates file an official application proving that they are eligible to run for office. The proposed application would ask questions regarding birthplace and citizenship, and would be required for a candidate to appear on a ballot in Texas. The measure has drawn support from so-called birthers, who believe that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/07/texas-birther-bill_n_3231099.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

  176. donna says:
    May 7, 2013 at 7:14 pm  (Quote)

    new from orly: I suspect that a deal was made, whereby Rubio is to pull this 6 trillion dollar debt mega amnesty for the ilegals and in exchange Bilderberg Group criminal syndicate is to put Rubio in the WH in 2016

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=419308

    comment:

    TRUST NO ONE!!!

    MARCO RUBIO’S CHIEF OF STAFF WORKED FOR GEORGE SOROS.

    http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2013/05/03/cesar-conda-marco-rubios-chief-of-staff-worked-for-george-soros/

    6 trillion from heritage has been debunked by conservatives

  177. Keith says:
    May 7, 2013 at 8:26 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I would say that someone who kills an abortion provider to prevent that person from performing abortions is not a terrorist. Someone who kills an abortion provider to to dissuade others from performing abortions is a terrorist.

    I agree.

    And I judge that by Palin’s definition, the guys that flew planes into the World Trade Center were not terrorists.

  178. Dave B. says:
    May 7, 2013 at 8:31 pm  (Quote)

    Interesting trend over on the Huffington Post. Everybody loves the birthers all of a sudden, now that Ted Cruz’s blood is in the water. Some poor sucker keeps posting this link:
    http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/news.php?q=1308252582
    This one’s getting thrown around, too:
    http://newsflavor.com/world/usa-canada/what-did-natural-born-mean-to-the-founding-fathers/#ixzz2SeD5a6FD

  179. Benji Franklin says:
    May 8, 2013 at 1:47 am  (Quote)

    Reality Check: I created a page on my blog based on several posts written by Verbalobe at the Fogbow to track claims and promises made by the Cold Case Posse.

    Cold Case Posse Update! Best evidence yet! This is what we’ve all been waiting for! CCP telephonically finally in Possession of Ultimate Super-Duper 103% VERIFIED Obama Eligibility Smoking Gun! Specifically, reprising an event totally ignored by the mainstream media in 2009, it appears another raccoon has crapped in the ditch of yet another rural gravel road in Alabama. ZooLuLu announces, “Victory is hours! We can almost taste it! Let’s see the Obots try to punch holes in the crapping-Raccoon theory of Constitutional interpretation.”
    World Nut Daily already is headlining:”Could Latest Piece-of-Crap Eligibility Theory be Real Game Changer?”

  180. The Magic M says:
    May 8, 2013 at 3:22 am  (Quote)

    Mick Huckabee: “Obama will resign over Benghazi and appoint great-great-great-grandson of Vattel as replacement, return to whites-only Constitution imminent!” 😉

  182. Majority Will says:
    May 8, 2013 at 7:55 pm  (Quote)

    “Think about it — we define ourselves as a nation of immigrants. That’s who we are — in our bones. The promise we see in those who come here from every corner of the globe, that’s always been one of our greatest strengths. It keeps our workforce young. It keeps our country on the cutting edge. And it’s helped build the greatest economic engine the world has ever known.”

    – President Barack Obama

  183. Paper says:
    May 8, 2013 at 9:11 pm  (Quote)

    Maddow is doing a great segment right now on how conspiracy thinking has become standard procedure on the right. Especially as relates to President Obama. She surveys a number of examples, then arrives at Bhengazi as their big conspiracy angle.. The segment is called “Concocting the Dots.”

  184. nbc says:
    May 8, 2013 at 9:42 pm  (Quote)

    Guthrie v Obama Indiana dismissed

    Read all about it

  185. nbc says:
    May 8, 2013 at 11:45 pm  (Quote)

    Read more about the lies and innuendos spread by some in the media and politics which are foolishly believed as facts by many gullible US citizens.

    THE MUSLIM MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE: BARACK OBAMA, RUMORS, AND QUOTIDIAN HERMENEUTICS by Bryan Adamson

    Backdrop: In a March, 2008, 60 Minutes segment, Steve Kroft interviewed Kenny Schoenholtz, an Ohio resident. He appeared to be working-class, white and middle-aged. The subject of the interview was the upcoming Democratic presidential primary. Steve Kroft asked which candidate Mr. Schoenholtz favored. Mr. Schoenholtz mused: “I’m leaning towards Obama.. .but I heard he doesn’t even know the national anthem.. .wouldn’t use the Holy Bible. He’s got his own beliefs, with the Muslim beliefs.” Kroft, almost interrupting, fired back, “You know that’s not true.” With his eyes fixed, chin quivering, and mouth trying to form a response, Mr. Schoenholtz finally said, “No? I’m just-this is what I’ve been told.”

  186. nbc says:
    May 9, 2013 at 12:16 am  (Quote)

    Read more about Bates on Citizenship here

    It is an error to suppose that citizenship is ever hereditary. It never “passes by descent.” It is as original in the child as it was in his parents. It is always either born with him or given to him directly by law.

    and

    f this be a true principle, and I do not doubt it, it follows that every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen;

    Another authority lays to rest the foolish idea that citizenship in our nation was determined by some vague international law….

  187. Monkey Boy says:
    May 9, 2013 at 4:39 am  (Quote)

    Heavens to Murgatroyd! Grizzled Mama’s “rack” (not the one in the pickup) may be store-bought.

    Check out the comments at the link if you think freakers are mean.

  188. Dave says:
    May 9, 2013 at 9:22 am  (Quote)

    Oh, not this again. Sometimes it seems that silly stories can never be laid to rest, they just keep rising from the grave like zombies to stumble around some more.

    Here’s the more or less definitive article on this subject, from Wonkette, three years ago: Women with breast implants speak out on Sarah Palin’s suspected breast implants.

    Monkey Boy:
    Heavens to Murgatroyd!Grizzled Mama’s “rack” (not the one in the pickup) may be store-bought.

  189. Suranis says:
    May 9, 2013 at 11:00 am  (Quote)

    Why did you make me look at Sarah Palins Boobs? Why?

  190. Majority Will says:
    May 9, 2013 at 12:14 pm  (Quote)

    Suranis:
    Why did you make me look at Sarah Palins Boobs? Why?

    Tit for tat? 😛

  191. Monkey Boy says:
    May 9, 2013 at 12:27 pm  (Quote)

    Dave:
    Oh, not this again. Sometimes it seems that silly stories can never be laid to rest, they just keep rising from the grave like zombies to stumble around some more.

    Here’s the more or less definitive article on this subject, from Wonkette, three years ago: Women with breast implants speak out on Sarah Palin’s suspected breast implants.

    How is it “definitive?”

  192. Suranis says:
    May 9, 2013 at 12:54 pm  (Quote)

    You actually want a definitive article examining Sarah Palin’s Boobs??

    Monkey Boy: How is it “definitive?”

  193. nbc says:
    May 9, 2013 at 1:19 pm  (Quote)

    Sibley is struggling again with the courts in DC. I have downloaded much of the relevant data and have started outlining why he is bound to fail again.

    See the blog

  194. Dave says:
    May 9, 2013 at 3:51 pm  (Quote)

    I thought it did a thorough job of summing up how silly the whole thing is.

    Monkey Boy: How is it “definitive?”

  195. dunstvangeet says:
    May 9, 2013 at 4:26 pm  (Quote)

    As far as previous chairs of the U.N. Security Council…

    Let me ask you this. All Ambassadors are part of the Executive Branch and get their authority from the powers of the President. They are the President’s representative to a paticular nation or international body. They are part of the government, and according to the Constitution are barred from accepting any office from any foreign government without the direct consent of congress. If this was truly fell under that clause, then every U.N. Ambassador would have been in violation of the constitution.

    Furthermore, we’ve had Sitting Vice Presidents (Al Gore), serving Secretaries of State (Madeline Albright, Hillary Clintion) and other officials who have not been appointed U.N. Ambassadors take this role. Tell me, were they in violation of the Constitution too? And if so, why did we hear nothing about it then?

  196. chancery says:
    May 9, 2013 at 5:13 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist:

    Now, I happen to think Cruz is loony and that the Constitution, as all legal contracts, contains an implicit sanity clause.So he is disqualified under that.

    “You can’t a fool a me there ain’t no sanity clause”

    Thanks for the slow high one!

  197. G says:
    May 9, 2013 at 5:40 pm  (Quote)

    I would say that it has just increased by yet another order of magnitude…

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    And thus the NRA’s reputation as a bunch of volatile crazies, remains intact.

  198. Monkey Boy says:
    May 9, 2013 at 6:56 pm  (Quote)

    Dave:
    I thought it did a thorough job of summing up how silly the whole thing is.

    I agree that it is trivial, though not necessarily silly. But, if someone thought that it was trivial, then they would just pass over it if they didn’t find it amusing. By attempting to disparage it by appealing to a nebulous authority, you indirectly confirmed the importance of it to you.

    I trust an even higher authority on this trivial matter–my own orbs.

  199. misha marinsky says:
    May 9, 2013 at 7:02 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: I happen to think Cruz is loony

    How many lawsuits will Orly, Mario and Paige file against Cruz when he runs?

    I say zero.

  200. G says:
    May 9, 2013 at 8:41 pm  (Quote)

    Agreed…

    For now, elements of the crazy Birther RWNJ faction are “opposing” these folks in theory…but should any of these conservative candidates run… well, let’s just say I expect a sudden silence to come from this hypocritical community and yeah, suddenly they’ll drop the whole issue. No, I certainly don’t expect there to be any real lawsuits from these folks against what they simply perceive as “their own side”…

    misha marinsky: How many lawsuits will Orly, Mario and Paige file against Cruz when he runs?

    I say zero.

  201. misha marinsky says:
    May 9, 2013 at 8:58 pm  (Quote)

    G: Agreed…

    …should any of these conservative candidates run… well, let’s just say I expect a sudden silence to come from this hypocritical community and yeah, suddenly they’ll drop the whole issue.No, I certainly don’t expect there to be any real lawsuits from these folks against what they simply perceive as “their own side”…

    I have sent e-mails to Mario and Brooke, asking when they will file lawsuits against Cruz. I also gave my mobile number to Brooke.

    No response. Why am I not surprised?
    ________________________________

    @Brooke, @Mario: Ted Cruz is planning to run for president.

    I trust you will file a lawsuit against him.

    Correct?

  202. Dave B. says:
    May 9, 2013 at 9:18 pm  (Quote)

    I just want to know whatever became of this one. David’s not telling.
    http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topics/i-will-file-against-mitt-romney-if-he-is-nominated

    misha marinsky: How many lawsuits will Orly, Mario and Paige file against Cruz when he runs?

    I say zero.

  203. misha marinsky says:
    May 9, 2013 at 10:19 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.: I just want to know whatever became of this one.David’s not telling.
    http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topics/i-will-file-against-mitt-romney-if-he-is-nominated

    Nothing. Davidette never filed.

    David’s not telling.

    “Dave’s not here.”

  204. The Magic M says:
    May 10, 2013 at 4:19 am  (Quote)

    G: let’s just say I expect a sudden silence to come from this hypocritical community and yeah, suddenly they’ll drop the whole issue

    They have made the appropriate exuses in advance over the last years. They will simply claim that they cannot challenge Cruz because Obama’s presidency set a precedent and so they can’t do anything until the Obama presidency is invalidated. I’ve read all this on birther sites before.

  205. Dave says:
    May 10, 2013 at 11:37 am  (Quote)

    An “authority”? Have you read Wonkette?

    I definitely was not appealing to any authority, nebulous or otherwise. I was disparaging it by quoting a comedy site that mocked it. And I thought it was pretty funny.

    Monkey Boy: By attempting to disparage it by appealing to a nebulous authority, you indirectly confirmed the importance of it to you.

  206. Arthur says:
    May 10, 2013 at 2:17 pm  (Quote)

    Senator Inhofe suggests Obama may be impeached.

    “Calling last year’s deadly attack in Benghazi, Libya the ‘most egregious cover-up in American history,’ Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) predicted Thursday that President Barack Obama will soon face calls of impeachment.

    “’Of all the great cover-ups in history — the Pentagon papers, the Iran-Contra, Watergate and all the rest of them — this … is going to go down as the most serious, the most egregious cover-up in American history,’ Inhofe said during an appearance on The Rusty Humphries Show.”

    http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/inhofe-suggests-obama-may-be-impeached-over-benghazi?ref=fpb

  207. nbc says:
    May 10, 2013 at 3:41 pm  (Quote)

    Such hypocrites

    Wow…

    And Fox News… What if… Such hypocrites…

  208. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    May 10, 2013 at 5:45 pm  (Quote)

    A person like that has no place holding a position of authority in the United States.

    Arthur: “Calling last year’s deadly attack in Benghazi, Libya the ‘most egregious cover-up in American history,’ Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) predicted Thursday that President Barack Obama will soon face calls of impeachment.

    “’Of all the great cover-ups in history — the Pentagon papers, the Iran-Contra, Watergate and all the rest of them — this … is going to go down as the most serious, the most egregious cover-up in American history,’ Inhofe said during an appearance on The Rusty Humphries Show.”

  209. Arthur says:
    May 10, 2013 at 6:02 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    A person like that has no place holding a position of authority in the United States.

    At least one commenter at ORYR agrees with you, but not in the way one might expect. He writes,

    “Inhofe is a dirtbag. He was confronted by some constituents a few years ago and they begged him to open a look at investigating BO on his forged draft card, social security number and news reports that included the BBC and NPR that he was born in Kenya. He told them it would take years to complete and wasn’t interested. I suppose NOW THAT PEOPLE ARE DEAD dammit, this POS thinks there might be enough ammo for impeachment. Jim can go square to hell. If congress opened an investigation on BO years ago he would not have survived a second election and these people and seal team 6 might be alive as well.

    “The Pentagon is full of muslims and it is my understanding the CIA terror director imam Brennan is a muslim convert. Gee, I wonder if the CIA under CIA Imam Brennan ordered the ops that found seal team 6 in a deadly helicopter crash?”

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/05/audio-sen-jim-inhofe-benghazi-cover-up.html#idc-container

  210. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    May 10, 2013 at 6:07 pm  (Quote)

    I’m not sure why lots of comments are going into moderation. It’s not an intentional change in site policy.

  211. nbc says:
    May 10, 2013 at 6:09 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: A person like that has no place holding a position of authority in the United States.

    Inhofe has shown to be totally clueless on many issues. So why do people elect him?

  212. Suranis says:
    May 10, 2013 at 7:50 pm  (Quote)

    And he indulged in a nice bit of sexism too

    Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., said that Hillary Clinton showed a “forceful attitude” not usually heard from women when she blew up in January’s Senate hearings on Benghazi, in response to repeated questions about the State Department’s initial claims that the attacks were the result of protests.

    “I think that she has gotten by with that type of a forceful attitude, something that’s not normally accustomed — that you don’t hear from women as much as you do men. And she came out so forcefully, and you could tell that it was orchestrated at the time that she said it,” Inhofe said in an interview Thursday on “The Rusty Humphries Show.”

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    A person like that has no place holding a position of authority in the United States.

  213. CarlOrcas says:
    May 10, 2013 at 7:59 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: A person like that has no place holding a position of authority in the United States.

    Amen!

  214. Northland10 says:
    May 10, 2013 at 9:36 pm  (Quote)

    Arthur quoting an ORYR comment: “Inhofe is a dirtbag. He was confronted by some constituents a few years ago and they begged him to open a look at investigating BO on his forged draft card, social security number and news reports that included the BBC and NPR that he was born in Kenya.

    Still pouting over Miki’s fail in getting Inhofe to go Birther.

  215. Northland10 says:
    May 10, 2013 at 9:38 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I’m not sure why lots of comments are going into moderation. It’s not an intentional change in site policy.

    I see what you mean.. either that, or you have a boring commenter filter. 🙂

  216. Northland10 says:
    May 10, 2013 at 9:45 pm  (Quote)

    Doc, quoting a comment seems to be the problem. I just did a comment without a quote, since deleted, and it went through fine. Your moderation filter may be picking up any link, including the one in the quote, as needing moderation.

  217. Dave says:
    May 10, 2013 at 10:02 pm  (Quote)

    And I thought that you had a clever filter that detected how egregiously off-topic my comment was. I guess that was just my guilty conscience talking.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I’m not sure why lots of comments are going into moderation. It’s not an intentional change in site policy.

  218. misha marinsky says:
    May 10, 2013 at 11:35 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: Inhofe has shown to be totally clueless…So why do people elect him?

    Look at his district. It’s not a mystery.

  219. Monkey Boy says:
    May 11, 2013 at 6:34 am  (Quote)

    Dave:
    An “authority”? Have you read Wonkette?

    I definitely was not appealing to any authority, nebulous or otherwise. I was disparaging it by quoting a comedy site that mocked it. And I thought it was pretty funny.

    No offense there; just like I mock silly-azzed birthers and Palin panty sniffers.

  220. donna says:
    May 11, 2013 at 7:24 am  (Quote)

    in this segment of maddow’s show last night, she profiles the numerous instances in which republicans called for obama’s impeachment beginning in march, 2009 with michael savage – (had obama even unpacked yet?) the instances include every reason from a dictatorship, to his birth certificate, to the vegetable soup from WND and includes the russians & inhofe –

    just do it as bachmann said “whether or not this (the financial reform bill) is an impeachable offense is one that congress would have to make a determination on” or as michael burgess said “he wasn’t sure whether the proper charges to bring articles of impeachment against obama were there, but he didn’t rule out pursuing such a course”

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/#51849144

  221. Monkey Boy says:
    May 11, 2013 at 8:14 am  (Quote)

    Suranis:
    Why did you make me look at Sarah Palins Boobs? Why?

    Don’t complain. I might have directed you to THIS!

    I’d like to see stfujoe encounter that in a “black alley.”

  222. Majority Will says:
    May 11, 2013 at 11:51 am  (Quote)

    Monkey Boy: I’d like to see stfujoe encounter that in a “black alley.”

    “stfujoe” Instant classic.

  223. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    May 11, 2013 at 12:04 pm  (Quote)

    Lol the latest from Mike Zullo? That the green safety paper on the LFBC didn’t exist in 1961 so it must be a forgery! Good lord is he stupid.

  224. Reality Check says:
    May 11, 2013 at 12:15 pm  (Quote)

    DId he really say that?

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater:
    Lol the latest from Mike Zullo?That the green safety paper on the LFBC didn’t exist in 1961 so it must be a forgery!Good lord is he stupid.

  225. Suranis says:
    May 11, 2013 at 12:43 pm  (Quote)

    Wow, thats conclusive evidence right there. COMMENCE THE MARCHING OF FROGS FORTHWITH!

  226. misha marinsky says:
    May 11, 2013 at 1:11 pm  (Quote)

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: the latest from Mike Zullo?That the green safety paper on the LFBC didn’t exist in 1961 so it must be a forgery!Good lord is he stupid.

    What do you expect from a used car salesman?

  227. donna says:
    May 11, 2013 at 1:30 pm  (Quote)

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Lol the latest from Mike Zullo? That the green safety paper on the LFBC didn’t exist in 1961 so it must be a forgery! Good lord is he stupid.

    what’s next? we were using the aramaic alphabet in 1961? or just in hawaii?

  228. CarlOrcas says:
    May 11, 2013 at 1:50 pm  (Quote)

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater:
    Lol the latest from Mike Zullo?That the green safety paper on the LFBC didn’t exist in 1961 so it must be a forgery!Good lord is he stupid.

    The only source I find for this piece of nonsense is an article in Sonoran News http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2013/130501/news-obama.html which is not exactly a reliable news source even when they appear to be quoting someone.

    I can’t believe Zullo is really THAT stupid….but I could be convinced.

  229. Suranis says:
    May 11, 2013 at 2:52 pm  (Quote)

    I also have it on good authority that PDFs didn’t exist in 1961

  230. Majority Will says:
    May 11, 2013 at 3:04 pm  (Quote)

    CarlOrcas: The only source I find for this piece of nonsense is an article in Sonoran News http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2013/130501/news-obama.html which is not exactly a reliable news source even when they appear to be quoting someone.

    I can’t believe Zullo is really THAT stupid….but I could be convinced.

    It would take Zullo several months just to alphabetize a bag of M & M’s.

  231. misha marinsky says:
    May 11, 2013 at 3:05 pm  (Quote)

    CarlOrcas: I can’t believe Zullo is really THAT stupid….but I could be convinced.

    Believe it.

  232. misha marinsky says:
    May 11, 2013 at 3:31 pm  (Quote)

    Suranis: I also have it on good authority that PDFs didn’t exist in 1961

    You are a communist.

  233. nbc says:
    May 11, 2013 at 3:32 pm  (Quote)

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Lol the latest from Mike Zullo? That the green safety paper on the LFBC didn’t exist in 1961 so it must be a forgery! Good lord is he stupid.

    Really? That’s exactly the kind of ignorance I would have expected and yet it is still shocking. But did he say this? Really?..

    Any references to this? Gallups’ show? Please do not force me to have to listen to that fool…

  234. Reality Check says:
    May 11, 2013 at 4:16 pm  (Quote)

    Thanks CarlOrcas. Either Linda Bentley misunderstood Zullo or he really is that stupid. Or both!

    Lina Bentley and Mike Zullo – a marriage made in – well somewhere.

  235. Dave B. says:
    May 11, 2013 at 4:35 pm  (Quote)

    Ah, if only it were mere stupidity that plagues Zullo, and by which he in turn plagues us. That mendacious so-and-so used to walk around with the authority to arrest people.

    CarlOrcas: I can’t believe Zullo is really THAT stupid….but I could be convinced.

  236. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    May 11, 2013 at 4:46 pm  (Quote)

    OK, I’m pretty sure that the moderation problem is fixed.

  237. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    May 11, 2013 at 4:51 pm  (Quote)

    Well, remember that birthers said the short form was a fake because they didn’t have laser printers in 1961.

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Lol the latest from Mike Zullo? That the green safety paper on the LFBC didn’t exist in 1961 so it must be a forgery! Good lord is he stupid.

  238. CarlOrcas says:
    May 11, 2013 at 5:45 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.:
    Ah, if only it were mere stupidity that plagues Zullo, and by which he in turn plagues us.That mendacious so-and-so used to walk around with the authority to arrest people.

    I wish I could figure out what motivates him. I don’t think it’s money. Ego? The limelight?

  239. G says:
    May 11, 2013 at 7:09 pm  (Quote)

    Yeah, I have a sad feeling that the next round of “obama conspiracies” are going to be nothing more than a bunch of trumped up witch hunts, looking for any possible smear angle to push cynical “impeachment” attempts and continue to impede any sort of progress in congress…*sigh*.

    These folks certainly put party before country every time. What a bunch of miserable sore losers.

    donna: in this segment of maddow’s show last night, she profiles the numerous instances in which republicans called for obama’s impeachment beginning in march, 2009 with michael savage – (had obama even unpacked yet?) the instances include every reason from a dictatorship, to his birth certificate, to the vegetable soup from WND and includes the russians & inhofe –

  240. G says:
    May 11, 2013 at 7:22 pm  (Quote)

    The “limelight”. These losers are desperate for whatever pathetic 15 min of fame they can get. SImple as that.

    CarlOrcas: I wish I could figure out what motivates him. I don’t think it’s money. Ego? The limelight?

  241. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    May 11, 2013 at 10:10 pm  (Quote)

    CarlOrcas: The only source I find for this piece of nonsense is an article in Sonoran News http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2013/130501/news-obama.html which is not exactly a reliable news source even when they appear to be quoting someone.

    I can’t believe Zullo is really THAT stupid….but I could be convinced.

    Carl you know how these things work in birtherstan though it’s now gospel. If you just google this line “Zullo pointed out the birth certificate is printed on safety paper that was never used”

    It shows up all over birtherstan as being true.

  242. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    May 11, 2013 at 10:12 pm  (Quote)

    Reality Check:
    Thanks CarlOrcas. Either Linda Bentley misunderstood Zullo or he really is that stupid. Or both!

    Lina Bentley and Mike Zullo – a marriage made in – well somewhere.

    It’s not surprising in the slightest. Remember this is the guy who announced that Hawaii was a national security problem because he thought they were issuing birth certificates that said born in Hawaii on them to foreigners and automatically making them citizens.

  243. misha marinsky says:
    May 11, 2013 at 10:53 pm  (Quote)

    CarlOrcas: The only source I find for this piece of nonsense is an article in Sonoran News

    The Sonoran News is a famous publication, right along with Shopping Center News.

  244. CarlOrcas says:
    May 11, 2013 at 10:54 pm  (Quote)

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Carl you know how these things work in birtherstan though it’s now gospel.If you just google this line “Zullo pointed out the birth certificate is printed on safety paper that was never used”

    It shows up all over birtherstan as being true.

    Yes, it’s fascinating to watch how these things spread across hundreds of websites in a matter of hours. There’s not a skeptical molecule in all of Birtherstan.

  245. misha marinsky says:
    May 11, 2013 at 10:56 pm  (Quote)

    CarlOrcas: I wish I could figure out what motivates him. I don’t think it’s money. Ego? The limelight?

    Limelight. He gets to sit at the head of the table in Denny’s, and the credulous hang on to every word. It’s the same thing with Hagee.

  246. Dave B. says:
    May 11, 2013 at 11:09 pm  (Quote)

    Not to be confused with the world-famous Sonoran hot dog.

    misha marinsky: The Sonoran News is a famous publication, right along with Shopping Center News.

  247. Keith says:
    May 11, 2013 at 11:11 pm  (Quote)

    Speaking of impeaching the President:

    Obama Proven Right as CBO Finds GOP Backed Spending Cuts Don’t Reduce Debt

    One conservative group, Capitol Hill Daily, sent a letter to Citizen United’s listserv accusing President Obama of “wrecking the stock market” and called for impeaching the President; because Wall Street is thriving in record fashion. In fact, the wealthy and their corporations have taken all the benefits of recovery as the rest of the population continues their downward spiral into poverty that Republicans are accelerating at a record pace.

    A little over two weeks ago, a Pew Research Center analysis of newly released Census Bureau data revealed that the net worth of households in the upper 7% of Americans rose by 28%, while the net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by over 4% as a result of Republicans’ job-killing debt and deficit reduction canard. The records only covered the period between 2009 and 2011, and with Republicans hammering away at the bottom 93% with Draconian cuts and job-killing policies such as the sequester, the masses have certainly lost more wealth that flowed directly to the rich. Still, with what should have been good news for Republicans that their favorite Americans, the wealthy and Wall Street, have taken all the recovery while the rest of the country falls deeper into poverty, conservatives want to impeach the President and it can only be because the rich have yet to control all of the nation’s wealth. In order to achieve that goal, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are plotting to impose harsher cuts on the great majority of Americans and give the wealthy and corporations what little is left as a means of reducing the debt and deficit that is falling and it is the other news Republicans cannot be thrilled about.

    And that concerns me more than Bengazi or the IRS audit priorities.

  248. Suranis says:
    May 11, 2013 at 11:54 pm  (Quote)

    Yeah but the CBO has been taken over by radical leftists dontchaknow.

  249. misha marinsky says:
    May 12, 2013 at 12:59 am  (Quote)

    Sarah Palin was happy Castro was arrested because, she said, Cuba could now be free.

  250. Thinker says:
    May 12, 2013 at 3:32 pm  (Quote)

    This guy “rickoff” at Energetic Forum gives the definitive analysis of the safety paper as proof that Obama’s LFBC is fake. http://www.energeticforum.com/139155-post1636.html

  251. CarlOrcas says:
    May 12, 2013 at 3:44 pm  (Quote)

    Thinker:
    This guy “rickoff” at Energetic Forum gives the definitive analysis of the safety paper as proof that Obama’s LFBC is fake. http://www.energeticforum.com/139155-post1636.html

    Wow. He gives stupid a bad name.

  252. Thinker says:
    May 12, 2013 at 3:52 pm  (Quote)

    LOL. Note that rickoff’s analysis is rooted in the same obviously incorrect premise that Hermitian’s “forgery of a forgery” theory is. He doesn’t seem to understand the a pdf and a piece of paper are fundamentally different things.

    CarlOrcas: Wow. He gives stupid a bad name.

  253. Suranis says:
    May 12, 2013 at 11:35 pm  (Quote)

    By the way, the TSA is looking for comments on its “Advanced Imaging Technology.” If you wish to comment on some minimum wage-slave looking at your genitalia, you can find out how here.

    http://epic.org/TSAcomment/

  254. G says:
    May 13, 2013 at 2:11 am  (Quote)

    Yeah, they are certainly some of the biggest hypocrites out there. Always “skeptical” of anything by anyone they perceive as “not one of their own”…

    …But hey, any mudslinging anonymous story or rumor, no matter how crazy it is – as long as it is casting aspersions against what they perceive as “the other”…well, heck, that’s simply “gospel truth” to them there folks…to endlessly spoon feed their faux outrage and paranoid fantasies, as they simply can’t accept a reality that doesn’t fit their immature and ill-conceived faux entitlement mentalities…

    CarlOrcas: Yes, it’s fascinating to watch how these things spread across hundreds of websites in a matter of hours. There’s not a skeptical molecule in all of Birtherstan.

  255. nbc says:
    May 13, 2013 at 2:35 am  (Quote)

    Suranis:
    By the way, the TSA is looking for comments on its “Advanced Imaging Technology.” If you wish to comment on some minimum wage-slave looking at your genitalia, you can find out how here.

    http://epic.org/TSAcomment/

    At least they should give me a copy for personal use, no?

  256. The Magic M says:
    May 13, 2013 at 6:03 am  (Quote)

    donna: what’s next? we were using the aramaic alphabet in 1961? or just in hawaii?

    Hawaii didn’t exist in 1961*. I mean, WERE YOU THERE?
    Also, missing dinosaur footprint on the BC is dead giveaway of forgery.

    ____
    * If you think that’d be too stupid for birthers, I’ve read some claim that because Hawaii was “illegally annexed”, it never legally became a US state, so even if Obama was born there, he wouldn’t be an NBC. Yup, that’s what we’d read daily if there was no Kenyan connection and no Vattelism.

  257. Scientist says:
    May 13, 2013 at 6:57 am  (Quote)

    The Magic M: * If you think that’d be too stupid for birthers, I’ve read some claim that because Hawaii was “illegally annexed”, it never legally became a US state, so even if Obama was born there, he wouldn’t be an NBC. Yup, that’s what we’d read daily if there was no Kenyan connection and no Vattelism.

    To be honest, I have found that to be the only birther argument that actually has a touch of validity. Under modern day international law, the US takeover of Hawaii would probably not pass muster, and would not be recognized by the UN or by most nations. Of course, neither would the European colonization of North America and the ethnic cleansing of native peoples, nor the annexation of land from Mexico. So, with the proviso that the existence of the United States itself is illegal, then, yes, Hawaii reverts to being an independent nation.

  258. Judge Mental says:
    May 13, 2013 at 8:16 am  (Quote)

    Thinker:
    This guy “rickoff” at Energetic Forum gives the definitive analysis of the safety paper as proof that Obama’s LFBC is fake. http://www.energeticforum.com/139155-post1636.html

    That is from 2011 so perhaps there is hope that he is more rational now. On the other hand there is a post from him on the next page to the one above which conveys a sense that he is probably too far gone into lalaland. It includes the following….

    …….”there really is no compelling evidence that any large aircraft struck the WTC Twin Towers, the Pentagon, or crashed at Shanksville. In fact, the actual evidence is overwhelmingly against such occurrences”….

    All together now on the count of three….synchronised face palm and groan…..1….2…..

  259. Judge Mental says:
    May 13, 2013 at 8:21 am  (Quote)

    Doc….couldn’t quote the thinker or carl orcas as when I try to the auto moderation insists it is spam lol.

    My post was about Rickoff’s daft energeticforum post.

  260. Jim says:
    May 13, 2013 at 11:22 am  (Quote)

    Looks like Savannah Guthrie has gotten engaged…

    http://omg.yahoo.com/blogs/relationships/today-show-savannah-guthrie-gets-engaged-131240016.html

    This should be good for a couple more conspiracy theories from Birfstani.

  261. Suranis says:
    May 13, 2013 at 11:30 am  (Quote)

    That should break a few birther hearts.

    “Savannah Guthrie is gifted a Man in payment for betraying our country!! Despite the fact we all know she is a lezzo.”

  262. The Magic M says:
    May 13, 2013 at 12:26 pm  (Quote)

    OMG, she’s engaged to FORGER MIKE????

    *lol*

  263. Suranis says:
    May 13, 2013 at 4:16 pm  (Quote)

    It all FITS!!

  264. Majority Will says:
    May 13, 2013 at 9:42 pm  (Quote)

    IRS and Benghazi Scandals Give Birther, Anti-Immigrant Impeach Obama Groups New Legs

    (excerpt) The Conservative Majority Fund, a group known for its birther theories about the president, has a running petition asking Congress to impeach Obama. The group has been pushing impeachment since the days after Obama won his second term, when it launched a robocall campaign to draw support. On its website, the group asks supporters to think about whether Obama is “exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office” or engaging in “behavior grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office.”

    The fund previously produced an ad questioning Obama’s college records, social security number and birth certificate.

    http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/05/13/irs-and-benghazi-scandals-give-birther-anti-immigrant-impeach-obama-groups-new-legs

  265. gorefan says:
    May 13, 2013 at 10:58 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will: IRS and Benghazi Scandals Give Birther, Anti-Immigrant Impeach Obama Groups New Legs

    Here is how it is working out for them.

    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/05/voters-trust-clinton-over-gop-on-benghazi.html

    “One interesting thing about the voters who think Benghazi is the biggest political scandal in American history is that 39% of them don’t actually know where it is. 10% think it’s in Egypt, 9% in Iran, 6% in Cuba, 5% in Syria, 4% in Iraq, and 1% each in North Korea and Liberia with 4% not willing to venture a guess. ”

  266. Majority Will says:
    May 13, 2013 at 11:00 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: Here is how it is working out for them.

    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/05/voters-trust-clinton-over-gop-on-benghazi.html

    “One interesting thing about the voters who think Benghazi is the biggest political scandal in American history is that 39% of them don’t actually know where it is. 10% think it’s in Egypt, 9% in Iran, 6% in Cuba, 5% in Syria, 4% in Iraq, and 1% each in North Korea and Liberia with 4% not willing to venture a guess.”

    Idiots.

  267. Suranis says:
    May 13, 2013 at 11:15 pm  (Quote)

    So the voters actually trust Hillary Clinton on Bengazi after months of concerted effort by the GOP and every media mogul in the land? That’s got to sting.

    It seems the only thing the GOP can do successfully is not doing anything. And naming post offices.

  268. donna says:
    May 13, 2013 at 11:27 pm  (Quote)

    “impeachment” chatter began in march, 2009 – had obama unpacked?

    3/2009 michael savage: impeachment of obama’s dictatorship

    10/2009 wing nuts daily: impeach obama when you sign the impeach obama petition

    7/2010 tom tancredo: impeach obama over immigration

    michelle bachmann: impeach obama over the financial reform bill “whether or not this is an impeachable offense is one that congress would have to make a determination on”

    10/2010 tim walberg: impeach obama to obtain his “real” birth certificate

    2/2011 newt: impeach obama over DOMA

    12/2011 sensenbrenner: impeach obama over fast and furious

    7/2011 tim scott and steve king: impeach obama over raising the debt limit

    8/2011 michael burgess: tie obama’s hand so he can’t get anything and then use that as a reason for impeachment – when asked about the comment later he said “he wasn’t sure whether the proper charges to bring articles of impeachment against obama were there, but he didn’t rule out pursuing such a course”

    2012 the russians: impeach obama or there will be thermonuclear war with russia

    1/2012 norquist: impeach obama if he doesn’t extend the bush tax cuts

    1/2012 trey radal & steve stockman: impeach obama over guns

    2/2013 wing nuts daily: impeach obama over fast & furious, drones, recess appointments, czars, suing arizona, the dream act, cap & trade, DOMA, benghazi, war in libya, guns, the new black panthers ………… pick a winner

    5/7/2013 The Day Stock Market Sets New Record, Republicans Float Impeach Obama For ‘Wrecking The Stock Market’

    5/2013 inhofe: impeach obama over benghazi because of all of the great cover-ups …. pentagon papers, iran-contra, watergate, etc this is the most serious, most egregious in american history – no mention of the numerous attacks under bush

    the revisions of the benghazi talking points, posted by abc, have been out there since february when brenner was asked about them during his confirmation hearing but, suddenly, this is new

    the january ARB report placed blame on the state department – hillary took responsibility

  269. gorefan says:
    May 13, 2013 at 11:41 pm  (Quote)

    Suranis:
    So the voters actually trust Hillary Clinton on Bengazi after months of concerted effort by the GOP and every media mogul in the land? That’s got to sting.

    Explanation for the hearings

    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/05/republicans-hold-hearings-about-hillary-clintons-poll-numbers.html?mbid=nl_Borowitz%20(118)

  270. Majority Will says:
    May 14, 2013 at 4:23 pm  (Quote)

    Full White House Benghazi Email Undermines GOP’s Cover-Up Claims

    http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/14/2009571/cnn-benghazi-emails/

  271. The Magic M says:
    May 15, 2013 at 6:11 am  (Quote)

    … which doesn’t stop Pam Gellar from inserting a nice little propaganda lie in the story:

    http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/05/white-house-email-bombshell-obamas-benghazi-lies-reflect-fear-of-messaging-ramifications/

    Gellar: “Obama is calling Benghazi a “sideshow.” Dead Americans and an attack on our consulate on September 11, 2012 is a “sideshow“?”

    The funny part is she links to a page that says “Obama calls Benghazi controversy a ‘sideshow'”.

    But as you can see in the comments section, the RWNJ base is sucking up her dishonest paraphrasing like gospel.

  272. Majority Will says:
    May 15, 2013 at 7:12 am  (Quote)

    The Magic M:
    … which doesn’t stop Pam Gellar from inserting a nice little propaganda lie in the story:

    http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/05/white-house-email-bombshell-obamas-benghazi-lies-reflect-fear-of-messaging-ramifications/

    Gellar: “Obama is calling Benghazi a “sideshow.” Dead Americans and an attack on our consulate on September 11, 2012 is a “sideshow“?”

    The funny part is she links to a page that says “Obama calls Benghazi controversy a ‘sideshow’”.

    But as you can see in the comments section, the RWNJ base is sucking up her dishonest paraphrasing like gospel.

    Some seriously disturbed jackasses in the comments section.

  273. nbc says:
    May 15, 2013 at 4:25 pm  (Quote)

    Klayman has filed the Zullo (not Arpaio) daffydavit as an attachment to a motion to strike the Amicus Brief. ROTFL… Not only does Klayman complain that the brief tried to introduce inappropriate evidence but also now he wants the court to take the clearly irrelevant affidavit…

    Do these people not understand the rules of evidence?

  274. nbc says:
    May 15, 2013 at 8:06 pm  (Quote)

    The White House released 100 pages of emails which appear to end the talking points by the GOP suggesting anything nefarious happened

    Thinkprogess

    In the very first of the declassified emails in the set, the CIA is revealed to have willingly struck references to Al Qaeda’s involvement in the attack, a deletion that conservatives have previously slammed as political in nature. A CIA official, responding to an inquiry about whether or not the Agency was sure that Al Qaeda took part in the attack, noted that the initial draft “could be interpreted that way,” suggesting that the document be revised to say that terrorist group took part in the protests instead. The CIA was also under “express instructions” to avoid naming perpetrators so to not to undermine the FBI’s investigation, according to an email from Sept. 14.

    So the CIA revised the reference to Al Qaeda so as not to interfere with the FBI investigation.

    The addition of ‘demonstrations’ completed before the document was shared.

    The addition of references to “demonstrations,” another email shows, was completed before the document was sent out to the rest of the government, as was that the attack was “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.” The fact that no protest actually occurred in Benghazi prior to the attack was used as another data point that the Obama administration was hiding something about its response to the attack. Rather than being political, however, it appears the CIA made the changes to make the talking points more accurate based on what information was currently available, a situation that is often the case when dealing with intelligence.

    White House did not remove mentions to extremists

    John Brennan, then the White House Advisor on Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and now the CIA Director, reviewed the talking points as well, but didn’t perform the scrubbing many conservatives have suggested the White House enacted. Instead, Brennan left in place a reference to “Islamic extremists” in his suggested edit, undercutting the notion that the administration wanted to hide the nature of the attack. In fact, the White House, according to an email to then-CIA Director “cleared [the document] quickly.” Over the course of the next day, after State and Justice were looped in, the turf war that has been previously reported played out.

    I predict Scott.e will not be coming around for a while, licking his wounds. So now we know that the response of the Government was prompt, and that the edits were not politically motivated.

    All that is remains is the reduction in funding by the GOP led Congress for safety of Embassies… Will they censure themselves?

  275. Majority Will says:
    May 15, 2013 at 8:43 pm  (Quote)

    Geography of Hate – Geotagged Hateful Tweets in the United States

    Interactive Map of the U.S. revealing bigoted, hate filled slurs:

    http://users.humboldt.edu/mstephens/hate/hate_map.html#

  276. Keith says:
    May 16, 2013 at 12:32 am  (Quote)

    Majority Will:
    Geography of Hate – Geotagged Hateful Tweets in the United States

    Interactive Map of the U.S. revealing bigoted, hate filled slurs:

    http://users.humboldt.edu/mstephens/hate/hate_map.html#

    Interesting.

    For some reason I had a look at the light blue hot spot in south west Wyoming in more detail. The marks are aggregated by county, and that mark seems to be on top of Sweetwater County. There’s something over 43,000 folks in Sweetwater county, more than half in Rock Springs and most of the rest in Green River. There must be one or two of those folks doing a heck of a lot of hate tweets to show up on the map.

    On the other hand, Arizona has a similar light blue hot spot, apparently in La Paz County. La Paz has an even smaller population, just over 20,000. So there must be some sore twitter fingers in La Paz too. Weird.

    The Oregon red hot spot interested me too. Portland is known as a fairly friendly city for gays, but this how spot was farther west, in Wasco County or maybe Hood River or Sherman. I found this from 2007 : A rural county says NO to the homophobes!. Maybe there still a few butt-hurt (pun intended) folks around Wasco.

  277. Lupin says:
    May 16, 2013 at 3:15 am  (Quote)

    The Magic M: which doesn’t stop Pam Gellar from inserting a nice little propaganda lie in the story:

    Pam “Atlas” Gellar is beyond words. The one thing that astounds me the most about her is that she pals around with European neonazis somehow thinking they’re her friends, when to them she is only a potential lampshade. It’s a degree of cluelessness I have rarely if ever seen.

  278. Lupin says:
    May 16, 2013 at 3:16 am  (Quote)

    Scientist: To be honest, I have found that to be the only birther argument that actually has a touch of validity. Under modern day international law, the US takeover of Hawaii would probably not pass muster, and would not be recognized by the UN or by most nations. Of course, neither would the European colonization of North America and the ethnic cleansing of native peoples, nor the annexation of land from Mexico. So, with the proviso that the existence of the United States itself is illegal, then, yes, Hawaii reverts to being an independent nation.

    But even if Hawai’i had been an independent nation then, wouldn’t the fact that Obama’s mom was a US citizen been enough?

  279. Majority Will says:
    May 16, 2013 at 5:45 am  (Quote)

    Keith: Interesting.

    For some reason I had a look at the light blue hot spot in south west Wyoming in more detail. The marks are aggregated by county, and that mark seems to be on top of Sweetwater County. There’s something over 43,000 folks in Sweetwater county, more than half in Rock Springs and most of the rest in Green River. There must be one or two of those folks doing a heck of a lot of hate tweets to show up on the map.

    On the other hand, Arizona has a similar light blue hot spot, apparently in La Paz County. La Paz has an even smaller population, just over 20,000. So there must be some sore twitter fingers in La Paz too. Weird.

    The Oregon red hot spot interested me too. Portland is known as a fairly friendly city for gays, but this how spot was farther west, in Wasco County or maybe Hood River or Sherman. I found this from 2007 : A rural county says NO to the homophobes!. Maybe there still a few butt-hurt (pun intended) folks around Wasco.

    I’m sorry to see the state of Georgia lit up so prominently. Far too many regressives and birther bigots.

    But some are bravely trying to change their ways:

    Students hold Georgia school’s 1st racially integrated prom

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/29/17967090-students-hold-georgia-schools-1st-racially-integrated-prom?lite

  280. Scientist says:
    May 16, 2013 at 6:29 am  (Quote)

    Lupin: But even if Hawai’i had been an independent nation then, wouldn’t the fact that Obama’s mom was a US citizen been enough?

    If Hawai’i had been an independent nation, the Dunhams would most likely have stayed in Seattle. Of course, if we apply modern day law, the entire European colonization of the Americas would never have been permitted, the US would not exist and Obama’s mother would have been born in England and have been a British citizen. There is no end to where we might end up if we try to apply birther logic.

  281. misha marinsky says:
    May 16, 2013 at 8:45 am  (Quote)

    Lupin: But even if Hawai’i had been an independent nation then, wouldn’t the fact that Obama’s mom was a US citizen been enough?

    Only for Ted Cruz.

  282. misha marinsky says:
    May 16, 2013 at 8:46 am  (Quote)

    Scientist: There is no end to where we might end up if we try to apply birther logic.

    Mars.

  283. Dave says:
    May 16, 2013 at 8:47 am  (Quote)

    I want to suggest a candidate for Birther Quote of the Day. At a hearing yesterday of the house Judiciary Committee, Rep. Louie Gohmert became angry at some comments of Attorney General Holder and said: “The attorney general will not cast aspersions on my asparagus.”

  284. The Magic M says:
    May 16, 2013 at 8:51 am  (Quote)

    Scientist: To be honest, I have found that to be the only birther argument that actually has a touch of validity.

    I think it doesn’t because of the good old “normative power of the factual” (which is the logical foundation of the de facto officer doctrine as well). As you said, you can’t simply retroactively undo decades or even centuries simply because you found one legal incorrectness – in other words, there is no domino effect in international law.

    No court or legal expert would entertain the notion that because something went wrong 100 years ago, millions of people who have been considered US citizens at birth are suddenly not even citizens anymore.

    So even if the basis (the claim Hawaii was illegally annexed) were valid, the claimed consequence (that Obama wasn’t born in the US even if born in Hawaii) would not be.

    For the same reason, nobody supported Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait because it was allegedly still Iraqi soil, or China’s claim to Taiwan, or any claim Germany might have to its former Eastern territories, or would support any Italian claim to the borders of the times of the Roman empire simply because somebody finds one legal omission in 2,000 years of history.

    I remember vividly how, after Germany’s reunification, some people tried to sue for damages for the land that was taken away from them by the Russians between 1945 and 1949. They all failed, based on the principles outlined above.

  285. misha marinsky says:
    May 16, 2013 at 9:12 am  (Quote)

    Dave: Rep. Louie Gohmert became angry at some comments of Attorney General Holder and said: “The attorney general will not cast aspersions on my asparagus.”

    “There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.” —Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

    Something about Republicans and grammar.

  286. Lupin says:
    May 16, 2013 at 9:45 am  (Quote)

    Dave:
    I want to suggest a candidate for Birther Quote of the Day. At a hearing yesterday of the house Judiciary Committee, Rep. Louie Gohmert became angry at some comments of Attorney General Holder and said: “The attorney general will not cast aspersions on my asparagus.”

    It’s still better than caressing his celeri.

  287. Greenfinches says:
    May 16, 2013 at 9:51 am  (Quote)

    Judge Mental: there really is no compelling evidence that any large aircraft struck the WTC Twin Towers, the Pentagon,

    didn’t we see this live on tv? millions of us?

    or do we wake up now, and hear Bobby in the shower????

  288. Scientist says:
    May 16, 2013 at 10:23 am  (Quote)

    The Magic M: I think it doesn’t because of the good old “normative power of the factual” (which is the logical foundation of the de facto officer doctrine as well). As you said, you can’t simply retroactively undo decades or even centuries simply because you found one legal incorrectness – in other words, there is no domino effect in international law.

    Certainly. I would simply point out that real international law says nothing about how many citizen parents one needs to be US President, but it most certainly does have quite a bit to say about countries staging coup d’etats to overthrow legitimate governments (which the Hawaiian monarchy was) in order to annex territory. Thus, the “Hawaii’s annexation was illegal” crowd is closer to being on solid ground than the pseudo-Vattellians. They are both standing in a pit of quicksand, but one group is a step nearer the edge. Both are still sunk, though.

  289. Majority Will says:
    May 16, 2013 at 10:26 am  (Quote)

    Greenfinches: didn’t we see this live on tv?millions of us?

    or do we wake up now, and hear Bobby in the shower????

    Nice FG reference.

  290. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    May 16, 2013 at 1:51 pm  (Quote)

    Texas birther bill HB 650 left pending in committee:

    http://legiscan.com/TX/bill/HB650

  291. W. Kevin Vicklund says:
    May 16, 2013 at 2:16 pm  (Quote)

    I actually don’t have a problem with (the concept of) birther bill’s, provided they are properly implemented and have a means of timely adjudication of disputes over qualifications. The Texas one was very close to acceptable, though I didn’t see anything about how a candidate could dispute a ruling by the SoS that the candidate was ineligible. Also, I’m not sure there was enough time for the VP candidate to get the requested forms, unless the VP selection was known sufficiently ahead of time (but that may not be an issue).

  292. Keith says:
    May 16, 2013 at 3:09 pm  (Quote)

    Greenfinches: didn’t we see this live on tv?millions of us?

    or do we wake up now, and hear Bobby in the shower????

    What? You’ve never heard of holograms?

  293. Jim says:
    May 16, 2013 at 4:07 pm  (Quote)

    W. Kevin Vicklund:
    I actually don’t have a problem with (the concept of) birther bill’s, provided they are properly implemented and have a means of timely adjudication of disputes over qualifications.

    The problem I have is very simple…what if just one state declares a candidate ineligible? Even if, later on, the candidate is found eligible, it could still affect the person’s electability and give the other side more ammo to use against them.

  294. Majority Will says:
    May 16, 2013 at 7:02 pm  (Quote)

    Begin impeachment proceedings for Senators Rand Paul and Ted Cruz and House Rep. Darrel Issa for their handling of Benghazi.

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/begin-impeach-proceedings-senators-rand-paul-and-ted-cruz-and-house-rep-darrel-issa-their-handling/FdnJFsKD

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.