Dr. Conspiracy
It was bound to happen sooner or later and once the genie is out of the bottle, there’s no putting it back in.
Orly Taitz published my real name and the banned commenter here, KenyanBornObamAcorn, has posted it on Examiner.com and heaven knows where else.
The main reason I kept an anonymous profile was because of my job. Our customers included state vital statistics agencies, and I didn’t want my activity here (even though my writing here reflects my high regard for those agencies and personnel) to spill over into my job. Now I’m retired and that is no longer a concern.
So my name is [drum roll] Kevin Davidson.
If you poke around, you will find nothing political about me. You won’t find me on any campaign contributor list. I’m not a political operative. I’m just a man with an opinion and a blog.
I wanted for everyone the same privacy that I wanted for myself and this is why I have strictly enforced the rule against posting personal information of private individuals. Personal intimidation should never be used to stifle the free exchange of ideas. That was, however, not to be for me. So now you know my name. So what?
PS: There are a lot of people named Kevin Davidson in the world from here to Australia. Please don’t make crazy associations.
PPS: Thanks to those who emailed me information about my personal information appearing at various places.
Wow, so you’re not David Axelrod after all.
They can out me any time they want just as long as they spell it correctly; it’s B-A-R-A-C-K
And even with your name in front of her Orly still gets it wrong – first she calls you Jacobson then Richardson!
There’s one thing both we and the birther klan still don’t know about Dr. Conspiracy though. Does he ever smile?
(Might be time for a new pic, Doc, and don’t forget to say “cheese”)
With Oily’s attention span of a fading fruit fly and spectacular command of the English language, next it will be Bill Richardson, then Lou Jacobi, then Kevin Davies, Jacob Davis, Richard Jackson . . .
Kevin,
Glad to know that you are part of the brotherhood of Kevins. 😉
Kevin
Orly claimed in the past that her car was tampered with by her enemies in an attempt to hurt her family.
Anyone see hypocrisy here?
This explains, by the way, some off the confusion about the “Kevins” that appeared recently. Those comments were addressed to me rather than you.
well, im sure someone will do something about this one way or another. Enough is enough from these half breeds……wtf?…..im not advocating violence except in self defense……i am, however, advocating humiliation and proper comeupance…..ive read so very many stories lately of birfoons who are estranged from their families because of their mental imbalance….so so sad…..FUCK EM.
I have an alibi.
There are a number of very nice smiling pictures of me from my recent vacation. Dr. Conspiracy, however, is a very serious and stern dude.
You’re not going to start referring to yourself in the third person now, are you?
Yeah, after my initial confusion I figured that out… While my ‘outing’ about a year ago was completely voluntary, it has been something that I’m glad I did – I hope that your forced ejection from the anonymity closest turns out to be a positive thing as well.
I don’t intend to advertise my name; there’s no reason to because in real life, I am no one special. The Internet persona of Dr. Conspiracy has gained a small following for which I am grateful.
But are you ginger?
Just looked at the posting of you on Ms. Taitz’s site. Glad to be associated with a person of sound mind.
Speaking of common names and crazy associations reminds me of an old story.
Taitz has been in the habit of posting the IP address of anyone who makes threatening or especially rude comments, and some while back one of her admirers, who was apparently some kind of technical genius, came up with the following great plan:
1. Plug the IP address into one of those geolocation services.
2. Take the latitude and longitude thus obtained and plug it into google maps.
3. Take the nearest street address, and see who lives there.
Problem: this method doesn’t actually work.
Nonetheless, other helpful people at her site were digging up employment information, email addresses, phone numbers, etc. about this randomly selected person, and encouraging the world to call and write him and his employer.
Yep. One of her cohort wrote an incomprehensible letter to my local American Legion. Something about me not supporting Lakin and believing the President was the president. Of course all of the members of the American Legion (or potential members, or now minus one) have to have served on active duty, been on active duty during certain periods, AND have an honorable discharge — that is, each member of the Legion has to have completed their contract and terms of service (ooh, TOS). LOL.
Well, pleased to know you K.P.! Although I’m sure you don’t mind if we choose to continue to refer to you as Dr. C, regardless.
Sorry…late night typo. Meant to say K.D. of course. Don’t even know how or why my other hand hit the P key… chalk it up to a crazy brain fart, I guess…
It’s true. He was with me, at a meeting of the International Jewish Conspiracyâ„¢.
Hey, Orly – out this.
Ленин – да!
BTW, where did you go for your outing? (Outing, An excursion, typically a pleasure trip.)
For some reason an awful lot of people seem decide my name is Kevin after I am introduced as Keith.
At least two people I know continue to call me Kevin after more than 30 years.
Oh, well.
No. I’m bald (by choice) but my hair was dark brown and my complexion isn’t that fair (although in most of the pictures of myself that I’ve seen on the web my face is painted white – and Duke blue ;-)).
It’s a compliment 😉
bTW, I find the name of Keith to uber sexy ^_^ There’d be no confusion on my part.
That’s OK. Many folks calls me Keith.
I wrote:
That’s not as true as I’d wish. Borderraven’s real name appeared several times on the site. These have been removed.
Please do not post real names here, and if you find one, use the Contact link up top to let me know so I can remove it.
Doc-Borderraven has self-disclosed his real name by linking to scribd postings under his real name. I’m not sure if he has done so here, but he definitely has done so at NbC”s old site. I have worked under more confidentiality agreements than I can count and they always absolve you from keeping secret anything the other party has already made public.
In an article, ObamaReleaseYourRecords.com has put its own particular spin on the Politijab / FogBow forum, and included a cameo performance by yours truly playing the character of the “vile hypocrite.”
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/01/examiner-investigation-frantic-effort.html
One of the more curious comments in that article was:
I mean, Twitter is HUGE. How could a tiny group from the Fogbow even begin to smear every conservative on Twitter.
While the birther websites quote each other, I have yet to see any evidence that these death threats exist on the web sites where they are claimed to exist.
This was in reference to The Doctor continually remarking that he is still not ginger after he changes.
Doc,
I am placing this question here because it seems like the most active thread where I can find you. I read at CAAFLOG this comment, which reads in part:
***
There was an interesting incident last week on Andrea Shea King’s “Radio Patriot” show. Greg Lakin was a guest on the show, and in response to a caller’s question he admitted that LTC Lakin and tried to get a long-form BC for his daughter, who was born in Hawaii, and found out that he couldn’t do it.
***
I thought that I had read it was your opinion that “long forms” were likely available to Hawaii born citizens. Am I misstating you? Could it be the terminology in how one asks for it? What are the copies that Mrs. Nordyke has for her twins?
Thanks
c.
I did not mean to put that quote of yours with my comment, which has nothing to do with my questions.
If I recall correctly the state of HI has indicated that for an official birth certificate, as of 2001 they only issue the COLB. So anyone requesting an official birth certificate can only get a COLB after that date, as Obama did in 2007 when he requested his. The Nordykes were the original birth certificates from when they were born in 1961. HI has not issued “long forms” as official BC’s in almost 10 years, which is why Mikki Booth, who claimed she could get her kids so called long form could never deliver nor could Danae from the Free Republic.
charo: I think you are missing the point. Lakin has a daughter born in Hawaii for whom he is absolutely entitled to reuest a birth certificate. Since HE is the one who made the fuss about the President’s certificate, the onus is on HIM to establish whether or not he could get one for his daughter. If a long-form is avaialble, then let LAKIN show one for his daughter. If he can’t then what exactly has been trying to pull?
According to you, there is no point, an this is just Seinfeld world. So I will wait for a response from Doc, to whom I posed the question.
To BL,
I recall discussions centering around the idea that a COLB is generated from information taken from the original. My question: isn’t a copy of the original a long form? Even though the COLB is issued now to serve various purposes, a “long form” could still be generated, unless the doctor, hospital. etc. is no longer relevant for any purposes. My question is general because I don’t see anything wrong with the allowance of a certified COLB to be used for showing eligibility for office, unless there is some genuine question of fraud, just as would be recognized in the FRE.
Charo, I don’t think the issue is whether or not one could be issued, it is because the state has decided to not issue them anymore. It could be because the information like doctor’s name and hospital name are irrelevant to the issue regarding place of birth. And because of the Full Faith clause in the Constitution we must have confidence in the information that the state if providing, states just don’t see a need in providing what they consider to be unnecessary information. However I would suspect an officially certified “long form” would be admissible under the FRE…
Why don’t you ask for a response from Lakin, since he is the one who attempted to make an issue of this? There are 3 possibilities:
1. He didn’t try to get one for his daughter. In that case he is an idiot because he has the ability to answer his own question, yet refuses to do so.
2. He tried and couldn’t get one. In that case he is a liar and hypocrite, since that is what you would call someone who asks others to do whhat he knows cannot be done.
3. He tried and got one. In that case, since he hasn’t shown it he is a hypocrite, becuase he wants someone else to show what he refuses to show.
In all cases, it looks bad for Lakin. If you support him, it looks bad for you too. You can pretend to ignore me, but I know the acid is eating at you. BWahahahah.
She received those back in 1965. If she tried to get new birth certificates, she would get a COLB. Personally, I suspect that if you ask for a birth certificate, they send a COLB, automatically. But if you ask for a long form BC, they will say no at first but if you can show a specific need, such as an employer who won’t accept a COLB, then Hawaii gives in. That is just my opinion.
Note, when the birther Danae tried to get a copy of her long form BC from Hawaii, the best she could get was a xerox copy of her long form, printed on plan paper, without a raised seal or current registar signature or current date stamp.
I don’t know what would be the big deal to generate one for someone who wants one. Up the cost a little to make up for the nuisance of providing one. I think $100 seems ridiculous, though. If legislation passes to require one (which is in doubt) what is the big deal? I would love it if a candidate freely supplied everything, transcripts (I had to provide them for every job I ever applied for), writings, whatever. Here’s me. And here is what I stand for.
“You should’ve seen her face. It was the exact same look my father gave me when I told him I wanted to be a ventriloquist.”
– George in The Cafe
I agree with what you are saying. I think that Danae got something for whatever purposes she asked. As I said above, if legislation does pass requiring only a long form), then that would be a sufficient reason to generate one.
I didn’t get to finish the () because my phone was ringing- which is very much in doubt is what I wanted to add
Now that records are electronic, the paper records are deep-sixed in the archives and require considerable effort to get them It’s the same, for example, with the IRS. Suppose you want an actual copy of your tax return from a previous year. They charge $57 and it will take 60 days. They will provide you a transcript printed out from their electronic records for free in a much shorter time.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4506.pdf
Just to clarify several posts
1. THERE IS NO LONG FORM FOR HAWAI’I ANY MORE, full stop, end of story
2. The only legally binding form is the “Short Form”
3. A marginally LONGER form, used solely to establish Hawaii’n native blood lines is available ONLY FOR THOSE PEOPLE IT IS APPLICABLE TO
4. An individual MAY request a non legally binding extract of more of THEIR vital records data (see danae of Freeperville). Not all of it and “Danae’s” had far less than the classic “Long Form”
5. This is NOT a BC/COLB and has no authority in law
6. Lakins brother stated in an interview that Lakin had tried to get a “Long Form” for his daughter (born in Hawai’i) and had failed and could only get the “Short Form”
Returning to our regularly scheduled programming
Transcripts really? I’ve never had to get transcripts for any job. In fact, the only time I can recall needing them was to into grad school.
What was missing from her long form that “birther” legislation is requiring? The reason it is not legally binding is because it is not certified. It would not be reliable without certification. I have no problem with a COLB for eligibility purposes.
Teaching requires transcripts. Other fields require them as well.
Well, some companies do ask to get a copy of college transcripts, but often only for people early on in their career, with a limited relevant resume trail.
It certainly isn’t a consistant practice – some places want them, some could care less. So it comes down to nothing more than each company’s own internal hiring practices and policies.
It is my opinion, based on reading the law and on public and private comments by Danae, that one can obtain a long form from Hawaii in circumstances where there is a legitimate need for it. Further, I cannot conceive of the State of Hawaii obstructing Barack Obama candidacy by failing to provide a document required for him to be on some state’s ballot.
Lakin probably didn’t have a legitimate argument to convince Hawaii to make an exception for him. He may not have even tried to get past the standard ordering process.
The Nordyke certificates are old, obtained before Hawaii went paperless.
And if companies do want them they request them direct from the college registrar, with the caveat that privacy rules must be followed. Why would they accept something directly from the applicant considering the ease with which documents can be created these days.
But here’s the problem. Birth registrations today are filed electronically (as in NO paper is generated). So, in 30 years or so, when people born in the last few years turn 35 there will be no long forms at all. No matter how much you will want one, they will not exist. There will onlly be a computer record. Welcome to the 21st century charo.
I understand that Borderraven also uses his real name and screen name together on Twitter.
Nevertheless, I’m not going to try to keep track of where real names may appear in the public record or not, but rather maintain a general policy about real names.
I can’t picture any state failing to do that for any candidate.
Thanks,
c.
Actually, it was May 5, 1966.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17772843/NBC-Nordyke-Birth-Certificate-Photos
The likely scenario is that Mrs. Nordyke needed the birth certificates to register the twins for kindergarten (they would turn five in August) and she had misplaced the originals.
I’ve been meaning to do this for some time, but I just sent an inquiry to find out if I can obtain a copy of my original (presumably long-form) birth certificate. I’ll be interested to see the response.
I always figured she left the hospital before the long froms were ready. I think she signed the form on 8/7/61 and and registrar and doctor signed them on the 11th. So she had gone home by then. I didn’t think states automatically send one.
All birth certificates are certified copies. There are no originals in public hands no matter when obtained. Anything the hospital would provide would be a souvenir lacking any legal standing. In fact I have (or had) a hospital certificate that was nothing like my real birth certificate; it even had my mother’s name spelled wrong.
Good policy, Doc.
I had a conversation with someone who said that there are two kinds of anti-birthers: the first group cares about facts and debunking and fights birther claims (not birthers) with civil debate. These are the Researchers. The other group fights birthers by exposing hidden agendas and underlying reasons why this ludicrous conspiracy exists. These are the Pointy Sticks Brigade. I’m beginning to think that the dwindling supply of birther opportunities is causing these two groups to interfere with each other. Some of us are mining for gold coins in the bucket, others want to play with the mud.
Thank you for providing the bucket and keeping your focus on the coins. What can we research next?
Still Doc to me.
Keep on keeping on.
So does this suggest that Gov. Abercrombie didn’t discuss his search with the President beforehand?
New York State calls them genealogy requests. According to the NY DOH website, “Processing a genealogy request may take five (5) months or longer.”
I have never seen an “original” New York State birth certificate and I am inquiring about how to get one of my own.
I would love it if a candidate freely supplied everything, transcripts (I had to provide them for every job I ever applied for), writings, whatever.
The only time I ever provided a transcript was for my first job, as one of the requirements was being a college graduate. No subsequent employer ever asked for a transcript. However, different occupations and different employers have different requirements. Let me ask you this: would you on your own order a copy of your transcript for a prospective employer, if that employer didn’t ask for it? I doubt it.
I would have liked to have seen John McCain’s Navy fitness reports. I’ve always wondered why, as a war hero and as the son and grandson of Admirals, he was never given command of a ship and he never rose to a rank higher than Captain. However, he chose to keep those records private. To me, those records would have been relevant to his candidacy, because they would have shed some light on his leadership ability. However, they would have been totally irrelevant to his eligibility.
If you don’t believe that a candidate has been sufficiently open about his or her past, your recourse is to vote for someone else. It would appear that 67 million voters were satisfied that Obama had provided enough information about himself.
Don’t act so surprised, Doc. Come May of this year it will be 2 years since you were outed. You just weren’t paying attention.
It was May 4th, 2009 at 5:38 AM that you were outed.
Yes, I should have been clearer. What I meant was that she likely had misplaced the original copies that she received when the twins were born.
My New York Certificate of Birth Registration has this on the back:
“Your child’s original birth certificate is on file at the New York State Department of Health, Vital Records Section, Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12237. A copy is also on file with the local registrar of the community in which your child was born. Copies of the birth certificate may be obtained from either the State Health Department or the local registrar.”
As I have mentioned, I have requested information on how to get a copy of my “original birth certificate.”
I once fell into that first category, but I’m a lot more likely to be included in the second one. When I first read articles about the birthers and their antics, my response was to debunk their arguments with logic, reason and law. If a birther tried to argue that people had the right to file a lawsuit to remove the President from office, I’d respond by saying that, under Article III of the Constitution, courts don’t have the authority to hear those kinds of cases. If a birther tried to argue that it was indeed possible for Stanley Ann Dunham to travel to Kenya in 1961, I countered with an explanation of the medical risks involved, not to mention the expense of such a trip. When birthers tried to argue that the state of Hawaii was lying about all of this and the it was part of the conspiracy, I would counter with one question: Why? What would Gov. Lingle or Chiyome Fukino have to gain by lying?
Then I realized that was I banging my head against a brick wall. Why? Because rational arguments don’t work on irrational people, and the birthers are about as irrational as it gets.
Birthers are immune to logic. Instead they choose to believe in a conspiracy theory that’s roughly 50 years old, involves hundreds if not thousands of state, federal, and even foreign officials, and depends solely on the premise that a woman who was nine months pregnant decided to fly half way around the world to give birth to her child, then make the trip back a few days later.
Birthers are immune to law. Completely ignoring the Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and the rules of both Evidence and Civil Procedure (among many others), they’d rather pin their legal hopes on a misinterpretation of a little-known Swiss philosopher despite the fact that no court has ever accepted De Vattel as controlling authority on the issue of natural born citizenship.
Birthers are immune to any evidence that the President was born in Hawaii, as it says on his COLB (for those keeping track, that would be all of the evidence on the issue thus far). instead, they’d rather believe in a series of complicated (and unlikely) forgeries and lies involving the former governor of Hawaii, the states of Illinois and Connecticut, Kenya, Indonesia and God knows who else.
Long story short, you cannot reason with a birther. That’s why I consider myself a proud member of the Pointy Sticks Brigade. Being a birther is an exercise in willful ignorance; they have every opportunity to accept reality yet they choose delusion at every turn. After dealing with birthers for roughly a year and a half I know that there aren’t any gold coins in those buckets. No, there is only mud and nothing but. Birthers are ignorant, racist liars and their viewpoints and opinions deserve little to no respect.
What kind of job requires transcripts?
Neither I nor anyone in my family has ever had to provide transcripts for anything except continuing education.
I call birther BS.
I got halfway through high school before I needed a birth certificate. My mother ordered the first copy when I was sixteen years old when I needed it to apply for a driver’s license. When the certified copy arrived we discovered that MY name was wrong in the original vital records. Who knew that for sixteen years I was using the wrong name? My parents had it corrected, and every copy since has the term “Altered” emblazoned across the top.
Mary,
You should try reading through the comments further before making such off the cuff statements.
Maybe you would have learned something and realized that several of us HAVE had workplace situations in which our college transcripts were both requested and required by that company for the hiring process.
NOT all companies or types of positions require such. Some companies that require them only do so for recent college graduates. So, it most certainly doesn’t happen everywhere but it certainly does happen in certain places and situations. My prior situation happened to be with an insurance company that I worked at after graduating college. Charo mentioned that the teaching career field can request such. So, you’ve been given your examples.
Your statement of saying that just because you personally or your family haven’t, then it can’t be true is JUST as blindly ingnorant and simple-minded as those folks who claim just because their state issued them a long form BC sometime in the past, that all must do so.
Try to think and read first before you spout off.
The Nordyke twins (and Obama) most likely did not have BCs until they were to start school.
In those days, a BC wasn’t needed for anything – sometimes not until a person needed a SS# for their first job.
In the 1980s a SS# was required to claim a child as a dependent with the IRS. THAT is when people started getting them shortly after birth (Usually takes 4-6 weeks). Parents have never been issued an official BC at discharge from the hospital. Just the non-legal heirloom ones.
A person desiring a copy of their complete “original” BC is very unlikely to get it as the actual form submitted to Vital Stats from the hospital contains confidential medical and social info for statistics. Here is what the current CDC recommended one looks like: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/birth11-03final-ACC.pdf
CA has recently made a copy of the whole document available to the person named, the mother and the father IF he signed the form: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/birthdeathmar/pages/certifiedcopiesofbirthdeathrecords.aspx
This is new and I haven’t seen it for any other state so far.
Sorry, I looked for a way to edit but there was none. I should have read further before commenting.
Adding to what G said, the difference with teaching now is that you fill out information electronically on a data base that schools have access to when they are looking to hire. You electronically give permission for your college to be contacted to verify information. I occasionally browse and the jobs require you to utilize the database system and come prepared for your interview with all documentation.
From the teaching website:
Subsection 4.2: High School History
Enter the high school you attended last:
1. High School Name:
2. City:
3. Is this Address in the USA?
Yes
No
(if in the U.S.)
4. State
5. Zip Code
(if NOT in the U.S.)
4. Province
Country:
5. Postal Code
6. What high school diploma were you awarded?
7. Enter your high school grade point average:
Subsection 4.3: Undergraduate College History
Enter up to 4 undergraduate colleges you attended most recently:
Undergrad College–#1
1. School Name:
2. Is this School in the USA?
Yes
No
(if in the U.S.)
3. State
4. Zip Code
(if NOT in the U.S.)
3. Province
Country:
4. Postal Code
5. Date Attended–
from
to
6. Your course of study–
1. Major:
2. Minor:
7. Degree earned (or sought)
8. Has degree been awarded?
Yes
No
9. Date Degree was (or will be) awarded:
(Leave date blank if it does not apply.)
10. Semester Credit Hours (or equivalent) earned at this school–
1. Total: (000.0)
11. Grade Point Average at this school–
(Use scale: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, F=0)
1. Cumulative: (0.000)
2. In Major: (0.000)
From a job listing:
All professional applicants must do the following (to be considered for professional positions):
1. Submit a letter of interest and resume electronically to the designated email address located in the posting.
2. Complete an online application through http://www.
3. If selected for an interview, applicants must present all original documents listed in the posting at the time of the interview.
Now, I have not followed through with applying for any jobs and because I have teaching experience already, would the perspective ER overlook a lack of transcripts? I don’t know.
Additionally, I was a public servant of the Commonwealth and needed all paperwork for my file when I was first hired. For my particular field, transcripts may be overlooked or not, given that I already have experience that can be verified and was “vetted” previously.
Relating this to presidential candidacy, I figured Bush wasn’t a top student; that didn’t matter to me. It may have to someone else. If a candidate presents himself/herself as a top student, then maybe backing it up wouldn’t be a bad idea.
Ditto. I have NEVER been asked for a transcript from any college I’ve attended to obtain employment. That includes my very first job back in 1984.
My personal take is that these two groups you’ve identified need each other.
Without the pointy stick brigade, the researchers generally won’t do the researching.
The PSB’s provide incentive and motivation to the researchers.
You need them both.
One to talk the talk.
One to walk the walk.
Without having verifiable truths behind the pointy sticks, you’ve got nothing.
And looking up the info is all fine and good, but it needs to be driven home by the PSB.
Facts alone do not work with birthers.
They only understand pointy sticks!
So I agree with your observation, but I disagree in that I think they’re complimentary to each other.
Based upon Mary’s comment, it appears that long form information can be provided electronically.
Doc,
Are there any hard copies of anything when a current birth is registered?
2 questions: was a college degree a requirement for the position? and do you know that your employer did not contact your college registrar directly?
I’m not sure that any presidential candidate has ever presented himself as an academic heavyweight, with the exception of Woodrow Wilson, who was one. Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, which implies he was a first rate student, but I’m not suure I’ve seen an actual transcript. I have seen FDRs college grades at Hyde Park, NY; he got gentleman’s Cs. If you personally require actual transcripts in order to vote for someone, you have probably sat out most elections because few, if any candidates release them (Bush, Gore and Kerry’s were leaked). Certainly, I see no basis in the law to require candidates for office to release transcripts. In fact, the skills required of a President and a brilliant scholar are quite different. Would Einstein have made a great President? He was offered the Presidency of Israel (a ceremonial position), but he turned it down, so we’ll never know.
And complementary as well! 😉
– Proud Member in Good Standing of the Pointy Stick Brigade, Battalion 9, Active Duty.
– Former Researcher (only occasionally now), Unit 114, Eastern Division. Honorary membership valid and in Good Standing.
Ellid. Read above. Your personal experience is just that. You may not have needed one, but that doesn’t have anything to do with those businesses or career fields that do.
Also – you usually don’t provide the college transcript to the employer – the employer contacts the instittution directly to obtain it on you.
I don’t have a clue what my HS GPA was. Or College for that matter.
All of my jobs since college required the degree as well as a professional license and various certifications.
Only the ID needed for the I-9 form, the license and certifications were required. Even for a specialty, no evidence of coursework for that was required.
I can see, however, that for teaching, evidence of coursework and the extent of it would be desired. You would prefer a math teacher with extensive math coursework rather than say, history.
I can only speak for how it is in the area where I now live. It seems ridiculous for me to have to put my GPA from high school given my experience. All of that kind of information would come from a transcript though. The schools don’t want to be bombarded with applications. The principal/admin go straight to the website and peruse applicants there. The website is programmed the same; whether a recent college grad or a teacher with experience, you have to got through the same process on the site. I would expect that an older person with experience could skip those kinds of questions, but it may not let you proceed without answering. I filled out the questions a couple of years ago and gave a reasonable guess. But the first time I applied for a teaching job (years ago), I had to provide the transcripts myself with the application. Now it seems, you provide the information that would be found on it and then it is verified, if necessary. You have to renew your form annually or it gets wiped out.
I’m not Doc, but: It all depends on the place. Although the hospital I last worked in was very into electronic medical records for a long time (Silicon Valley), the government is not set up to receive records electronically, so paper BCs like the one recommended by the CDC are still sent to the state. And no, even before we went totally paperless, a copy was not retained in the medical record.
Hawaii has set it up so that birth records at least are electronically sent from the hospital to DOH. It is just data and would need to have software written to print out the fields the birthers want – and if you notice, the CDC form doesn’t even have any place for signatures of any sort.
Arizona only has “short-form” BCs for births after 1989 – I wonder if they have gone to electronic transmission of birth data too.
I would guess that BCs from the 60s to the late 80s when Hawaii started with the electronic records are still on microfiche but it is probably getting fragile.
But you have to sign a release first.
I don’t believe you have read Doc’s post or you would realize what you said is ironic- next time I’ll make a separate query.
Doc just retired from the world of birth certificates. My question concerned what happens at vital records, rather than the hospital, but thank you for the information.
I am actually going through the job application process now on my other screen for my other area of certification, something I have been thinking about doing for some time. Now I have some motivation. I’ll be curious as to what kind of proof is required for my education…
bye.
As I understand the Birther claims, the point of requesting the school transcripts is the belief that those transcripts would reveal that President Obama attended such school as an Indonesian or Kenyan citizen, and that would be an admission that he is not a natural born citizen.
I’m just pointing out their claim. Don’t blame me.
I will have to dig out the copy of my undergrad transcript that I have somewhere, but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t mention citizenship or any such thing. It simply lists courses, grades, degrees granted, major and GPA.
The idea that a dual US/foreign citizen would attend a US college as a foreign student is laughable. First, US colleges don’t consider you a foreign student if you attended a US high school, as Obama did, regardless of your citizenship. Second, it is not true that it is easier to get money if you are a foreign student. The amount of scholarship money available to US students is orders of magnitude greater than the few awards for foreign students. In fact, most foreign students come from well off families and pay their own way. Some get help from their home governments-in Obama’s case it’s absurd to think poor countries like Kenya or Indonesia would pay his way through college whhen he hadn’t lived there at all (Kenya) or lived there for 2 years as a small child (Indonesia). Third in Obama’s case, we know he had federal student loans (rememeber people were busted for looking at his files). Those are only avaiilable to US citizens and permanent residents.
This is yet another birther idiocy.
That’s a smokescreen for birthers desperate for any dirt that might delegitimize the President. Farah and WND and Rondeau and the other hardcore political enemies are more interested in destroying a politician they despise. It’s a political agenda built on racism and dogma.
More dirt down to the most minute detail (witness the lunacy of nc1) also means more FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt), more paranoia, more people to harass who are in anyway connected, more birther bullsh!t like the crap spewed by birthers every minute of the day, every day, all over the web, in person, on shirts, on buttons, at gun rallies, in print, on TV and even on billboards.
I’m pretty sure you do, yes.
Not blaming you for pointing out their claim.
I also want to clarify that my posts above were just confirmation that there are certain jobs and employers out there that do ask for college transcripts.
However, I do NOT feel that POTUS should be one of them.
I do not at all support any of the birther’s reasons or demands for such transcripts. I just wanted to use this opportunity to make my position on these issues clear.
I agree that is what is really going on here and what their real agenda and motives are.
In the US, you certainly do for any school covered by FERPA (which is most of them).
Once a kid goes to college or turns 18, even the parents paying for it can’t find out if they’re getting their moneys worth without written permission.
Not just that, but it also serves another purpose: not having access to things that they would otherwise never have access to just gives the birthers more opportunity to scream “he’s hiding something!” at the top of their lungs. The more information they’re given, the more information they demand. It’s a classic example of moving the goalposts. As long as they can claim that they need “more information” about his eligibility the birther movement stays alive.
There is only one field of study available – the birthers. You can do something like Borvil’s study of birther demographics from birther website comment data, or research the birthers origins, or anything else pertaining to the birthers. You could pretend you’re Dr. Dunham and do an anthropological study of the birther nation – there are many possibilities… just find one that interests you.
Two points:
First, I am confident that if the President’s school records were produced, there would be some “fact” that the Birthers would latch on to as proof that the President is not eligible, much like the passport records Dr. C obtained. Or they would discover that he only received a “B” in constitutional law or American history and argue that de Vattel said you were not a natural born citizen unless you had two citizen parents and the whole lot of you never got less than an A- in any class. Except if your name is Roosevelt or Bush.
Second, I have had to produce my college transcript (or permission for it to be released) a number of times, first to my post-college employer (Air Force), and then to various agencies after I left the Air Force as part of a background check for security clearances. I’m sure my transcript resides in a number of files at the FBI, DoD, etc. If the President were to be required to go through the same sort of background check (which is what Ms. Taitz argues), his transcript would still not be any more public than mine.
> As long as they can claim that they need “more information” about his eligibility the birther movement stays alive.
In programmer speak, this would be
while (1)
{
demand_more();
if (did_i_find_something()) break;
}
Birthers believe that somehow, somewhere there is a “smoking gun” that is the “reason for all the hiding”. If they are given “x” documents and still haven’t found anything, it must be in the next “y” documents. And so forth.
Also known as “as long as I didn’t find something, I haven’t seen everything” or “fishing expedition”.
It’s a similar pattern to querulatory disorder. People who lost in court, lost their appeal, lost their 2nd appeal (in Germany it’s a bit easier than getting to SCOTUS in the US) and still demand further trials because “all previous courts were wrong” (often “maliciously wrong”). If the 37th appeal found in their favour, of course it would have to stop there (no 38th appeal by the opposing party) because then “justice has been achieved”.
The vast majority of births today are transmitted electronically, either from the hospital’s data system, or entered into the state system directly by hospital personnel. In this scenario there no hard copy of anything retained by the state.
Dr. Lakin’s sojourn in prison suggests that birthers do not understand pointy sticks either.
Yes, I am aware of that. The original domain registration for Obamaconspiracy.org had my real name on it (since changed) and it was trivial at that time to see who I was.
The original outing, which I have of course not called attention to since 2009, also contained some associations attributed to me that were completely spurious, such as a connection to Bank of America because I happened to work in a high-rise office building of which they were also tenants.
It doesn’t suggest anything to me, but I seem to recall that Abercrombie SAID that he hadn’t consulted the President.
“Dr. Lakin’s sojourn in prison suggests that birthers do not understand pointy sticks either.”
True.
Well, they have problems with truth, justice and the American way.
Birthers hate Superman.
Wouldn’t the state data base contain all of the data shown on a long form, plus any other birth data required by the Feds? Could a COLB be printed that contained the hospital name, doctor name, etc? How flexible are the systems for adding new fields?
Modern electronic birth certificate systems capture several hundred data fields, including the place of birth (which is usually a hospital) and the name of the attendant (usually a doctor). There is no shortage of information in the electronic record.
The systems we sold were able to add data fields and to change the content of the certificate. State vital records databases are highly controlled and changes to these systems are not made “on the fly” but after testing and implementation processes that might take weeks. In some states our software was configured to print an “office copy” which was basically everything in the database; this was a multi-page document.
So yes, systems I am familiar with could print a COLB with the doctor’s name and the hospital if that is what the state wanted. However, those two items are not useful for the purposes for which a birth certificate is normally needed and I wouldn’t expect to see these items added.
Superman was not a natural born citizen of the United States.
Did Martha and Jonathan Kent commit fraud to obtain a birth certificate for him? If so, could he run for president?
And what is the provenance of Kal-el’s Kryptonian BC in that case? There is no authority which can verify its legitimacy.
He was adopted.
Originally in Gotham City, but for some strange reason, the Kents left there soon after they arrived.
If we apply your logic to Obama, his public disclosure of COLB absolves DoH from keeping it secret, right?
What prevents them from confirming that this document was indeed issued by their office on June 6, 2007?
It depends on the governing law. Under the law, you still can’t order a copy of Obama’s COLB. You’ll just have to live without it. I don’t have one and my life goes on just fine.
> So yes, systems I am familiar with could print a COLB with the doctor’s name and the hospital if that is what the state wanted. However, those two items are not useful for the purposes for which a birth certificate is normally needed and I wouldn’t expect to see these items added.
Besides, birthers would want a copy of the “original written” BC, not a (certified) computer print-out.
nc1- As I understand it, you are a naturalized citizen. So let me say that I think the US should join every other nation on earth and remove the irrational, antiquated distinction between natural born and naturalized citizens, which violates fundamental notions of equity and human rights. Then,there would be no need to debate birth certificates and Vattel and have foolish court cases. Candidates would only need to show a US passport and that would be the end of the story. Simple. Problem solved. And please don’t try to tell me that having a naturalized citizen as President would be dangerous. After all, you aren’t dangerous, are you?
Ben Gurion: Poland
Golda Meir: Ukraine
Menachem Begin: Russia
Actually, I think we should require presidents to be from eastern Europe.
No. Even if you could establish that the posting of Obama’s COLB on a website constitutes a waiver, you still wouldn’t meet the requirements under Hawaiian law.
Who is Eligible to Apply for Certified Copies of Vital Records?
A certified copy of a vital record (birth, death, marriage, or divorce certificate) is issued only to an applicant who has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons are considered to have such an interest:
* the registrant (the person whom the record is concerned with);
* the registrant’s spouse;
* the registrant’s parent(s);
* a descendant of the registrant (e.g., a child or grandchild);
* a person having a common ancestor with the registrant (e.g., a sibling, grandparent, aunt/uncle, or cousin);
* a legal guardian of the registrant;
* a person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;
* a personal representative of the registrant’s estate;
* a person whose right to obtain a copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
* adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child’s natural or legal parents;
* a person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;
* a person who needs to determine the death of a non-related co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and
* a person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy.
Basically, you would have to make the argument that Obama’s public disclosure of his COLB somehow transformed you into “a person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant.” Good luck with that. The law doesn’t make any provision for a registrant to waive his or her rights. You still have to establish that you have a “direct and tangible interest” in the birth certificate.
They aren’t keeping his birth records secret. They have created a page on their web site with information confirming that their records show that Obama was born in Hawaii, including reference to the index data. See: http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.htm
That document is totally irrelevant to anything. A COLB is merely a written statement by an official in charge of maintaining birth records that certifies the existence of such records. If a Hawaiian-born individual wants to spend a lot of money, they could go in every day of the week and get themselves a new COLB, and burn the one they had received the previous day. The DOH has issued 2 public statements and published index data that covers everything the public has any interest in knowing: i.e., that Hawaii records in fact show that he was born there. When the first publics statement was issued in October of 2008, the issue of the validity of the photographic and digital image of the paper COLB died, because it was superceded by a statement from the official in charge of maintaining the records.
What the authorized recipient does with his/her certificate is their business. State law forbids the State from providing certified documents to anyone other than those authorized to receive them.
The state has published the index data, which is consistent with the data printed on the certificate.
Privacy law. It is none of your business what transactions take place between the State DOH and other citizens unless you are directly affected. It is not public record.
Having said that, the former Department head has testified under oath to the State Legislature that her department did in fact issue the certified document that was the source of the images that was published by the President’s campaign. I repeat:, under oath.
Exactly what day that transaction between Obama and the HDoH is none of your business, and simply so far outside the bounds of relevancy that your continued insistence on it borders on insanity, especially since this has been pointed out to repeatedly, over and over, and with much redundancy, again and again.
They don’t have to say, and I cannot imagine anyone in Hawaii government being nice to a birther.
Barack Obama got 71.85% of the vote in Hawaii in the 2008 election, the highest percentage of any candidate in any state. He’s pretty popular there.
What compels you to ask the same question hundreds of times? The answer hasn’t and won’t change.
I disagree with your viewpoint – national security requires that we have a president whose allegiance is solely to the USA. I support the stricktest definition for NBC definition: borm in the USA of citizen parents.
This is the only definition where there is no disagreement whether a person is a NBC.
The common sense tells me that this is in line with the national security – particularly when we know that there is no formal vetting of person’s background for a presidential candidate.
Eligibility for US presidency is not a right – it is a national security issue. It has nothing to do wih human rights. There is no difference between citizenship rights of naturalized vs. citizens at birth.
I don’t need a copy of his COLB. DoH can legaly confirm whether this document was issued to Obama on June 6, 2007. They can also confirm whether birth registration INDEX data contains the registration number 10641. This does not require Obama’s consent.
You know it , Abercrombie’s lawyers know it to – they just pretend that they cannot release any additional information.
It is easy to verify whether she told the truth or not.
Birth index data contains a registration number. Abercrombie said that he was looking for ways to release more informatin to the public – he should start with the confirmation that this number is part of Obama’s index. He cannot confirm it because it is not true – the COLB presented on FactCheck is a forgery.
There is NO law that prevents DoH to release the birth index registration number. They avoid answering UIPA requests when the number is included in the request.
It should be trivial to prove birthers wrong – there must be a long form birth certificate (of Nordyke type) in the DoH archive.
You all know that Obama would not lie about his birthplace, right?
Drivel.
So, according to you, the country would be in grave danger if Schwarzenegger or Granholm were President, but perfectly safe under Aldrich Ames or Robert Hanssen. You aren’t just a fool, you’re clinically insane.
I can confirm all that for you. There, that was easy. I will send you my bill first thing on Monday. No personal checks accepted. Certified checks or money orders only
This link is from a reference I regularly use when representing clients who have been refused or who are losing a security clearance or SCI access.
http://www.dhra.mil/perserec/adr/allegiance/allegianceframeset.htm
Thus, I echo Scientist, and would merely add Pollard, the Walkers,
Yes, it was trivial to prove the birthers wrong. What has proved impossible is to shut them up.
I prefer the definition of the framers of our Constitution to yours. I might alternately say that I prefer the American definition to the Swiss definition and I might say that I prefer an unbiased definition rather than one crafted to exclude the lawfully-elected President.
Still waiting for confirmations of confirmations, huh?
And THEN you’ll be satisfied and vote for Obama, right?
Your “support” means squat.
Let’s see if you can read my mind. I’m thinking of a non-negative number that is less than zero.
I disagree with your viewpoint – national security requires that we have a president whose allegiance is solely to the USA. I support the stricktest definition for NBC definition: borm in the USA of citizen parents.This is the only definition where there is no disagreement whether a person is a NBC. The common sense tells me that this is in line with the national security – particularly when we know that there is no formal vetting of person’s background for a presidential candidate.Eligibility for US presidency is not a right – it is a national security issue. It has nothing to do wih human rights. There is no difference between citizenship rights of naturalized vs. citizens at birth.
Under NC1′s strictest definition, I wonder if those American citizen parents can be naturalized citizens? Or do they have to be natural born as well?
Benedict Arnold would have qualified as a natural born American. Aaron Burr, the second Vice President of the United States who shot and killed the Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton was a natural born American citizen. The vast majority of people who have been executed for treason and espionage against the United States, crimes such as selling nuclear bomb technology to the Soviet Union were natural born American citizens. Both presidents who were impeached by the House of Representatives (Johnson and Clinton) were natural born American citizens. The only president who resigned the presidency rather than be convicted at an impeachment trial and forcibly removed from office was a natural born American citizen.
It’s too bad for you that your definition exists only in your mind. Your definition does not appear in the Constitution, does not appear in any Constitutional law textbooks, does not appear in any civics textbooks, and does not appear in any Supreme Court rulings.
I was born in the USA of two citizen parents. Even you would agree that I am a natural-born citizen.
However, my grandmother on my mother’s side was born in Ireland. That makes me eligible for Irish citizenship. Suppose I apply for and am granted Irish citizenship, but I retain my U.S., citizenship as well. Am I still a natural-born citizen? Am I eligible to be President? I now have dual allegiance, but it doesn’t change the fact that I was born in the USA to two citizen parents. Is there any legal precedent for anyone ever losing their natural-born citizen status, short of that person formally renouncing his or her U.S. citizenship?
I eagerly await your reasoned response and the legal basis for your opinion.
An historic legal precedent for NC1 to consider: The Marquis de Lafayette received honorary citizenship of the United States in 2002, and he did become a “natural born citizen” during his lifetime. On 28 December 1784, the Maryland General Assembly passed a resolution stating that Lafayette and his male heirs “forever shall be…natural born Citizens” of the state. This made him a natural born citizen of the United States under the Articles of Confederation and as defined in Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution. In 1803 and 1804, President Jefferson offered to make him Governor of Louisiana, and in 1932, descendant René de Chambrun established his natural born American citizenship based on the Maryland resolution.
Therefore, if it were ever to be needed (it won’t be), the state of Hawaii could pass a resolution declaring Barack Hussein Obama II to be a natural born citizen of the state of Hawaii and that would confer natural born citizen of the United States status on Obama under the 14th Amendment:
“…citizen of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
Wow, Joey – that’s one hell of a precedent!
Ain’t it though? And to think that I came up with it on Super Bowl sunday when what laughingly passes for “my mind” is thinking about weak side blitzes and zone coverage! 😉
Even more impressive. Doc, I think this precedent should have a thread of its own (besides, we wouldn’t want to steal thunder from your outing…). My Super Bowl problem is that I root for both teams equally (and not very much) – I’m in some sort of fracking football fan fugue fix…
Yeah, me too, Slart. I live in San Diego and I’m a Chargers fan of course. I lived in Minneapolis for many years (still thawing out) and still have a bit of residual Packer hatred, but it’s mostly gone.
The Steelers always beat the Chargers…don’t like them much. What’s a football fanatic to do?
Back to the subject at hand, wouldn’t it be hilarious if the State of Hawaii, which is completely in Democratic Party control, would pass a “McCain-like” resolution declaring Barack Hussein Obama II to be a “natural born citizen” of the state of Hawaii to end the birther nonsense once and for all?
Anyone can acquire citizenship in the Caribbean nation of Dominica for the payment of $100,000. It does not require you to take up residence there, only to go for a brief interview. You don’t have to give up any other citizenships you hold, and they will keep your citizenship in Dominica confidential. Anyone running for President could hold Dominican citizenship and no one would know.
http://www.dominica.gov.dm/cms/index.php?q=node/678
Nice followup. But… wait a sec! How do you know this? Are you a Dominican citizen? Is that why you’ve spent as much money as President Obama has to seal all of your records? I’m just asking questions – you seem to be acting highly suspicious to me… (and all of the birthers ;-))
Joey,
Yeah, I’ve got similar issues – I’m a natural born Lions Fan, so enmity for cheeseheads is somewhat natural*, but I was also a not-Browns fan for a couple of years. I lived in northeastern Ohio – or ‘the armpit of America’ as I used to call it – at the time home of the once and future – but not present – Browns. The Steelers fans had ‘offered’ to ‘let’ Browns fans root for their team until the franchise returned, but sentiment amongst die-hard fans seemed to be that they already had 2 teams to root for – the Ravens’ opponent and the Steelers’ opponent. But that’s all pretty much water under the bridge and I’m kind of groused that both teams have won the Super Bowl like a gazillion times…
*[Depressing Lions fact: prior to N. Suh’s winning Defensive Rookie of the Year this year, the Last Lion to win an NFL award was Barry Sanders winning MVP in 1989 – an award he shared with Brett Farve :(]
I’ll never tell and neither will they. Given the winter we are having this year, the idea of going to Dominica for an interview sounds absolutely marvellous.
You are correct; the President and I have spent the same amount to seal our records- $0.00.
Why won’t Glenn Beck release his criminal record abstract, stamped “subject has clear record to date”?
Instead, he spent $250K trying to shut down a website asking valid questions.
Not only a resolution, but also create a document which by the FF&C clause must be accepted by every other state. ROTFLMAO!!!
Suddenly I don’t feel so bad being a Charger fan!
I like it!
Here’s my fantasy, the Republican candidate for President in 2012 comes from a state with a current Democratic governor who refuses to issue anything but a short form birth certificate from that state! 🙂
Small world! I’m from NE Ohio…all my life. How long did you live here?
I lived in Warren (my ex-wife worked for Delphi Packard) for about 3 years in the late 90s – when the Indians were good, the Cavs were bad, and the Browns were gone (which was ugly…)
I hope you feel the same way when Ndamukong Suh is ripping off your quarterback’s head… (not that I have anything against Phillip Rivers – my niece is going to NCSU in the fall…). I would also note that the Lions are on a 4 game winning streak and tripled their win total of the past TWO seasons this year 😉 (which is admittedly the same thing as tripling their win total from last season…)
I deployed your precedent on a birther website where I’ve been having a civil disscussion – you can find it here:
http://itooktheredpill.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/questions-for-speaker-boehner/comment-page-4/#comment-9617
I’m curious as to the response…
Well, that didn’t take long… Guess what? I’ve joined the club of people having been threatened, too! Do we have a secret handshake or decoder rings or something?
The responses to my comment – I am Agent Smith and my name has been redacted in accordance with Doc’s policy (although I assert the right to waive that policy on my own behalf if I so choose :-P) – are below:
More from AcroBat:
Unless I am very mistaken, everyone who has been involved in a birther lawsuit has provided their real name. How has that worked out for them?
Besides, if any of the birthers contact whatever Soros-funded organization is employing me in the future, I’ll probably get an immediate raise and promotion… 😉 They’re not very good at figuring out the logical implications of their irrational beliefs.
When I send in my report to George I’ll be sure to mention your latest tribulations.
Here’s another for instance for you: Mike McCarthy, the Packers head coach, is a Pittsburgh native. Do you think he’s going to throw the game because of that?
The problem with Acrobat’s bit on Jefferson is that Jefferson showed divided allegiances. The reason he stepped down from being Secretary of State is that he was deeply involved in the French revolution including helping to write their constitution. This showed a dual allegiance as an adult compared to the non allegiance Obama showed to Kenya as an adult and child
Thanks, I could really use one of those Soros paychecks right now…
I saw you comment over at Mr. Anderson’s place – I was happy to see you mentioned VP Agnew – thanks for jumping in… I’m sure if you keep trying sooner or later someone will threaten you, too… 😉
I did not realize you are also a medical professional. However, you made up an argument and continued to argue with yourself.
Why do we have age and residency requirement for POTUS – you can always find an example where it does not make sense for a particular person.
By the same logic, why do we have age restrictions on smoking, drinking or driving? You could always find young people who behave well and older people who behave recklessly.
Are you really a lawyer?
I am not sure what would courts decide in this scenario.
If you obtained dual citizenship as an adult and kept it – you would not be eligible for a job that requires a high security clearance.
There was a court case few years ago about a person who complained that he was disqualified from applying for a job that required obtaining a high level security clearance. It is a similar scenario that you described – he got Irish citizenship as an adult and did not want to renounce it.
Ultimately he lost the case and did not get a job.
However, in the POTUS case we know that there is no formal vetting of a candidate, so it is not hard to imagine that Secretaries of State would let your name be placed on the ballot. The trouble in such case would be a public perception of your continued dual loyalty.
I don’t know about others but I would have doubts about loyalty of a person who was born as NBC but decided to obtain foreign citizenship and then run for the highest office in this country.
The situation would be even murkier if that person obtained citizenship in a country that did not recognize dual citizenship – where there is a formal renouncement of allegiance to the former country (in this case USA) in order to get the foreign citizenship. Such a behavior would be a public relations nightmare for a presidential candidate.
I always thought that was across the border in Pennsylvania… Iron City to be exact.
Have you ever been to Youngstown? (and the comment you quoted was from me, not G)
The first US Naturalization law from 1790 is the only law (other than the Constitution) that explicitly used NBC phrase – it declared children born abroad to US citizen parents to be natural-born citizens.
The law was changed five years later and such children were declared to be citizens (at birth).
If US Congress could not redefine the meaning of the NBC phrase, an honorary declaration by a state cannot do it either.
de Lafayette was not a NBC. If a person could become a NBC just by a simple declaration of a State Assembly or a US Congress there would have been no need for grandfathered clause in the POTUS eligibility requirement – they could have simply declared that all citizens of USA, at the time when Constitution was adopted, were NBCs and therefore eligible to run for POTUS.
Can’t recall being in Youngstown. I sure wish I could forget Iron City.
Sorry about the crossed wires.
So they ‘grandfathered’ them in. And that meant that Lafayette was eligible, even though not NBC!
I believe that Lafayette was a natural born citizen – if the act of the State of Maryland wasn’t valid, Count René de Chambrun wouldn’t have been acknowledged to have US citizenship by the appellate court.
No one is disputing that you have a right to withhold your vote from someone who holds dual citizenship. In fact, you have a perfect right to withhold your vote from a candidate for any reason at all, good, bad or indiifferent. That doesn’t make your opinions the law. Candidates that you don’t like are still allowed to run and even win.. Too bad for you.
Close, but no cigar.
You tell me. Why do we? Most countries manage just fine allowing any citizen of voting age to run for any office. I am arguing that “because the founders said so” is not a good reason for a mature country to do something, any more than “because I said so” works well with children beyond the age of 3. Why not trust the voters? They really aren’t going to elect an 18-year old who lives outside the country as President.
Did I ever say I was? What do you plan to do when you grow up and/or your parents ask you leave their basement? Surely you don’t expect to make a living just from being a birther?
They’ve already gone as far as to demand *kindergarten records* which, the first time I saw that demand, was the last nail in the movement as far as I was concerned.
I think that is more accurate to say that the 1790 act was repealed in its entirety by the 1795 act and that the 1795 act, which is substantially different, does not use the phrase “natural born.”
See my article: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/the-naturalization-acts-of-1790-and-1795/
It was my understanding that those deemed citizens of States within the articles of confederation automatically became citizens under the constitution. So wouldn’t this mean under the constitution especially with the grandfather clause that he would be an NBC? I have to say Acrobat’s response was exactly what I was expecting. I’ll have to reply to it later but the point that I addressed the points he was making only for him to suddenly make it sound like he was saying something entirely different. The whole threatening thing is rather weak.
I’m still waiting for them to demand receipts from the tooth fairy
Yes. I’ve been to the broader Youngstown area several times. In my younger days, I even bartended and DJ’ed a few weddings out in that area, on the side. I’ve been to Warren and nearby Cortland, Niles, Lordstown and Mecca on several occasions. Warren is slightly west of Youngstown (NW actually), so its definitely in OH not PA.
Precisely. Dual citizenship does not disqualify someone from becoming President. It’s up to the voters to decide if a candidate’s dual citizenship makes him or her an undesirable candidate.
Actually Lafayette would have been grandfathered in under the constitution. If he was considered a citizen during the Articles of Confederation because of the State Assembly then under the constitution he would be considered an NBC
Allegiance is a rather subjective question. We have people who have been in the US for generations perfectly willing to sell their country out to the highest bidder….and yet we’re supposed to believe that because someone’s father, who they never knew, is a citizen from another country, that is going to have an impact on how they act?
And I support a single payer health care system. If you really support it, I suggest you try to amend the Constitution rather than try to pass of fantasy as the current state of the law.
Actually, there is no diagreement about whether any person born in the US (whose parents are not diplomats) is a NBC. The existence of fringe theories not accepted by the general legal community does not make a disagreement (however, there is some debate about those born abroad to U.S. citizen – the “naturalized at birth” theory, but even there the general consensus is that no court will take the position those born to people serving in the military will have their children exclude from being able to run for president).
The problem is common sense is rather subjective. Common sense tells me that our prolonged and usually vicious election process if probably a more through vetting process than any “formal” system, and that who provided 50% of your genetic information, and played no part in your life after that will probably have little impact on your allegences.
Except that citizens at birth can run for president. Your and other birthers (and sovereign citizens and tax protestors before the birthers) will not change fact that citizen at birth, native born citizen, and natural born citizen all mean exactly the same thing and are interchangeable. No court has ever held otherwise. No legal scholar has argued otherwise either. it’s a crank legal theory.
That is exactly right.
> I support the stricktest definition for NBC definition: borm in the USA of citizen parents.
Actually, the “stricktest” definition would probably be somewhere along the lines of:
“born in the USA of natural-born US citizen parents”
and, if eligibility has to be as “strickt” as possible as well, adding
“having spent the entire life (except holidays) inside US territory, never having so much as read a left- or right-wing extremist book”
with the “stricktest” proof standard requiring you provide DNA for every direct ancestor until 200 years back.
Or summin…
I would guess that the courts would probably say it had no impact. Current precident is that pretty much the only thing that will effect your citizenship is walking into your local consulate and formally renouncing your citizenship. Exercising your right to vote in a foreign election has not been held to impact it, nor has fighting in a foreign military.
However, holding a security clearance is not a constitutional requirement to hold the office of the President, nor to be a NBC, and a security clearance can be withheld for reasons unrelated to citizenship. In sum, it’s entirely irrelevant to the question.
And here you see what the vetting process consists of. The electorate deciding what is a concern (and the opposing candidates raising those concerns).
That’s probably why no one under those circumstances has ever run for President. You see, if that ever happened, it would have come up during the election, it would have been a public relations nightmare, resulted in some high profile litigation, and they probably wouldn’t make it out of the primaries. Not to mention, usually when someone formally renounces their citizenship, they usually don’t have the intention of running for public office.
That is not exactly true. You need to review Rogers v Bellei.
Let’s imagine five different citizens:
1. Adam is born on January 1. His parents are US citizens. On January 2, his parents move with him to North Korea. He lives there until he’s 21. He’s schooled in the Communist schools there, but never loses his US citizenship. After 14 years living in the US, he runs for the Presidency.
2. Becky is born on January 2. Her parents are US citizens, but of Polish descent. Even though her parents went to the Polish embassy and formally disclaimed their citizenship, that renunciation was never formally accepted. Therefore, Becky was born with US and Polish citizenship. 35 years later, she runs for President.
3. Carl’s born on January 3. His dad is Irish and his mom is Jewish. He thus has a right to be declared an Irish and Israeli citizen (retroactive to his birth). He too runs for President.
4. Dave is born on January 4. His parents are in the process of naturalizing, but haven’t finalized the process. His parents come from Equador, which REQUIRES birth on its soil, so Dave is born with US citizenship alone! He runs for President.
5. Edward is born on January 5 in Mexico. The next day his parents move to the US and finish the naturalization process. He is the only one here who cannot run for President!
That Adam can run for President and Edward cannot is absurd and why we should change the Constitution. 2 and 4 demonstrate the absurdity of basing our eligibility requirements on other nation’s citizenship rules. We cannot force Poland to not grant automatic citizenship to those born to parents of Polish descent. Nor can we force other countries to follow jus sanguinis.
This belief that NBC ensures a national security interest is over and under inclusive. It allows people who are clear security risks (Adam) to run and disallows Madelyn Albright. To extend it is piling absurdity upon absurdity. Becky is born with two citizenships despite two US citizen parents. Dave is born with only one citizenship despite two foreign parents.
Re Greg’s 5 children. The fact is that any of the five can “run” for President, eligible or not, and if he receives the most Electoral College votes confirmed by Congress he will be President until Congress acts to remove him. The processes we have in place have worked to exclude ineligible people. If it aint broke, don’t fix it.
Interesting….actually supports the argument of those who argue that those born outside the US aren’t actually “natural born citizens” but rather “naturalized at birth” (although being “citizen at birth”). Still, a fairly narrow bump in the road that I don’t see the courts ever really having the chance to clear up.
Except if McCain had been successfully challenged, this could have been his downfall. Of course, if he had won the Electoral College & Congress had accepted him it would be up to Congress to do something about it.
I think this also raises the issue that the courts would find any reason they could not to touch the issue for someone like McCain. First, to overcome the standing issue, you would have to have a candidate, with a legitimate shot to win, willing to take the unpopular position of saying the children of military personel stationed overseas are unqualified to be president because of their parents’ sacrifice and service to the country. Pretty much political suicide. Then take it to the Supreme Court before the election (although this would probably get fast tracked, and could be done). And then, the question is would the Supreme not try to pull a Bush v. Gore, and say we decide X but it has not precidental value going forward. It’s one thing (and fairly easy) to declare some Italian kid who’s never been in the US not to be a citizen. Try doing this for someone born overseas to military, and had a life long record of service to his country? I see the courts trying to find any reason to avoid the issue entirely. Besides, what are the odds of this ever happening again in a very long time? We might sooner be rid of the natural born citizenship requirement before it comes up again.
Why have courts involved at all? Why not leave the matter up to voters? There are 2 possibilities:
1. Voters are sensible and can decide who does and doesn’t have the country’s best interests at heart.
2. Voters are idiots. In this case, the country is Fu%$ed and no laws or constitutions can save it. This is what history shows.
More from AcroBat over at ‘I took the red pill…’:
http://itooktheredpill.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/questions-for-speaker-boehner?cpage=3#comment-9643
Oops – I forgot to redact my name. D’oh! Doc – cleanup on asile 9! If you could take care of that I’d appreciate it…
Congress passed a unanimous resolution that they would not challenge McCain’s eligibility if were to win the electoral college.
They made a political decision to ensure that the political landscape would not be muddied in this way, and short circuiting any possible nastiness from his opponents.
I believe this was an incorrect view of the Constitution; but an absolutely correct political stance. The authors of the Constitution did not anticipate soldier families stationed overseas on a more or less permanent basis and having families at the same time. It is ridiculous to deny their children the privilege of running for President.
It is painful, but I have to agree with AcroBat. LaFayette was not NBC, he was naturlized, but being “a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,” would have been eligible for the Presidency.
You wont arouse my ire unless you support Acrobat’s cowardly attempt to intimidate me with their bullying threat. And I disagree with regard to Lafayette – René de Chambrun’s admission to the New York bar argues quite elegantly that the grant of citizenship was real – it seems to me to be pretty hard to say that the resolution makes Lafayette and his descendants citizens but doesn’t give them the privileges of natural born citizenship. As for your point about the founders not imagining families stationed overseas, I would also note that the could not have conceived of illegal immigration – they welcomed anyone (except for the African-Americans, American Indians, and Chinese…) who wanted to come to the country.
wanted to ask the source of the 1787 Edition you posted in.2009.
the first American Edition (1787) issued the year of the Constitutional Convention also does not have “natural born citizen”.
can you please provide the link or where it was obtained.
Thanks for your cooperation
.
PS.We regret your name has been published. This is not fair play. Our interest is Obama’s name not yours. .
There is no question that in the early days any European could come freely to the US. Their children born here were always considered natural born citizens, whether or not their parents had naturalized before they were born. The various court cases that get cited here did not make that so, they simply recognized what was already the case.
What about non-Europeans? Prior to the Dred Scott decision, free blacks were considered citizens. Remember that Crispus Attucks, who was shot at the Boston Massacre, was black (likely mixed African and Wampanoag). So would a free black who arrived here as a sailor or trader have been able to become a citizen? I don’t see why not. As for Asians there was a settlement of Filipino sailors in Louisiana who had jumped off of Spanish ships in the 1750s (called the Manila Men). As far as I know, any still alive and their decendants became US citizens when the US acquired Louisiana.
The situation with Native Americans is more complex due to tribal sovreignity. The Iroquois are on both sides of the US-Canada border and regard the border as a White person’s fiction (hence they feel free to smuggle in both directions). Recently, they have issued their own passports and have ended up in disputes with both US and Canadian authorities over their validity.
Free blacks were never citizens until the 14th Amendment.
I don’t doubt that it was real, it made LaFayette a naturalized citizen of Maryland and since it took place before the Constitution was in effect, LaFayette was a “a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution”, and therefore eligible to hold the office of President. No argument.
As I understand it, deChambrun’s admission to the New York bar did not require citizenship (aren’t foreigners admitted? There is a whole section on their web page about foreign education, and no mention of a citizenship requirement), however he did establish his valid claim to citizenship, presumably for personal or publicity reasons (Wikipedia only says ‘nationality’ which is not the same, of course). I see no claim that deChambrun was eligible to be President. Do you? Link please.
You don’t need to be a US citizen to be admitted to the NY bar, nor to get licensed in medicine, nursing, teaching or any of the professions.
Interestingly, for those who wish to argue that the US does not use English Common Law, the NY bar has a special provision that allows lawyers who are admitted in any common law jurisdiction to sit for the bar exam.
scientist,
There is a difference between what is “common law” and what is the “Common Law of England”.
What the Bar is interested in are those who are familiar with common law as opposed to civil law. The only state where this becomes a problem is Louisianna (civil law jurisdiction). I’m pretty sure Tulane offers a choice of civil law or common law legal education.
The Common Law of the United States and the Common Law of the various states is the result of court precedent and custom. It may have its roots in the Common Law of England, but it is not the same thing. The common law of the state supercedes the Common Law of England. The United States did adopt the decisions of the courts formed under the Articles of Confederation, but the Framers did not impose the Common Law of England upon the states.
I know the sharing of terminology can be confusing. Welcome to the legal system.
The Wikipedia page on “Common Law” may be of interest to you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
Following the Declaration, all the states adoped the common law that was in place in the colonies. Such was the English common law with minor differences for local precedent. They also adopted all or most English statutes that were in the colonies.
“The common law of England, so far as it was applicable to our circumstances, was brought over by our ancestors, upon their emigration to this country. The Revolution did not involve in it any abolition of the common law. It has been adopted or declared in force by the constitutions of some of the states, and by statute in others; and where not explicitly adopted, it is yet considered as the law of the land, subject to modifications and express legislative repeal. The common law of England, applicable to our situation and government, is the law of this country, except where altered or rejected by statute, or varied by local usages, under the sanction of judicial decisions. James Kent, William Hardcastle Browne, Commentaries on American Law, pg. 212 (1894).
Such law would slowly be replaced with American law but in the founding period, it was pretty much all English law. There was a debate whether the common law should be adopted in the Constitution as people such as George Mason thought that since we didn’t have our own common law we needed to adopted the English common law. This was rejected as the framers didn’t want then-current state of the common law to be part of the Constution forever. Of course, the point people like Apuzzo can’t understand is that even though they did not adopted the common law in total, many provisions of the common law and other English law were incorporated into the Constitution. Just scroll though the Constitution and count all the terms that had no meaning outside English law.
ballantine,
Do you mean terms like “habeas corpus”?
Did you know that habeas corpus was no longer part of the Common Law of England when the various states adopted the Common Law of England? It had been supeceded by statute in the “Habeas Corpus Act” (1679). Did any of the states adopt the statutory laws of England?
I think you have wrongly interpreted George Mason. At the Virginia Convention, Mason is quoted to have said “The common law of England is not the common law of these states.”
You may be inderstanding Mason’s view at or prior to the Philadelphia Convention, but by the time it was sent to Virginia for ratification Mason was clear that our Constitution did not incorporate the Common Law of England.
Let me refer you to this article, which contains the images of the two editions.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/05/de-vattel-revisited/
The images were obtained from Mr. Greschak, who published an extensive essay on the historical usages of “natural born citizen” going back to the Romans. Unfortunately, the hyperlinks to his essay at greschak.com are no longer valid.
I do not know where Mr. Greschak got his images as some of the materials are quite scarce.
Yes
Constitution of Maryland 1776
III. That the inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the common law of England, and the trial by Jury, according that law, and to the benefit of such of the English statutes, as existed at the time of their first emigration, and which, by experience, have been found applicable to their local and other circumstances, and of such others as have been since made in England, or Great Britain, and have been introduced, used and practiced by the courts of law or equity;…
Constitution of New York 1777
XXXV. And this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare that such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain…as together did form the law of the said colony on the 19th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five…
There are others but it’s time for lunch!
I think that we are all in general agreement on this point. However, the argument is about the common law applying to the United States, but the definitions of legal terms used in the US Constitution. The US Supreme Court in Smith v. Alabama has said that those terms derive from the English common law definitions. The lawyers who wrote the Constitution were trained in and practicing the English common law.
I would also note that the common law of England was written into the 1776 constitution of South Carolina.
His materials are still available via the wayback machine but you have to use the Beta version.
BTW I’ve examined the 1787 edition at the Library of Congress and Graschak’s image matches it but he can’t have got it from there since it’s in the rare books area and copying isn’t allowed.
Yes, this is naturalization language.
The Supreme Court in Dred Scott said that, but then Dred Scott is widely recognized as one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in history. The decision was made moot by the 14th amendment, but it is clear at least to me that Dred Scott would have been overturned by a later court if had been challenged. One might also argue that free blacks were citizens untilDred Scott changed it.
Who is “we”?
Free blacks were never citizens until the 14th Amendment.
That depends. Free blacks had citizenship rights in some states until the Dred Scot decision which applied a national standard of de-naturalization. Eleven years later all blacks were naturalized by the 14th Amendment. Prior to the 14th Amendment, state citizenship conferred national citizenship.
A free African-American named Alexander Lucius Twilight was elected to the Vermont state Legislature (the General Assembly) in 1836.
In that period, they deemed the common law to be altered by statutes and statutes were referred to as part of the common law. For example:
“The only principles of law, then, that can be regarded are those common to all the States. I know of none such which can affect this case but those that are derived from what is properly termed “the common law,” a law which I presume is the groundwork of the laws in every State in the Union, and which I consider, so far as it is applicable to the peculiar circumstances of the country, and where no special act of legislation controls it, to be in force in each State as it existed in England (unaltered by any statute) at the time of the first settlement of the country. The statutes of England that are in force in America differ perhaps in all the States, and therefore it is probable the common law in each is in some respects different. But it is certain that, in regard to any common law principle which can influence the question before us, no alteration has been made by any statute which could occasion the least material difference, or have any partial effect.” Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 435 (1793).
Thus, the common law was slightly different in each state due to different English statutes in force. And yes, the states adopted English statutes as well as the common law. For example, 11 & 12 William III, c.6 was adopted in nearly every state. Regardless, the Constitution is full of English terms, some from statutes and the English bill of rights, no matter how you define the common law. For example, Bill of attainers, ex post facto, impeachment, high crimes and misdemeanors, cruel and unusual punishment, grand juries, presentments, indictments, due process.
“I don’t use British law for everything. I use British law for those elements of the Constitution that were taken from Britain. The phrase “the right to be confronted with witnesses against him” — what did confrontation consist of in England? It had a meaning to the American colonists, all of whom were intimately familiar with my friend Blackstone. And what they understood when they ratified this Constitution was that they were affirming the rights of Englishmen. So to know what the Constitution meant at the time, you have to know what English law was at the time. And that isn’t so for every provision of the Constitution. The one you mentioned — what does sovereignty consist of? — that is probably one on which I would consult English law, because it was understood when the Constitution was framed that the states remained, at that time in 1789, separate sovereigns. Well, what were the prerogatives of a sovereign, as understood by the framers of the Constitution? The same as was understood by their English forebears. So that’s why I would use English law — not at all because I think we are still very much aligned legally, socially, philosophically with England. That’s not the reason. Cass Sunstein, A Constitution of many minds: why the founding document doesn’t mean what it meant before, pg. 200-01 (2009)
Seems you haven’t read the Virginia convention debates. Patrick Henry and Morris wanted the Constitution to adopt the English common law or a bill of rights like Virginina had done. They were saying that we didn’t have a common law if we didn’t adopt the English one, not that our common law was different. Henry was clear on the point:
“When our government was first instituted in Virginia, we declared the common law of England to be in force. That system of law which has been admired, and has protected us and our ancestors, is excluded by that system. Added to this, we adopted a bill of rights. By this constitution, some of the best barriers of human rights are thrown away….. That paper ought to have declared the common law in force….There is no common law of America (as has been said) nor constitution, but that on your table. ”
Randolph, for one, answered him:
“But he objects, that the common law is not established by the constitution. The wisdom of the convention is displayed by its omission; because the common law ought not to be immutably fixed. Is it established in our own constitution, or the bill of rights which-has been resounded through the house? It is established only by an act of the legislature, and can therefore be changed as circumstances may require it. Let the honorable gentleman consider what would be the destructive consequences, of its establishment in the constitution.”
Here’s the Wikipedia entry on the first African-American state elected official in the United States:
Alexander Lucius Twilight (September 26, 1795 – June 19, 1857), born free in Vermont, was the first black person known to have earned a bachelor’s degree from an American college or university upon graduating Middlebury College in 1823. An educator, minister and politician, he was licensed as a Congregational preacher, and worked in ministry and education all his career. In 1829 Twilight became principal of the Orleans County Grammar School. There he designed and built Athenian Hall, the first granite public building in the state. In 1836 he was the first African American elected to public office as a state legislator, serving in the Vermont General Assembly.
His house and Athenian Hall are included in the Brownington Village Historic District, listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Early life and education
Alexander Lucius Twilight was born September 26, 1795 at Corinth, Vermont. His father Ichabod Twilight was free, of mixed-race, and a Revolutionary War veteran. His mother Mary, also free, was described as white or light-skinned.
Twilight worked for a neighboring farmer in Corinth, starting around 1803 when he was 8. For the next 12 years he read, studied, and learned mathematics while working in various farm labor positions.
He enrolled in Randolph’s Orange County Grammar School in 1815 at the age of 20. From 1815 to 1821, he completed all secondary school courses as well as the first two years of a college level curriculum.
He then attended Middlebury College in 1821, where he graduated in 1823. His newly acquired baccalaureate degree made him the first African American to receive a degree from an American university, although this fact was not made widely known until Amherst College claimed to have awarded its first bachelor’s degree to an African American to Edward Jones in 1826.
Career
Twilight studied for the ministry with the Congregational Church and served several Congregational churches. His career was in ministry and education, fields which were considered closely allied at the time. His first job was teaching in Peru, New York.
While continuing to teach, Twilight studied theology, the church and the ministry. He occasionally led worship services and preached. The Champlain Presbytery of Plattsburgh licensed him to preach.
He taught for four years in Peru, then moved to Vergennes, Vermont in 1828 to teach during the week and hold services on weekends in Waltham and Ferrisburg.
In 1829 Twilight was hired as principal of the Orleans County, Vermont Grammar School in Brownington, the only secondary school in a two-county area. He also served as minister of the Congregational Church, building a house for his family shortly after arrival, which still stands.
Wanting to ensure a place for students from out of town, from 1834-1836 Twilight designed, raised funds for, and had built a massive four-story granite building which he called Athenian Hall. The first granite public building in Vermont, it served as a dormitory for the co-educational school, also known as the Brownington Academy. Both buildings are today part of a recognized historic district listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
In 1836, Twilight was elected to the Vermont General Assembly, becoming the first African American to be elected to a state legislature.
He left his job as headmaster in 1847.
After his death on June 19, 1857, Twilight was buried in the churchyard in Brownington.
Marriage and family
From 1824 to 1828, Twilight worked as a teacher in Peru, New York, There Twilight, 31, married Mercy Ladd Merrill in 1826. She was about 21 or 22.
After they came to Brownington and built a house, they used the second floor to house students who needed a place to board for school.
Legacy and honors
Alexander Twilight House (1830), still stands across the street from the hall, and serves as headquarters for the Orleans County Historical Society. It is within the Historic District is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Athenian Hall (1834–36) is now operated by the Orleans County Historical Society as the Old Stone House Museum, and anchors the Historic District of Brownington. It was the first granite public building in Vermont.
“I like the way the Stone House still looms up on that hilltop, where the wind blows all the time. There it sits, unshaken and monolithic, as I write this sentence and as you read it, every bit as astonishing today as the day it was completed. What a tribute to the faith of its creator, the Reverend Alexander Twilight: scholar, husband, teacher, preacher, legislator, father-away-from-home to nearly 3,000 boys and girls, an African American and a Vermonter of great vision, whose remains today lie buried in the church-yard just up the maple-lined dirt road from his granite school, in what surely was, and still is, one of the last best places anywhere.”
The Alexander Twilight Auditorium at Lyndon State College is named in Twilight’s memory.
Alexander Twilight Hall at Middlebury College was named in Twilight’s memory.
Oh sorry, forgot to say that the quote from Sunstein’s book is Justice Scalia.
http://books.google.com/books?id=vVy-jCwWJocC&pg=PA200&lpg=PA200&dq=%22don%E2%80%99t+use+British+law+for+everything%22&source=bl&ots=vqPsW8Iy0j&sig=_odZzpBS-hU4vgAH5Syyp3PgEyQ&hl=en&ei=TYlRTdmCL8qatweO0Mj7CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22don%E2%80%99t%20use%20British%20law%20for%20everything%22&f=false
No! No! No! Naturalization is ONLY by statute. The 14th is NOT a statute. Since there only 2 types of citizens, if a person is not naturalized, they are NBC.
I was using the term “naturalize” in its dictionary definition sense, particularly in the sense of definition number one below. From Merriam-Webster’s
naturalize
nat·u·ral·ize verb \ˈna-chÉ™-rÉ™-ËŒlÄ«z, ˈnach-rÉ™-\
nat·u·ral·izednat·u·ral·iz·ing
Definition of NATURALIZE
transitive verb
1: to confer the rights of a national on; especially : to admit to citizenship
2: to introduce into common use or into the vernacular
3: to bring into conformity with nature
4: to cause (as a plant) to become established as if native
I think that is correct. Free blacks were able to vote and own property in many states, which implies citizenship (passports didn’t exist in those days). Dred Scott was a stripping of citizenship, rather than a codifying of what existed. The purpose of the 14th amendment was to forestall such monkey business in the future.
The relevant question is, prior to the 14th Amendment, were the US born children of non-citizens considered citizens, unless specifically excluded by racially discriminatory laws? I say they were. The Wong Kim Ark case only arose because of the Chinese exclusion Acts. Had Wong been born to 2 German citizens, no one would have considered him anything other than a US citizen.
Quoting doesn’t seem to be working, so I will reply this way to Joey.
This is the dreck that Mario was trying to foist off onto the unsuspecting. M-W definitions should not be used to obfuscate a clear legal definition. This should be shot down every time it rears its ugly head.
My understaning, which is not as strong as I’d like because it’s based on secondary sources, is that at the time the New York Bar was closed to non-citizens and that de Chambrun sued the State Bar to be allowed to sit the examination..I’m hoping I’ll be able to track down the actual case the next time I’m in a good law library.
BTW when congress was considering the posthumous grant of honorary citizenship to Lafayette in 2002 they refer to a State Department letter of 1935 dealing with the grant of Maryland citizenship. I have a FOIA request in for a copy of that letter.
I’m not going to stoop to Puzo standards. He does not own the definitions of the word “naturalize.”
EVERY “natural born,” “citizen of the United States-at-birth” was NATURALIZED by the fact of their birth within the United States.
Well, Apuzzo’s latest stupid argument is that the 14th Amendment naturalizes people. Of course, the Amendment itself distinguishes between citizens by birth and by naturalization and hence, in plain English, it does not naturalize anyone. Justice Swayne in US v, Rhodes, the 1866 case interpreting the Civil Rights Act, the predecessor of the 14th Amendment, tells us what naturalization meant in 1866:
“But what is naturalization? It is the removal of the disabilities of alienage… Congress has power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization…The power is applicable only to those of foreign birth. Alienage is an indispensable element in the process. To make one of domestic birth a citizen, is not naturalization, and cannot be brought within the exercise of that power. There is an universal agreement of opinion upon this subject.”
In addition, the majority and both dissents in Dred Scott talk about “naturalization.” For example:
“The right of naturalization was therefore, with one accord, surrendered by the States, and confided to the Federal Government. And this power granted to Congress to establish an uniform rule of naturalization is, by the well-understood meaning of the word, confined to persons born in a foreign country, under a foreign Government. It is not a power to raise to the rank of a citizen any one born in the United States, who, from birth or parentage, by the laws of the country, belongs to an inferior and subordinate class.” Chief Justice Taney, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. at 417
“It appears, then, that the only power expressly granted to Congress to legislate concerning citizenship, is confined to the removal of the disabilities of foreign birth.” Justice Curtis, dissenting, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 478 (1857)
“Being born under our Constitution and laws, no naturalization is required, as one of foreign birth, to make him a citizen.” Justice Mcclain, dissenting, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 478 (1857)
It was argued that blacks could be naturalized before numerous Congressmen pointed out the courts said such was not true. Here are a couple of statement from the Congress that adopted the 14th Amendment:
” I maintain that a negro can not be made a citizen by Congress ; he can not be made a citizen by any naturalization laws, because the naturalization laws apply to foreigners alone. No man can shake the legal truth of that position. They apply to foreigners alone; and a negro, an Indian, or any other person born within the United States, not being a foreigner, can not be naturalized; therefore they can not be made citizens by the uniform rule established by Congress under the Constitution, and there is no other rule. Congress has no power, as I said before, to naturalize a citizen. They could not be made citizens by treaty. If they arc made so at all, it is by their birth, and the locality of their birth, and the general operation and effect of our Constitution.” Sen. Davis, quoted in History of the thirty-ninth Congress of the United States, William Horatio Barnes, pg. 208, (1868)
“You can not make a citizen of any body that is not a foreigner,” Mr. Johnson said: That would be an extraordinary condition for the country to be in. Here are four million negroes. They are not foreigners, because they were born in the United States.” Senator Johnson, quoted in History of the thirty-ninth Congress of the United States, William Horatio Barnes, pg. 203, (1868)
It is beyond doubt that in 1866 that it was understood that naturalization applied only to the foreign born.
The point, Joey, is that the general populace understand “naturalization” to mean a specific thing, not the definition you are using. NO ONE has been naturalized by the 14th Amendment and to say otherwise is disingenuous.
“Dr. Conspiracy: One might also argue that free blacks were citizens untilDred Scott changed it.”
The members of the 39th Congress considered Dred Scott an abomination. They called it a political speech, rather than a legal decision. However, many members of such Congress thought Dred Scott irrelevant, its citizenship language either being dicta or made irrelevant by the 13th amendment which was deemed to remove the only disability, i.e., slavery, from blacks being citizens. Others thought Dred Scott needed to be over-ruled. For example, Senator Johnson, the winning lawyer in Dred Scott, lectured the Senate on why the citizenship language was not dicta and why the Congress had no power to over-rule Dred Scott outside of an Amendment. But the clear purpose of the Amendment throughout the Congress was to put the law of citizenship back to where is was before Dred Scott confused the issue.
ballantine,
Thanks for the references to English statutory law being adopted by some of the states.
ballantine and sef,
I agree. Naturalization can only be applied to those who are aliens.
That’s the problem I have with considering McCain to be a “natural-born citizen”. Everything I can find indicates that the Panama Canal Zone was not under the legal jurisdiction of the United States. We could not do with that land as we pleased, and we could not sell it or give it away. It was not ours.
I thinkl the Constitution should be amended so as to make the children of members of our military, born outside of the U.S. due to being enganged in the service of the United States, shall be natural-born citizens (if the parents are citizens). Unfortunately for McCain (who I respect for his service and sacrifice) is a citizen naturalized by an act of Congress.
Regardless of the legal nicities, had he won the election, he would be President today. I would be willing to bet a large sum of money on that. And i would also be willing to bet a similar sum of money that no Obama supporters would be calling him a usurper.
Doc,
The Maryland resolution may have been ‘naturalization language’, but to me a plain reading entitles General Lafayette to all the rights of natural born citizenship (which would include presidential eligibility). René de Chambrun successfully argued in court that the Maryland law had legal force – I see absolutely no indication why part of it should have that legal force and part of it shouldn’t… Why do you assume that only part of the law is legit?
p.s. I didn’t quote you because the quote plug-in wouldn’t work.
Here’s the current section of the law of the land which defines “Citizens of the United States at birth:”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sup_01_8_10_12_20_III_30_I.html
If McSame had chosen Olympia Snowe, instead of that harpy, he would have been elected. Obama supporters would have accepted it, and would be spending their efforts on someone in ’12 who would win.
Also, if McSame had won, there would now be a war with Iran in addition to the ones we are now embroiled in.
Obama will be re-elected, and Cory Booker will follow. Better get used to it.
I believe there is little chance that the court would find a child of US military born oversees not to be natural born. The real difficult question is the child of civilians. We have already had that debate here over and over. My belief is that, with McCain, the court would have pointed out that under English law, a child born under the protection of the English army on foreign soil was a natural born subject. In those days, such meant being born on land occupied by the English army as they didn’t have bases in foreign, friendly nations. However, the rule was based upon whose protection one was born under and no one would argue that McCain was born under the protection of Panama instead of the United States.
“In the most detailed examination yet of Senator John McCain’s eligibility to be president, a law professor at the University of Arizona has concluded that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen.”
The analysis, by Prof. Gabriel J. Chin, focused on a 1937 law that has been largely overlooked in the debate over Mr. McCain’s eligibility to be president. The law conferred citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904, and it made John McCain a citizen just before his first birthday. But the law came too late, Professor Chin argued, to make Mr. McCain a natural-born citizen.
‘It’s preposterous that a technicality like this can make a difference in an advanced democracy,” Professor Chin said. “But this is the constitutional text that we have.'”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/11/arizona-law-professor-mcc_n_112126.html
McCain not eligible – he was born outside the U.S.
http://www.ronpaulwarroom.com/?p=4254
scientist,
You’re a very emotional being, aren’t you? 🙂 You’d have to be naive to think that no Obama supporter would be challegning something that would have been ripe for challenge. The Democrats in the House would have probably been the first to voice their concerns.
I’ll take your bet. How’s 1 trillion dollars sound?
You don’t understand our legal system if you think that no one would be challenging McCain’s eligibility had he won. Heck, they challenged it before he won.
“There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position
is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent,” said Sarah H.
Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the
issue extensively. “It is not a slam-dunk situation.”
In a paper written 20 years ago for the Yale Law Journal on the natural-born
enigma, Jill Pryor, now a lawyer in Atlanta, said that any legal challenge to a
presidential candidate born outside national boundaries would be “unpredictable
and unsatisfactory … it is certainly not a frivolous issue.”
http://www.snopes.com/politics/mccain/citizen.asp
NdH: Prof Chin’s opinion was disputed by Lawrence Tribe and Theodore Olsen and by unanimous consent of the Senate. I doubt there would have been a challenge by a House member, but if there had, it would have failed for lack of a Senate supporter.
Read what I said: I didn’t say that no one would have filed a challenge (by the way the challenge filed against McCain was not from an Obama supporter). Someone might have. I said that Obama supporters would not be screaming usurper 2 years later.
Just FYI, consider the case of Dick Cheney in 2000 (no, not the Florida mess). The Constitution bars electors from voting for residents of their own state for both President and Vice President. Dick Cheney’s last job had been CEO of Halliburton, headquartered in Houston, TX. Yet he claimed he was a Wyoming resident. Under the Constitution, Texas electors should have been barred from voting for both him and Bush, which would have made Lieberman VP (or Gore president). There was a perfunctory court challenge which was dismissed for lack of standing. Did you hear anything further on the subject? No. Democrats called Cheney many things, but not usurper.
So, I’ll take your trillion dollar bet.
scientist,
You like to live in a fantasy world where you predict the outcome of that which has not and likely will never occur. It’s a pretty safe bet that you will never be proven wrong, but you will also never be proven correct.
Do you enjoy making noise?
“There was a perfunctory court challenge which was dismissed for lack of standing.”
Really?
“The three-judge appellate panel took a short recess after the arguments, then Judge Patrick Higginbotham returned to say without elaboration that the panel was in agreement that Cheney clearly is a Wyoming resident.
Higginbotham was appointed by former President Reagan. The others—Rhesa H. Barksdale and Jacques L. Wiener Jr.—were appointed by former President Bush.
Plaintiffs Are Ready to Appeal
The three plaintiffs are prepared to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court if the appeals court sides with a lower court judge, said James Jones, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs.
“It’s an important constitutional question,” Jones said. “It’s one that Bush and Cheney have tried to finesse, but I think it’s one that deserves serious attention.”
U.S. District Judge Sidney Fitzwater, a Republican appointed by President Reagan, ruled Friday that Cheney has proven he ‘has both a physical presence within the state of Wyoming and the intent that Wyoming be his place of habitation.'”
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=122289&page=1
You are greatly overstating things.
Although there were more legitimate questions about looking into the NBC status for McCain, due to his being born abroad, the general consensus was that the issue, albeit “interesting” was not something that serious people would push to delegitimize him.
His main democratic opposition, Obama and HRC were both strong proponents behind pushing for the unanimous but nonbinding Senate resolution that declared him to be an NBC.
The lawsuits which tried to challenge his NBC status were ALL dismissed and also ALL came from camps OTHER than the democrats – some part of the existing crazy and failed “birther movement”.
Therefore, your entire premise is unsupported.
There is no evidence at all that the democratic party or its followers would have had any interest in pursuing this. Maybe a few crazy cranks, but there would be no “birther movement” as we see today against Obama.
Your lame attempts to justify the birther movement as some standard political tactic is not only unsupported, but also reprehensible in its notion of tit-for-tat political behavior.
Sorry, there is just no moral equivalency out there for the birther movement attacking Obama and there is no real reason to believe that the left would have become “birthers” against McCain.
You seem to be the one backing the crackpots and the unsupported crackpot theories against McCain’s NBC status… the mainstream woudn’t. Nor would anyone here. Sorry, but you’re all alone and way, way out at the edge of a limb on your ideas.
Further reading for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008#Eligibility
And WTF are you exactly?
For serious Democrats, taking the position that the children of servicemen born abroad couldn’t be President would be a public relations disaster. The Republicans would have beat them up over it, and rightly so.
I don’t think the conspiracy addicts on the left would have jumped on this had McCain run.
Should finish:
…had McCain WON.
No, you are wrong. Congress passed a unanimous joint resolution before the election that declared that McCain was eligible for the Presidency.
Just to be clear the word “unanimous” in that sentence means that every Republican, every Democrat, and every other member of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, all recognized McCain’s eligibility and vowed not to challenge his election if that is what the voters decided.
There is only one reason for them to have done that, by the way: there was (and still is) doubt whether or not McCain is indeed a Natural Born Citizen and they (being from BOTH sides of the aisle) wanted to remove that consideration from the voters minds in fairness to McCain.
As a lifelong Democratic voter and Obama supporter I agree with that resolution. My understanding is that technically McCain is NOT eligible, just as Dr. Chin concludes, however it is manifestly unfair to McCain to enforce that technicality.
Sorry. Just the Senate I guess. But the argument stands because a challenge has to be in writing and there must be at least one Congressman and at least one Senator agreeing to the challenge.