Last year, independent researcher Bob Gard published a massive 1722-page book titled: “ON GARD, OBAMA, YOU ARE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN, WHICH I SHALL PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.”
Bob came by this blog to plug his book and comment on the topic, and I thought that rather that stress the open thread, which will close soon anyway, I decided to open this up and move those comments from the open thread over here.
I found a used copy of the book at Amazon and ordered it (to arrive Thursday). Obviously we can’t debate a 1722-page book in this forum but I expect that I will have some questions from looking at the book, and perhaps get a sense of why Bob went one way and all the authorities went the other way.
If you want to understand natural-born citizenry and why Obama is unconstitutional, please go to Amazon and look for my eBook, entitled ON GARD, OBAMA, YOU ARE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN, WHICH I SHALL PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Also visit The-Constitutionist.com. If people give up willful ignorance and self-educate, the game will be over. I challenge Dr. Conspiracy to disprove any historical fact. There are over 4,000 footnotes.
Why would anyone want to read your shameless plug when we already have Corsi’s piece of trash? Ooo wow you have 4,000 footnotes to long debunked birther articles. Obama is a constitutional president and is currently serving. It’s going to be another hard 4 years for you
While you definitely deserve a prize for oneupsmanship in the game of excess, I must remind you that Количество на’ всеми is a com-ya-nists’ game.
4,000 whiffs has got to be hell on your batting avg.
I went over to Amazon to see about Mr. Gard’s book. I found this in his blurb:
“Bob Gard is the first person who pieces together this comprehensive definition of natural-born citizenship using both correlative and corroborative evidence. For more than 220 years, much of this evidence has been readily available within the public domain, but no one has yet brought the parts together into a conclusive whole.”
Maybe we could get Bob and Paul Guthrie to duke it out over who really made this world-shattering discovery.
Your’s was the definition of willful ignorance. You didn’t bother to look. By the way, Corsi didn’t get it right. I did. My book is 1700 pages long. It covers everything. Here is a small bit about Corsi’s book:
“Kettner, a brilliant researcher, was guilty of drifting to and fro in this limbo logic and so was another more modern brilliant researcher, Jerome Corsi. I have nothing but admiration for Mr. Kettner and Mr. Corsi but neither pinned down his belief as to what natural-born citizen meant, although Mr. Corsi claimed in Where’s the Birth Certificate? that “The purpose of this chapter [Chapter 3] is to define natural-born citizen as the Founders understood it and intended it . . .” Corsi pointed out “The term natural-born citizen appears first in a treatise Vattel wrote in 1758 titled Law of Nations: or, Principles of the Natural Law Applicable to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns. In Chapter 19, Section 212, Vattel specified:
The citizens are the members of the civil society, bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”
To begin with, Corsi made a critical mistake, the same as I made in my email to Mrs. Y on May 6, 2010 (Chapter 4). The above quote from Vattel came from the 1797 edition, not the 1758 edition, which was in French anyway, and had to wait for translation by Thomas Nugent in 1759 to supply the English prose. Corsi understood that:
Using Vattel’s definition, natural-born is not a vague concept. Rather, applied to the U.S. Constitution, a natural-born citizen is someone born in the United States to two parents who are United States citizens. Given this definition, a person born in the United States to one U.S. citizen parent and a second who is a citizen of another country would not qualify. Obama’s situation is precisely this: He says he was born in Hawaii to a Kenyan father and a U.S. citizen mother.
The assertion that a presidential candidate should be disqualified for being born on foreign soil was arguably weaker if both parents were U.S. citizens when the child was born. [Corsi’s train just jumped the tracks.] Under Vattel’s definition, if the child’s birth location were under U.S. jurisdiction at the time and both parents were U.S. citizens, the child was arguably a natural-born citizen. So, according to Vattel, Charles Curtis and Barry Goldwater would be considered natural-born citizens, provided we consider the territories of Kansas and Arizona to have been a part of the United States before they were granted statehood. [No wonder Corsi’s train left the tracks. The engineers controlling the locomotive were activist judges.]
First of all, the minute a researcher puts words into someone’s mouth, he stops being an objective researcher. I opine that Corsi was spinning facts to arrive at his desired conclusion. Almost every author is guilty of that. In the inspired words of Obama, I want you to believe in the “hope” that I have not spun. I honestly believe I haven’t despite my sarcasm, but I leave that decision up to you.
Vattel wrote nothing that would lead a researcher to think that Vattel would endorse Corsi’s conclusions about Curtis and Goldwater based on any proviso whatsoever. Vattel wrote “in the country” period. Second of all, Vattel was long dead when “natural-born citizens” replaced “indigenes” in his book. Corsi would have to answer the anti-birthers’ legitimate question: How can a term published ten years after the drafting of the Constitution have had any influence on the drafting? Corsi never got back on track. He spent most of the rest of his time casting doubt on Obama’s birth certificate and never picked a side between Vattel and the fraudulent birth certificate definitively, or said he was on both sides; i.e. a birther.bc,1 Corsi could be both, like I am, but he should have drawn a solid line between the two approaches to the constitutionality of Obama’s presidency. He blurred it with activist judicial decisions that unconstitutionally distorted the presidential eligibility clause and confused everything by using natural-born citizen interchangeably amongst the choices (1), (2) and (3) above. “
A day after the brief exchange about the value of brevity in titling, and this shows up LOL
Now that’s pattern recognition 😉
From his own description:
My, what a curious point in time! How selective! Who might such a selection be convenient for?
*whistling*
Donofrio should be demanding royalties for this birther stupidity he invented.
Vattel didn’t use Natural born in his book in the original french edition. Nowhere did he mention the french phrase for natural born citoyen de naissance. So you along with Corsi and other birthers got Vattel wrong. Also no proof the founders even looked to Vattel for citizenship considering they rejected his other notions on domestic affairs. Vattel didn’t define it. He never mentioned a need for two citizen parents.
Okay so how do you differ from the other birther lunatics?
Who the hell uses docx format?
Buy Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” in Russian. It’s available in Moscow for about $1,700. You may learn something if you do, but did we learn anything by this exchange of sarcasm?
People use “docx” if they want to know why Obama is unconstitutional. People who want to play electronic games belong in another section of Amazon.
It’s Word 2010’s native format … all of Office traditional filetypes grew an extra ‘x’ for 2010 (.xlsx, .docx, .pptx, wtfx …)
That said, good question, who the hell does use Word? (It hurts my face to look at!) Particularly for such a long pile of poo …. you really should have gone with … hehe … PDF(s). A superior solution in every way.
Yes that you have no idea what you’re talking about. Also you don’t know how to use the quote function
No Docx is a native format for word 2010 most people don’t even use docx but the standard doc. For an ebook though docx is a horrible format. No reading your book only makes people realize there are crazy people with too much time on their hands.
YOU came here. I suggest you condense the nub of your argument into a paragraph and present it. We have had literally dozens, if not hundreds, like you before here, so unless you can show quickly that you have truly taken a never-before-trod path, frankly Scarlett, I don’t give a damn.
Bob Gard:
please translate this french phrase into english:
j’ai des parents en italie mais mes parents sont ici en amérique
“Vattel didn’t use Natural born in his book in the original french edition. Nowhere did he mention the french phrase for natural born citoyen de naissance.” Correct. He added a definition for “natives” and “indigenes” that has never found its way into a dictionary since its incipience in 1758. You will have to read the book to find your answers to the incredible influence Vattel had in everything over the framers and founders. I prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the King’s Advocate to the British High Court of Admiralty, Sir William Scott, was the secret editor to the 1797 revised edition of Vattel’s “The Law of Nations,” where “natural-born citizens” appeared. When John Jay went to London in 1794 at the request of Washington to negotiate Jay’s Treaty with Lord Grenville, the latter put him into contact with Sir William. Sir William asked Jay, the author of the July 25, 1787 letter requesting Washington for the term natural born Citizen to be placed in the presidential eligibility clause, what the term meant. Jay told him. That’s why Scott substituted “natural-born citizens” for “indigenes.” I have many corroborations, correlations and circumstantial proof for the switch. If you don’t accept that, then explain how a totally otherwise ridiculous French-to-English and English-to-English translation would have been accepted? Find indigene in any French or English dictionary with a definition of natural-born citizen.
I already have my answers. Obama is the lawfully elected President. John Jay wasn’t apart of the constitutional convention and served no part in it. He said nothing about what he thought a natural born citizen should be. Jay said nothing about presidential eligibility in the letter to Washington. John Jay mentioned something about Commander in Chief. At that time the commander in chief of the military and the President were going to be two different positions. Once again the french phrase for natural born citizen is citoyen de naissance that phrase appears nowhere in the passage you referenced. So again your claims that I should read your poorly written book are fruitless as I can tell from your claims here you failed to do your research.
Uhhh, where’s my free copy?
Brevity is the soul of wit, sir. Do you have a one paragraph summatiion or not? All scientific papers do, even Nobel-prize-winning ones that revolutionize our understanding of the Universe. That really isn’t too much to ask for a crank theory such as yours that frankly wouldn’t matter regardless.
“Yes that you have no idea what you’re talking about. Also you don’t know how to use the quote function.” Correct on the second. Please tell me how to use the quote function.
I own many copies of Vattel. I almost bought that one in Moscow. I list 101 editions. I developed the most complete list in the world. I own many French, English, and Spanish editions and one Portuguese edition. I refer to sections of Vattel everywhere in my book; I show many photos; and I have a chapter dedicated to Vattel and his works. I also admit I am not a greater writer. I am a terrible proofreader. But I am a great researcher undaunted by childish remarks falling outside the realm of facts. I ferreted out the truth.
And again how much of the actual book did you read? Vattel was a monarchist who called for restriction of the press, the right to bear arms, ownership of property entirely by the state, establishment of religion and so on. Many things antithetical to the US Constitution. Vattel has no relation to the natural born citizenship clause.
I’m still waiting for you to speak on the claims you confuse with facts.
Where did Vattel mention a President? He was a monarchist. Also, did you ever raid a neighboring country and kidnap a wife He recommended that. You seem to pick and choose when it comes to Vattel.
I am not sure if I am using the quote function correctly. Thank you again for another definition of willful ignorance. Brevity in history has little chance of explaining anything. You want brevity? Here is brevity. John Jay meant by “natural born Citizen” Vattel’s definition of natives or indigenes. Refer to:
LON #1 2 tomes en 1, quartoa, 2 tomes, quarto, 7” x 9”; 10 x 17 cm., 12mo.
M. DE VATTEL, LE DROIT DES GENES, OU PRINCIPES DE LA LOI NATURELLE, Appliqués la conduite & aux affaires des nations & des ʃouverains Tomes I & II. A Londres. M. DCC. LVIII. (1758) [This book found more favor and sold more copies in America than in France. My copy is a reprint in 1761 of the edition that was printed in Neufchâtel, given a London publishing, and sold as the 1758 edition (Gravés par: Traiteur Fecit 1761). Another printing with the 1758 publishing date and the “Londres” publishing location was actually printed at the Hague. Therefore there were actually three editions with the 1758 date. “It was also cited more frequently than any other writer on international law in early U.S. courts.” ] Fig. 110 Les Naturels ou Indigènes
How do you know John Jay meant that? John Jay was chief justice he had a chance to opine on the meaning of Natural Born citizenship but yet never did. He also talked about Commander in Chief and not the President. Once again the French version says nothing about Natural born citizenship.
Here’s some help for you on the actual translation of the passage you quote from:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-translation-of-vattel-from-the-french/
All the information about your misinformation is in the book. Vattel was not a monarchist because natural-born subject was invented for the benefit of a monarch that cheered at the thought of perpetual allegiance. Natural born Citizen was invented for the benefit of a sovereign people. Vattel did not coin natural born citizen. He simply defined a new definition for natives and indigenes. Vattel revered his Switzerland and her acknowledgment of the right to expatriation. By the way, in Vattel, the term is almost always prince, not monarch.
The Gettysburg Address.
I speak French. Indigene = native. The same meaning as indigenous. Now show me where Vattel discussed who the President should be. Thanks.
Your ignorance isn’t willful it’s indigenous to you. You are in fact a natural born ignoramus. That says nothing about your parents who may have been perfectly fine people,
You obviously haven’t read vattel then since he was a monarchist he believed in the absolute power of the sovereign. Vattel didn’t invent natural born citizenship nor did he even talk about it.
Why in the world would anybody publish a book in Microsoft Word format? That’s totally weird.
I tell you what. Document your statement below about Sir William’s request, and maybe somebody will take you seriously. Prove to me that you know something relevant that I don’t.
He did no such thing. Native and indigenous means and always has meant born in a particular location. A native New Yorker was born in New York. Their parents were often not. Like the late Mayor Koch. I would have loved to hear the stream of invectives coming out of his mouth if you had tried to tell him he was not a native and natural born New Yorker. Oy, gevalt!!
I have a hard time reconciling someone who has actually read Vattel with someone who asserts that he was not a monarchist.
Not only that but his claim that natural born citizenship somehow benefited the monarch when the monarch passed their eligibility through jus sanguinis which had nothing to do with natural born citizenship. It shows a complete lack of serious thought on his part.
Let me explain how things work around here.
Folks like you come along espousing some view about what a natural born citizen is. Invariably there are many responses, and if the original commenter persists, the discussion gets huge. The original commenter is overwhelmed by a dozen comments to each of his comments and in the end nothing of any clarity arises. And the commenter will probably be insulted on the way (sorry about that).
Since these discussions always go to pot, as my folks would have phrased it, I cannot offer you any tried advice on how to prevent it from going to pot.
However, as an experiment, you might pick some small argument and stick to some narrow area of discussion. Before you get anywhere, you have to demonstrate that you can make a sound argument better than those who came before you and that you know useful information beyond what has already been discussed.
Or, you might try honestly answering a question:
In your research, did you ever find a framer of the Constitution or anyone at a ratifying convention state that a person born in the United States having a non-citizen parent meant:
1. a person was a foreigner (“foreigner” is the word used in the Jay letter)?
2. that they were possessed with foreign influence?
3. that they were undesirable for any office of trust in the Untied States?
4. that they had divided allegiance?
5. that they questionable loyalty?
Can you cite any American at all prior to 1790 expressing any concern about US-born persons of non-citizen parentage for any civic purpose?
Your claims are disproven as incorrect.
Guess again!
You pathetic piece of poop.
You can’t prove anything, because Obama was born in Hawaii, and also because his mom was a U.S. citizen.
Period. End of game. Finale’. Adios. Game over. And all the footnotes and BS and ebooks in the world cannot change these facts.
Barack Obama is President of the United States, for another four years. And you are a loser.
Thank you for dropping by, and may I suggest you contact Ed Hale, and write about Bigfoot next time.
It’s “de Vattel” not “Vattel” Mr expert great researcher.
You cannot remove the Germanic nobiliary particle and expect it to be the same name. You wouldn’t walk up to Jean Claude Van Damme, and address him as “Mr. Damme”…. well you wouldn’t do it twice, anyways.
Whether it’s von, zu, van, de, etc. you must include it or you’re talking about someone completely different, legally and linguistically.
Hey, did you see “JCVD”? Man, that soliloquy…
Bob Gard: All the information about your misinformation is in the book.
I appreciate the stunning demonstration on how to not sell and promote an eBook.
I hope Lupin had a good laugh at this buffoonery.
Bob, are you by any chance pen pals with General Jedi Pauly?
More than 1700 pages and 4000 footnotes? Do you have excerpts on the web anywhere? Because I’m not shelling out for an ebook without having some idea of the quality of scholarship.
Oh, I think you can get some idea right here and now, from these very posts, don’t you?
So Bob, since you lap at the well of Saint Vattel, care to explain how in the very same book you furiously masturbate over, he also states quite plainly how certain countries, naming England as one, Jus Soli is the rule.
You remember England, it was this country from which the USA derived it’s principles of law and where all the FF’s who were lawyers were trained in……English Law.
The same one England and its Common Law where the Supreme Court has stated on the record on a substantial number of occassions is the reference when it comes to interpretation of the words and meaning thereof of Constitution
I had two years to complete my research and write my eBook before the next election. I didn’t know anything about publishing formats. I certainly picked the wrong one. I know that now. Your logic in attacking my format to infer my conclusions wrong about Obama’s status is meaningless. You win the docx argument. Now please use the docx argument to prove my conclusions are wrong.
In the eBook, I list a number of ways Vattel’s name has been spelled and referred to both correctly and incorrectly. The American framers and founders never referred to him as “de Vattel” in their citations. They always listed him as Vattel in legal citations. Here are three examples from Jefferson— Vattel. 2. 157, Vattel L.3..104 and Vattel L. 4. . 51. James Wilson in one of his papers cited 2 Vattel 282. Edmund Randolph cited Vattel book. 4. section 65. In writing, the framers almost always said simply Vattel because he was so well known. When John Adams was asked if he had read Grotius and Puffendorf, he admitted in 1760 when Vattel was coming to America, “… natural Law, that I have never read, indeed I never read any Part of the best authors, Puffendorf and Grotius.” When asked later about his take on the office of an Ambassador, he had a completely different answer, which provided an example of a misspelling: “. . . all other Books I could find relative to the office of an Ambassador as Wickefort &c. Grotius, Puffendorf, Vattell &c. I had read before in America.” In Helvidius No. I, Madison wrote: “It will be found however, I believe, that all of them, particularly Wolfius, Burlamaqui, and Vattel, speak to the powers to declare war, to conclude peace, to form alliances, as among the highest acts of the sovereignty; of which the legislative power must at least be an integral and preeminent part.” I chose to refer to Vattel as the framers and founders did—good enough for me, sorry about your problem with it.
You honestly thought your “research” would change the election result? Well, the election is over now so you can stop. Because, the honest, unvarnished reality is no one cares. The people choose their leaders. If Vattel doesn’t like their choice, he is welcome to spin in his grave.
You are wrong in any conceivable format. No one is going to waste time reading 1722 pages. If you care to state the crux of your argument in a paragraph, I will be happy to destroy it. Otherwise, no one cares (see above). You are just another boring crank with a web site. Get over yourself.
Vattel discussed all the forms of acquiring citizenship. He was the only one of the public jurists in history that defined the highest form of citizenship.
Hundreds of pages in my eBook are devoted to debunking the belief that our Constitution and common law follow the British Constitution and English common law. How am I going to show you the error of your ways in a few sentences? For a little taste, you should visit my web site, The-Constitutionist.com.
You will also find in the eBook the arguments of some of the founders that the Supreme Court was not authorized to interpret what is in the Constitution, only the constitutionality of the laws that came after. Such founders believed, as I do, that the Constitution was in plain English, not to be subverted by interpretational stretching. In no time in history, did “in” mean “under.” Jefferson concluded, if the “power given by the constitution to collect taxes to provide for the general welfare . . . permitted Congress to take everything under their management which they should deem for the public welfare, and which is susceptible to the application of money; consequently, that the subsequent enumeration of their powers was not the description to which resort must be had, and did not at all constitute the limits of their authority. What confidence could be placed in a government that transformed a jealously guarded constitution into a boundless charter to legislate for the ‘general welfare’?” Madison was in total agreement and had the prescience to predict that the Constitution had two dire enemies, “one that would stretch it to death, and one that would squeeze it to death.” Interpretation is the code name for stretch.
Pretty naive, uh? A number of people have read the book and left reviews at Amazon. I am sad to say that you are almost a hundred percent correct about so few caring. That won’t stop me. The book is not about me. It is about the truth and an attempt to inform people of the meaning of the Constitution in order to save it from people like you and our Supreme Court justices. Next time, please come up with a different argument than reinforcing the willful ignorance I already know about. My eBook is almost entirely about history. I presume from your depiction of me as a “boring crank” that you are bored by history. Why are you debating history then? You are more naïve than I if you believe the natural-born citizenry quandary can be summed up in one paragraph!
Do tell, since you seem to quote de Vattel, where he defined natural born citizen? Or more importantly, where he defined it for a country that didn’t yet exist.
The-Constitutionist.com. You can peruse the 50 pages of debate between Stephen Tonchen and me to get an idea of the scholarship. Read the reviews at Amazon to see how others have rated it. Remember, I do not claim to be a great writer, just readable. Besides, the overwhelming content is from historical figures. No one can beat the research.
Not at all. I am bored by YOU, though.
3 is a number.
I can do it. It is a foolish antiquated restriction on the basic human rights of the American people, limiting their choice of President to those who were citizens at birth. The lack of any need for such a restriction is clearly demonstrated by the many great countries that live happily without such a restriction.
There, that wasn’t so hard.
I read the 3 reviews at Amazon, and I recall that at least one of them said that said they read the book, but at 1722 pages, I have reservations as to the truth of the claim. One of the reviews was so utterly general (the one with the logic examples), that It wasn’t clear whether they had any of the book. A second reviewer just dumped a couple of quotations and didn’t really sound like he had read the book. Of the three reviewers, only 1 had the “Amazon verified purchase” indicator, and that was Stephen Tonchen, someone who has written his own paper on the topic (2009) also saying that President Obama in ineligible. Tonchen’s review had enough meat to suggest that he had at least read some of the book.
I noticed that there you repeat a phrase you used here, “willful ignorance.” Knowing the strength of the argument in opposition to your thesis, the use of such a phrase is not one that leads to optimism as to your objectivity.
In a way, the belief that an opponent disagrees with you because they choose to ignore the argument (willful ignorance) is a bit like the attribution of random events to malicious intent (“Agency” in my recent article, “Patternicity and Agency”).
In any case, a claim of “willful ignorance” loses you points in a debate and also prevents you from understanding your opponents’ arguments also weakening your position.
Your conclusions are prima facie wrong. They are wrong “on their face,” They state incorrect premises and conclusions. IOW, they are utter baloney.
Bob, not even a good attempt at a dodge,
Lets try again shall we.
Vattel EXPLICTLY named England as a Jus Soli country….YES/NO
Real simple Bob, England was named as a Jus Soli country, it’s in black and white in Vattels own words.
As such trying to burble that the USA, a country created by the English, ruled by the English and with the laws of England will perforce NOT adhere to the interpretation of English Law in it’s Coinstitution is plain stupidity of the first water.
Section the next……
The FF’s who were lawyers were trained in English Law….YES/NO
The institution that has the burden of interpreting law in the light of the Constitution and therefore rules on what is or is not Constitutional is the Supreme Court….YES/NO
Every time the Constitution has been interpreted, it is referenced to the language and terms of the period of the Constitution….YES/NO
Tae law of the US at the time of the Revolution was English Law and English Common LAw…YES/NO
Since all the above are in fact statements of fact it is plain even to a brain damaged muppet as yourself that the Constitution was written in the context of English Law and English Common Law.
Your whining and bloviating like a cheap ass Appuzzo simply exposes you as the vacuous ignoramus you are.
Be so kind as to show any ruling in the last 100 years by SC justices or writing by actual Constitutional law experts and scholars that suppprt your inane drivel.
Lets start with Wong Kim Ark shall we, there’s a nice on point case for you.
I wait with particular relish to your attempt to weasel out the statements from the Chief Justice where even in the dissent he acknowledges that WKA, by this ruling could run for and if he won be seated as President.
The plain English meaning of “natural born” from the Oxford English Dictionary is: “Having a specified position or character by birth; used esp. with subject.” That is the only definition in that work which details all of the historical usages of words. Natural born citizens are citizens from birth. Stretching is what you do in an attempt to create a “highest form of citizenship” a phrase I daresay that you will not find in Vattel, nor in the writing of any early American.
Presuming that you have read the debates of the Federal Convention of 1787, you should know that there is not word of discussion of parentage as a qualification for any federal office, but only discussions related to the length of time someone was a citizen.
Supreme Court justice Washington in the Court’s decision in The Venus says “Vattel” and not “de Vattel.” The same is true of James Kettner in his scholar work, “The Development of American Citizenship, 1608-1870” saying “Vattel” in a list of authors. That is why I use “Vattel” in my writing here.
There was a discussion some time back in comments about the “Vattel” vs “de Vattel” question that led me to drop the “de” in using the short form of the name. Here was Lupin’s comment http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/10/de-vattel-reprise/#comment-75647, and Lupin is our resident Vattel expert. Also see comments following that one.
Let’s make this very easy, Mr. Gard. I’m sure you know who Mario Apuzzo is. He has been here many times and we have been over every one of his arguments. In what regard do you differ with him? If the answer is “None,” then further discussion is pointless. If you do differ with Apuzzo, then spell out precisely how and we can go from there.
I think it would be difficult to argue that the 13 English Colonies were not practicing the English Common Law in 1775, and given the fact that all of the new American states adopted the English Common Law in their statutes, constitutions and judicial decisions, it would be hard to argue that we were not governed by the Common law thereafter, except insofar that a statute was passed that changed it.
I couldn’t agree more.
I’ll leave to others, more qualified than I, to discuss whether Vattel’s writings influenced your Founders and constitutional law, and if so, how.
However, as a French lawyer & Vattel scholar myself, I can tell you (as I have done all too many times here) than there is nothing in Vattel’s writings that would hypothetically disqualify Mr Obama from being considered a native or indigene, had he been born in Switzerland during Vattel’s lifetime from, say, a British father and a Swiss mother.
The reason why some birthers use Vattel as Billy Batson does “Shazam!” is due to either a genuine misunderstanding of the original text, or a heap of bad faith.
I could go into details as to what Vattel exactly wrote, but all this has been covered at great length here. I’m sure our gracious host can help you put it together.
But Doc, that would mean all of the first 13 states were “in on it” as well, all with the express intent and plan that over 200 years later an illegal Usurperator would be elected President……Damn but Soros is looking incredibly prescient as well as good looking for about 300 years old…….
I note that “compilation” is merely the first step in the process known as “research”. At some point compiling becomes composting.
Wow a whole two years? Do you want a medal? 2 years worth of pisspoor research is wasted time. I’m not just attacking your format I’m attacking your conclusions as well or did you not notice I responded to other things you said as well. How about proving your conclusions are right? Thus far you’ve stated some rather obviously false information.
No de Vattel discussed what his native country did and nothing more. He stated other countries like England had their own rules and those should be followed. He made no claims about natural born citizenship. Sorry but no de Vattel discussed nothing about the “highest form of citizenship”.
You wonder why we continue to laugh at you when you make some glaring mistakes?
Stephen Tonchen? Well by the mention of him it’s obvious the level of scholarship is pisspoor. Let’s see your reviews consist of puff pieces and stephen tonchen.
Let me point you to a wonderful free utility called Calibre (download here) that can create eBooks in a number of standard formats from input document types including DOCX and PDF. Microsoft Word can, of course, create PDFs, a fairly standard publishing format.
The major three-volume work—later expanded to four volumes—on the Philadelphia Convention, afterwards dubbed the Constitutional Convention or the Federal Convention, was Max Farrand’s The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, published by the Yale University Press in Connecticut first in 1911. No references of any kind were made to native, native-born, native born, natural-born or natural born in Volume I. Vol. II, contrary to the beliefs of some anti-birthers, had a substantial number of references to natural-born citizen. You can find references on pages 494 and 498 for convention sessions beginning on Tuesday, September 4, 1787, page 536 for Friday, September 7, page 574 in a report from the Committee of Style on September 10, and another on page 598 having to do with Madison’s copy of the report from the Committee of Style. All came after the Jay letter of July 25, 1787. Hence, for all practical purposes, the term, as far as its use in the convention, seems to be Jay’s one hundred percent. Many mentions were made of native and natives in this volume but not one of native-born, which should logically lead to the question, what’s all the present-day confusion about natural-born being equal to native-born? Then there was in particular the term “native Citizens” once used on page 270 of Volume II of Max Farrand’s The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, by Mr. Sherman in the Monday, August 13, 1787 session as per Madison’s notes:
The U. States have not invited foreigners nor pledged their faith that they should enjoy equal privileges with native Citizens. The Individual States alone have done this. The former therefore are at liberty to make any discriminations they may judge requisite.
This quote should make us aware that the framers knew there was a difference in the meaning between “native Citizens” and “natural born Citizens.” If not, why did they not incorporate Sherman’s term instead of Jay’s term into the presidential eligibility clause? Elongating Sherman’s term to native born Citizen would have made no difference in meaning because all the dictionaries of the day defined native as “One born in any place; original inhabitant” either in these exact terms or in some fashion very similar. No world dictionaries had entries for native born Citizen or native Citizen, although the latter appeared very rarely in print in other books. No dictionaries exhibited any entry for native born. An opportunity to add an additional definition to the combination, distinct to their individual definitions, might be more confusing than striking the original term of natural born Citizen, which had never been incorporated in any dictionary.
If native born was not in Volume I, not in Volume II, and not in Volume III, why would one deduce that native born is what the framers had in mind or that it was equivalent to natural born? Volume III had one reference to natural born by reprinting John Jay’s July 25th letter in Appendix A, whereas there were a substantial number of references to “native” but only one to “natives.” In other words, anti-birthers have it right when they say no real debate occurred about the natural born Citizen requirement in the eligibility clause for the presidency.
I have included a chapter on the Constitutional Convention in which I quoted heavily from Farrand’s volumes. The lack of straightforward definitions for citizen and natural born Citizen is resolved by my book. Learning how would entail reading it.
Here are some excerpts from the chapter on the Constitutional Convention from Farrand’s to demonstrate the framers’ fears of foreign influence. I think you asked me about that somewhere else: “July 25 [the day John Jay sent his letter about “natural born Citizen” to George Washington]
Col. Mason approved the . . . election by the Natl. Legislature: Tho’ Candor obliged him to admit, that there was great danger of foreign influence, as had been suggested. . . .
Mr Butler. The two great evils to be avoided are cabal at home, & influence from abroad. It will be difficult to avoid either if the Election be made by the Natl Legislature. . . .”
Col. Mason was for opening a wide door for emigrants; but did not chuse to let foreigners and adventurers make laws for us & govern us. Citizenship for three years was not enough for ensuring that local knowledge which ought to be possessed by the Representative [affirmation of fear of foreigners in government]. This was the principal ground of his objection to so short a term. It might also happen that a rich foreign Nation, for example Great Britain, might send over her tools who might bribe their way into the Legislature for insidious purposes [re-affirmation]. He moved that ‘seven’ years instead of ‘three,’ be inserted.
Mr. Govr. Morris moved to insert 14 instead of 4 years citizenship as a qualification for Senators; urging the danger of admitting strangers into our public Councils [paranoia or justifiable caution?]. Mr. Pinkney 2ds. him
Mr. Elseworth [sic; Oliver Ellsworth from Connecticut, liberal]. [sic] was opposed to the motion as discouraging meritorious aliens from emigrating to this Country.
Mr. Pinkney. As the Senate is to have the power of making treaties & managing our foreign affairs, there is peculiar danger and impropriety in opening its door to those who have foreign attachments [conservative]. He quoted the jealousy of the Athenians [extremely conservative] on this subject who made it death for any stranger to intrude his voice into their legislative proceedings.
Col. Mason highly approved of the policy of the motion. Were it not that many not natives of this Country had acquired great merit during the revolution, he should be for
restraining the eligibility into the Senate, to natives.
Mr. Butler was decidely opposed to the admission of foreigners without a long residence in the Country. They bring with them, not only attachments to other Countries; but ideas of Govt. so distinct from ours that in every point of view they are dangerous. He acknowledged that if he himself had been called into public life within a short time after his coming to America, his foreign habits opinions & attachments would have rendered him an improper agent in public affairs. He mentioned the great strictness observed in Great Britain on this subject.
Mr. Gerry wished that in future the eligibility might be confined to Natives. Foreign powers will intermeddle in our affairs, and spare no expence to influence them. Persons having foreign attachments will be sent among us & insinuated into our councils, in order to be made instruments for their purposes. Every one knows the vast sums laid out in Europe for secret services— He was not singular in these ideas. A great many of the most influential men in Massts. reasoned in the same manner.
Mr. Rutlidge. It might as well be said that all qualifications are disfranchisemts, and that to require the age of 25 years was a disfranchisement. The policy of the precaution was as great with regard to foreigners now Citizens; as to those who are to be naturalized in future.
There are many more quotes from the convention and throughout the book. The only action where the fear of foreign influence gained complete foothold was in the adoption of the presidential eligibility clause necessitating the Presidency (and logically the Vice-Presidency) to be the only two offices banned to native-born citizens with no citizen parents or native-born citizens with one citizen parent.
Another length copy and paste that doesn’t even address what Doc said. Bob do you always ramble on about stuff you’re clueless about? The original french is what matters when it comes to de Vattel. de Vattel never used Natural Born Citizenship in his book. The phrase would be citoyen de naissance. I gave you a link to a translation early from a french lawyer who actually studied de Vattel in the original french. Did you ignore it?
John Jay said nothing about what he thought Natural Born Citizen meant nor did he apply it to the Presidency. Instead he said Commander in Chief. At that time Commander in Chief wasn’t going to be the same position as the President. Also Jay was not a member of the constitutional convention and it’s not obvious what say Jay had if any in the constitution.
The confirmation bias is strong in this one.
– smh –
That’s what I call debating like a gentleman. Thank you.
Vattel was the most influential public jurist in American history. More than Blackstone, Montesquieu, Grotius, Puffendorf, Hale, Burlamaqui, etc.
Итак, как же они перево’ят “indegenes“?
You could start by explaining why you think what I quoted below is true.
I have seen argument supporting the idea elsewhere, but you might have a different one. After you make the argument, I’ll answer it.
Show some proof to that claim, please.
Vattel did not define. He only opined.
I don’t dispute historical fact; I dispute historical conjecture and conclusions. Writers on your topic (and I haven’t read your book) typically blur fact and conjecture and that’s their argument is invalid.
My training is in mathematics, and one thing one learns quickly in that field, is that every step has to be justified.
“Vattel was the most influential public jurist in American history.”
That might win the most asinine statement of the week award.
Here are a few good reasons why:
129. Public establishment of religion.
176. Means of putting a stop to this disorder.
122. Right of carrying off women.
114. Freedom of philosophical discussion.
115. Marriages of aliens. (118)
Reference: The wit and wisdom of Emerich de Vattel
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/05/the-wit-and-wisdom-of-emerich-de-vattel/
Look at it this way, Bob. In the Constitution there is a class called “slaves.”
As time went on, Congress and the Supreme Court decided (no mean term) that slavery was incompatible with the spirit of our Republic. There are no longer slaves, even though their status is delineated in the main body of the Constitution.
Congress and the Supreme Court have likewise decided that eligibility to the Presidency is to be a broad combination of “jus soli” and “jus sanguinis” considerations, i.e. anyone born on our soil, regardless of parentage, and anyone born abroad to US parents, is a NBC. In other words, if you were to be considered a citizen the second you were born, you can be President.
My favorite demonstration of that fact is the case of Tom Vilsack. He has been a candidate for President. He is on the list of succession to serve as POTUS in case everybody in front of him on the list is dead. He was served as the Designated Survivor before. Nobody doubts that he is eligible to be President.
Got that? OK, here’s the part where your entire argument goes down in flames, and proves that you have wasted your time writing a pointless book: VILSACK’S PARENTS ARE UNKNOWN. He was a foundling, abandoned on the steps of a hospital (if I remember right) in Philadelphia.
Were his parents citizens? Visiting foreigners? Illegal aliens? Some combination of the above? Who knows? But being born here, he has always been considered eligible.
THEREFORE, NBC status for someone born on our soil cannot be a matter of parentage. The two-citizen-parents-required-for-NBC-status theory is, to put it bluntly, crap.
That is complete horse spit. The founders rejected many of the claims de Vattel just look at the bill of rights. Vattel was for an establishment of religion, he was for the restriction of the right to bear arms. He was for state ownership of property, restriction of the press. In fact sifting through the founders own writings they failed to mention de Vattel as much you think. In fact de Vattel is near the bottom of the list when it comes to influence.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?Itemid=259&id=438&option=com_content&task=view
1.St. Paul
2.Montesquieu
3.Sir William Blackstone
4.John Locke
5.David Hume
6.Plutarch
7.Cesare Beccaria
8.John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon
9.Delolme
10.Samuel Pufendorf
11.Sir Edward Coke
12.Cicero
13.Thomas Hobbes
14.William Robertson
15.Hugo Grotius
16.Jean-Jacques Rousseau
17.Lord Bolingbroke
18.Francis Bacon
19.Richard Price
20.William Shakespeare
21.Livy
22.Alexander Pope
23.John Milton
24.Tacitus
25.Plato
26.Abbe Guillaume Raynal
27.Abbe Gabriel Mably
28.Niccolo Machiavelli
29.Emmerich de Vattel
30.William Petyt
31.Voltaire
32.John Robinson
33.Algernon Sidney
34.John Somers
35.James Harrington
36.Paul de Rapin-Thoyras
Look at that de Vattel is 29 while Blackstone is at #3
The Constitution is municipal law, not public law. Vattel might have been the most cited writer on Public Law at the time of the founding, but he would fall out of favor in the 19th century. However, Public Law had very limited application in the United States outside of international disputes and there is no evidencre that any portion of our Constitution was based upon Public Law, particularly our citizenship law is a matter of municipal law. Accordingly, Blackstone, Coke and other English jurists were cited far more often than Vattel or any other writers on Public Law as we took most of our municipal law from England. The exaggeration of Vattel’s influence has gotten quite comical.
The obvious answer to your question is that the phrase “natural born citizen” was used instead of “native citizen” to indicate that anyone who was a citizen from birth could be President, not just those born in the country.
I say that for two reasons:
First, the British Naturalization Act that was in effect when the Constitution was drafted explicitly called foreign-born children of British subjects “natural born subjects.” Second the US Naturalization Act of 1790 called foreign-born children of US citizen fathers “natural born citizens.”
Can you find any historical reference in early America where a person born in the United States (to a non-citizen parent) was called a “foreigner?”
It would appear to me that the core error you are making is an unsupported assumption that the framers considered non-citizen parentage a foreign influence. Such an assumption, if false, would cause one to misread much of the material.
Let me point you to my article:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/09/the-framers-on-foreign-influence/
and the discussion that followed.
I quote from Farrand too, but we arrive at different conclusions. Why is that. Is one of us making unwarranted assumptions?
I think I am going to attempt being only a spectator on this one. I will note that Bob Gard’s website and his book seem textbook examples of original research gone astray. An hypothesis, if you will.
One of my favorite posts from Dr. C. is on this topic:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/no-original-research/
I’ll be interested to follow along and see how this back and forth goes, but I think I may have found my limit in going down the rabbit holes. Or I hope so!
@ Bob Gard: Check out this copy of Obama’s Kenya birth certificate:
http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2009/09/another-kenyan-birth-certificate.html
Who is “Vattel”? Do you mean Mattel? That would make sense.
I almost bought that one in Moscow.
So you’re a commie. Me too: Да з’равствует Ленин!
I ferreted out the truth.
I agree. Ferrets make great pets, once you get them to stop biting.
“… perhaps get a sense of why Bob went one way and all the authorities went the other way.”
Are you expecting a surprise, Doc? From his own description, he states he chose to end his “History of Natural Born Citizenship” in the 1840s. This is before any high-profile cases were heard before federal courts, much less SCOTUS (that I am aware of).
From this I infer Gard has decided to reject our country court system and its rulings and interpretations, and substitute his own. He is holding forth on his preferences and wishes, not what is. He’s rewriting the history of the country over short-term political concerns, or embracing long discarded interpretations of citizenship.
He may have something interesting to say, but from what he has said here, nothing of practical, effectual value.
If the case can’t be made in brief, then it’s wheelspinning. I assume his case in brief is the fauxVattelist standard “It takes two citizen parents to make a NBC”. Whoop. No support for that in the entire Anglo-American legal tradition going back to at least the 14th century (explicitly, to my knowledge), and implicitly, much farther.
If you Birthers are wondering why you’re having such a difficult time selling Vattelism it might be because you have never been able to produce one mention of the two-citizen-parent-for-presidents-only-rule in any history book or school text book or law reference book. Absolutely no one was ever taught that this was a rule or that the concept was even in question. And then suddenly, in 2008 (for some reason) you “realize” that everyone else has been wrong for 200 years. It’s appears as if you want to retroactively change the rules.
You owe me a new screen and keyboard.
You’re not a lawyer, and not even a paralegal.
Because of guys like St. George Tucker:
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague.” 1803, “View of the Constitution of the United States with Selected Writings…”
True
just readable
Not true
Well, that’s your choice Mr. Gard, I choose to refer to the SCOTUS, Congress, and American teaching about my country. But, for your opinion, you were given one vote. And, pretty much overwhelmingly, the American people chose the Constitution over a Swiss writer. BTW, Doc here has spent over 4 years on research and cites people like retired Supreme Court Justices, Law Professors, Congressional Research…needless to say it kind of puts your research down to around a 5th-grade level. I’ll bet Doc could debate you here and all he would have to do is provide links to his articles that debunk every point you make. I wonder though…how much of your book is cut and paste from Mario?
In the eBook, I was forthright in declaring I do not have the smoking-gun proof you seem to demand. John Jay was Washington’s best personal and political friend. Later, after the convention, Jay gave up his presidential aspirations for the benefit of Washington’s dire need to insure neutrality. That kind of loyalty was why Jay’s request was put into the Constitution without any floor debate.
“Jay said nothing about presidential eligibility in the letter to Washington.” Do you think that there was any doubt that Washington was going to be the first President and the Command in Chief of the American army? History narrates otherwise and completely accepts that the letter was the reason for natural born Citizen to show up in the presidential eligibility clause. The fear of Washington and the knowledge he was going to be the first President cowered any opposition.
“Once again the french phrase for natural born citizen is citoyen de naissance that phrase appears nowhere in the passage you referenced.” Find your term in a dictionary of that era. Below is what you’ll find.
Citoyen. Citoyen, ou Citoyenne, Ciuis. (Jean Nicot: Le Thresor de la langue francoyse, 1606)
Citoyen, [citoy]enne. s. Bourgeois, habitant d’une cité. (Dictionnaire de l’Académie française, 1st Edition, 1694)
CITOYEN, ENNE. s. Habitant d’une Ville, d’une Cité. (Dictionnaire de l’Académie française, 4th Edition, 1762)
CITOYEN, ÈNE, subst. [Ci-toa-ien, iène, 3e è moyen dans le 2d; dans le 1er, en n’a pas le son d’an. — Richelet écrit Citoien, le P. Follard Citoïen; mais cette manière d’écrire ferait prononcer Cito-ien, contre l’usage.] Suivant l’Académie, Citoyen est un habitant d’une Ville, d’une Cité. (Jean-François Féraud: Dictionaire critique de la langue française, 1787-88)
The closest you will come to it is found under ‘naturels.”
Naturel, signifie aussi, Habitant originaire d’un pays. Les naturels François. les Espagnols naturels. les naturels habitans. En ce sens il s’employe aussi subst. Les naturels du pays. (Dictionnaire de l’Académie française, 1st Edition, 1694)
NATUREL signifie aussi, Habitant originaire d’un pays. . . . Les naturels habitans (Dictionnaire de l’Académie française, 4th Edition, 1762)
Why do you insist on a term that did not exist in a dictionary of the times unless you can display a political document displaying it in the same era?
“So again your claims that I should read your poorly written book are fruitless as I can tell from your claims here you failed to do your research.” You can tell how poorly a book is written without reading it? You are amazing. My job would have been easier if I had been able to. A lot less expensive too.
@ Bob Gard: I have looked at the length of each post of yours. I have one observation:
The secret of being a bore is to tell everything. – Voltaire, Discours en vers sur l’homme, 1737
I was going to venture 7th grade.
Leo Donofrio had some time to kill between poker games.
Bob doesn’t seem to understand what legal argument is. It is simply a fact that Jay does not define “natural born citizen” or say what he thought a “storng check” was. To say otherwise is simply dishonest and rank speculation is not legal argument. It is perfectly reasonable to suppose that a native-birth requirement was a sufficiently strong check as that was the only thing proposed in the Convention and was, of course, the law of England with respect to office holders.
Again, it is simply dishonest to say that anything said in the Convention implied a parentage requirement, referenced Vattel’s defintion in any way or indicated that “native” meant something other than “natural born.” One can speculate all one wants. It is not legal argument. The facts are that only a native birth requirement was discussed and there is no evidence anyone thought the term “foreigner” applied to those with foreign parents. Wilson said he was a foreigner because he was foreign born. Baldwin said the porposal to restrict Congress to “natives” was a discrimination as to place of birth.
At the end of the day, there is not a shred of evidence that any framer connected the phrase “natural born citizen” to Vattel and or that legal authority in the United States for the next half century, at least, did either. As with all birther arguments, they must claim people meant something they did not say as there is no actual authority that supports them.
“[No wonder Corsi’s train left the tracks. The engineers controlling the locomotive were activist judges.]”
“He blurred it with activist judicial decisions that unconstitutionally distorted the presidential eligibility clause and confused everything by using natural-born citizen interchangeably amongst the choices (1), (2) and (3) above. ”
Disturbing opinions. Activist judges and judicial decisions? Who decided that? Are “activist” judges’ rulings less binding? According to whom? An unqualified birther? How is that in any way respectful of the law?
I commend Mr Gard for his efforts in singlehandedly culling the 2016 Republican presidential ticket. Using his definition, it is evident “beyond a reasonable doubt,” that neither Gov Bobby Jindal (born in Louisiana to 2 non-citizen Indian graduate students) nor Sen Marco Rubio (born in Florida to 2 unnaturalized Cuban refugees) nor Sen Ted Cruz (born in Canada to a Cuban father & an American mother) meet the constitutional requirement of natural-born citizen. Well done, sir!
So in other words your claims are completely meaningless and lack merit. Again no matter how close John Jay was to Washington it does not change the fact that 1. John Jay didn’t claim what he perceived Natural Born Citizen to be and 2. That John Jay was even talking about the President. 3. That his input even mattered as he wasn’t apart of the Constitutional convention.
Again at the time John Jay made the statement President and Commander in Chief were going to be two separate positions. John Jay refered to the Commander in Chief of the Army and not the Chief Executive of our government. History does not show that in fact I notice you’ve said nothing about the response from Washington. You’re making claims that are not in evidence. There is no proof that the letter was the reason.
You seem to forget that John Adams had run against George Washington. Also according to your logic George Washington wouldn’t have been eligible according to John Jay’s letter.
The political document does not use the term as has been explained to you repeatedly here. Why do you continue to insist on lying?
If your arguments here are any indication of what is in your book then yeah we don’t need to read through your mess of a book to know you’re full of spit.
Bob Gard= Jedipauly?
Bob Gard is an unfortunate example that volume cannot redeem a premise which is fundamentally flawed. His 1722 page book is worthless, not because it isn’t long enough, but because the flaws of his premise begin on page one. No matter how many pages he adds, the flaw persists. You cannot fix a poisoned well by dumping more water in it.
I am not an expert on Constitutional law, and so I must defer to expertise. Considering that Bob Gard, for all his volume, has not been published or reviewed in any reputable legal journal, has not been peer reviewed, has not been cited by any recognized expert, and cannot even manage to sell his book in any significant volume, leads me to believe, and rightly so apparently, that no real expert on the subject regards his speculative pulp to be worthy of consideration.
His flawed premise also goes against every recognized authority on the subject. Indeed he contradicts even the research branch of the Library of Congress, the entity upon which the legislative branch of our government does rely for accurate and timely information on such subjects.
This combined with the lack of any apparent credentials of his own (at least that I can find and verify) leads any reasonable person to conclude that Mr. Gard is simply another obsessed, birther with too much time on his hands, and with a much greater belief in his own “expertise” than his spurious book warrants, despite it’s volume.
In short, Bob Gard’s writings are an excellent example of how wasted space is no less wasted, no matter how much you increase the volume.
You have had no one like me. The mere fact that I explained how “natural-born citizens” ended up in the 1797 edition of Vattel’s The Law of Nations is proof enough of what you ask. Isn’t that one of the favorite arguments of anti-birthers, that there was no way that Vattel could have been responsible for natural-born citizens since he died thirty years before the 1797 edition was published? I suggest that the person who thinks 1700 pages can be condensed in to a paragraph has a reality issue. Just remember that a lot of valuable original documents, notes, books and letters were burned up in that that famous fire.
Did you actually mean to say; stupidity of the first order?
So, which is it? It sound like your “proof,” boldly proclaimed in your title as incontestable, is not as airtight as your text admits.
Is this an interminably long discussion between two birthers who reached their conclusions on Presidential eligibility first and then searched for anything remotely connected for support however irrelevant?
How is that a debate if the crux of the viewpoints are the same?
1% Silver Nitrate:
i have been anxiously waiting for the same scrutiny to be put forth for rubio, bojangles & cruz while THEY move forward with their aspirations
someone mentioned (here) tom vilsack – i did not know that he was abandoned at birth and his parents unknown ….. but he was
is it because vilsack is “white” and the other three “brown” that no birther issues have been raised? ……….. hmmmm
“A History of American Law” by Lawrence M. Friedman was published in 1973 and has remained in print for 40 years. Friedman cites Blackstone 17 times. He never mentions Vattel.
When an American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries was published, American subscribers ordered 1,557 sets. As Friedman notes, “Not all of the subscribers were lawyers and judges, but many were, and Blackstone’s text became ubiquitous on the American legal scene.” Friedman never mentions Vattel’s book. In fact, Vattel didn’t even make it into Friedman’s bibliography. That fact should give you a sense of how much influence Vattel had on American law.
During your two years of working on your book, did you come across a single legal text, history text, or civics text which states that a natural-born citizen must have two citizen parents? If so, please provide us with a citation.
Actually we have had people like you. You’re repeating long discredited birther memes and essentially pulling a Jedi Paully thinking you somehow have a copyright on bad logic. Okay tell me then how one of the earliest mentions of Vattel by the Supreme Court includes a reference to Vattel which includes Naturels and indegenes?
I’ll say.
The fact that you are not a lawyer explains how everything you say is moot.
Denialists have a reality issue. News flash: Obama is our president. He will have a library, hundreds of books will be written about him, he will be in history books until our civilization ends.
Denialists will be a footnote. If they are studied at all, it will be in psychology textbooks on abnormal psychology.
Really? How can you be sure?
See: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/category/whoswho/leo-donofrio/
And:
http://www.thefogbow.com/birther-claims-debunked1/birther-cast-and-crew/lawyers/leo-donofrio/
And:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
Who ARE you?
What are your credentials?
What legal journals have you been published in?
What experts cite you?
ALL CAPS is used by the semi-literate and the insane.
Apuzzo would love this guy!
“His flawed premise also goes against every recognized authority on the subject.” That explains why the recognized authorities have been wrong for such a long time.
Actually the research branch of the Library of Congress agreed with me that Jefferson had not issued a resolution in 1777 using the term “natural-born citizens,” a fact that your recognized authorities had embraced.
The Liberty Fund agreed with me that their press had not listed the correct translator to the 1797 edition they published in 2008 due to an error in the Library of Congress. I emailed them:
“I spent many hours scouring the Internet to find out who the new editor and/or translator could have been. None of my English-language copies from 1759 through 1797 mentioned an editor or translator. I ascertained nothing. Then, many months later, I noticed on the back of the title page of the Liberty Fund edition under the Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data that the Library of Congress had determined that the 1797 edition had been translated by Thomas Nugent.” Nugent died long before that edition. The Liberty Fund answered: “The section on the copyright page that states The Law of Nations was translated by Thomas Nugent is the CIP data (that is, the data comes directly from the Library of Congress for their cataloging purposes). We make it clear in our edition that the 1797 translation is anonymous. If we ever reprint, I will see if the CIP data can be amended.”
I have no credentials but I have a unique ability to find the truth. When I am right, I defer to no one.
“All of our Presidents have, to date, been born in the 50 states. Notably, President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, and so is clearly a natural born citizen.”
– retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor
Is she one of those “activist” judges?
misha marinsky: Denialists will be a footnote. If they are studied at all, it will be in psychology textbooks on abnormal psychology.
one of my fave quotes: History will be harsh in its judgment against these peddlers of conspiracy theories—they won’t be seen as the patriots they imagine but as crackpot reactionaries who ended up hurting the credibility of their fellow conservatives.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/03/republican-conspiracy-nuts-on-obama-s-skeet-shooting-picture.html
“That explains why the recognized authorities have been wrong for such a long time.”
The dictionary definition for hubris should include that as an example.
meanwhile, at the white house, barack obama continues presidenting.
It’s called Thorazine. Look into it.
That definitely proves Obama is constitutional. I’m sorry. A plural subject followed by a singular verb must be worse! Let’s ask the psychologist you consulted. Who was he?
Ah so you’re one of those schitzos who believe all the authorities who actually know this stuff are wrong but only you can be right. Have you met Padawan Paul Guthrie yet? You both seem to have the same distorted ego problems.
What is Jefferson’s relevance? He didn’t write the constitution that would be Madison.
Relevance? The constitution was adopted in 1787
Still waiting for that moment when you are actually right about something. I have a feeling I’ll be waiting a long time.
Without credentials or reviews to back it up, how are we to know that you actually have this “ability”.
Every insane person since the beginning of time has known they were right, and so deferred to no one, despite having no credentials. It’s one of the symptoms.
So please tell us how we are to conclude that you are, against all odds and reason, an amateur who is right when every expert is wrong, as opposed to an individual with delusions of grandeur?
How are we to know?
Mr Gard: A non-natural born citizen as President (which has never occurred, but, in principle, could) would not be in the slightest bit unconstitutional. Surely you have read the ENTIRE Constitution, not just the 3 words you write 1722 pages on? Are you familiar with the 12th Amendment? If not, allow me to help you. It states, in part-
“the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President”
Who had the greatest number of (electoral) votes for President in 2008 and 2012? Said person, Barack H Obama, SHALL be President. So says the Constitution.
You are playing in the big leagues now, son. Not like your own blog, with no comments.
On his website he actually claims that he debated the definition of “natural-born citizen” with his 8th grade civics teacher in 1960. He says that he has a degree in political science. Apparently he was never taught about the value of brevity.
So he’s a Science Fiction author?
Perhaps I take a different approach than other people do. I couldn’t care less what the framers intended when it said “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”. In my opinion the most brilliant that the framers did was make the Constitution amendable. By this fact alone, the framers were telling the world that their intent was not sacrosanct.
I am not arrogant enough to say that I know what the framer’s intent was when it used the term “Natural Born Citizen” in the Constitution. My best, most educated guess, is that it was our version of a natural born subject, as defined in Calvin’s Case, the 1608 case from English Common law, but I do not know that for sure.
But it doesn’t matter. I know the framers did intend for the Supreme Court to be the last word in interpreting the Constitution. I also know that once the Supreme Court has spoken, that is the law of this Country, regardless of the original intent of the framers, unless and until another case comes along and the Court reverses itself.
The Supreme Court, in the Wong Kim Ark case, clearly and unambiguously rejected the two citizen parent rule, and stated that a person born on US soil is a natural born citizen. Moreover, whether the framers considered native born and natural born citizens to be different, the Supreme Court, in several cases, has said they are the same.
That is the law of the land and I do not need a 1722 treatise to tell me what the framers intended when their intent becomes irrelevant once the Supreme Court rules.
Horus,
Nope, first water
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_water
Of highest quality usually related to diamonds and their clarity, thought it went rather nicely with perforce…. 😎
You’re right. They aren’t.
Yoda:
i agree with you and well said – if there was a discrepancy, then why haven’t the supremes requested papers from the defense? why haven’t they granted cert?
oh yeah, i forget, they are bought and paid for, afraid or some other nonsense
Can you explain why between 1785 and 1791 the Massachusett’s legislature used the terms natural born citizen and natural born subject interchangeably?
The framers did not mean for the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution.
Bob, 1722 pages and 4000 footnotes conclusively proves that you have confused quantity with quality, and that conciseness and precision are not your strengths. Footnotes do not impress me in the slightest; their excessive use is a device borrowed from academia to make you look “scholarly”. As for the 1722 pages…you should be able to condense your argument to 30 seconds or less, which you would need to in a court of law. Speaking of which, if your extremely lengthy tome is correct, why has not a single lawsuit succeeded in showing that the POTUS is not a natural-born citizen? (And before you start writing, any answer along the lines of “there’s a conspiracy of the illuminati” will drop your credibility so far off the scale we will need a submarine to find it).
Thanks. I noticed that I left some words out, as I tend to do sometimes, I am glad it was understandable.
Of course it did.
Serioulsy? Really?
All your “great research” and you can’t even get that one item, which every grade school kid in America is supposed to learn, right?
Really?
Bob Gard: The framers did not mean for the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution.
wow – i can hear scalia et al screaming from here
PDF or ePub for the 1700 page pile o’ poo. It might not make the contents any more sane, but at least it doesn’t scream “clueless amateur” like sending out a 1700 page .docx file would.
So when people disagree on what it means who decides? I’m sure your argument is that whoever writes the longest ebook with the most footnotes decides.
Here is something that needs no interpretation:
“the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President”
That is President Obama. No footnotes. Tough for you,
Sounds like your time would have been better spent collecting a ball of string.
So then you’re familar with de Vattel’s other ideas, like:
Book One:
114. Freedom of philosophical discussion.
I speak of the freedom of philosophical discussion, which is the soul of the republic of letters. … I know that liberty has its proper bounds — that a wise government ought to have an eye to the press, and not to allow the publication of scandalous productions, which attack morality, government, or the established religion.
127. Of religion internal and external.
Religion consists in the doctrines concerning the Deity and the things of another life, and in the worship appointed to the honour of the Supreme Being. So far as it is seated in the heart, if is an affair of conscience, in which every one ought to be directed by his own understanding: but so far as it is external, and publicly established, it is an affair of state.
129. Public establishment of religion.
But we should take care not to extend this liberty beyond its just bounds. In religious affairs a citizen has only a right to be free from compulsion, but can by no means claim that of openly doing what he pleases, without regard to the consequences it may produce on society. The establishment of religion by law, and its public exercise, are matters of state, and are necessarily under the jurisdiction of the political authority. If all men are bound to serve God, the entire nation, in her national capacity is doubtless obliged to serve and honour him (Prelim. 5), And as this important duty is to be discharged by the nation in whatever manner she judges best, — to the nation it belongs to determine what religion she will follow, and what public worship she thinks proper to establish.
141. The sovereign’s authority over the ministers of religion.
To the prince’s inspection of the affairs and concerns of religion we have joined an authority over its ministers: without the latter power, the former would be nugatory and ineffectual; — they are both derived from the same principle. It is absurd, and contrary to the first foundations of society, that any citizens should claim an independence of the sovereign authority, in offices of such importance to the repose, the happiness, and safety of the state. This is establishing two independent powers in the same society — an unfailing source of division, disturbance, and ruin. There is but one supreme power in the state; the functions of the subordinate powers vary according to their different objects: — ecclesiastics, magistrates, and commanders of the troops, are all officers of the republic, each in his own department; and all are equally accountable to the sovereign.
176. Means of putting a stop to this disorder.
…Whoever should so far forget himself, as, either by word or deed, to insult a man who wears a sword, might be degraded from the rank of nobility, deprived of the privilege of carrying arms, and subjected to corporal punishment — even the punishment of death, according to the grossness of the insult…
…Since it is an established custom that the nobility and military men should appear armed, even in time of peace, care should be taken to enforce a rigid observance of the laws which allow the privilege of wearing swords to these two orders of men only.
Book Two
81. The property of the citizens is the property of the nation, with respect to foreign nations.
Even the property of the individuals is, in the aggregate, to be considered as the property of the nation, with respect to other states. It, in some sort, really belongs to her, from the right she has over the property of her citizens, because it constitutes a part of the sum total of her riches, and augments her power. She is interested in that property by her obligation to protect all her members. In short, it cannot be otherwise, since nations act and treat together as bodies in their quality of political societies, and are considered as so many moral persons. All those who form a society, a nation being considered by foreign nations as constituting only one whole, one single person, — all their wealth together can only be considered as the wealth of that same person.
115. Marriages of aliens. (118)
There exists no natural impediment to prevent foreigners from contracting marriages in the state. But, if these marriages are found prejudicial or dangerous to a nation, she has a right, and is even in duty bound to prohibit them, or to subject to certain conditions the permission to contract them: and, as it belongs to the nation or to her sovereign to determine what appears most conducive to the welfare of the state, other nations ought to acquiesce in the regulations which any sovereign state has made on this head. Citizens are almost everywhere forbid to marry foreign wives of a different religion
122. Right of carrying off women.
… A nation cannot preserve and perpetuate itself, except by propagation. A nation of men has, therefore, a right to procure women, who are absolutely necessary to its preservation; and if its neighbours, who have a redundancy of females, refuse to give some of them in marriage to those men, the latter may justly have recourse to force
I am correcting my own post, I left out too many words.
Funny, the framers disagree with you: “[T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents”
Alexander Hamilton – Federalist #78
You’re doing a really terrible job of trying to prove you understand the Constitution or its history.
Are you my brother? You sound just like him. But then I have a lot of brothers. As a result, I have a unique ability to ferret out cranks without credentials who all believe they have a unique ability to find the truth, deferring to none in their isolation and ineffectiveness.
I might guess that one distinguishing mark between a crank and a genius (or some such talent) is this question of effectiveness. So, not to worry, once you have convinced everyone, you will prove you weren’t a crank, and that they should have deferred to you all along. I’m not sure how you will do that on your current path, but I leave that to you.
[Cruz] might even run for President in 2016. Though he was born in Canada, he informed me that he was qualified to serve. “The Constitution requires that one be a natural-born citizen,” he said, “and my mother was a U.S. citizen when I was born.” — The New Yorker, November 19, 2012
Break it to him gently. He is, after all, a Harvard Law School graduate & former clerk to Chief Justice William Rehnquist, so he probably hasn’t had to grapple with your cutting-edge scholarship.
Here’s a list of the 37 “Authors Most Frequently Cited By the Founders of the United States”
http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/influences.html
Montesquieu is in second place. (8.30%)
Sir William Blackstone is in third place (7.90%)
Hugo Grotius is in 15th place (0.90%)
Puffendorf, Hale and Burlamaqui isn’t on the list.
De Vattel is in 30th place (0.50%)
What were you saying again ??
There’s a gentleman in Indiana named “Jedi” Paul Guthrie. He too is making many of the same claims in regards to discovering something nobody else has in over 200 years. He too also has some rather unique legal theories. He too also has a rather breathtaking level of sheer arrogance and inability to suspect they may actually be incorrect about something.
You might want to team up with him
If you are most concerned about the information getting out, why not put a sample chapter up for us to see? I saw the excerpts on your site and they don’t make sense on their own. I can’t imagine you are selling too many in the format you have.
Somebody asked me to translate “J’ai des parents en italie mais mes parents sont ici en Amérique.” I can’t find that entry but here’s the answer.
I have relatives in Italy but my parents are here in America. Tengo parientes en Italia pero mis padres están aqui en America. Jag har släktingar i Italien, men mina föräldrar är här i Amerika. Tenho parentes na Itália, mas os meus pais estão aqui na América. I went to a university in Spain and one in Sweden. I took all my courses in the native languages. I travelled through a number of Portuguese-speaking countries. I am nowhere near as fluent as I used to be. I reproduced 212 in Spanish, Portuguese and Italian in my eBook. No edition was printed in Swedish, but editions were published in German, Chinese, Greek, Russian, Polish and Japanese. When you translate to Portuguese and Spanish a very important difference arises. “Padres” and “pais” can mean father or mother or both. It affects the meaning of “Como la sociedad no puede mantenerse y perpetuarse sino con los hijos de los ciudadanos, estos hijos siguen naturalmente la condicion de sus padres y entran en posesion de todos los derechos de que estos disfrutaban.” or “Como a sociedade não pode manter-se e perpetuar-se senão pelos filhos de seus cidadãos, esses filhos naturalmente seguem a condição de seus pais, dos quais incorporam todos os direitos.”
I did not reproduce 212 published in German, Chinese, Greek, Polish, Russian or Japanese.
Get help.
I will consider putting a whole chapter on the site. What is hard for me to understand is for a little over $10 the anti-birthers aren’t willing to find out what I have but are willing to spend a lot of time criticizing me without getting paid for it and without knowing what they are criticizing me for. I paid as much as $1,700 for one book in order to find out one small thing. It seems that the main intent for most is ridicule.
His entire argument basically comes down to, “I’m right, you’re wrong, neener neener.”
Let me put it this way…
An earlly commentator in American law, quoted by the Supreme Court in the quentisential case about citizenship: “And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”
How about William Rawle: “…he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”
How about the Supreme Court: “There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”
How about another quote from a U.S. Supreme Court Justice: “All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”
where does wong kim ark mention a president ? why did they bother with natural born at all, and a grandfather clause ??
no, this is for the supremes, no one else can define.
personally i think the entire constitutional angle is a diversion, distraction seems to be the new world order of the day.
Read the book and you will learn why. Andrew Napolitano calls people that follow blindly “sheeple.”
Bob,
Here’s my one voice. My opinion…
Your entire argument revolves around the definition of what a natural born citizen is.
This presupposes that Obama is not a natural born citizen.
However, not a shred of evidence has supported Obama being born anywhere else but Hawaii.
Oppositely, evidence Obama was born in Hawaii is substantial.
The health director and HI’s governor both agreed, certified it and from what I understand, both were Republicans too.
No one in the RNC (nor McCain or Romney) brought forth any evidence that Obama was born outside of the USA and they had hundreds of millions of dollars, access to law, history and investigators.
Surely they wouldn’t have bothered spending so much money on a contest if they could have proven the other contestant wasn’t qualified.
As far as me being willfully ignorant, it’s true.
I won’t read your book.
But this is only because your book itself is based on willful ignorance.
You’ve ignored providing reasonable proof that Obama is a foreigner to begin with, so discussion of laws regarding foreigners is moot.
Explain the following quotes:
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague.” St. George Tucker 1803, “View of the Constitution of the United States with Selected Writings…”
“No man but a native, or who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen President.” James Iredell, Debates in the Convention of the State of North Carolina on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.
“The Constitution requires (a) that the President shall be a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and that he shall have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and shall have been fourteen years a resident within the United States. Considering the greatness of the trust, and that this department is the ultimately efficient executive power in government, these restrictions will not appear altogether useless or unimportant. As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot intrigue for the office, and the qualification of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany and Poland, as well as the pontificate at Rome.” James Kent, Commentries on American Law
I won’t believe you until I see the actual receipt, and have it verified by the store manager and owner.
I will not accept an image on the ‘Net. You have to mail me the actual receipt, registered mail. I also want the name of the store, so I can confirm independently their ‘phone number.
One doesn’t have to read Mein Kampf to understand that hitler was crazy. You’ve made your flawed arguments known here reading your book won’t make you seem any more sane
Bob, that question was offered by donna. Her request was near the top of this thread. I’m surprised that such a talented researcher as yourself doesn’t know how to do an electronic page search for key words. I’m just a junior researcher, but I found her post in 5 seconds.
It seems to me, that If you’re asked to translate a sentence from French to English and respond by talking about how you were once fluent in Italian, Spanish, and Swedish, then that’s a non-answer of the most duplicitous kind.
1,700 pages of 7th grade drivel? No thanks.
Like the way you follow Donofrio, a third rate lawyer and fifth rate poker player?
It’s handled in the book. “All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.” Exactly. A natural-born subject is born with perpetual allegiance to a monarch or prince and a natural-born citizen is born with only allegiance to the sovereignty of the people and has the right of expatriation. You don’t see major differences?
In order to help your credibility and avoid being ridiculed, could you tell me three little things?
1. The question or issue you had
2. The name of the book you bought
3. The relevant passage you consulted
You mean, he’s worse at poker???
“the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President”-12 Amendment
It is thus impossible for a President to be unconstitutional unless they were installed in a non-electoral process, like a military coup.
When you give me a satisfactory answer, I will think about buying your book (don’t spend the money yet)…..
“U.S. Constitution For Dummies”
Why should I give you money?
There used to be a rather lengthy book on Amazon.com which explained in great detail how the Earth was not a speroid, but was rather a flat disk. The author wanted only about half of what you charged. I didn’t buy it because the premise was fundamentally flawed, and reading the book was not required to determine that.
There are scores of books on Amazon explaining how to build overunity motors (devices that generate more energy than they consume. I don’t need to buy them because the premise is fundamentally flawed, and reading the book is not required to determine that.
There are scores of books explaining how the Holocaust never happened. I don’t need to buy them because the premise is fundamentally flawed, and reading the book is not required to determine that.
There are scores of books explaining how the Moon Landings were faked. I don’t need to buy them because the premise is fundamentally flawed, and reading the book is not required to determine that.
There are scores of books explaining how the government is poisoning us with chem trails. I don’t need to buy them because the premise is fundamentally flawed, and reading the book is not required to determine that.
Are you noticing a trend here?
Consider the following:
Here are a number of the Massachusetts Acts of naturalization from 1785 to 1791.
In February, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.” in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
In February, 1786, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING MICHAEL WALSH.” in which it was declared that Michael Walsh “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be a citizen of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of a natural born citizen.”
In July, 1786, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JONATHAN CURSON AND WILLIAM OLIVER” in which it was declared that Jonathan Curson and William Oliver “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born citizens.“
In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In May, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING EDWARD WYER AND OTHERS THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken, to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In October, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
In November, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ALEXANDER MOORE, AND OTHERS, HEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Alexander Moore and others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In June, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MENZIES, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Menzies and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born subjects.”
In November, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”
In February, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JAMES HUYMAN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that James Huyman and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the Liberties, Privileges and Immunities of natural born subjects.”
In June, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NATHANIEL SKINNER, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Nathaniel Skinner and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In March, 1790, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In March, 1791, the Massachusetts legislature passed“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN WHITE & OTHERS” in which it was declared that John White and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken, to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges, and immunities of natural born subjects.”
Why did natural born citizen and natural born subject mean the same thing in Massachusetts?
Bob Gard: Somebody asked me to translate “J’ai des parents en italie mais mes parents sont ici en Amérique.” I can’t find that entry but here’s the answer.
YES, i did – i asked mario the same question and he told me to ask a french waiter – i created the sentence to illustrate the meaning/translation of the french “les parents”
i too took courses in native languages …. 4 of them ……. but who cares?
the 2-parent issue is ridiculous – i find it incredulous that the supremes would exclude thousands of citizens born on american soil from the presidency – to date, no court has
i know children who were born after their fathers were killed on 9/11 – as the court in voeltz/klayman (sorta) pointed out in the hearing, they would be excluded – not to mention those born by in vitro fertilization, adoption (vilsack), etc
ridiculous
If you don’t wish to be ridiculed, then stop being ridiculous
I have noticed that Mr. Gard has not responded to several posts which challenged his claims about Vattel’s influence on American law.
We’re waiting, Mr. Gard.
If it wasn’t for so many tl;dr posts, this thread would be the purest comedy gold EVAR!
Really? Leo Donofrio, Orly Taitz, and Mario Apuzzo, among others, suffer from the same lack of interest in reading 1,700 pages that you do, the same way that you are probably all ready to let more bills of over 2,000 pages pass without reading. It is called apathy. In my book, I have an Axiom 6: Political analysts must apply the same logic to both sides of any political dispute in order to be fair and consistent. I have read what the other side maintains. That’s also called education. Humor yourself and self-educate.
I can’t see the great leap from incremental changes in citizenship duration for Congress, to requiring birth in the US plus 2 citizen parents. That’s quite a jump. Why no discussion of that?
Also, did women take the citizenship of their husbands upon marriage at that time?
Last, the 1790 Naturalization act said “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens…” Although it was repealed 5 years later, the First Congress that passed it had many of the same people who signed the Constitution, such as Madison, Adams, Sherman, etc. if natural born required 2 citizen parents and birth on soil, why would this language have been passed?
I only said that the intent of most seems to be ridicule.
I am the product of the Lower East Side and the Borscht Belt.
You were expecting the Spanish Inquisition, maybe?
Several state constitutions like say Vermont use the phrase natural born subject are you saying they were talking about allegiance to a king?
It is.
You are ridiculous.
Be glad it’s only us.
If you took this crap in front of people who actually had the credentials, they’d tear you a new one. As it stands now, you’re getting ridiculed by educated amateurs, who can see a deluded poser a mile off.
I can’t wait to watch your ilk when Jindal and Rubio run for president – which they will, and to which they are Constitutionally entitled.
Agnew’s father was not a US citizen when he was born. Not a word from your crowd.
Isn’t it ironic that a book with 4,000 footnotes would become, itself, merely a footnote in history?
As other posters have pointed out, Obama is the legal, constitutional President of the United States. Twice, every member of Congress has validated the electoral vote. That means that twice all of Congress has decided that Barack Obama qualifies as a natural born citizen of the United States. While all the discussion of Vattel is interesting, it obviously wasn’t persuasive to Congress, i.e., the folks who count. Literally. They have effectively declared that a child born in the United States does not have to have two citizen parents in order to be a natural born citizen. Not a court in the land will argue otherwise at this point in time. It has been decided!
This reminds me of an article about bumblebees which I read when I was young. Scientists couldn’t figure out how they could fly. They just knew that they could. So, who was right? The flying bumblebees, or the scientists?
Why would someone waste their time reading Bob’s irrelevant book???
And the people who watch Fox News are less well-informed than people who watch no news at all.
http://www.examiner.com/article/study-finds-fox-news-viewers-more-misinformed-than-non-news-watchers
You do realize that the case that that quote was taken from (majority opinion from a circuit court, written by a U.S. Supreme Court Justice), was U.S. v. Rhodes. Neither of Rhodes parents were citizens when Rhodes was born. They did not have the right of citizenship.
You leave out the rest of the quote. The rest of the quote, which was quoted by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, directly equates it to English Common Law. “Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.” The quote, which was used in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, directly equates our citizenship law to the citizenship law of England. Not to Switzerland, but to England. That goes directly against your argument that the founders did not use the citizenship rules of England to define our citizenship.
Earlier commentators on American Jurisprudence, the quentential commentaries written in the lifetimes of the founders directly say that anybody born in the U.S. is a Natural Born Citizen. You can’t get around that.
If you don’t recognize that “natural born citizen” and “natural born subject” were conflated by our early courts, legislators and scholars, you are either dishonest or have not done any research. Actually, the term “natural born subject” continued to be the more popular term in the first several decades of the Republic. There were still being equated in the 14th Amendment Congress. One of our most famous early citizenship cases, actually I believe the one most cited in the 14th Amendment Congress, explained:
“The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ‘subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a ‘subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the State.”
The United States didn’t formally abandon the notion of perpetual allegiance until 1868, and even then there was debate in Congress as to whether the common law was still in place. Our courts had generally agreed with Blackstone’s doctrine that only the legislature could break the tie of natural allegiance. Our state department was more aggresive, but itself was inconsistent in its positions on the issue and didn’t until 1858 under Secretary of State Cass assert a full right of expatriation. England, on the other hand, slowing abandoned Coke’s doctrine over the centuries while maintaining the jus soli rule. Indeed, at the war of 1812 its foreign office had generally abandoned the doctrine in pratice. In would formally abandon it in 1870, 2 years after us.
Sorry, no one is going to buy your book just because you keep promising you have good arguments. So far you have shown you have no arguments at all, just assertions you show no proof of backing up.
Correction: Not a word from your mob.
Have you read the works of Zephaniah Swift, US Congressman and future Chief Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court?
In 1795, He published, “A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: in Six Books”.
In what is the first legal treatise published in the United States, Swift wrote, “The children of aliens born in this state are considered as natural born subjects and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
So Connecticut used jus soli (as in England) to confer citizenship. Where and when did the Framers inform the citizens of Connecticut and Massachusetts that “natural born” meant born in the country to two citizen parents?
That’s one of those details you don’t want to overlook.
http://deadspin.com/5546844/the-king-of-the-ferret-leggers-the-classic-tale-of-the-sportsmen-who-put-carnivores-down-their-pants
So just how many of those 17 hundred and some odd pages consisted of such irrelevant wanking?
Maybe if you had given it out for free you could have changed the election results? I mean, don’t just rail against anti-birthers. Birthers don’t seem to be buying your book in droves either.
Birther porn with 4,000 footnotes.
I couldn’t find the references to natural born citizen you cited in Mass. at the state site easily. Would you be willing to make my life a bit easier by directing me to the correct legal site and act? I find the references very interesting because they coincide with a coded letter that supposedly had natural-born citizen in it. I would like to investigate if they were close to the natural born free Citizens used before or something different.
Well, this is the Internet, after all. You just have to ignore such things. If a criticism doesn’t hit home, I don’t see any that anyone has a need to respond. You’ll have more than enough to deal with from the substantive objections.
That’s the first lick of sense birthers have shown in 5 years.
Your comment, no matter how long, doesn’t seem at all responsive to my objection. You SAID that the Constitution should be understood according to its plain English meaning, and then you rather veered away from the plain English meaning into a wealth of irrelevancies.
How about the Mass. Legislature in 1797 proposing an amendment to the natural born citizenship clause to include the Vice-President and Congress, as well as the President, and in the title to the Amendment saying such Amendment applied to “natural born subjects.” Guess they didn’t get the memo.
Proposed Consitution Amendment, Massachusetts Legislature, June 29, 1798, reported in Acts and laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, prg. 211 (1897)
“RESOLVE REQUESTING THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDING, THAT NONE BUT NATURAL BORN SUBJECTS BE ELIGIBLE TO CERTAIN OFFICES.
Whereas it is highly expedient, that every constitutional harrier should be opposed to the Introduction of Foreign Influence, into our National Councils, & that ye Constitution of ye United States should be so amended as to effect and Secure in ye best manner ye great objects for which it was designed :
Resolved that the Senators & Representatives of this Commonwealth in the Congress of the United States, be, and they hereby are requested to use their best endeavours, that Congress propose to the Legislatures of the several States, the following amendment to the Constitution of the United States, viz. “That (in addition to the other qualifications prescribed by said Constitution) no person shall be eligible as President or Vice President of ye United States nor shall any person he a Senator or Representative in ye Congress of ye United States except a natural born Citizen ; or unless he shall have been a Resident in the United States at ye time of ye declaration of Independence, and shall have continued either to reside within the same, or to be employed in its service from that period to ye time of his election.”
Gorefan’s citations can be found in Acts and Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 1786-87, (1893); Acts and Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 1788-89 (1894).
I couldn’t find the references to natural born citizen you cited in Mass. at the state site easily. Would you be willing to make my life a bit easier by directing me to the correct legal site and act? I find the references very interesting because they coincide with a coded letter that supposedly had natural-born citizen in it. I would like to investigate if they were close to the natural born free Citizens used before or something different.
I recommend you start with the Constitution…you really need to understand the separation of powers in our form of government and how they limit each. Then I recommend you move on to Wong Kim Ark’s SCOTUS case, it’s a wonderful reading of the history of Citizenship in the United States from before the US was discovered right up to 1898…and pay particular attention to the dissenting opinion. I really have no interest in reading the ramblings of an uneducated person with no knowledge of our country, history, Constitution, or unique place in history. So, basically I’m saying…”Writer, learn thyself before trying to teach others.”
Let me share with you a little trick: it’s the search box on this blog. Type in:
Massachusetts walsh
and it will take you right to article containing the text of the act and a link to the source.
If you mean that the Constitution did not define citizen and natural-born citizen, I am in agreement.
Uh, no. I said that the only definition for “natural” born in the comprehensive Oxford English Dictionary is “Having a specified position or character by birth; used esp. with subject.” That means that the plain English meaning if natural born citizen is having the position of a citizen by birth.” Obama was a US Citizen at birth, ergo, a natural born citizen.
You didn’t respond to this. So do you still hold that the question is decided by the plain English reading of the Constitution?
Actually, according to SCOTUS they did: “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides6 that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’7 and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
Minor v Happersett says there are only 2 types of citizens, you’re either born a citizen or are naturalized sometime later. If you’re born a citizen, you are eligible.
You know, it’s quite amazing Mr Gard, it seems that every time you try to say something about the Constitution, you get it completely wrong. Have you even read it?
I bought a used copy for just under $10, but some of us have a moral objection to encouraging wrong things. This is why I waited for a used copy of Corsi’s books to become available before I bought them.
It is simply beyond possibility that you have discovered something in plain sight that has eluded the rest of the entire human race, so the return on investment of buying your book to learn the truth about natural-born citizenship is vanishingly small.
I should point out that along with your historical facts posted here (all of which are old news on this site), you have made a number of false assertions and have so far not responded when challenged. That’s also a bad omen for anything of value being in your book.
My book ends in the 1840s. As I stated clearly, the intepretations of the Supreme Court meant nothing to my analysis before them. I plan to treat them in Part II. My book ends in the 1840s.
To find any of the Acts of naturalization in Massachusetts, go to Googlebooks and search for any of the named acts.
For example: “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING MICHAEL WALSH” then scroll down the results for the “Acts and Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts” or the ” Acts and Resolves Passed by the General Court”.
Here is Michael Walsh:
http://tinyurl.com/a9ceb8b
And I still would like your comment on why the Massachusetts legislature used both terms? And why prominent Founders said the President needed to be “native-born”?
I won’t criticize you or even mock you, but your research and your primary conclusions, even if correct, are irrelevant.
In Luria v. US and others, the Supreme Court stated that native citizens are eligible to be President. It really doesn’t get any clearer than that.
Just to get this out of the way:
Mr Gard? How many types of US citizenship are there?
You said that the Constitution should be understood according to its plain English meaning. The plain English meaning of natural born is “from birth”. Nothing at all about parents, The parents of the characters in the book and film “Natural Born Killers” may have been perfectly nice people. If we say, “Derek Jeter is a natural born ballplayer”, surely we don’t mean his parents were Major Leaguers. Certainly his mother was not (his father wasn’t either).
Natural born citizen = citizen from birth
Now let’s take a crack at the 12h Amendment:
“the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President”
Now THAT is plain English for President Obama
Part II? OMG!!!
Gard doesn’t recognize the Supreme Court. He alone says what is.
But you haven’t proven your explanation.
And, in that respect, yes, we have had many like you.
I felt bad enough when I bought “The Obama Nation” at the 99 cent store.
Two types of citizenship were listed in the Constitution: citizen and natural-born citizen. They were not defined in the ratification conventions or in the Federalist papers. The power was given to Congress to nauralize but there were already naturalized citizens in the country. A fairly good insight was made by Seybert:
“SEAMEN’S BILL.—For the regulation of Seamen on board the public vessels, and in the merchant service of the United States. H.R.— February, 1813.
Mr SEYBERT. . . Your constitution only recognizes the highest grade of citizenship that can be conferred—the alien is thus made a native, as it were, and is fully vested with every right and privilege attached to the native, with the exception impressed on the constitution—your statutes cannot deprive any particular species of citizens of the right of personal liberty, or the locomotive faculty, because the constitution does not characterize the citizens of the United States as native and naturalized—our great family is composed of a class of men forming a single genus, who, to all intents and purposes, are equal, except in the instance specified, that of not being eligible to the Presidency of the United States. [Seybert did not attend the Constitutional Convention but he knew there were two forms of citizenship, first, native and naturalized, lumped into one, denominated “citizen,” and second, a higher form denominated “natural born Citizen,” of which both were established in the Constitution.] The only exception to the rule is expressed in the constitution; [Only “natural-born Citizen” was the special exception to the general category of “citizens.”] if other exceptions had been contemplated by the framers of that instrument, they would also have been expressed; none other having been expressed, he said, it followed that your legislative acts could not make individual exceptions touching the occupation of a citizen—all freemen—citizens of the United States may pursue their happiness in any manner and in any situation they please, provided they do not violate the rights of others—you cannot deny to any portion of your citizens, who desire to plough the deep [an expression for manning ships that plow a furrow in the water as they sail the seas], the right to do so, whilst you permit another portion of them the enjoyment of that right. [Remember, Seybert made clear the one exception of running for the Presidency.]
Seybert clearly spoke of native and naturalized as being the two forms of citizens included in the constitutional category of “citizens” and that a higher form of citizenship, the exception he refers to twice, was required for the presidency. He did not mention “natural born Citizen” by name, but the exception he referred to could only be “natural born Citizen.” He could have easily said natural born Citizen and defined it. I imagine he neglected to define natural born Citizen on purpose. I believe only two reasons can exist: (1) nobody from the Constitutional Convention had told him exactly what it meant such that he worried about contradictions from other congressmen who hadn’t attended the convention, and (2) someone had told him and he did not want to define it for fear of exposing the person who had violated the secrecy oath.
A presidential candidate is unconstitutional if he was not born on American soil of two American citizens.
That’s not how I read it. Seybert is clearly saying that native and natural born are the same and that a naturalized citizen can be made to be like them only limited by the Constitution.
My reading incorporates the views of prominent Founders who wrote that the President had to be “native” born. You seem to ignore those Founders.
Give me your address.
Why do you think anything Seybert says supports you? Looks like he is saying the President must be native born like everyone else. All your arguments seem to be trying to read support for your theory into statements that do not support them at all. Do you really not know that most early scholars said the President must be a native born citizen? Have you not done any actual research?
There is no two citizen parent requirement. Chester A Arthur had a non citizen father when he was born and VP Charles Curtis’ mother was born on sovereign native american soil.
Also if a child’s father dies before he is born do you think him to be eligible to be president one day?
The Constitution disagrees with you.
“the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President”
That’s what the Constitution says
And who does the Constitution give that authority to when considering Presidential Eligibility?
Not about you?
All about the truth and informing people?
Are you providing it free of charge on your website?
Unless you are providing it free of charge I would say those statements are clearly false.
And yet Congress apparently disagrees with you because, although they KNEW that Obama had only one American parent, they validated his electoral votes. Who’s going to win this argument? You? Or Congress? (Hint: You can tell by looking at who’s living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue!)
Mr. Gard…in reading…”Your Constitution only recognizes the highest grade of citizenship that can be conferred. The alien is thus made a native, as it were, and is fully vested with every right and privilege attached to the native, with the exception impressed on the Constitution.”
It is saying that an alien that naturalizes is thus made a native with all the rights and privilege attached to the native (aka Natural Born Citizen) with the exception of becoming President.
Bob Gard: Andrew Napolitano calls people that follow blindly “sheeple.”
on napolitano’s 4/28/2011 Fox Business show, Freedom Watch, Andrew Napolitano said that President Obama releasing his long-form birth certificate closed “a particularly ugly chapter in the politics of personal destruction.” Fox News political analyst Kirsten Powers mocked birthers who are “claiming that [the birth certificate] was Photoshopped,” saying that “you can’t reason with people who believe this kind of stuff.”
the video is online
Instead of citing some Congressman no one has ever heard of, why not cite the leading scholars and judges:
“No man but a native, or who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen President.” Elliot’s Debates –DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, pg 195-196 (statments of future Supreme Court Justice James Iredell, July 30, 1788).
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…” St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)
“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States….Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States…..An alien is a person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States. There are some exceptions, however, to this rule, by the ancient English law, as in the case of the children of public ministers abroad, (provided their wives be English women,) for they owe not even a local allegiance to any foreign power. ” James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
“The president must, by law, be a native born citizen; so that none need aspire to that high calling, but those who might emphatically be termed natural sons of America.” Joseph Dennie, John Elihu Hall, The Port Folio, pg. 199, (1822)
“By the provisions of the federal constitution, the President and Vice President of the United States are required to be native-born citizens; and the President is required to cause the laws of the Union to be executed. These high places of power, it was then thought, could not, with safety to the American people, be occupied by any but natural-born citizens” Rep. Russel, Congressional Globe, 24th Cong., 1st Sess. pg 4256 (1836)
“It is not too much to say, that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be intrusted with an office so vital [the presidency] to the safety and liberties of the people. But an exception was, from a deep sense of gratitude, made in favor of those distinguished men, who, though not natives, had, with such exalted patriotism, and such personal sacrifices, united their lives and fortunes with ours during the Revolution….” Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 167 (1840 ed.)
“Citizenship” ….Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution of the United States, except the office of president and vice-president.” Bouvier Law Dictionary pg. 265 (1843)
“No person can be elected president who is less than 35 years of age, who is not a native born citizen of the United States, or was not a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United Stales…” John Ramsay McCulloch, Daniel Haskel, M’Culloch’s Universal Gazetteer: A Dictionary, Geographical, Statistical, and Historical, of the Various Countries, Places, and Principal Natural Objects in the World, pg. 994 (1844)
“Afterwards however, in Convention, the words “natural born citizen” were stricken out, and the word ” native” was substituted, as the original words might have left an uncertainty as to the meaning of the Convention, for ” natural born citizen” might have had some reference to the manner of birth, while the word ” native” would refer more particularly to the place of birth. ” Sherman Croswell, R. Sutton, Debates and Proceedings in the New-York State Convention – New York (State) Pg. 148 (1846)
“No person can be President or Vice-president who is not a native-born citizen, of the age of thirty-five years, ….” Richard Swainson Fisher, The progress of the United States of America: from the earliest periods. Geographical, statistical, and historical, pg. 9 (1854)
“The executive power is vested in a president and vice-president; each chosen for a term four years each to be a native born citizen…..Emma Willard, Abridged history of the United States, or, Republic of America, pg. 254 (1856)
“They declared by that solemn compact, that the President of the United States should be a native born citizen, … Samuel Clagett Busey, Immigration: Its Evils and Consequences pg. 10 (1856)
“Your committee is of opinion that no one can be eligible to discharge, for the time being, the functions of President, unless he be thirty-five years old, and a native born citizen. A Speaker of the House, or a President pro tempore, might not have these qualifications —and if so, he could not act as President in compliance with the Constitution.” Sen. Butler, 8/05/1856, Reports of Committees: 30th Congress, 1st Session – 48th Congress, 2nd Session, pg. 4., By United States Congress. Senate, Congress, Published 1856
“One of those principles is that the candidate voted for must be thirty-five years of age; another is that he must have been a citizen of tho United States at the time the Constitution was adopted, or he must be a native-born citizen.” Sen. Davis, 2/2/1865 reported in The presidential counts: a complete official record of the proceedings of Congress at the counting of the electoral votes in all the elections of president and vice-president of the United States; pg. 203 (1877)
“It is a singular fact, however, that to-day, under the Federal Constitution, a negro may be elected President, United States Senator, or a member of the lower branch of Congress. In that instrument no qualification for office is prescribed which rejects the negro. The white man, not native born, may not be President, but the native-born African may be.” Sen. Henderson, William Horatio Barnes, History of the thirty-ninth Congress of the United States, pg. 387 (1868)
“in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born….I read from Paschal’s Annotated Consitutuion, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons. (2 Kent’s Com. 3d ed. l ; Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 1 ; 1 Black. Com. 366; Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf. Ch. Rep. 139.)” Sen. Trumbull (author or the Civil Rights Act of 1866), April 11, 1871, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)
“Mr. HOWARD. I have two objections to this amendment. The first is that it proposes to change the existing Constitution in reference to qualifications of President of the United States. If this amendment shall be adopted, then that clause of the Constitution which requires that the President of the United States shall be a native-born citizen of the United States is repealed, and any person who hasbeen naturalized and then become a citizenof the United States will be eligible to the office of President;” The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 1013 (1869)
“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.” Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, 22 (1913)
“Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native born citizens.” United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 649 (1929)
“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency” Baumgartner v. United States, 322 US 665, 673 (1944)(quoting Luria v. United States”).
“The Constitution of the United States provides as a qualification for the offices of President and Vice-President that the person elected must be a native-born citizen.” Ex Parte Garland, 71 US 333, 395 (1866)(Justice Miller Dissenting).
“The alien, when he becomes a naturalized citizen, acquires, with one exception, every right possessed under the Constitution by those citizens who are native born (Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22); but he acquires no more.” United States v. Macintosh, 283 US 605, 624 (1931).
“Citizenship obtained through natuvalization is not a second-class citizenship. It has been said that citizenship carries with it all of the rights and prerogatives of citizenship obtained by birth in this country “save that of eligibility to the Presidency.” Knauer v. United States, 328 US 654, 658 (1946)
Now all I have to go on here is the quotation you’ve provided, but it’s pretty plain to me that the “exception” to which Seybert was referring was the single exception to the rule that “the alien is thus made a native, as it were, and is fully vested with every right and privilege attached to the native”. Why is that plain to me? Because that sentence continues “with the exception impressed on the constitution”. In other words, naturalized and native citizens have the same rights with the sole exception that only native citizens are eligible for the Presidency.
Your interpretation doesn’t even make sense.
The American people, the Electoral College, Congress and Chief Justice Roberts all clearly disagree with you.
What you are really proposing is that everyone but yourself is wrong, that you alone know who is really eligible.
That gets really close to the definition of insanity.
You say the research took you two years. What I wonder is what compelled to you to research something that is well established?
Was it just mere idle curiousity that happened to coincide with Obama being elected?
I touch on the same British Naturalization Act when I analyze the 1967 House debate on Romney’s eligibility. I certainly analyze Farrand’s differently, but what did you expect from someone that has tackled the issue from a different angle? I could care less whether Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud or not. I am almost certain that it is not a true replica of the original bound into the August 1961 birth certificate folio. I am convinced that the original is still there on the assumption that Hawaii hasn’t replaced it.
Didn’t you say your book stopped at the 1840’s?
You beat me to it. 🙂
Please list my false assertions. Let’s go over them. Never say impossible without verifying.
Let me see if I understand this correctly. You have written a book that runs to 1200+ pages, the analysis of which ends 170 years before the present, and you expect that this book will change the thinking of the entire judicial branch on the definition of citizenship?
Best of luck. You’ll need a lot of it.
The difference is that Doc’s analysis is supported by the statements of the Framers and yours are not. Nothing in Farrand talked about parentage or Vattel. Rather, the only thing we know they proposed was a native birn requirement and a fear of the foreign born. Any claim that they feared persosns with foreign parents is making things up. If in fact they did, no one said so and broad statements about foreign influence do not support your theory simply because you say so.
“I am almost certain that it is not a true replica of the original bound into the August 1961 birth certificate folio.”
More and more birthery goodness. Our cups runneth over.
I’m looking up the debates on the Seamen’s bill from 1813, and came across this ironic quote:
“Admit that there are men who hate this administration more than they love their country…” Rep. Felix Grundy (DR-tn)
http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llac/025/0400/04800965.tif
You have to be kidding. Getting the information cost me $40,000. I am selling the disk for $12.45. I don’t believe in entitlements although I have given out hundreds of disks as complimentary copies. The new America–freebies. From the razzing I am getting, I can now understand a little why the conservatives are so afraid of the anti-birthers. You are really attack dogs. One of the few persons that seems to be interested in substance is Dr. Conspiracy. He is more subtle in his way of handling disagreements and brushing my responses aside. I wish your side was more like him because we might eventually get somewhere.
Where did I say they feared native-born with foreign parents except for the presidency and vice-presidency? They were extremely wary of foreign influence in general and many wanted to limit naturalized citizens more than was ultimately enforced.
If you want to interest anyone, I suggest you actually try and show you have something we have not already seen a hundred times. You only looked to 1840, well then show us a single legal authority that said “native born” meant something other than “natural born.” I mean really says it, not you reading between the lines discovering some hidden meaning like you try with Seybert. Show us a single legal authority before 1840 that said natural born required citizen parents. Just one. If all you have is speculation as to what you think the framers thought, but did not say, we’ve heard it and it is not going to convince anyone.
So where is there any evidence with respect to your definition of natural born citizen? The only debates were with respect to eligiblity for Congress at a time when Congress was going to pick the President. Nothing in those debates helps you as the only thing proposed was the English rule of native birth. There is nothing else in the debates dealing with the issue and absolutely no evidence to support the Vattel definition.
Unfortunately, your interpretation of the information isn’t even worth 2 cents. That was definitely money not well spent!
So why is it that they decided to let foreign-born citizens be as eligible for the Presidency as George Washington?
Bob Gard: Part II
excuse me while i put fingers down my throat – part II?
“Getting the information cost me $40,000”:?
OMG – doc did you spend $40,000 or $4000 or $400 getting the info?
this is analogous to those who say obama “spent millions hiding records” while, due to privacy laws, my records are hidden for FREE
Don’t you know? American blood is pure and magical.
Yep, I can trace my blood back before Columbus…before all you uppity white folks showed up and ruined the fun! 😀
ERMAHGARD!!
It’s got nothing to do with being Conservative.
I am a Conservative and a member of the GOP, as are many here. Conservatives aren’t afraid of anti-birthers, because most educated Conservatives ARE anti-birthers. Birthers like you handed the election to Obama on a silver platter, and our failure was in that we didn’t call a spade a spade and out the birthers as being the anti-conservative, anti-patriot, anti-americans that you are.
Don’t you dare pretend to speak for Conservatives
You must not have been reading my comments. I state plainly that Vattel simply defined a higher form of citizenship–since requiring two citizen parents is higher than any other jurists’–by adding a new definition to natives or indigenes.
Since you would not believe in my arguments even if you read all of them in the 1,700 pages, I judge that you will not accept this quote or any other like it as an acceptable example. In a ratification convention, “Saturday, July 5, 1788. Sec. 2. Clause 2. Amendment moved by Mr M. SMITH,
Resolved, as the opinion of this committee, that the congress should appoint, in such manner as they may think proper, a council to advise the president in the appointment of officers; that the said council should continue in office for four years; that they should keep a record of their proceedings, and sign the same, and always be responsible for their advice, and impeachable for mal-conduct in office; that the counsellors should have a reasonable allowance for their services, fixed by a standing law; and that no man should be elected a counsellor who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and who is not either a natural born citizen, or has not become a citizen before the 4th day of July, 1776.”
Now why on Earth do you think Mr. Smith would have used the term “natural born citizen” if it didn’t mean anything special? Why would he insist that the counselors share the same citizenship restriction as the president? If he had wanted to exclude just naturalized citizens, he could have simply said “citizens, not naturalized” or “non-naturalized citizens” excluded. He used natural born citizen because he wanted to exclude plain citizens and naturalized citizens after the expiration of the grandfather clause. In every legal resolution ever made up to that time, citizens included native born citizens (and very frequently naturalized citizens) but not natural born citizens. Smith was not an attendee to the Constitutional Convention but he seemed cognizant of the division between Citizen and natural born Citizen. He was crystal clear as to the separation of natural born citizen from “or a citizen before the 4th day of July 1776.” He knew that the presidential eligibility clause had meant for “at the time of the adoption of the Constitution” to modify Citizen only. He just wanted the limiting date to go farther back than the adoption of the Constitution. This is strong corroborative proof of my conclusion.
Check the market for Vattel’s editions from 1758 to 1797. It would raise the hair on your arm.Obviously, information isn’t worth anything to you.
While we’re throwing around challenges here, how about this one: I challenge Mr. Gard to disprove the fact that no court anywhere has ever bought any of his crackpot legal theories.
Still nothing to say about the 12th Amendment? I intend to keep asking. Answer that correctly and I may buy your book. Obviously you aren’t really interested in making a sale.
Again, there is nothing in Smith’s language that says native born is different that natural born or there is a third type of citizen. You are simply trying to read it in and not doing a very good job. It is a perfectly reasonable reading that he is excluding citizens who are not native born, i.e., naturalized, from holding office just like the English did and making exceptions for any kind of citizens during the grandfather period (which is somewhat odd since there really were no citizens before 1776). I am sorry, there is absolutely no real authority that says citizens do not include natural born citizens. Do you not think natural born citizens could sit in Congress which says one needs to be a citizen. Duh! Again, show us some authority that actually says there is a third type of citizen or native is different than natual born. Did you not see my citations from all the leading early scholars above saying you are wrong? Seems to me you are the one not interested in learning the truth.
I have been reading your comments which is why I can say you don’t different much from the other lunatics in the crowded birther field. Vattel did no such thing. He stated what was done in his country and only his country. He stated other countries have different laws and those should be followed. He said nothing about two citizen parents.
What’s the point? You still haven’t shown the founders even looked to Vattel on citizenship considering how much of his ideas they threw away with the bill of rights.
Please explain.
For example, are the following de Vattel references below in our Constitution?
Thanks.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Book One:
114. Freedom of philosophical discussion.
I speak of the freedom of philosophical discussion, which is the soul of the republic of letters. … I know that liberty has its proper bounds — that a wise government ought to have an eye to the press, and not to allow the publication of scandalous productions, which attack morality, government, or the established religion.
127. Of religion internal and external.
Religion consists in the doctrines concerning the Deity and the things of another life, and in the worship appointed to the honour of the Supreme Being. So far as it is seated in the heart, if is an affair of conscience, in which every one ought to be directed by his own understanding: but so far as it is external, and publicly established, it is an affair of state.
129. Public establishment of religion.
But we should take care not to extend this liberty beyond its just bounds. In religious affairs a citizen has only a right to be free from compulsion, but can by no means claim that of openly doing what he pleases, without regard to the consequences it may produce on society. The establishment of religion by law, and its public exercise, are matters of state, and are necessarily under the jurisdiction of the political authority. If all men are bound to serve God, the entire nation, in her national capacity is doubtless obliged to serve and honour him (Prelim. 5), And as this important duty is to be discharged by the nation in whatever manner she judges best, — to the nation it belongs to determine what religion she will follow, and what public worship she thinks proper to establish.
141. The sovereign’s authority over the ministers of religion.
To the prince’s inspection of the affairs and concerns of religion we have joined an authority over its ministers: without the latter power, the former would be nugatory and ineffectual; — they are both derived from the same principle. It is absurd, and contrary to the first foundations of society, that any citizens should claim an independence of the sovereign authority, in offices of such importance to the repose, the happiness, and safety of the state. This is establishing two independent powers in the same society — an unfailing source of division, disturbance, and ruin. There is but one supreme power in the state; the functions of the subordinate powers vary according to their different objects: — ecclesiastics, magistrates, and commanders of the troops, are all officers of the republic, each in his own department; and all are equally accountable to the sovereign.
176. Means of putting a stop to this disorder.
…Whoever should so far forget himself, as, either by word or deed, to insult a man who wears a sword, might be degraded from the rank of nobility, deprived of the privilege of carrying arms, and subjected to corporal punishment — even the punishment of death, according to the grossness of the insult…
…Since it is an established custom that the nobility and military men should appear armed, even in time of peace, care should be taken to enforce a rigid observance of the laws which allow the privilege of wearing swords to these two orders of men only.
Book Two
81. The property of the citizens is the property of the nation, with respect to foreign nations.
Even the property of the individuals is, in the aggregate, to be considered as the property of the nation, with respect to other states. It, in some sort, really belongs to her, from the right she has over the property of her citizens, because it constitutes a part of the sum total of her riches, and augments her power. She is interested in that property by her obligation to protect all her members. In short, it cannot be otherwise, since nations act and treat together as bodies in their quality of political societies, and are considered as so many moral persons. All those who form a society, a nation being considered by foreign nations as constituting only one whole, one single person, — all their wealth together can only be considered as the wealth of that same person.
115. Marriages of aliens. (118)
There exists no natural impediment to prevent foreigners from contracting marriages in the state. But, if these marriages are found prejudicial or dangerous to a nation, she has a right, and is even in duty bound to prohibit them, or to subject to certain conditions the permission to contract them: and, as it belongs to the nation or to her sovereign to determine what appears most conducive to the welfare of the state, other nations ought to acquiesce in the regulations which any sovereign state has made on this head. Citizens are almost everywhere forbid to marry foreign wives of a different religion
122. Right of carrying off women.
… A nation cannot preserve and perpetuate itself, except by propagation. A nation of men has, therefore, a right to procure women, who are absolutely necessary to its preservation; and if its neighbours, who have a redundancy of females, refuse to give some of them in marriage to those men, the latter may justly have recourse to force
wow bob gard, you got these people cookin. a breath of fresh air.. bravo bob gard.
and bravo doc for hosting a good discussion !
Read the book or for a little taste visit The-Constitutionist.com and read an excerpt from Chapter 22:
This letter provided the reason why I surmised that the major editor of the 1797 edition of Vattel’s The Law of Nations was William Scott. I felt John Nicholl was the secondary editor and the third was Christopher Robinson. Another basis I have for placing Nicholl second is that he was the British expert most Americans wrote to for advice after Sir William. Regarding prizes and impressments, Sir John Nicholl’s opinion was sought by George W. Erving, Rufus King, and Ira Allen.
After most of the negotiations had been completed with respect to the treaty, John Jay stayed over in London quite a long time. He still held out hope to add an article to the treaty to resolve America’s problem with British ship seizures and the impressments of American seamen. There seems to be, at least to my mind, an inference in the following letter written on January 9, 1795, by Scott to Jay that the two of them had carried on a long series of personal meetings. The letter was carried by a British courier, who waited while Jay responded to Scott’s message:
Sir William Scott called upon Mr. Jay, to say that he had been pleased that the Engagement which prevented him from doing Himself the Honour which he much wished of waiting upon Mr. Jay tomorrow—and therefore, if his coming will not incommode Mr. Jay, He will do Himself that Honour—[unless] it interfere’s with the Convenience of Mr. Jay’s Table, as already formed, He will be glad to be acquainted.
[When Jay opened the folded and sealed page, the courier waited as he wrote his response on the blank half:]
Mr. Jay presents his compts to Sir William Scott, and thanks him for his friendly attention. He is happy that the obstacle to His seeing Sr. Wm. Tomorrow is removed, and that the Arrangemt. of his Table will be improved by the seat which Sir William does him the Honor to accept.
Royal Hotel. Pall Mall
This letter showed a familiarity between the two in the same sense that Jay had entertained important politicians, dignitaries and relatives at his dining and drawing rooms in New York. Add it to all the evidence in Chapter 22 and that in the chapters before it; you arrive at the “beyond a reasonable doubt” level proving that John Jay informed William Scott that he had meant Vattel’s “indigenes” from The Law of Nations. Scott was a translator of French commensurate to Nugent and Jefferson. He never would have translated indigenes as natural-born citizens if there would not have been a good reason. There is an immense amount of corroborative evidence that fleshes out this conclusion. It was in the public domain. Yes, I was the one to put it together. No, I don’t expect a person who has already made up his mind to give it a second thought. Did you know this relationship existed between the author of the July 25, 1787 letter and the anonymous editor of the 1797 edition?
Seems that you’ve been reading your own biases into this…again.
What is a natural-born Citizen? Very simply, not naturalized. That’s it. So basically all that your saying is he said it one way and you think he should have said it another…since it was his speech, I’ll go with his way.
Bob Gard–I have heard you and other birthers claim that the founding fathers were very leery of foreign influence in the WH. How do you justify that position with the eligibility requirements to be President?
We all know that a person must be 35 years of age and a natural born citizen, but birthers seem to gloss of the residency requirement. A person is only required to live in the United States for 14 years in order to be eligible to be President. Therefore, the founding fathers, who you claim were so terrified of foreign influence, made it a requirement that AT MOST person is only required to live in the US for 40% of his/her life (14 years is 40% of 35) in the US to be eligible to be President.
How do you explain that?
Bob Gard,
Before the Vattel-rule can be applicable to the president you first need to convince the Obama-faked-his-birth-certificate Birthers that the birth certificate is real. Come back when you’ve done that.
Say what? You’re making an inference about a letter somehow pointing to vattel when Jay mentioned nothing about vattel nor vattel’s phrasing. Also John Jay was the first Chief Justice you’d think he would have stated something on Natural born citizenship or citizenship in general that backed up what vattel said.
Bob Gard:
you are clueless about MOI – i am a sponge for information ….. verifiable information ……. credible information ………… and i am revolted by those who don’t change their minds in the face of new, reliable, verifiable information – it’s like still using your fingers and toes when you have already learned to count to 10 – silly me since i believe the opinions of nearly 200 courts, etc and not those of the birthers whose comments can be boiled down to those of racists, bigots and haters
there is certainly no reason to conclude that the framers, constitutional scholars, courts, etc would imagine 3 classes of citizens and one exclusively for the office of president (excluding the exceptions) – i can imagine a revolt by the (perhaps) millions of americans who would be excluded by the birther 2-parent interpretation – por ejemplo, think of those who “adopted” frozen embryos and have children referred to as “snowflake babies” – we are an inclusive nation and i can’t foresee rubio, jindal etc being excluded as possible candidates – i heard nothing about vilsack who was abandoned at birth – it’s only the eligibility of a “black guy” that has been questioned ad nauseum and refuted –
so write book II and twenty and spend whatever – you and your ilk will never be considered credible and respected
Seems to me you don’t know what reasonable doubt means. Seems you are saying you suspect, but can’t prove, Scott was the translator of hte 1797 edition. Seems you suspect Scott met with Jay. However, how does that lead to any conclusion that Jay told him what he meant by his letter to Washington or how Jay translated Vattel. Again, seems like rank speculation on your part. If you actually have proof, then show it to us. All I see in post after post from you is you trying to connect dots and suggest people said things they didn’t really say. That is really not legal argument.
The title of your e-book clearly states that you “prove beyond a reasonable doubt” that Obama is ineligible to be president. If your book does that, why do you need to go further & release a Part II?
I at a loss to see the smallest implication in the evidence you presented in this comment of the conclusion you arrived at.
Isn’t that double jeopardy, which is unconstitutional?
I did that back in 2009 when I was researching this material, and they were quite pricey. I guess not a lot of them were or printed. 👿
OK, so I take your response (or lack thereof) as your admission that no early American writer identified parentage as a matter of consequence in allegiance or fitness for office.
As for your citation, you are plainly begging the question, assuming a definition so as to affirm the definition. You are equally making a straw man argument that “citizen” and “natural born citizen” are different. Of course they are different. No one says they are the same. What you fail to do is demonstrate that “natural born citizen” and “citizen from birth” are different (and you could not even if you tried).
If one substitutes “citizen from birth” for “natural born citizen” in your quotation, no problems or contradictions arise. Therefore, you cannot use the quote as evidence that the two are not equivalent, as the plain dictionary definition says that they are. If both phrases work equally as well, then you cannot use the quote to differentiate between them.
You have gone down the same road as others who have tried to make an originalist argument, reading things into the text that are not there, and trying to use open-ended questions in place of argument. You’re employing the same fallacies and making the same mistakes, just making them on more material.
NO points.
Ok , I waded through the debates on the Seamen’s bill of 1813 in the House, where Seybert sat. The debates are quite contentious. Speakers repeatedly referred to native born, naturalized, and alien. Only when referring to the President did anyone use natural born –EXCEPT in the formal language of the actual bill when it was officially read for the second time. http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llac/025/0500/05071019.tif. There was zero discussion of parents anywhere. My conclusion is that natural born is the more formal version of native.
“All officers and three-forths, at least, of all persons employed as seamen or sailers on board any public ship or vessel of the United States, or any ship or vessel owned by Citizens of the United States, shall be natural born citizens of the United States, or citizens thereof at the termination of such war, or servents or citizens of the United States, or Persons who, being resident in the United States, shall at the time of passing of this act, have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States…” the bill did refer to natives of Great Britain and Ireland and France. See the link as it’s too much typing for an iPad.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwaclink.html#anchor12 starting around page 960.
I just read this entire thread, Mr. Guard. You’re stalling. Stop dodging, and answer the damned challenges already!
It seems rather obvious that it means he has convinced himself.
So all the controlling law about citizenship happened AFTER your book ends and somehow you consider that your 1700 pages magically prove beyond a reasonable doubt that President Obama is in fact ineligible?
Thanks. That’s all I needed to know about you and your book.
Quite a few courts have ruled that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. No court has ruled that he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen.
Rhodes v MacDonald, US District Court Judge Clay D. Land: “A spurious claim questioning the president’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”—US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, September 16, 2009.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19809978/RHODES-v-MacDONALD-13-ORDER-denying-3-Motion-for-TRO-granting-8-Motion-to-Dismiss-Ordered-by-Judge-Clay-D-Land-on-09162009-CGC-Entered-0
Page 13 of the decision.
Barnett v Obama, US District Court Judge David O. Gordon: “There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president–REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, October 29, 2009
http://ia600204.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591.89.0.pdf
Ankeny v Daniels, Indiana A three judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled unanimously: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”–Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
Taiitz v Obama (Quo Warranto) “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as is required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”– Chief US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, US District Court for the District of Columbia, April 14, 2010
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30040084/TAITZ-v-OBAMA-QW-23-MEMORANDUM-OPINION-dcd-04502943496-23-0
Tisdale v Obama, US District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”– Tisdale v Obama, US District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/82011399/Tisdale-v-Obama-EDVA-3-12-cv-00036-Doc-2-ORDER-23-Jan-2012
Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings, Farrar et. al., Welden, Swensson and Powell v Obama: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80424508/Swensson-Powell-Farrar-Welden-vs-Obama-Judge-Michael-Malihi-s-Final-Order-Georgia-Ballot-Access-Challenge-2-3-12
Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”–Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint
Pupura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo
Voeltz v Obama (1st Ruling), Judge Terry P. Lewis, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”—June 29, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/99025994/FL-2012-06-29-Voeltz-v-Obama-order-dismissing-amended-complaint
Voeltz v Obama (2nd Ruling), Judge John C. Cooper, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—September 6, 2012
http://judicial.clerk.leon.fl.us/image_orders.asp?caseid=77182640&jiscaseid=&defseq=&chargeseq=&dktid=57485906&dktsource=CRTV
Perhaps all of those decisions were made by the “activist” judges referenced earlier.
Would you reconsider the alternative of “citizen from birth” instead of “native?” I looked at the bill and it seemed to me that the two requirements “native born citizen or citizen at the time of the act” reasonably means “anyone who was born a citizen or became one by the time the act was passed.” A native requirement doesn’t make sense when any naturalized citizen was eligible so long as it was before the act. What does “native” add to the requirement? Nothing because all native citizens are also citizens at the time of the enactment. Natural born citizen, however, at least makes some oratorical sense, if not changing the qualification either.
My observation is: does striking “natural born citizen” from the act change who is eligible, and my view is that the answer is no.
I doubt that he understands them.
I don’t mean that he’s not smart enough to understand them, or that he lacks sufficient background knowledge to understand them. What I mean is that for folks who get as invested in a theory as Mr. Gard obviously is, it is very difficult to comprehend the existence of contradictory evidence, and therefore the need to respond to it. Remember, he sees evidence in the form of connections and evidence that we don’t.
For the moment I’ll confine myself to what you provided in that comment. Is that your excerpt from Chapter 22? If not, where would one find this excerpt in the opacity of your website?
You talk about what you “surmised”, what you “felt”; you say “There seems to be, at least to my mind, an inference…”. Is that your idea of a persuasive argument towards establishing a fact? After all, what demonstrations we’ve seen here of your powers of interpretation leave very much to be desired. Very much indeed. You say “I don’t expect a person who has already made up his mind to give it a second thought.” Do you think you were immune to such bias when you felt, surmised, and inferred those things?
You add “This letter showed a familiarity between the two in the same sense that Jay had entertained important politicians, dignitaries and relatives at his dining and drawing rooms in New York. Add it to all the evidence in Chapter 22 and that in the chapters before it; you arrive at the “beyond a reasonable doubt” level proving that John Jay informed William Scott that he had meant Vattel’s “indigenes” from The Law of Nations.” I have more than a reasonable doubt that your conclusions are not nearly so well-supported as you might think.
And no, I didn’t know of this connection. Its existence– to the extent that you have established it exists– I find utterly underwhelming.
I have great regard for proper use of authentic sources. I have a great deal of respect for genuine scholarship. I have little use for that which masquerades as such. You may have spent great sums of your money in the pursuit of this will-o’-the-wisp of yours; that’s your red wagon. I’m not going to waste any amount of mine on your book.
I have plenty of Zombie lit yet to read.
Thanks for the offer, but I’ve already bought one to arrive Thursday.
You asserted: “Vattel was the most influential public jurist in American history. More than Blackstone, Montesquieu, Grotius, Puffendorf, Hale, Burlamaqui, etc.”
That’s a false assertion. Two people have already asked you to support it, and two have already published evidence that it is false. That’s why I speculated that you’re too averse to such things to see them.
There are other examples of stunningly unresponsive replies to challenges. It’s bizarre.
Damn, 10 activist judges in a row! How unlucky could the birthers be? 😯
Црфе еру агсл (йгщештп Щк’н Ефшея)!
Russian Wikipedia has no article on Vattel, however, Brockhaus-Efron mentions him, but gives the French name of his most famous work.
http://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%AD%D0%A1%D0%91%D0%95/%D0%92%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C,_%D0%AD%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%85
It took me some time to find a Russian version of Le Droit des gens but I found one.
Ваттель Эмер ’е. Право наро’ов или принципы естественного права, применяемые к пове’ению и ’елам наций и суверенов. Пре’исл. В. Н. Дур’еневского. М., Госюриз’ат, 1960
Looking it up in Google books, I found a number of books referencing it and adding some more detail. There was a second edition in 1966. the translation was based on the French version of 1863 (the last historical publication) and … on the American version of 1916. (for anyone who knows a little bit of Russian, that is from the Politolohiia reference)
Two remarks:
1) how are we going to learn anything from a book like that, if it was based on versions published when the Founding Fathers were no longer alive?
2) you really want to make us believe someone asked you 1,700 dollars for a soviet publication that only legal historians might be interested in? 17 dollars would have been too high a bid – unless you visited Moscow during the last two-three years.
I assume that the bill was intended to go forward after the war. But my point is that in more that 50 pages of debate, the terms used were “native” and “naturalized” and “alien”, that citizen seemed to mean native + naturalized, that natural born was only in reference to the presidency, and nowhere were anyone’s parents mentioned.
Ha! It cost you $4.00. Prove that it cost more.
I’m a semi-pro comedian. Take my mistress – please.
Mars?
The New York version of this was championed by John Jay himself, in The New York Gazette and General Advertiser February 13, 1799
I believe this gives a little more insight into Jay’s letter to Washington. He’s advocating tightening the requirements by going back to 1776 instead of merely the adoption of the Constitution, but giving credit for time outside the country if in service to the US. I find it ridiculous that Jay meant 2-citizen parents were required and never mentioned that requirement ANYWHERE.
Is there a single person here who believes the claim on Bob Gard’s website that in 1960, he argued for days with his eighth grade civics teacher in favor of the 2-citizen parent definition? Now let’s be serious what middle school student in the entire history of middle school has ever argued for days over the fine points of a definition of some term like natural born citizen? The idea is preposterous on its face.
But were it true, it would actually speak very poorly of Bob Gard because it would mean that when Barack Obama announced his candidacy, Bob knew he was ineligible, yet kept silent. All through the 2008 campagn he kept silent. All through Obama’s first term, he kept silent. Only in October 2012, on the eve of the election, did he step forward. By then it was way to late, because even the most dilgent reader wouldn’t be able to get through he 1722 pages befoe the election.
Bob let his country down when it needed him. Bad, bad, Bob.
It sounds like something my good friend Bob Sacamano would do.
I was spending my time in the school’s darkroom, telling others it wasn’t a good idea to print pornographic pictures.
So we are supposed to believe Bob Gard is an ace researcher on the hidden meaning of the term natural born citizen but when he researched how to publish a 1700 page eBook his research led him to use MS Word .docx format vs. say something like ummmm, Portable Document Format? Sure…. right…..
Mr. Gard, have you consulted Mr. Paul Guthrie from Indiana? I think he has some unique theories on the subject he could share with you.
It wasn’t?
Is there a single person here who believes he spent $40000 on multiple original translations of de Vattel’s work into multiple languages?
I sure don’t.
Daniel: Is there a single person here who believes he spent $40000 on multiple original translations of de Vattel’s work into multiple languages?
i want verifiable proof, certified by court qualified forensic experts and rendered proven by multiple triers of fact
If he did, he did it as a book collector. He should be able to recoup most by reselling. Unless most of that is travel expenses in his quest to top Robert Langdon.
The De Vattel Code.
I applaud your attempts to make a profit on your investment.
But as I pointed out- restricting access to ‘the truth’ that you claim you want to show to the American people is contradictory to charging $12.45.
I would be more likely to pay $1.00 on I-Tunes for a song by Adele than I would pay $12.45 for the opportunity to read a book by an author I have never heard of, on a subject that seems to have as much likelihood of credibility as “the Secrets of Atlantis”
There’s 287 comments in this thread that do not address the main issue of ‘fraud’ performed by some person or persons to make a clown the POTUS.
The NBC issue is self explanatory… those who needed the documents to prove eligibility ‘forged’ documents to be eligible and doing so, they hung themselves. Nixon and Clinton were found guilty of ‘cover ups’ and so will the stink in the White House be found ‘guilty’ of fraud and covering up the illegal attempt to overthrow America’s Republic.
Keep arguing Vattel etc… it’s is a wast of time… it is not the issue that’s being processed in the courts.
The answer is no. I am glad that the answer is no for the most part. I am not against certain aspects of the right to defend oneself however.
I believe you must have the Liberty Fund edition of the 1797 edition. You have switched the order in 176, Book I Chapter XIII or there is a difference in your printing. The English differs somewhat from the 1759, 1760 and other English editions up to 1797.
The influence of Vattel is still remarkable. You might be engrossed by my comparison of The Declaration of Independence to Jefferson’s 1775 Amsterdam edition of the Law of Nations.
To give an example of popularity, if you are willing to take repeat business as evidence, The Law of Nations greatly outstripped the number of editions of The Federalist Papers, Hume’s History of England and Grotius’ Rights of War and Peace. Unfortunately, unless you read my eBook, you won’t have a chance to review many of the influences it had.
Take the following as another example of what was rather common in the citation of sections: “Examine Authorities.—how far they weigh.—danger of understg. Vattel witht restrn. [I believe that this shorthand meant Jefferson foresaw a danger “of underestimating Vattel without restraint.” Because of his Francophilic agenda, he wanted to downplay Vattel’s section pertinent to the dispute. If taken as the main philosophy, that section upheld Hamilton’s conclusion and not Jefferson’s.]
Grotius—Puff.—Wolf—Vattel
Vattel. 2. 160. 158. 159. 163. 219. 220. 233. [I will not quote these, but mull over the glaring fact that Jefferson noted seven sections of Vattel (21 sections in the first note) and not a single one from Grotius, Puffendorf, or Wolf.”
Clinton wasn’t found guilty of a cover up and neither was Nixon. Nixon resigned and there was no investigation that ended with him being charged. Same thing with Clinton. When you get historical facts wrong is it any wonder you get the current things wrong either?
Again absolutely no relevance to our constitution. Do you always go on such long winded diatribes to not prove any point?
Gosh, that’s the first I’ve heard of that– do you think there’s anything to it?
Birthers are so charming.
Even assuming that he actually did have that argument with this 8th grade teacher- that would at best mean that even in 1960 he was right and his teacher- and every 8th grade civics teacher(including mine) – and all of us- and Congress and Chief Justice Roberts- all of us were wrong.
Here is my thought:
Any fundamental legal principal that takes 1700 pages to establish and that is contrary to all conventional thought is not likely to be read, let alone become popular enough to affect something.
Here is another thought:
What he is a proposing is a fundamental legal change in how our entire country thinks of eligibility.
Why is he publishing a book rather than submitting his argument to a legal journal were it could be peer reviewed?
only a few centuries from now, diogenesLamp, jedi pauly and bob gard will all be finally vindicated …
And that pretty much demonstrates why nobody’s taking you seriously.
I have always admitted to my opponents that they would win in a court of law, given the kinds of courts we have. I explained it in part:
My Dad had brought me up with many adages. One was “Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it.” Karl Rove was extremely gracious in answering a nobody like me. I still have a great deal of respect for him personally, his overall intelligence, and his knowledge. However, he had many times described birthers publicly on television in pejorative terms like referring to them as the “nutty right,” and referring to birtherism as “silliness.” One time his adjectives were as onerous as the descriptors of wackos and cranks employed by other high-ranking conservatives. Rove called us “cranks and conspiracy nuts.”
In June of 2011, Mr. Rove read my first email. He responded:
sorry – no court in the history of America has agreed with your argument
Mr. Rove and I exchanged several emails until I sent the following paragraph:
I am truly gratified that you read my email. But what argument do you refer to? You haven’t heard my argument. You will never hear it unless you come to my abode and sign a non-disclosure agreement. Yours is a foolish response. No court in America has ever been presented with the evidence I have. Even if a court were presented with it, activist judges on the bench would likely judge by their agenda and not the facts. I am interested in reaching the American people. You make the same mistake all lawyers have made. You think the proof lies in legal precedent. Lawyers have contributed so much to the downfall of our country by way of their stilted reasoning. The truth of natural-born citizenship is an historical, linguistic, and legal problem, not just a legal problem. When my book comes out, your response will be properly noted as will all the other foolish responses I have received. Obama may be in office and you will look like the fools you are. You, like all those before you, cannot think outside the box. No surprise. You will eat crow. I guarantee it. For now, you can think you are clever. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Mr. Rove responded:
Thanks, but again, no U.S. court has every [sic] agreed with your theory that only someone born on American soil of two American citizen parents is a natural born citizen. Never. Ever.
I’ve seen sections of your email (e.g., Vattel – a Swiss philosopher!) in other birther missives and it is all hogwash. No court has ever held your theory is correct and I don’t need to waste any more time with someone who calls me an idiot. Your future emails will be routed directly to the trash.
-Karl Rove
I was naïve to think that a respectable part of the electorate would be interested in what I had to say about the Constitution and the presidential eligibility clause. They don’t seem to be. Rove didn’t eat crow. You are right—no court would listen for a minute. That does not mean my conclusions are wrong. It means they aren’t heard.
At least he is acknowledging, in a backhand sort of way, that he wasn’t taught the “two citizen parent’ requirement in school
He has a lot in common with Corsi, who also didn’t discover the “two citizen parent” requirement until Obama was well into his first term as President.
Well, duh, “FRAUD”, thanks for demonstrating how to miss the point of a thread in spectacular fashion!
Okay, that nails it.
So Mr. Gard, Rove who would do just about anything to keep Obama from being reelected rejected your theory. That should tell you something. Goodness.
We are multi-threaded.
Actually, it does mean your conclusions are wrong but you will most likely never understand why.
The argument was heard in Indiana, and they disagreed with the argument.
Dunno. With someone who wrote a 1722-page book, it’s hard to tell.
“Even if a court were presented with it, activist judges on the bench would likely judge by their agenda and not the facts.”
Again, that’s a very disturbing sign. We’ve seen this aspect of a birther profile and from conspiracy theorists quite a few times.
Since Mr. Gard didn’t have then access to all the research he has now, I find it difficult to understand why he would have held that position in the 8th grade, or what he would have argued with. It is a very dubious claim.
I kept a test to remind me of the dangers that I knew were ahead. It is pictured in the eBook. The dangers have materialized.
ah yes imagined dangers to which you’ve imagined materialization. How much do you pay your therapist?
Mr. Gard, so did you argue about only whites with 2 citizen parents being eligible for President? That is the only thing that makes sense as to your argument in 6th grade. Can you give us a little background as to your upbringing?
Here’s hoping his sequels are more substantial than say …. Corsi’s.
______________________
Let’s see, what’s it called when someone rejects reality, loses themselves in a preferred reality, and engages compulsively in repetitive process, to the point that the means become the end, resulting in a mindset that places no value at all on effectuality?
Could be autism … could be asperger’s … can’t provide a diagnosis via a chatroom, but there does seem to be cause for an intervention and evaluation in Mr. Gard’s case.
_________________
Like my daddy always told me, “Son, it’s better to be thought a fool, than to pile up seventeen hunnert an’twenny-too pages in Macruh-soft Wurd, burn’em to DVDs, start sellin’ on Amazon and prove it.”
Actually it does mean that they are wrong, for all practical purposes.
I can’t imagine there is a single peer review board in the discipline of astronomy that would listen to an amateur promote a claim that the world is flat. According to your logic, that doesn’t mean he is wrong. However, he is wrong, and the fact that the real experts won’t entertain to listen to a crackpot theory further supports the fact that he’s wrong. If there were any possible merit at all to his premise, the astrophysicists would be all over it. The fact that they aren’t interested is a good indication of the lack of merit.
Or more simply, should we have to debate whether 2+2=5? Does the lack of interest from the Mathematicians in reading 1700 pages about how 2+2=5 indicate that the idea has merit? Or rather does it indicate that the premise is simply flawed on the face of it?
The reason the courts don’t care about your ideas, is the same reason the mathematicians don’t care about 2+2=5. The matter is well settled, there is no more debate amongst those that know the subject. You’re just wrong.
And no, stamping your feet and holding your breath just isn’t going to change that. It’s just sad that so many electrons had to die in vain.
How many birthers are there who fully support the President (just being a Democrat doesn’t count) but have a problem with his eligibility?
Yeah, because as we all know, that’s what 13 year old boys are impassioned about, Constitutional politics.
Fools and their money are not long for each other.
Mr. Gard strikes me as a seller’s dream … the bottom rung on a pyramid scheme. The one that tries soooooo hard, never realizing in which direction the scam operates! 😉
You have to admit that the randomly assigned avatar icon for Bob Gard is pretty darn funny.
Now there’s a conspiracy.
The electrons were merely shared, fleetingly, and are quickly freed to return to productive tasks. Like illuminating teens’ cell phones, passing on mind-rotting television broadcasts, and supporting the next conspiracy nut’s wasted time!
Mr. Gard, there is nothing wrong with debating a teacher. I was known for it. Got into trouble a few times. One time talking about platelets in 8th grade I made a point that platelets were made up of red blood cells. (Not sure it I said dead) Anyway, it’s okay to debate with a teacher. If I asked a doctor if platelets are made up of red blood cells they would agree. (Or I think they would) Your problem is you argued with a teacher (as other pointed out…where were you in the 70’s…and before the 2008 election?), but no expert would agree with you in your argument.
Yeah, but I don’t like mine. LOL 😉
Yes, every necropsy performed on the Republicans’ attempt to defeat President Obama has come to the same conclusion: they failed to listen to Bob Gard.
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a childhood prodigy folks!
Seriously, you kept a test? from the 8th grade?!? Riiight.
This is reminding me to finish that textbook project. The one I lost all interest in due to the lack of posititves.
Since you kept your tests, I trust you also insisted on keeping your textbooks? I would love to see them. Perhaps if you cold just post the title, edition, pub date, and publisher?
Thanks in advance.
I’m quite pleased with mine. It’s a rather flattering likeness.
Mine actually looks like me. How weird is that?
Have a feeling that Book Number 2 will only talk about 14th Amendment Citizens and how someone of color can’t be President. Call me crazy, but that is the feeling I’m getting from Mr. Gard.
Okay, you got me…mine looks like me too.
He might also want to avoid responding to these quotes from “The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States” (1992):
“The common law was received in the American colonies and adopted as the basis of American legal systems after the Revolution in the state and federal constitutions.” (p. 171)
“Constitutional historians are nearly unanimous in their conclusion that the framers of the First Amendment intended to codify the English common law as taught by Sir William Blackstone.” p. 669
“Legal historian [Leonard] Levy argued that at the time the First Amendment was adopted the universal understanding of the words ‘freedom of the press’ came from the renowned compiler of English law, William Blackstone.” p. 809
References to Vattel in the book: Zero.
Ooooh, Rove didn’t respond favorably to that? Delusions of grandeur …. keeping an enemies list … misuse of basic lingusitic elements …
I hope your personal and professional lives are successful, abundant, and fulfilling.
Please confirm you have no access to firearms.
You won’t accept as evidence the greater distribution and editions of Vattel’s The Law of Nations over all the other jurists. You won’t accept the greater citation rate among many early politicians. I gave a few examples to one of your commentators. I can’t reproduce an entire book. In the book, I show how the The Law of Nations has been disseminated and sections quoted all around the world, thanks to statistics gathered by Google. Bizarre is denial of such evidence as indicators.
Again relevance? There is nothing pointing to the founders looking to vattel on citizenship since they ignored many other things he said when writing the constitution. It doesn’t matter how many editions you have since you’re making no point.
Mr. Gard, the world is not the U.S. I believe you said in the U.S., if not then I apologize. But I don’t care about the rest of the world when it comes to the U.S. Constitution or our Founders. What counts is what the Founders put into the U.S. Constitution. And Vattel is at the bottom of the list.
Basic question for Mr. Gard:
Was the Constitution an original composition, a new legal framework written from scratch …. that is, more or less without American precedent?
If the debate did happen, I wonder if Gard’s classmates have forgiven him for stealing several days of their education.
Mr Gard, as far as International Law, or Law that Nations accept among one another, then yes he had some influence but he wasn’t the end all be all on that either. Again Mr. Gard, please give us some background into your upbringing. Are you a natural born citizen yourself under your definition? Are you a natural born citizen under my definition meaning born on U.S. soil? I want to know more about Mr. Gard. Nothing personal, just generic info. Are you another Orly who comes to our country and tells us what our Constitution is supposed to mean according to you and not our history and laws?
Are you all about 14th Amendment Citizens, and only white males with 2 citizen parents being able to be President? Are you progressive in that a Woman can actually be President?
Can you name any civil action in which a judge cited The Law Of Nations in rendering a decision on Barac Obama’s eligibility or ineligibility as a natural born citizen?
I will try one last time to email an abridged invoice. Perhaps you can’t email the format it was sent to me in from Italy. I tried to extract just text:
You don’t mind if I don’t give you the bank transfer numbers and other personal information, do you?
Antiquariato Librario Bado e Mart s.a.s.
di Bado R. e C.
Sede legale:
Via S. Francesco n. 152
35121 Padova, Italia
Sede operativa:
Spett.le Mr. Bob Gard
United States Padova 28/09/2010
Fattura/Invoice proforma
03 Vol. VATTEL, Emmeric de. Il diritto delle genti…
Lione s.t. 1781-1783, [ma Venezia, Giovanni Gatti] euro 880
Spese di spedizione
Shipping costs euro 80 Totale fattura / Total invoice euro 960
Pagamento con bonifico bancario/payment with bank transfer
So, for you, Blackstone was inconsequential?
Well when I was in sixth grade, I argued for days that the world was flat.
Then the 2nd time I was in sixth grade, I argued it was a mobius.
The teacher told me my arguments were never ending.
Okay, that was great, and I agree with your teacher.
Bob Gard:
has orly or any other birther attorney/plaintiff contacted you about becoming one of their “experts”? after all, you spent $40k, 2 years of research, wrote a 1722-page book and are about to publish book II – are any of their other “experts” as/more qualified?
You said, “Even if a court were presented with it, activist judges on the bench would likely judge by their agenda and not the facts.”
Are there any judges that meet your approval?
If so, what is your approval process?
Only the ones that agree with Mr. Gard. So basically all judges are activist judges, except for the ones that actually would be activist judges that would agree with him.
That can’t be true. That sounds like delusion and paranoia.
Bob, here is your problem in a nutshell. You have created a parallel universe that you currently inhabit, where the definition of Natural Born Citizen is derived almost exclusively from the works of Vattel. However, your parallel universe is not the real universe. The judicial branch long ago coalesced around a definition of Natural Born Citizen that does not match your definition. They have consistently and persistently ruled against hundreds of attempts since 2007 to challenge the eligibility of Barack Obama to run for and hold the office of POTUS. In terms of defining “Natural Born Citizen”, you are the best part of 200 years too late to the party. The train left the station centuries ago.
I am starting to wonder if you are a serious scholar, or merely a troll operating under a pseudonym to irritate us. Your arguments (such as they are) really are just a string of poorly-sourced, unsupported assertions.
In terms of the acceptance of reality, you are stuck at Stage 1 – Denial. Your response to the numerous attempts to point out the weaknesses and inconsistencies of your arguments is to become shrill and insistent.
In answer to the question that you have posed several times in varying forms – “why are you ridiculing me?”, the answer is fairly simple. Your arguments are ridiculous, therefore by definition they deserve only ridicule. You are behaving like Don Quixote, tilting at windmills.
If you wanted to achieve a positive result, you would be better advised to start campaigning for a change to the Constitution and Federal law to modify the definition of “Natural Born Citizen”. I would be more impressed if you tried that, instead of ranting and raving about your pile of voluminous cack of a book.
Another illustration of why nobody takes Bob seriously:
Bob,
When was the first time you read about Donofrio’s ineligibility theory?
If Bob used .docx format, then he might have used MS Office Word, LibreOffice Write, or OpenOffice Write (possibly others). Each of those three has a ‘publish as PDF’ button.
One button press and it is a portable format that anybody can read whether they have appropriate word processors or not. You could read it on a smart phone or a tablet. You could read it on a Kindle or a Kobo, You can read it on a Windows XP box, or an old Mac. But no; Bob wants to keep it weird, wants people to work for it.
I’m just not that interested in someone with so much ego that he thinks he knows more than 200 years of Supreme Court justices, can read the secret real meanings behind their words, whose absolute proof beyond a doubt completely ignores the Constitutional amendments, supporting laws, and court decisions since 1840. and yet thinks so little of his intended audience that he hides it in a proprietary format.
He’s not worth the keystrokes it took to write this comment, frankly.
So the nuts on ATS are right? There really are green skin aliens walking amongst us?
C’mon, Keith, he’s too busy “researching” to worry about marketing and distribution.
To pile on to the technical woes …. HE’S SELLING AN ‘eBOOK’ … ON DVD-ROM … ON AMAZON?!?
The site that tries to shove a kindle down your throat every time you even think about swingin’ by?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Housewives writing lurid bodice-rippers while the rugrats are napping are more sophisticated … and more effective.
Jesus, Gard, if for some reason you can’t puzzle out publishing for Kindle, Amazon will practically send someone to your house to do it for you. They are more than happy to sell anything.
Mr. Gard has been repeating the love of John Jay’s “strong check” letter, absent of context, of course. In the past, Mario and others have hinted at wanting an “advisory opinion” from the court. Oddly, I happened to fall upon the following which has a slightly familiar ring:
Provide a strong check.. afford strong agruments… It sounds like Justice Jay had an affinity for “strong.” In this case, is argument (where he interpreted the Constitution) was that they cannot give an advisory opinion in response got George Washington’s request to “interpret the Constitution.” They must have a case or controversy.
This could be a “strong statement” that founders were busy interpreting the Constitution and Jay likes the word Strong.
You are correct. I don’t accept fallacies of equivocation, shoulda/woulda/coulda/ and speculation arising from conjecture, as evidence of anything.
No reasonable person would.
I’m sorry, is this supposed to be evidence of something?
Oh, but it is, Daniel, it is indeed.
A fool and his money … ?
Ok I’ll be more specific. Bob… Is this supposed to be evidence of something, not related to your state of mind?
Speaking of Jay’s “strong check” statement, I was just rereading the debates regarding the chief executive where Madison on 25 July talks about foreign influence. This discussion is related to the creation of the electoral college. It was argued by Madison and others that a single purpose, one time only, body would reduce the possibility that “Ministers of foreign powers would have and make use of, the opportunity to to mix their intrigues & influence with the Election.” Thus, instead of a standing body, they chose the electoral college.
Could it be that Gard and others are thinking that statements about foreign interference refer to the candidates birth circumstance (including parentage) and not the method of election?
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_1_2-3s2.html
p.s. I cannot find anything about Vattel on the above University of Chicago site.
You have to remember that anything that comes out of Chicago is part of the Conspiracy. So this means nothing to birthers…neither does anything out of Hawaii.
That’s because your arguments have been long debunked, and frankly, we got bored with you. Bob is much more entertaining right now 🙂
Don’t worry, we’ll allow the courts to continue destroying your theories and attempts to smear a lawfully elected president. Thanks for stopping by though!
Paulie is a virulent misogynist, not sure Bob is a woman hater too, so that marriage might not work out.
It’s clinical insanity.
John Wayne Gacy
Gard claims he argued about the definition of natural born citizen with his 8th grade civics teacher. Shoot. Think about it. I’m sure the textbook gave the standard definition that anyone born in the U.S. could grow up to be president. So who would argue against that? I wonder if Gard grew up in an area with a large migrant population. It’s the same crap being put out there by the right wing that “anchor babies” shouldn’t be U.S. citizens. I vote for Gard fostering a long-time prejudice against immigrants. This book is his chance to validate his long held prejudices
OMG, I just bought it. You mean it’s fiction?!
Dr. Conspiracy: I read the 3 reviews at Amazon, and I recall that at least one of them said that said they read the book, but at 1722 pages, I have reservations as to the truth of the claim.
It is my personal and most trusted friend who has read the entirety of Bob Gard’s book. As Bob’s editor I can also assure you that he has striven to maintain a high degree of intellectual integrity in this work. Anyone who desires a more compact synopsis of his book merely needs to visit his website, the-constitutionist.
Most disappointing of all is the alacrity with which participants here hurl invective and smears in what could just as easily be polite and constructive debate. Those who stoop to such immature conduct really damage their own credibility, not Bob’s. This sort of ready resort to name-calling is the hallmark of bleeding-heart Liberals everywhere and demonstrates a clear deficit in terms of actual forensic ability.
C. Stanton
Bob Gard,
Do you have a single clear, unambiguous statement, from any Framer, any Founder, or any genuine legal authority in the history of the United States, to the effect that:
1) Two citizen parents are required in order for one to be a natural born citizen?
2) Two citizen parents are legally required for Presidential eligibility?
3) The Founders and Framers meant or were referring to Vattel’s idea “indigenes” when they said “natural born citizen?”
4) There is any legal distinction between “citizen by birth” and “natural born citizen?”
5) There is any significant legal distinction between a “native-born citizen” born in the United States and a “natural born citizen,” born in the United States, or that being a native-born citizen of the United States does not necessarily make one a natural-born citizen of the United States?
Finally, are you familiar with the 1856 candidacy of John Charles Fremont, the first Republican candidate for President? And can you provide any evidence whatsoever that any person ever objected to Fremont’s candidacy on any grounds that he was supposed to ineligible?
Fremont ran his campaign for President very openly stating and proclaiming that he was the child of a non-naturalized citizen of France. His father never became a US citizen, never had the slightest intention of doing so, and was planning to return to France with his wife and children at the time of his death.
This being the case, if ANYBODY in the year 1856 (which was no further historically from the drafting of the Constitution that we are from the end of World War II) — if ANYBODY in the entire country had felt that Fremont was Constitutionally ineligible, don’t you think we would have a record of that?
Thank you for the response, but I have to disagree with your statement about intellectual integrity. I feel that Bob has been intellectual dishonest in his comments here and I therefore must assume the same holds true for his book. He has stated
He has refused to respond to comments asking him to explain the statements of Founders who explicitly said that the requirement to be President including being “native born”. His deliberate avoidance of these statements that contradict one of his main ideas, clearly shows he is not interested in a legitimate debate or intellectual integrity.
Your assurance and a dollar will buy a cup of very weak coffee. Your credentials are no better than Bob’s
The fact is that Bob’s premise fails on the face of it, therefore his research, flowery and sweet to the ear as it may be, is spurious at best.
From Bob’s Home Page on his website:
“No matter how nice a guy Rubio is, he will be influenced by Latin America and Mexico. That’s the way the world turns and our forefathers knew it.”
7) Do you have a single clear, unambiguous statement, from any Framer, any Founder, or any genuine legal authority in the history of the United States, to the effect that the Founding Fathers meant something completely different by “natural born citizen” than they meant by “natural born subject?”
If so, please also explain why the two terms were used synonymously by the Massachusetts legislature during the early days of the Republic.
8) You claim that “John Jay attached Vattel’s definition for natives and indigenes to his term.” Please provide a statement from John Jay, or other compelling evidence, that demonstrates this point.
9) Can you explain why the Founding Fathers and Framers would derive their idea of citizenship from a Swiss writer rather than from our own culture, heritage, and language, all of which we acquired from England? Can you provide a statement from any Founder or Framer that we chose to derive our ideas of citizenship from Vattel?
I am not a Liberal. I am a Conservative and a member of the Republican Party. I guess that’s just one more ridiculous assumption of yours that you’re completely wrong about.
I find it interesting that you resort to name calling (“bleeding-heart Liberals”), in the very sentence where you drip and moan about name calling. If it were not for the fact that you appear to be serious, I’d think you were being overly ridiculous on purpose to punk us.
You can hardly expect anyone to take you or Bob seriously, based on what you’ve delivered.
If you don’t wish to be ridiculed, stop being ridiculous.
So there.
He had an editor?!?!?
Mr. Gard, you may want to consider the hired help.
Oh, but Publius, the tome du jour terminates abruptly at 1840. I am sure Mr. Gard is setting everyone straight on Frémont—and a great many other things!—in Birflaw II: The Other Parent.
Suggested correction.
C. Stanton,
I am curious as to your role as editor of Bob’s ebook, which appears to be a self-published effort (not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that).
Are you a professional editor? If so, why was Bob’s ebook not published more professionally? What is your editorial experience? What is your relationship to Bob?
*drops mike*
Most editors worth anything would have advised the author to put the book out in pdf and/or Kindle format. I’m not impressed by you.
Reasoning with cranks has never worked. Humoring them, maybe.
Bob’s CV, please. Also, where and when did he receive his JD?
The birther blogs are much worse, for example, this at ObamaReleaseYourRecords:
How do you square your comments with the fact that Mr. Gard’s entire argument has been proven false?
What are your credentials as an editor? People say lots of things.
They’re an item.
I suspect Stanton means “proofreader” when he claims to be an editor. From the bloat and presentation alone, it is plain to see there was no editor.
I’m also willing to wager there’s no index …. in a pile that desperately needs one.
Hey, Stanton, did you submit this ‘project’ to the Library of Congress? If so, what was their response? If not, why not? Didn’t need the refusal? Or didn’t know how?
That’s not just his editor, that’s his web designer. Having visited Bob’s website, I can definitely say your advice is well-founded.
Oh, one more question for an even 10:
10) A lot of people who read this site would be very familiar with the arguments made by Mario Apuzzo and Stephen Tonchen.
What significant information or evidence do you have that they don’t? And on what significant points, if any, do you disagree with Apuzzo and Tonchen? For example, are there claims made by either of these writers that you find are clearly wrong?
Oh, so Misha is right, they are an item! Heh.
At least he is ahead of Taitz in knowing when not to DIY. But, as in his product, his staffing is all quantity.
My irony meter sent shrapnel across the room.
A few days later, Gard’s opus is found to be little more than birfer blogs repackaged …. a l a Strunk-style omnibus filing!
(just a guess)
I doubt they’re an item. Word on the web is that Bob has a wife, and I don’t think she would put up with that.
And what an argument he made. He describes it over at his website (and good luck if you try to navigate your way around that maze– way to go, C. Stanton, Ed.):
http://the-constitutionist.com/Page_5.html#Significant_Chapter_Excerpts:
It’s the excerpt from Chapter 1. It’s definitely another piece of the puzzle. He does a lot of declaring and deciding.
First, citations, distribution and edutions of Vattel “around the world” are irrelevant to his influence in America, which is what you claimed.
As for citations in early America, Blackstone is multiples more than Vattel.
Professor Lawrence M. Friedman’s highly influential work A HISTORY OF AMERICAN LAW cites Blackstone 15 times, but there is not a single reference to Vattel. In fact, Vattel’s LAW OF NATIONS doesn’t even merit inclusion in Friedman’s bibliography, and his bibliography is 19 pages long (Blackstone’s COMMENTARIES is included).
Kettner’s History of American Citizenship 1608-1870 mentions Vattel only once as part of a list of authors, Blackstone 14.
Donald Lutz figured out who were the most commonly cited sources by the Founders.
1.St. Paul
2. Montesquieu
3. Sir William Blackstone
4. John Locke
…
10. Samuel Pufendorf
11. Sir Edward Coke
…
15. Hugo Grotius
…
29 Vattel
I’m gonna mostly drop out of the discussion until I get my copy of the “book.”
Yes, Birthers make that tortured interpretation of “foreign” and “foreigner” in complete disregard for the sense in which Jay used the term during his public career and retirement.
Bob Gard could not have used such a readily accessible source as Google Books, for example to research Jays published writings, without encountering numerous instances of Jay using the terms, and always obviously referring to persons born in foreign countries.
And the Birther meme that Jay had some special concern about foreign influence aimed only at the Presidency/Vice-presidency is debunked by Jay himself years later in a letter he wrote to Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, in which he expressed the same mistrust of foreigners (as people born outside the country, not the children of such people,) when he argued for the same prohibition on foreigners being giving any office in the government as a matter to be incorporated into the soon to be revised naturalization laws, laws which would apply only to those born” across the sea”.
Page 407 The Life of John Jay by William Jay
“TO TIMOTHY PICKERING.*
“13th May, 1798. “DEAR SIR,
“It is said that the Naturalization Act is to be revised and amended. Permit me to suggest an idea which I have for many years deemed important.
“We doubtless may grant to a foreigner just such a portion of our rights and privileges as we may think proper. In my opinion it would be wise to declare explicitly, that the right and privilege of being elected or appointed to, or of holding and exercising any office or place of trust or power under the United States, or under any of them, shall not hereafter be granted to any foreigner; but that the president of the United States, with the consent of the Senate, be nevertheless at liberty to appoint a foreigner to a military office.
“I am, dear sir,
“Your most obedient servant,
“JOHN JAY.”
Ironically, this appeal represented no change from the intent Jay note to Washington conveyed, because Birthers incorrectly attribute Jay’s use in that note of the term ‘administration’ to only the executive branch, whereas then contemporary use of that term acrually included all offices of federal government, including Senators, Representatives, and the Judiciary.
But then, your research probalby has already confirmed these facts, right?
Aww, Doc, the context is the best part …. right behind Macchiavelli, but just a bit above Voltaire … LOL!
de Vattel was extremely influential in matters of international law. Those addicted to his now famous phrase insist on swallowing a whole ocean of bath water to get that stolen baby. Fuhgawdssake, the title is translated, The Law of Nations, not Laws of the Nation. And it was written for a specific audience: the plurality of European principalities and powers.
When it comes to matters domestic, “… away with your Vattel!”
Oh, gosh. This is awful. It’s not that it’s indecipherable. It’s that it’s just plain awful. It is logical BS, and no doubt a sad indicator of the quality of the rest of his book.
So he basically argues that because being elected President has a special requirement, that means there is a category of citizenship for being elected President, beyond those categories for election as Representative or Senator.
He ignores what ought to be obvious even to an 8th-grader: That if a person is Constitutionally eligible to run for President, that person is also eligible to run for Representative or Senator.
I hope Bob was simply illustrating how little he actually knew about logic in the 8th grade. Otherwise, his book has some very clear signs in the very first chapter of having been written by someone who was not at all qualified to write such a work.
Wow, another failure to appreciate that America was in transition from the British monarchical tradition! How does that keep happening? *cough*
From “A Treatise on Admiralty and Prize: Together with Some Suggestions for the Guide and Government of United States Naval Commanders in Maritime Wars”, by David Roberts, 1869 (page 452):
“In 1794, Sept. 10, when John Jay was the American plenipotentiary at London, as an act of comity, a succinct summary of the course of proceeding in prize cases was prepared for him by Sir William Scott (the recipient of Jay’s letter to which Bob refers) and Sir John Nicholl, the former then presiding in the High Court of Admiralty, the latter subsequently succeeding Sir Christopher Robinson in the same high judicial position.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=NLABAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=true
I’m just throwing that little snippet in to point out that Sir William Scott (who at the time was King’s Advocate and had been in Admiralty practice since 1780, and was in the process of becoming the foremost authority on Admiralty law) and John Jay had a lot of business going on between them, dealing with (as Bob says) “America’s problem with British ship seizures and the impressments of American seamen”. I would imagine their correspondence was a great deal more substantial than an exchange of notes over dinner invitations, which is the tiny, insignificant fragment from which Bob has constructed not merely a bone, or a skeleton, but a wholly fleshed-out body of a theory about how “indigenes” came to be replaced with “natural born citizens” in the 1797 edition of “The Law of Nations”.
The truly odd thing is that Bob himself alluded to that much more substantial relationship.
I’d tried to keep the carnage offstage. Did you find the eight different classes of birthers defined in the Reviewer’s Guide? I thought the definition given for “Anti-birther” was unusually elegant for the team of Gard and Stanton.
True, but the use of ‘or’ as the conjuncion was a bit odd.
gorefan: Thank you for the response, but I have to disagree with your statement about intellectual integrity. I feel that Bob has been intellectual dishonest in his comments here and I therefore must assume the same holds true for his book.
Without wishing to speak for Bob—while also keeping in mind that I have not been able to read through this entire thread—would you please cite exactly where you consider Bob to be intellectually dishonest.
Your considerate response is one which I am confident that Bob would wish to address.
He has refused to respond to comments asking him to explain the statements of Founders who explicitly said that the requirement to be President including being “native born”.
Please allow for time zone differences. I’m sure that Bob will seek to provide you with a reasonable response. Again, thank you for maintaining a solid degree of decorum. It’s very refreshing.
Note to all: I have sat in Bob Gard’s home and personally reviewed his library as used in this project. One major reason for the book’s exceptional length is his insistence on providing images of all crucial passages that he cites. It can only be hoped that this might be seen as a sincere concern about factuality upon his part.
Daniel: The fact is that Bob’s premise fails on the face of it, therefore his research, flowery and sweet to the ear as it may be, is spurious at best.
Please point to the particular comment in which you (or other contributors), have conclusively proven this alleged failure of premise and its spurious nature.
Again, I must ask that you please keep in mind the fact that I’ve yet to read through this entire thread.
Daniel: I find it interesting that you resort to name calling (“bleeding-heart Liberals”), in the very sentence where you drip and moan about name calling.
While I cannot claim to have visited every last Conservative website on the Internet (far from it), there still remains a strong perception—from both online and real life interactions—that Liberals more readily resort to name-calling. My own experience is that Conservative websites often tend to constructively engage Liberal participants instead of immediately tarring them with whatever nom du jour. Perhaps your own experience dictates otherwise.
Incidentally, my use of the term “bleeding-heart” was an earnest attempt to distinguish between modern Liberals and the more honorable Classical Liberals.
Please recommend some “Conservative” websites where this dynamic may be witnessed. Seriously.
The hits just keep on a’rollin’. What about the Post-Moderns? Modernity begin and ended long ago.
Maybe he was, maybe he was not, I’m not competent to judge.
I am however competent to tell you that there is nothing in Vattel that would prevent Mr Obama from being deemed a native or indigene.
However that translates in modern US terms is up to you to decide. But if you equate this with your term “natural-born citizen”, then for sure Mr Obama is (according to Vattel, at least) such a thing.
Seriously I feel sorry for you, but thank you at the same time.
Publius: Are you a professional editor?
Thank you for your polite inquiry. The answer is, absolutely not. I am a rank amateur at best but felt, as Bob did, that his work could benefit from both proofreading and some additional editing.
If so, why was Bob’s ebook not published more professionally?
While Bob is best qualified to answer that question I would venture that, after having spent so many thousands of dollars on the source library, hiring a professional editor wasn’t a particularly attractive (or, perhaps, even a viable) option. The chosen format and its attendant indelicacies were all cut in stone by the time of my eleventh hour arrival. My task was one of salvaging his earnest effort to the best of my abilities.
What is your editorial experience?
Limited at best but, at the same time, I also have had a polyglot Oxford PhD praise my command of English while we were in the course of publishing several technical papers related to thin film vacuum metallurgy. Needless to say (then why say it?), he wasn’t the only one who has demonstrated a measure of respect for my abilities. Large companies with very short names have also benefited from my skills.
What is your relationship to Bob?
We are the best of friends after becoming acquainted in a professional capacity unrelated to this current project. Bob has proven to be one of the most trustworthy and uncompromising individuals that I have met in my entire life. Even so far as to successfully challenge some of my own most firmly held positions. Not an easy thing, please trust me on that. I hope that this has answered your questions.
I admit I am confused by all your ramblings.
Is your contention that according to Vattel, Obama would not be deemed a “natural-born citizen”?
If so, you are unarguably and totally wrong.
According to Vattel, Obama would indeed be a “nbc” (assuming you equate this term with Vattel’s indigene) because of his family on his mother’s side.
End of story.
I admit I am confused by all your ramblings.
Ifs your contention that according to Vattel, Obama would not be deemed a “natural-born citizen”?
If so, you are unarguably and totally wrong.
According to Vattel, Obama would indeed be a “nbc” (assuming you equate this term with Vattel’s indigene) because of his family on his mother’s side.
I think my own comments achieve that (modest) goal.
misha marinsky: My irony meter sent shrapnel across the room.
Permit me to offer you a gently used—driven to church only on Sundays while wearing tennis shoes—Frink-O-Matic™ sarcasm detector.
I feel sorry for Mr Gard.
If he had hired a single French lawyer — not just myself but anyone really — he or she could have squashed his obvious misinterpretation of Vattel in a few paragraphs and saved Mr. Gard a bundle of cash.
Frankly, I don’t understand the birthers: they use a French legal text and no one (that I know of) has bothered hiring a French legal expert to find out what it really means!
If I were to publish some revolutionary legal treatise in France on, say, the writings of Oliver Wendell Holmes, wouldn’t expect me to consult some American sources? I would be a fool not to do so!
Why on Earth should anyone take the writings of Mario Apuzzo or Bob Gard seriously – at least as far as Vattel is concerned — when they have not bothered consulting any French experts?
I appreciate your desire to help your friend, but he really is totally wrong in this matter.
At this point, before continuing any further, I’d like to thank Dr. Conspiracy for his willingness to host this tidy little donnybrook.
If I may suggest, while waiting for your copy of the eBook to arrive, please drop by The Constitutionist for a useful introduction to all of the most salient arguments that you will encounter in the eBook itself.
Again, thank you for possessing the rare courage to actively examine this political mare’s nest. Few do and our nation is the poorer for it.
Dave B.: That’s not just his editor, that’s his web designer. Having visited Bob’s website, I can definitely say your advice is well-founded.
Permit me to inquire; how many websites have you designed and constructed? Have you ever been obliged to use GoDaddy’s archaic Website Builder tool set?
Feel free to direct me to whatever online sites that you’ve constructed in the past. Bob’s was the very first that I have ever built and I remain proud of the effort, however crude it might be.
I would also invite you to walk a mile in my shoes first. That way, you’ll be a mile away from me and I will finally be able to enjoy some fresh air.
Well, that’s rather lazy. How can you even comment if you haven’t read the foregoing? You are starting from the position of admitted ignorance.
Here’s the Cliff Notes: Already settled law. You lose. Thanks for playing!
Publius: Oh, one more question for an even 10:
10) A lot of people who read this site would be very familiar with the arguments made by Mario Apuzzo and Stephen Tonchen.
Then I certainly hope that you will have taken time to read through the exchanges between Stephen Tonchen and Bob Gard at The Constitutionist. However lengthy his replies have been, Bob has made a sincere effort to address the challenges made by Stephen. Even Tonchen himself has had this to say about Bob’s work in the final paragraph of his Amazon.com review:
Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with his analysis and conclusions, Gard’s document is a goldmine of information for history buffs and those who are seriously investigating President Obama’s “natural born citizen” status. Its “raw” information alone makes this document well worth its price.
What significant information or evidence do you have that they don’t? And on what significant points, if any, do you disagree with Apuzzo and Tonchen? For example, are there claims made by either of these writers that you find are clearly wrong?
These are questions that I must direct to Bob Gard.
I am one of those who have read Mr. Gard’s book, ALL OF IT. Yes, it is a massive work at over 1700 pages but I have read it and yes, it took some time to read it. You people who tread here are quick to call names and immediately drop yourselves to being to bottom feeders of the worst sort. I will leave the name calling at that.
So you doubt I read the entire book well none of you here have, have you.? Yet you claim to be so knowledgeable and come off as experts. I make neither of those claims but I am a student of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers. Islam and sharia law. BTW, I have read three different version of the qur’an yet I am not an expert on Islam I have no interest in wasting my time here other than this comment in support of Bob Gard’s book. My expertise is in U.S. Military history yet I choose not to toss this about nor brag about it like some of you arm chair critics. The research is exceptional but then you folks would have to make the choice to commit the time to READ the book to really see how in depth, accurate and true it is.
Yes, it is a game changer and had this book been released earlier could it have changed the election outcome? Doubtful but it can change what may transpire down the road for our kids, my kids and your kids? I cringe to think that some of you geniuses have spawned children.
How nasty and foolish to attack the format and not everyone is a computer ‘experten’ and Mr. Gard is aware of this poor choice and he admitted this. I had no problems opening the book, none nor did take a long time. You lump us in with the ‘birthers’ and how sad and wrong you are, Lupin, read the book and then tell us how wrong we are.
Thank you to the good Dr. for hosting this and allowing me to comment.
That’s so sad. I’m sorry you had such a traumatic experience. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has settled the issue, so you needn’t worry any more.
Terms like bleeding heart liberals and bottom feeders is also name calling but just not very clever. Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it and at least be honest about it.
And to the bigots who assume everyone posting here is a liberal or a supporter of the President, you’re wrong. You might want to look up cognitive dissonance.
Why are you whining and what size shoes? Are they flats or pumps?
Here is a brief summary. Remember, many here were responding to his comments made here not any book or website that we had not the time no the inclination to review. We were commenting only on the present comments.
1. He “surmises” and admits to supposition. To come to his point, he is filling in the blanks in his research with his own supposition (read, opinion). Some of the blanks do exist, even from good research but you cannot just fill-in the holes with your own opinion just to get the answer you want.
2. “Vattel was the most influential public jurist in American history. More than Blackstone, Montesquieu, Grotius, Puffendorf, Hale, Burlamaqui, etc.” He never backed up this claim, or responded when others showed differently.
3. “Vattel was not a monarchist.” Has he even read the book?
4. “Vattel defined citizenship.” No, Vattel opined on citizenship in his current local.
5. If Vattel was the most influential, what about his “definition” of gun control, state religion, the monarchy (fyi. Princes are a form of monarchy).
6. He stated that Natural-born subject was a monarchical term and others would be Jus Sanguinis. How does that explain the monarchies of continental Europe who were Jus Sanguinis.
7. He does not mention where the founders believed we should invade Quebec and carry off their women.
8. He is adding supposition on what John Jay meant without actually having any evidence.
All of these above contain little to know citation for the claim. When others asked, or provided their own refutation with citations, there was no response. Making a claim without citation and without explanation is intellectually dishonest.
amateur constitutional scholars, amateur lawyers, amateur forensic scientists and even amateur editors and web designers insist that their overnight expertise trumps decades, even centuries, of earnestly-debated, empirically-tested and well-settled questions of fact, science and law. instead of discovering fatal flaws in entire fields of study, they zealously expose only their own capacity for self-delusion.
Though even a pristine version of a Soviet publication from 1960 would never cost 1,700 dollars (has the guy ever been to Moscow – he obviously does not know the real prices), he seems to be claiming he bought antiquarian versions.
Why, in heaven’s sake? Normally, people who write treatises referencing other works, just buy or rent any readable copy and trust their readers to believe them (after all, readers can do the same thing if they doubt a reference).
The only reason I can see for buying at such prices is that you want to show off a lot of neat-looking photo copies of the “relevant” passages. Yes, that sure smells birfer.
It does. You must not read or watch much conservative material. It is replete with invective, hatred and irrationality,
I personally do not consider Bob “intellectually dishonest” in his participation here (and I haven’t read the book). I may change that opinion at some point, but I am not anticipating it. What I have found so far is that Bob is reading his sources and evaluating his evidence using presuppositions that he confuses with facts.
There is a good reason why the Wikipedia has a rule: “no original research.” It is because lone researchers easily convince themselves of things, or to butcher a quote: “it takes a village to have a consensus.”
Uncompromising is a euphemism for blind to his obvious errors. That indeed answers the question.
You only think you do. This is the root of all your errors… the inability to recognize tht you in fact are not “unique” in any ability to find “the truth” over the rest of the population. There is nothing special about you except your ability to fool yourself into believing that you and you alone have been able to uncover the super secret hidden “truth” that is universally rejected by the actual experts.
No serious web designer uses the web host’s tools. Most can design sites outside of the host environment and then just FTP in the files required for the site.
Yes. The claim that one must have parents who already are citizens of the US to be a natural born citizen is plainly incorrect on its face. It is fabricated with no foundation in history, in fact it is contradicted by tradition, law and Supreme Court decision.
It is a courtesy that right-leaning sites typically deny to those who disagree,
Bob Garbage in, Bob Garbage out.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it was his dentist, real estate agent and lawyer as well.
Once I get the book, I’d like to propose a debate with Mr. Gard here, just between him and me. If he agrees, I have to figure out some way for just the two of us to be able to comment on this particular thread, so as to keep the discussion linear.
If someone else would like to contribute to either side, they might do it by email or in the open thread.
Looking for a plug-in.
I hear you and can relate.
I read all 1022 pages of Public Law 111-148 (“Obamacare”) and studied some of the prior legislation that is cited therein. Whenever an opponent of health care reform chimes in to claim some specific effect of this law, I invite them to discuss the law in terms of what is written in the act, or if they want to go further, any Federal Register item or CFR that follows from the authority of this law.
I never really get any engagement. I am confronted with claims about the document that are simply false (“it’s 2800 pages!” or “nobody read it, not even the lawmakers who passed it!). These discussions usually end with some repeated claim about effects of the law (“It raised the costs for my business so much I had to fire all the liberals who worked for me!”)
My favorite thing is when they quote Rep. Pelosi (“But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.”) I have yet to be confronted with this quote by anyone who understands the relationship and the distinctions between legislative acts and the federal rulemaking process, or who understands the role of the Federal Register or the CFR, e.g., that many laws tend to have rules developed under the authority of the laws, but that those rules are never known in advance.
I’ve tried to engage critics on the text and merits of the law they think they are criticizing, sometimes being told that there’s no possible way I could have read this law either because it is too long to be possible to read, or because it has been kept secret and has been read by no one. More often than not, I am directed instead to popular commentary on the law, cut-and-pasted lists of poorly justified claims about the effects of “Obamacare.”
I have not once been engaged by a critic of the law who has been willing to discuss the law as it is written, or to discuss actual verifiable effects of the law the rules it produces.
I won’t be reading Mr. Gard’s book, but I can certainly relate to the frustration one would feel if one did read the book and was being confronted about its contents by people who did not. If Mr. Gard explores more about the President than just his controversies, it could be interesting. Unfavorable biographies can be the most enlightening.
I would be interested to know what your standard is for “intellectually dishonest”. If you limit it to knowingly and willfully mis-stating factual information, then perhaps he is not (although I am far from certain that Mr. Gard did not do that i several insances). But, from my own point of view, the following are also intellectually dishonest:
-Ignoring facts that lead away from your conclusion
-Ignoring questions or sloughing them off with non-responsive answers
-Imputing bad or corrupt motives to those who disagree with you
In my own field of science, if anyone did that I would call them intellectually dishonest, even if their experiments were not actually fraudulent.
The people who comment on this blog are mostly people who are very interested in the definition of natural born citizen. They are a natural audience for Mr. Gard’s book. Many of the commenters are telling him that they aren’t likely to read it because it is too long. If Mr. Gard is serious about convincing people he is correct, writing a book that his intended audience will not read is a pretty stupid thing to do. But, he’s a birfer, and one commonality among all birfers is that they do stupid things.
Instead of doubling down on the idiocy, Mr. Gard should be considering ways to trim his book and change its format to make it more accessible to his intended audience. But, again, he’s a birfer. Another commonality among birfers is that they always double down on the idiocy rather than admit that they are wrong.
…. failure to / inability to appreciate the perspectives of others. Birfers are trapped in their own minds, no capacity for externality. This limitation explains so much of what they do. They must be hell to live with … the reports we hear here from those who do confirm that.
is that a fact?
then how come you support this 2 parent drivel? because it does not appear anywhere in the constitution.
Of course the founding fathers were familiar with Vattel who was a scholar on INTERNATIONAL LAW; however as to MUNICIPAL LAW or DOMESTIC LAW he was not the source of our statutes regarding citizenship which is in the providence of a nation’s municipal law. “Citizenship depends, however, entirely on municipal law and is not regulated by international law. “ Tomasicchio v. Acheson, 98 F. Supp. 166, 169 (DC 1951).
Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has held that our citizenship laws were inherited from English common law. “Our concept of citizenship was inherited from England and, accordingly, was based on the principle that rights conferred by naturalization were subject to the conditions reserved in the grant. See Calvin’s Case, 7 Co. Rep. 1 a, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (1608). Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163, 170 (1964).
“We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.” Rogers v. Bellei, 401 US 815,828(1971)
Nowhere in over 200 years of court opinions have had any court suggested that our citizenship law was based on Vattel’s concept of citizenship. In fact, there are many court cases that held that children born in the United States to parents other than citizen parents are natural born citizens. “Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States. Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F. 3d 1017, 1019 (6th Cir. 1999). “Abdel-Karim A. El-Nobani is a legal resident of the United States, is married to a natural born United States citizen, and is the father of two natural born United States citizens, ages two and eight, respectively. He was born in Jordan and moved to the United States in 1988. El-Nobani became a permanent resident of the United States in 1993.” US v. El-Nobani, 145 F. Supp. 2d 906, 909 (ND OH 2001)
As for the drafting of the Constitution, Blackstone’s influence is noted throughout the document, such as, Law of Nations clause in which it was noted: “”In the fourth volume of his Commentaries, Blackstone has a chapter on “Offences against the Law of Nations.” Guided by Blackstone, the Founding Generation viewed the law of nations as a system of rules deducible by natural reason, and established by universal consent among the civilized inhabitants of the world. Justice Story would later put it, “every doctrine that may be fairly deduced by correct reasoning from the rights and duties of nations, and the nature of moral obligation, may be said to exist in the law of nations.” 3 Dartmouth C. Undergraduate J.L. 51 (2005)
Moreover, “[t]he two ideas central to Blackstone’s understanding — due process as the right secured, and habeas corpus as the instrument by which due process could be insisted upon by a citizen illegally imprisoned—found expression in the Constitution’s Due Process and Suspension Clauses. See Amdt. 5; Art. I, 9, cl. 2. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 US 507, 556-557 (2004)
Another example of Blackstone’ influence “The universal maxim of the common law of England, as Sir William Blackstone expresses it, `that no man is to be brought into jeopardy of his life more than once for the same offence,’ is embraced in article V of amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and in the constitutions of several States, in the following language: `Nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;’ and in many other States the same principle is incorporated in the organic law, Kepner v. United States, 195 US 100, 132 (1904)
As for Vattel’s contribution to the Constitution, there has not been one decision in which a court has cited Vattel’s influence on drafting of the CONSTITUTION. This is not to say that courts have not cited Vattel on the INTERNATIONAL LAW in which his book “Law of Nations” have been cited by the courts but as to the CONSTITUTION AND MUNICIPAL LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, Vattel’s influence was nonexistent.
I agree.
It was Blackstone’s influence and not Vattel’s influence that was the source of the natural born citizen term in the Constitution.
Blackstone wrote in his Commentaries the following:
The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. (Commentaries of the Laws of England (1765)
Blackstone further noted the difference between Civil Law and Common Law regarding children born of aliens in England:
The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien. Id.
As such, Blackstone recognized and affirmed Chief Justice Lord Coke’s opinion in Calvin’s Case in 1608 that children born of aliens within the dominions of England were natural born subjects.
The natural born citizen language in the Constitution is derived from its English Common Law counterpart natural born subject. This idea is based on courts understanding that the term citizen is analogous with term subject. “The term `citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term `subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.”). Rather, the terms are meant to encompass persons living under distinct forms of government: “A monarchy has subjects; a republic has citizens.” Matimak Trading Co. v. Khalily, 118 F. 3d 76 , 85 (2nd Cir. 1997)
The court in Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 478 (1888) stated in clear and concise language the common law’s influence in the Constitution:
“The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”
Vattel’s “Law of Nations” in which he described the Civil Law’s concept of citizenship that only natural born citizens are born to citizens of a country; nevertheless, Vattel himself acknowledged the difference between CIVIL LAW and English COMMON LAW regarding natural born citizenship when he wrote in Law of Nations: “Finally, there are countries, such as England, in which the mere fact of birth within the country naturalizes the children of an alien.”
The Constitution does not defined Natural Born Citizen. As such, when language in a statute does not define a common law term, courts are “guided by the principle that where words are employed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning at common law or in the law of this country they are presumed to have been used in that sense unless the context compels to the contrary.” Standard Oil Co. of NJ v. United Sates, 221 US 1, 59 (1911)
That at the time of the drafting of the Constitution Blackstone’s Commentaries including his definition of natural born subjects was available to the founding fathers. Justice Stone observed: “It is noteworthy that Blackstone’s Commentaries, more read in America before the Revolution than any other law book.” CJ Hendry Co. v. Moore, 318 US 133 , 151-152 (1943) . Similarly, the court in United States v. Green, 140 F. Supp. 117, 120 (SD NY 1956) noted: “ Blackstone, whose Commentaries probably did much to influence the thinking of American lawyers at and before the time of the framing of the Federal Constitution.”
In addition the court in Reid v. Covert 354 U.S. 1 (1957) stated “that two of the greatest English jurists, Lord Chief Justice Hale and Sir William Blackstone—men who exerted considerable influence on the Founders” id at 26.
Moreover, “As with many other elements of the common law, it was carried into the jurisprudence of this Country through the medium of Blackstone, who codified the doctrine in his Commentaries. Benton v. Maryland, 395 US 784 795 (1969)
Finally, the court in Briehl v. Dulles, 248 F.2d 561 (DC Cir. 1957) noted that: “Professor Crosskey refers to the [Blackstone’s] Commentaries as “that great `best-seller’ of the eighteenth century” and points out that some of the members of the Constitutional Convention were on the subscription list of the original American edition in 1772. Politics and the Constitution, Vol. 1, p. 411, and Vol. 2, p. 1326, n. 3 (1953). Id. at fn 88
As such, it is inconceivable for the framers of the Constitution to “import” a foreign idea of citizenship based on the bloodline of fathers and not based on the Jus Soli doctrine as enunciated by Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case and reaffirmed by Blackstone in his Commentaries whose books were required readings by lawyers in colonial America.
Of course the founding fathers were familiar with Vattel who was a scholar on INTERNATIONAL LAW; however as to MUNICIPAL LAW or DOMESTIC LAW he was not the source of our statutes regarding citizenship which is in the providence of a nation’s municipal law. “Citizenship depends, however, entirely on municipal law and is not regulated by international law. “ Tomasicchio v. Acheson, 98 F. Supp. 166, 169 (DC 1951).
Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has held that our citizenship laws were inherited from English common law. “Our concept of citizenship was inherited from England and, accordingly, was based on the principle that rights conferred by naturalization were subject to the conditions reserved in the grant. See Calvin’s Case, 7 Co. Rep. 1 a, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (1608). Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163, 170 (1964).
“We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.” Rogers v. Bellei, 401 US 815,828(1971)
Nowhere in over 200 years of court opinions have had any court suggested that our citizenship law was based on Vattel’s concept of citizenship. In fact, there are many court cases that held that children born in the United States to parents other than citizen parents are natural born citizens. “Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States. Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F. 3d 1017, 1019 (6th Cir. 1999). “Abdel-Karim A. El-Nobani is a legal resident of the United States, is married to a natural born United States citizen, and is the father of two natural born United States citizens, ages two and eight, respectively. He was born in Jordan and moved to the United States in 1988. El-Nobani became a permanent resident of the United States in 1993.” US v. El-Nobani, 145 F. Supp. 2d 906, 909 (ND OH 2001)
As for the drafting of the Constitution, Blackstone’s influence is noted throughout the document, such as, Law of Nations clause in which it was noted: “”In the fourth volume of his Commentaries, Blackstone has a chapter on “Offences against the Law of Nations.” Guided by Blackstone, the Founding Generation viewed the law of nations as a system of rules deducible by natural reason, and established by universal consent among the civilized inhabitants of the world. Justice Story would later put it, “every doctrine that may be fairly deduced by correct reasoning from the rights and duties of nations, and the nature of moral obligation, may be said to exist in the law of nations.” 3 Dartmouth C. Undergraduate J.L. 51 (2005)
Moreover, “[t]he two ideas central to Blackstone’s understanding — due process as the right secured, and habeas corpus as the instrument by which due process could be insisted upon by a citizen illegally imprisoned—found expression in the Constitution’s Due Process and Suspension Clauses. See Amdt. 5; Art. I, 9, cl. 2. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 US 507, 556-557 (2004)
Another example of Blackstone’ influence “The universal maxim of the common law of England, as Sir William Blackstone expresses it, `that no man is to be brought into jeopardy of his life more than once for the same offence,’ is embraced in article V of amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and in the constitutions of several States, in the following language: `Nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;’ and in many other States the same principle is incorporated in the organic law, Kepner v. United States, 195 US 100, 132 (1904)
As for Vattel’s contribution to the Constitution, there has not been one decision in which a court has cited Vattel’s influence on drafting of the CONSTITUTION. This is not to say that courts have not cited Vattel on the INTERNATIONAL LAW in which his book “Law of Nations” have been cited by the courts but as to the CONSTITUTION AND MUNICIPAL LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, Vattel’s influence was nonexistent.
The drafters of the Constitution were learned men who understood the necessity of writing in clear and concise language. “Our Government is founded upon a written Constitution. The draftsmen expressed themselves in careful and measured terms corresponding with the immense importance of the powers delegated to them. The Framers of the Constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have used words in their natural meaning, and to have intended what they said.” Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 US 443, 500(1971)(Black, J concurring and dissenting)
Those Vattelites would have us disregard our common law heritage from the English in which Chief Justice Marshall observed “whose language is our language and whose laws form the substratum of our laws.” U.S. v. Burr 25 Fed. Cas. 55, no. 14,693 C.C.D.Va. 1807
Moreover, “[w]hen the Constitution was adopted, the common law was something more than a miscellaneous collection of precedents. It was a system, then a growth of some five centuries, to guide judicial decision. One of its principles, certainly as important as any other, and that which assured the possibility of the continuing vitality and usefulness of the system, was its capacity for growth and development, and its adaptability to every new situation to which it might be needful to apply it.” Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 US 474, 495-496 (1935)(Stone, J. dissenting)
Courts have observed that “The framers of the Constitution were familiar with common-law concepts and the words and phrases employed by common-law lawyers.” In re Gannon, 27 F. 2d 362 , 363 (ED PA 1928)
As such, “[w]hen the Constitution was adopted, it was not the design of the framers thereof to create any new systems of general law, nor to supplant those already in existence. At that time there were in existence and in force in the Colonies or States, and among the people thereof, the law of nations, the law admiralty and maritime, the common law, including commercial law, and the system of equity. Upon these foundations the Constitution was erected. Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205, 231 ( 1917)(Pitney, J. dissenting)
The framers adopted common law terms in the Constitution including natural born which was mentioned in Blackstone’s Commentaries that “had a wide circulation in America at the time of the Constitutional Convention. It is said that sixteen signers of the Declaration of Independence knew the book from cover to cover. A source book of legal science, a landmark in law and literature, it is safe to say that its contents were familiar to every American lawyer in public life in 1789 and 1791.” Sunray Oil Corporation v. Allbritton, 187 F. 2d 475, 478 (5th Cir. 1951)
“When Congress legislates against a backdrop of common law, without any indication of intention to depart from or change common law rules, the statutory terms must be read as embodying their common law meaning. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Bureau of Land Management, 425 F. 3d 735, 763 (10th Cir. 2005)
The failure of the drafters to indicate a different meaning other than the common law meaning of natural born citizen in the Constitution demonstrated that the drafters intended to incorporate the established common law meaning of natural born citizen.
It appears to me that the centerpiece of Mr. Gard’s argument revolves around the link between John Jay and Sir William Scott and the idea that Scott was the primary editor of the 1797 edition, and John Jay’s alleged definition of natural born citizen. I would focus on those issues first.
One thing in particular to keep in mind is that even if Sir William consulted with John Jay on the correct translation of “indigenes” and Jay agreed that “natural born citizen” was a valid translation. it does not mean that Jay agreed with de Vattel on the definition as it applied to the US.There is a big difference between saying “Yes, that’s what de Vattel meant” and “I agree with de Vattel”
The term “natural born citizen” in the Constitution was derived from the English common law term “natural born subject” since the term citizen is analogous to the common law term subject.
Courts have long recognized that the term “citizen” and “subject” were interchangeable to reflect the change of government.
“Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.” 2 Kent Com. 258. Medvedieff v. Cities Service Oil Co., 35 F. Supp. 999, 1002 (SD NY 1940)
The Supreme Court of North Carolina in State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 26, (quoted in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649,) said: “The term `citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term `subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people; and he who before was a `subject of the King’ is now `a citizen of the State.'” Hennessy v. Richardson Drug Co., 189 US 25, 34 (1903)
“The term `citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term `subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.”). Rather, the terms are meant to encompass persons living under distinct forms of government: “A monarchy has subjects; a republic has citizens.” Matimak Trading Co. v. Khalily, 118 F. 3d 76 , 85 (2nd Cir. 1997)
Did you know that after the Declaration of Independence and before the ratification of the United State Constitution that the term Natural Born Subject was written in several state Constitutions?
1786 Vermont Constitution
XXXVI. Every person of good character, who comes to settle in this State, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or. by other just means, acquire, hold and transfer land, or other real estate; and, after one year’s residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a NATURAL BORN SUBJECT of this State, except that he shall not be capable of being elected Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Treasurer, Counsellor, or Representative in Assembly, until after two years’ residence. (emphasis added)
1776 Pennsylvania Constitution
SECT. 42. Every foreigner of good character who comes to settle in this state, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or by other just means acquire, hold, and transfer land or other real estate; and after one year’s residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a NATURAL BORN SUBJECT of this state, except that he shall not be capable of being elected a representative until after two years residence.
(emphasis added)
See also the 1778 Constitution of the State of Maryland (“immunities, rights, and privileges of a natural-born subject of this State.”); 1776 Constitution of the State of Delaware (“immunities, rights, and privileges of a natural-born subject of this State”)
Now if Vattel was such an “inspiration” to the drafters of the Constitution then why didn’t they use Vattel’s term “Natural born citizen” instead of “natural-born subject” in their respective state Constitutions since most of the drafters of the Constitution were also the drafters of their respective state Constitutions?
When you were studying political science, which textbooks taught that two citizen parents were required for presidential eligibility?
Which textbooks taught that de Vattel was (in your words) the most influential public jurist or that he was the influence for the natural born citizen clause?
Do you have footnotes with citations for those references?
If you want to listen to Bob Gard discuss these points, he is here:
http://www.terrylakinactionfund.com/tlafradio/169-tlafradio20121008a.html
Yes, that’s nice. But trying to shift the focus onto me doesn’t improve that opaque mess you made for Bob. That’s your baby.
And you know, if you want some fresh air, you could try walking away from your own shoes and see if that helps.
When I was in seventh grade, my teacher Mrs. Fitzgerald told the class that the Grand Canyon is in Colorado. I told her that she was mistaken, and when she insisted that she was right I pulled out an atlas and showed her that it is in Arizona.
“The atlas is wrong,” she responded.
Bob Gard reminds me of Mrs. Fitzgerald.
Squeeky also touched on Bob Gard back in October, viz. the word play involved with “On Gard” and the PR aspects of how his book was being publicized at that time–specifically in how the Birther Report made it seem like Yahoo News was supporting the premise, rather than just republishing a press release.
(A situation of press releases being copied more or less verbatim, not all that unusual in practice, if regrettable, which is interesting considering Gard’s extended PR concerns on his website, re: freedom of speech.)
http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/10/03/touche-birther-report-blog-dissembles-again/
And thank you, C. Stanton, for your polite and very honest response.
Along with Daniel, I self-identify as a conservative, not at all as a “liberal.” In some ways I’m a bit of a libertarian, but probably more of a conservative. I’m for limited government, personal responsibility, self-reliance as much as is reasonably possible, and traditional values.
I’ve seen the conversation on birther web sites and non-birther (or anti-birther) web sites. The conversation has often been fairly sharp, and in any given birther/ anti-birther conversation there’s always likely to be someone who is less than polite.
From what I’ve seen, the conversation here and at other “anti-birther” web sites is far more sane, civil and fair than at most birther web sites. This includes some “conservative” sites in general that are not “supposed” to be birther web sites.
I’m also not prepared to label Mr. Gard (at this point) as “intellectually dishonest.” I do see a couple of hints that he may not have been qualified or suitable to take on the task that he’s taken on.
Here’s what seems to happen: Someone gets an idea in his head. Hey, maybe Obama is ineligible because his dad wasn’t an American citizen. Maybe they do a little reading. Hey, here’s so-and-so who agrees with that idea. And then they start digging, and lo and behold! They find some things that just might confirm that. Hmm. Maybe John Jay meant you had to have citizen parents. So then they go and look for some “evidence” to confirm that. And lo and behold! They find something!
Except the process was all wrong to start with. What they should have done was not start out trying to dig up stuff to “prove” their particular idea. If you want to “prove” any particular idea, you can probably dig up some “evidence” to support it.
What they should have done was look at the evidence (ALL of it), without making any judgment at all until all the evidence was in.
So then someone points this out. “But that’s what I did,” protests our researcher, with hardly even a twinge of self-doubt.
Because by now he has written 1700 pages on the subject and has convinced himself he’s a true expert. THE expert, in fact. And there is no way he’s going to back off now. There’s no way he’s going to be convinced by any contrary evidence.
Why? Because he’s convinced himself that he’s the true expert, the only one in the world who understands this particular topic.
Only he isn’t. He’s just a guy who started out trying to prove something, and built up a house-sized pile of “hints” that his thesis is correct, all the while ignoring the mountain of actual evidence that says that his original idea is all wrong. And the house-sized pile of “hints” is PLENTY to convince him that his idea is true. It’s also PLENTY to convince others who totally want to believe the idea. In fact, it’s enough to convince them that anyone who believes in the mountain of actual evidence is a “liberal,” or even an “agent of Obama.”
And he’s chained himself to his pile of evidence. And there is no way he will ever unchain himself from his idea. Because for all of his virtues (and surely there are at least a few virtues in a man persisting until he scrapes up a house-sized pile of “evidence”)… he has lost the virtue of objectivity.
That’s the more likely scenario.
He lives in the San Francisco bay area. Whether he grew up in California I cannot say, but it certainly is possible.
He also has children. I wonder if they are mortified by the way he is spending his golden years.
I was struggling how to put it, but I think you got it straight on, Publius.
I have been responding to emails from my email. I have been told I cannot do that. I will try to repeat some of them.
For the sake of convenience, I’m going to put my 10 questions for Bob all in one post. Some are a bit multi-part.
Oh – if you can answer “yes” to any of the questions asking for a particular piece of evidence, could you please describe your evidence and provide a source reference?
Do you have a single clear, unambiguous statement, from any Framer, any Founder, or any genuine legal authority in the history of the United States, to the effect that:
1) Two citizen parents are required in order for one to be a natural born citizen?
2) Two citizen parents are legally required for Presidential eligibility?
3) The Founders and Framers meant or were referring to Vattel’s idea “indigenes” when they said “natural born citizen?”
4) There is any legal distinction between “citizen by birth” and “natural born citizen?”
5) There is any significant legal distinction between a “native-born citizen” born in the United States and a “natural born citizen,” born in the United States, or that being a native-born citizen of the United States does not necessarily make one a natural-born citizen of the United States?
Finally, are you familiar with the 1856 candidacy of John Charles Fremont, the first Republican candidate for President? And can you provide any evidence whatsoever that any person ever objected to Fremont’s candidacy on any grounds that he was supposed to ineligible?
Fremont ran his campaign for President very openly stating and proclaiming that he was the child of a non-naturalized citizen of France. His father never became a US citizen, never had the slightest intention of doing so, and was planning to return to France with his wife and children at the time of his death.
This being the case, if ANYBODY in the year 1856 (which was no further historically from the drafting of the Constitution that we are from the end of World War II) — if ANYBODY in the entire country had felt that Fremont was Constitutionally ineligible, don’t you think we would have a record of that?
7) Do you have a single clear, unambiguous statement, from any Framer, any Founder, or any genuine legal authority in the history of the United States, to the effect that the Founding Fathers meant something completely different by “natural born citizen” than they meant by “natural born subject?”
If so, please also explain why the two terms were used synonymously by the Massachusetts legislature during the early days of the Republic.
8) You claim that “John Jay attached Vattel’s definition for natives and indigenes to his term.” Please provide a statement from John Jay, or other compelling evidence, that demonstrates this point.
9) Can you explain why the Founding Fathers and Framers would derive their idea of citizenship from a Swiss writer rather than from our own culture, heritage, and language, all of which we acquired from England? Can you provide a statement from any Founder or Framer that we chose to derive our ideas of citizenship from Vattel?
10) A lot of people who read this site would be very familiar with the arguments made by Mario Apuzzo and Stephen Tonchen.
What significant information or evidence do you have that they don’t? And on what significant points, if any, do you disagree with Apuzzo and Tonchen? For example, are there claims made by either of these writers that you find are clearly wrong?
You would make a fine candidate to answer a question I posed today: Why would the U.S. Constitution adopt a form of citizenship equivalent to the British if adopting it would legally derail the United States of America from her inception? If the citizenship of the Constitution were based on the British natural-born subject, the British could have legally under international law come to our shores and arrested Washington, transported him back to London, and tired him for treason because he violated perpetual allegiance. Please lay out your logic why a mutually exclusive citizenship would be adopted. This constitutes exclusive disjunction.
I had already sent you a more complete reply:
That is pure bologna. Read my book and debate all the information I have included to prove otherwise. You list references way after the Constitution and references to natural-born subject in state constitutions. I cover that in the book. Answer this question: Why would the U.S. Constitution adopt a form of citizenship equivalent to the British if adopting it would legally derail the United States of America from her inception? If the citizenship of the Constitution were based on the British natural-born subject, the British could have legally under international law come to our shores and arrested Washington, transported him back to London, and tired him for treason because he violated perpetual allegiance. Please lay out your logic why a mutually exclusive citizenship would be adopted. This constitutes exclusive disjunction.
I found your question about the 12th Amendment. I would like to make an analogy. The law dictates that you must have a valid driver’s license to drive. Another law says you must be over 16 years old to drive legally. Just because you are over 16 doesn’t mean you can drive legally without a driver’s license. Just because a presidential candidate receives the most votes doesn’t mean he can legally take power if he is not a natural-born citizen.
I also interpret the last sentence in that amendment quite differently from liberals. I believe it was inserted because of the real definition of natural-born citizen.
I am also answering your question about my experience in Russia. The answer to your question about the 1960 Law of Nations is simply that the one I referred to was published in the 18th centuiry, making it more valuable:
I went to Russia in the days of Brezhnev. I was arrested four times under trumped up charges. I refused to sign a confession there too.These are the experiences that made me love the Constitution even more. I have been there recently. I often make the statement that the reason for the success of glasnost was that our two countries approached each other in ideology. Three examples under Brezhnev: the Russians had life-time ID cards; we hadn’t instituted the SSNs at birth. The Russians had property and body searches on demand; we didn’t. The Russians could arrest without probable cause; we didn’t have that feature before a few security acts came our way culminating in The Patriot Act. The Russians could wiretap; we couldn’t. The Russians mounted random roadblocks; we didn’t until MADD inspired them. I could go on for a long time. We live in a benevolent police state but we don’t know it.
Really? That’s amazing. Do you have any proof to back up this extraordinary claim? I want to believe, but you know that old saw, “Trust but verify”?
I made the mistake of answering emails from my email. I can’t do that. I am answering a different email from you:
Uncompromising means feeling or showing no willingness to compromise or back down. That may mean in my instance not straying from the truth. I was ready to give up what I believed in the 8th grade if I could not find evidence in favor. I was ready to write a book on the topic one way or the other.
Another answer to a previous email:
Please visit The-Constitutionist.com and read about a manuscript on Africa I wrote. CalTech Professor Edwin Munger, the head of CalTech’s Africana Library Notes, told me it was the best manuscript he had read in all his years.
While gathering the information, I almost lost my life in front of a firing squad at the order of Francisco Macias Nguema, the African dictator who was deemed the most blood thirsty in all of Africa. I had uncovered an international bank conspiracy that both the CIA and the Spanish equivalent were trying to unearth. My manuscript was banned in the country of the colonizer and the colonized. I know you will probably not agree, but I opine that being able to uncover and verify a bank fraud that neither country’s secret service could supports my statement: “I have a unique ability to find the truth. When I am right, I defer to no one.” I almost lost my life; I was beat up with a one-finger brass knuckle, and had old Enfields pointed at me to induce me to sign a confession that I was a spy, which I never did.
I don’t want to preempt what Atticus Finch might say, But the question, or point, is a simple one.
The US started a new country. They revolted from England and established a separate legal nation. Even if they kept the idea that a person owed perpetual allegiance to the country of his or her birth, the United States was now separate and distinct from the mother country. Therefore, under this doctrine the United States would claim perpetual allegiance of all of its citizens born here. They would owe no such allegiance to England.
The English, of course, were free to claim whatever rule or law they wished, and to operate on the basis of that law. And they did in fact claim Washington and all other colonists as their own citizens. But there were no international courts to adjudicate the matter. It was a difference of opinion between two countries. The only recourse was war, and we fought that war, and won.
By your claim, we would HAVE to define citizenship for our citizens in a way different than our mother country defined citizenship for ITS citizens. That’s simply not the case.
It’s not that hard to understand.
For those of you willing to give Gard the benefit of the doubt re: intellectual dishonesty, I point to yet another of his efforts to abuse your generosity. He may not be intentionally dishonest, but he is effectively dense. See the ridiculous swap he’s puling here, shifting from a similarity in mode of citizenship to literally the same citizenship? Intellectually dishonest or intellectually challenged, take your pick.
The implications of this ploy are that everyone on the planet is, generally speaking, either a citizen of the Western Hemisphere, or a citizen of the Eastern Hemisphere, as methods of acquiring citizenship generally break down into two models along those lines.
That is your opinion, unsupported by any case law or historical precedent.
You are the one making categorical statements. An honest title for your book would be “Why Barack Obama Might Be Ineligible IN MY OPINION”.
The reason I call you intellectually dishonest is based on a lifetime in science. If a scientist were to formulate a hypothesis and perform some experiments whose results supported his hypothesis (in his opinion) and simply ignored the hundreds of published reports that contradicted it, he would be laughed out of the profession.
I tried to find you Thomas Brown. Here’s my answer:
I am familiar with that expression. I define “garbage in” as circumstantial, correlative and corroborative facts regarding the enigma of natural-born citizenry and “garbage out” as the true meaning of natural-born citizenry. You call it garbage because it questions Obama’s constitutionality. It also eliminates the constitutional candidacies of Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, and others, including any future run by John McCain. Territories controlled by America do not make American states. The two parties seemed to have made an agreement in the 2008 election year not to question the constitutionality of their candidates after Hillary Clinton was the first main character in the ruckus to harp on Obama’s birth certificate. That’s another problem with the American electorate–a short memory. Hillary Clinton was on my side of the fence for a while.
Oohhhh-kayyyyy ….. we have discovered a man after Doug Vogt’s own heart.
I think Gard has more exciting stories than Vogt.
I trust they’ll be first in line when the Walter Mitty flick finally comes out?
Congratulations on your marvelous Africa manuscript. However, I asked for proof that you were arrested four times in the U.S.S.R.
Proof? Any?
Proof? Any?
My, my, my–you’re a regular James Bond.
It’s interesting, Bob, that when asked for evidence to support a extraordinary claim, you ignore the request and instead invent even more extraordinary stories. OK, I’m satisfied. Bob Gard is lunatic living in a fantasy land of his own imagining.
The reason I couldn’t find you before is that time stamps are different.
You are using dictionaries. That the biggest mistake of anti-birthers. You can’t use them exclusively to unravel this enigma.
Also regarding your intellectual honesty issue, I answered:
It appears to me that this audience will call me intellectually dishonest because I represent different viewpoints in my book with a penchant to include all those I could find that favored my unique analysis.
A guy who beat the KGB, the CIA, African dictators and who knows who else can’t find the Quote function or how to publish a pdf? This has become a farce. Sorry, Doc.
As for driver’s licenses, if the DMV says yours is good, it’s good. If Congress says one is President, then one is. The Courts have said so. I really don’t care what you think on that issue. Vattel doesn’t get to pick the US President. No, sir.
This is an answer to your statements: Thinker: Instead of doubling down on the idiocy, Mr. Gard should be considering ways to trim his book and change its format to make it more accessible to his intended audience. But, again, he’s a birfer. Another commonality among birfers is that they always double down on the idiocy rather than admit that they are wrong.
…. failure to / inability to appreciate the perspectives of others. Birfers are trapped in their own minds, no capacity for externality. This limitation explains so much of what they do. They must be hell to live with … the reports we hear here from those who do confirm that.
My reaction: I have read hundreds of books by our more elevated forefathers. None expressed themselves the way you do. Perhaps I am living in the wrong century because I do love their way of expressing ideas.
“Unique,” eh? Just remember, Bob: the smell of b.s. is also unique.
This stupid, idiotic birther, who prefers to use plain English instead of childish pseudonyms dripping with bias, has already gone through two-thirds of the process of condensation for a print-on-demand version. I was wrong to believe that the electorate of today would have an interest in American history in such depth. When the eBook was $25, Stephen Tonchen in his review wrote,”Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with his analysis and conclusions, Gard’s document is a goldmine of information for history buffs and those who are seriously investigating President Obama’s ‘natural born citizen’ status. Its ‘raw’ information alone makes this document well worth its price.” The facts contained therein include a wealth of information on the formulation of the Constitution. The anti-birthers continue to imply that I have not read the Constitution. Agree with my conclusions or not, where is the logic of such people that can question whether a person, who has produced such a book in the worst format or not, has read the Constitution?
While many of you were sitting at your desks learning worthwhile computer skills that I lack, I was wondering the world through 120 countries gaining information and insight that only a very small number of people have. That insight has “doubled down” on my reasons for understanding how important the Constitution is to our future.
This makes no sense. By the treaty England had no further claims on colonists who adhered to our cause no matter what law we adopted going forward. You don’t seem to much understansing of international law. The historical facts are all our early legal authorities said we copied English law going forward substituting our soil for theirs. You have offered no authority to the contrary. In fact even the English government said we copied their laws on this.
This is for Whatever4 regarding the naturalization acts:
I analyze the 1790 and 1795 naturalization acts. If you want to know my lengthy explanations, why not buy the book?
I agree. I think it would a great mistake for Dr. C., or anyone else, to debate Bob Gard. Like Mario Appuzo, his arguments are unsupportable, but unlike Mario (who is relatively rational) Bob appears to be mentally ill and incapable of separating fact from fiction.
Bob would have to prove that Sir William Scott was indeed the anonymous editor. He would have to prove that he indeed contributed the phrase “natural born citizens” to the translation. He would have to prove that John Jay provided the connection between natural born citizens and Vattel’s indigenes. He would have to prove that Jay’s intention was to adhere strictly and exclusively to identifying Vattel’s indigenes with natural born citizens.
He’d have to prove that the very conservative Sir William Scott intentionally provided a mistranslation of Vattel’s works on a whim, because Bob does “not intend to claim Emer de Vattel devised the term”. On the contrary, Bob argues ” that John Jay attached Vattel’s definition for natives and indigenes to his (Jay’s) term,” natural born citizen, and that Sir William Scott in turn inserted Jay’s words in the place of Vattel’s.
Bob’s not your typical Vattelbirther. He’s a strict Jaybirther.
Which leaves Bob having to prove that years prior to all this happening, John Jay had communicated this particular “attachment” to the Constitutional Convention, and that the Convention had concurred with it: that the intention of the Convention was to adhere strictly and exclusively to Jay’s “new definition.”
Of course, Bob says “I can’t show anybody the smoking gun page of a letter or a note or whatever in the handwriting of John Jay that natural born citizen means a citizen born in the country of two citizen parents.” One would have to accept Bob’s “correlations and corroboration.”
And Bob’s still got to prove that Jay’s intention, and the intention of the Constitutional Convention, was that a natural born citizen specifically had to have TWO citizen parents. At which point he’s got to convince the whole world of the relevance of all this.
Proving that John Jay and Sir William Scott once exchanged a dinner invitation just isn’t all that conclusive.
In answer to your remarks about Seybert:
Why don’t you read my research and find out?
Bob,
I was wondering whether you have a concise response to the voluminous writings of such folks as ballantine, nbc, and John Woodman on the topic of what “natural born citizen” means.
You yourself said the Constittution must be interpreted in plain English.
Except when it doesn’t suit you, right? There is the secret Bob Gard clause in there, eh?
Agreed. He has invested so much time, energy, and perhaps money in his project that he will never bring himself to the point where he will admit that he is wrong.
What Gard apparently does not realize is that if he wishes to make a convincing legal argument, he has to cite relevant legal authority. He has fixated on Vattel while ignoring modern legal scholars such as Lawrence M. Friedman who have spent much of their lives studying and publishing works on the genesis and development of American law.
In that respect Gard is similar to Orly Taitz, whose never prevails on a legal motion because she never cites legal authority to support her position. She believes that attaching hundreds of pages from her “dossier” constitutes legal authority, much the way that Gard believes that attaching 1700 or so footnotes makes his arguments convincing.
This is in answer to your bit about Chester Arthur:
Was Arthur allowed to run for the Presidency? His party stopped him because of birthright suspicions.
Answer to 2/5/13 statement on the 12th Amendment about “the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President”
But to be eligible, it says a candidate needs to be a natural born Citizen.
Two wars. 😉
I’ve never seen a Vattelist admit that Obama’s birth certificate is undeniably, 100% genuine. Bob Gard can you?
Hillary was never on your side. She (like all honest Americans) looked into the possibility that her opponent was somehow not eligible, and discovered that he in fact was. And dropped it.
I suggest you do the same.
The birth certificate subject is cooked and et. (/Faulkner reference) The only people who question Obama’s birth in Hawaii now are those for whom no proof would ever be sufficient.
Q: “Why don’t you let us see the vault copy?”
A: Pointless. You’d just say THAT was a forgery.
Q: OK then…. show us the microfische.
A: See above.
As regards the “Vattelist” argument, there is nothing wrong with stating that the NBC requirement SHOULD be stricter (e.g. two citizen parents) but it is a ludicrous, insulting, senseless, self-defeating position to say that such a definition of NBC is CURRENTLY in force.
That is nonsense. And it is highly dubious that it has EVER been in force as you describe it.
You lost credibility (and earned the “garbage out” epithet) by claiming at first that de Vattel was more influential on the founders than any other legal writer.
You can gain some small measure of credibility back by answering my comment on Tom Vilsack. Why has he, a man whose parents were unknown, been universally considered to be eligible for the Presidency?
You might also have framed your arguments as a retort to the Congressional Research Service’s exhaustive legal analysis of Presidential Eligibility. I have a friend who was working on a book about how Obama is ineligible. I printed out the CRS report for him, and subsequently never heard another word about it.
This is the crux of the matter. It really doesn’t matter WHAT John Jay intended by the phrase. So far I see no evidence whatsoever that he intended anything other than what “natural born subject” had always meant (except, of course, for the small difference between “citizen” and “subject”)
But even IF Jay had meant something different by the term (and if he did, then why didn’t he say so?) the Constitution was not drafted, initially approved, or ratified by John Jay.
What Bob needs in order to have any real support for his claim AT ALL is some good, hard evidence that the FRAMERS and the RATIFIERS of the Constitution meant – in complete contradiction to the entire sense of what “NATURAL BORN” had always meant – that the term required two citizen parents.
If he doesn’t have that, then he doesn’t have squat.
What about it, Bob?
Proof, please?
Right. I stand corrected. TWO wars.
Even the starter edition of Word 2010 allows you to save a file in pdf format. Click File – Save As – select pdf from the “Save As Type” drop-down menu and Voila! You have a pdf file.
Neither you nor Stanton have recommended any conservative forums. You quoted the question, and then answered something else! I really would like to see some “intellectual” conservative political discussion. I’m sure it’s out there, and this country sorely needs it.
Don’t worry, I won’t cause any disturbance. So, please, your recommendations?
“aesthetocyst” … a nonsense word, is dripping with bias? I don’t know any children who can spell it. If I log on from a different device or browser, I may show up as “JPotter”, as I am John Potter, of Tulsa, OK. No, not the con artist who was passing himself off as a “basketball agent” (I just take his phone calls, occasionally, and unintentionally). Either way, I’m just words on a screen. Worry about ideas, not identities.
Because I can see you are misrepresenting what he said as you seem to do in everything you cite. It is clear by now you can’t cite authority that actually supports you and instead try to connect dots to divine your pre-determined conclusions from the 8th grade. I cited yesterday most of our early legal giants saying “native” and “natural born” meant the same thing as they did in England. An honest historian would concede the point or present evidence that contradicts it. You do neither and give little indication your research is worth reading.
It appears he’s more interested in continuing his sales pitch than facing substantive questions. Maybe he’s being blackmailed by a North Korean secret agent and really needs the money.
Bob, in your honor, we’ll coin a new phrase:
“Gardage in, gardage out.”
Perhaps someone will feel compelled to insert our new phrase into a translation in place of the original, without reGard for the original’s meaning.
It’s been asked before. He never provides any–he just unloads more b.s. It’s sad, really; to see a man so disconnected from reality. Could happen to any of us, I guess.
Concise, and appears to be accurate.
Well, let’s see … in this universe, Arthur was elevated to the Presidency after Garfield’s assassination. Which means he was VP. If his party was nervous about birfer concerns, why was accepted as the VP candidate?
Why didn’t he run? Poor health. He turned down a request to run for Senate, returned to private practice in a limited capacity, put his affairs in order, and dropped dead the year after leaving office.
Reality tends to be dull.
Eligible and serving are 2 different things. One does not have to be “eligible” in order to serve legally and constitutionally as President. Fortunately, this is only a theoretical point, since all Presidets have been eligible.
Utter, bald-faced lie! He did not seek the nomination because of ill health. He was dead within a year or so of leaving office. Talk about intellectual dishonesty!!
And by the way the 12th Amendment sets the same requirements for Vice President as for President. You really ought to read it.
Umm He was President. His party did not stop him. The opposition party made claims which were laughed at about where he was born not about who his father was.
I saw that with regard his planned Part Two, he intends to show that the birth certificate information is no longer in Hawaii’s possession, that they would not keep it as they are part of the fraud.
Right. No one ever even claimed Arthur was ineligible by reason of having a non-citizen father, even though it was widely known that his father had been an immigrant from Ireland.
But there were some who claimed he was ineligible by reason of where he was born. Jus soli.
Unless, of course, Bob has some hard evidence to the contrary. Bob?
BTW, I am still hoping for an answer from you on my 10 questions. And a concise response to the writings mentioned on natural born citizenship.
All right, Bob, what’s the most problematic word in that sentence?
I won’t be convinced about the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate until a certain volume of bound birth certificates is opened to the public. Here’s my take:
I found in my research that anyone could walk into the registrar of any of many states in 1961 and ask for a blank birth-certificate form, which he could fill out in long-hand or using a typewriter. This practice survived many years. The forms were similar among the states.
In Hawaii, the person filling out the form would hand it over to the registrar, who would accept it without rigid verification. The person was required to sign his signature on the line of box 18a entitled “Signature of Parent or Other Informant” and to tick off the “parent” or “other box.” By supplying his signature, the person who signed testified that “I certify that the above stated information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.” Box 19a required the “Signature of Attendant” to affix his signature under the condition that “I hereby certify that this child was born alive on the date and hour stated.” This attestation was legal as long as the person signing his signature was of legal age and really witnessed the birth, wherever and with or without a midwife in attendance.
I contend that someone filled out a blank birth-certificate form on behalf of baby Barack and presented it to the registrar. The register might have asked for proof of the signer’s identity in the form of a driver’s license or a passport. It was not unusual that the registrar accepted the filled-out form blindly.
Hawaii was famous for allowing people that had not been born in America or that had been born in another American state to become “legal” American citizens regardless.
On August 13, 1961, The Sunday Advertiser published the announcement that young Barack was born on August 4. The Star Bulletin published the same announcement a day later on August 14. Neither newspaper allowed parents to call in birth announcements like some do today. The newspapers produced public lists every week based on lists sent by the registrar compiled from hospital lists and lists of walk-ins. A filled-out birth certificate had to exist for Barack. The delay in the publication supports the strong possibility that Barack’s birth certificate did not come from a hospital as the original source and that it came from a walk-in list.
The WND published an article charging that Obama’s short-form birth-certificate was suspicious because the Nordyke twins, born at Kapiolani Hospital one day after Obama, had lower birth certificate numbers than Obama’s birth-certificate number. Other inconsistencies were noted.
The number inconsistency is easily explained. The registrar accumulated all certificates for one month. At the end of the month, a clerk assembled the birth certificates in alphabetical order. Numbers were stamped on the birth certificates. “N” comes before “O,” which explained why Obama’s birth certificate had a higher number. The original certificates were bound in a volume or folio to which was pasted a label.
All that needs to be done to solve the issue of Obama’s original birth certificate would be for Congress to subpoena the volume of August 1961. Who cares what Onaka says? Show us the appropriate volume. Everything else is an artifice.
Bob, no one cares what it’ll take to you convince you. At best, you’re a crank. At worst, a lunatic.
Under the Treaty of Paris, the British relinquished all rights of sovereignty over those colonists who wished to become American citizens. (They also negotiated an article that gave a 12 month period for Loyalists -those who wished to remain British subjects- to reclaim their property before having to leave the colonies). Prior to the Treaty, Washington very well could have been tried for treason; the signers of the Declaration of Independence were quite aware of this possibility, but went ahead with the rebellion anyways. But after the Treaty? The British no longer had the right under international law to try any of the colonists for treason and were barred in Article 1 from so doing.
Again something you claim without having a shred of proof. Hawaii was not “famous” for allowing people to become legal citizens. This is a straight out lie which birthers have never been able to back up.
They take a law for a certificate of foreign birth that was created 21 years after Obama was born and is standard in most states who have similar laws then try to claim the certificates which clearly show where the baby was born on them and their country of origin and claim somehow they would all say america.
You’re a dishonest liar.
So Bob makes a lie and then expects Hawaii to violate the privacy of other individuals in order to disprove the lie. How about proving your claims instead of pussyfooting around?
Any proof of this claim? Just another birther lie. You can’t get a birth certificate for a non existent child nor without the baby being examined.
Bob, how does one navigate to this manuscript in that maze you call your website?
The “unique analysis” continues to be revealed, point-by-point, as more of the same. Booo. Gard, you’re not inspiring sales. Or disproving your critics.
So you are just like all the other delusional birthers giving credence to a story of foreign birth that would nearly be impossible to happen in the real world and giving credence to some huge conspiracy from the government of Hawaii. Even citing WND nonsense that has been debunked a thousand times. You are losing credibility all the time here.
You will be called intellectually dishonest on this site because your arguments so far have shown you to be so. I listened to your interview at the link above and you somehow state as a fact you know what happened in the Constitutional Convention when we know that there is no evidence to support what you say. You are wrong that Jay invented the term “natural bon citizen.” It was used by Adams and in a number of statutes prior to 1787. But, even if he did, he didn’t define it in his letter to the Convention, so that no one in the Convention knew what he meant by the term, if in fact his letter prompted the provision (something that is only supportede by the timing of the letter). You can speculate all you want on what they thought it meant, but stating it as fact is simply dishonest as nothing said in the Convention supports such view. Do you really expect us to believe you have any actual evidence that Jay told his definition to Scott based upon your posts here? And even if you did, how such would impact the framer’s view since he didn’t tell his definition to them. Seriously, there seems to be a real reasoning problem here as your arguments are not only not supported by evidence, they don’t make sense.
A free lesson in Constitutional law. What has always counted the most in Constitutional interpretation, and the rule of interpreation that prevailed in 1787, was what the language meant to the general public at the time, not the subjective meaning of the framers or a persons who wrote them a letter using a term he didn’t define. Someone like Scalia is not interested in what the framers secretely intended but didn’t tell anyone. He is interested in what the people understood the term to mean at the time which is why real legal authorities focus on early interpretation of the clause and early use of such term. Your focus on Jay’s subjective meaning simply lacks an understanding of how Constitutional interpretation works. A pity no one told you this before you started your efforts.
Gee, Bob! You must be a brand new just born little baby Birther if you think ANYTHING would solve, for Birthers, the non-issue of Obama’s original birth certificate.
When shown the birth-in-hawaii-confirming “appropriate volume” , they’ll say, “Who cares about that? How do we know it’s REAL?” And then they’ll challenge and question and deny EVERY successive layer confirming the proof including, the politics of the examining experts, the educational credentials of the examining experts, the certification of the University where the experts were trained, the chain-of custody of the evidence verifying the credentials of the investigators who looked into the personal ideological leanings of the cab drivers who ferried the document examining experts to the Congressional hearings, and ultimately, they’ll decide that every mountain of Obama-eligibility confirming evidence is trumped and reversed by whatever Tim Adams recalls, “Everybody knew!”
President Obama is the eligible president of the United States and your book is an artifice.
And for Bob’s education, here is John Adams using the term “natural born citizen” years before John Jay in a letter to Jefferson and seeming to equate it with “natural born subject.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=fmV3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA283&dq=adams+jefferson+treaty+%22natural+born%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lLQSUervHe2J0QG6noDABQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=adams%20jefferson%20treaty%20%22natural%20born%22&f=false
No offense, Bob Gard, but any person that writes a book with 1700 some pages to prove that a president is qualified due to information garnered from books that describe citizenship in countries other than England has to be just a few fries short of a Happy Meal.
The definitions used by our founding fathers were those that they were most famiiar with and they came from English Common Law. Pick up a book on Blackstone Law. It doesn’t appear to be included in your reading materials.
Imagine,
Karl Rove refusing to come to Bob’s house and sign a non-disclosure agreement before he was allowed to see the ‘evidence’ that Bob thinks that all Americans need to see.
I am not sure what is quite nuttier.
Bob thinking that he is only one who is capable of figuriing out who is eligible to be President of the United States or
Bob thinking Karl Rove would come to his house and sign a non-disclosure agreement.
Neither seems like an entirely rational position to take.
Here’s a hint.
“Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”
And there’s the smoking gun. Bang.
In other words, just as suspected (and we now have a confession) instead of doing an objective investigation (and relying on all the actual evidence on every side of the issue) Bob came up with his own unique little theory, and then went out and looked for all the “evidence” he could find to back it up.
I don’t call you intellectually dishonest, Bob. I call you unqualified to have undertaken the research, because you didn’t use proper methods from the very beginning.
I know it’s going to be hard for you not to be offended by my opinion that you were not qualified to write this book. But the fact is, if you’d been qualified, you would have used proper methods. The fact that you chose improper methods, by definition, makes you either unqualified or unsuitable (take your pick of words) for the task.
And I also call you mistaken in your conclusions, because I’ve read enough to know that your claims are (and this is putting it charitably) on shaky ground. Of course, you can disabuse me of the notion that you are mistaken by showing that you’ve got really, really good evidence to support your conclusions, which run counter to virtually everything that has ever been written on the subject in the entirety of US history.
And of course, you can start by answering my previously-referenced questions.
So I don’t call you intellectually dishonest. Just misguided and mistaken.
Now, you can easily move from there, TO intellectually dishonest, by continuing to defend your ill-conceived theories at all costs.
Or, you can move to intellectually honest, by laying aside your conclusions until and unless they can be confirmed – not by a bunch of speculation and “I think this is what happened,” but by some actual, hard evidence. And by reading everything that’s been written on both sides of the issue, and by finally going with the preponderance of the evidence.
Not that I expect you to do that. Why? Because your ego is all wrapped up in these 1700 pages that you’ve written. It is a rare man who can write an ill-conceived 1700 page book presenting some unique theory and touting himself as the only genius ever to have figured it all out, and then come back later and admit he was wrong. In fact, the people who can do that generally don’t write the ill-conceived 1700 page book in the first place. They start out by writing the objective evaluation.
What typically happens is:
1) New kid on block does a bunch of “research” in a vaccuum, which all “confirms” his pet theory. Doesn’t start in an objective way. Oh, he tells himself he does. He believes he does. He convinces himself he does. But he doesn’t. Doesn’t read what’s already been written, on all sides of the issue. Can’t bring himself to throw away his ideas for which there isn’t any good evidence. They are just too cool. Too appealing. Too sexy.
2) New kid on block comes out with his magnificent treatise, proclaiming himself the world’s new expert on the topic. Never mind that he probably hasn’t even read what knowledgeable people have previously written. The fact that his magnum opus spans 1,700 pages itself convinces him that he’s the world’s leading expert.
3) New kid on block meets real world. He confidently strides forth to show all those who have a different opinion that they’re wrong. Only the conversation doesn’t go that well. People start poking holes in his claims.
4) At this point, the new kid struggles for a while to defend his ill-conceived magnum opus. Some honest debate ensues, and the new kid (whether he recognizes it or not) takes a beating.
5) At this point, the new kid on the block has one of three options.
a) What usually happens is that the new kid on the block debates for a while, struggles, and then quietly fades away, in one way or another. Usually, he doesn’t pull his magnum opus. He just leaves it out there as if it hasn’t been discredited. Some new people come along and believe what he has written. Really, new kid knows his work isn’t the gem he thought it was, but he can’t bring himself to pull it. Because that would be admitting he was wrong. His ego is tied up in this thing. There’s no way he’s ever going to admit that he wasn’t the genius he thought he was. So he leaves it out there, knowing that it’s misleading people. But he would rather let people be misled than admit he’s not the world’s leading expert on the topic. You might call this the “Leo Donofrio” effect.
b) A bit more rare is the approach where the new kid adamantly defends his claims at all costs. He continues, perhaps for years, to repeat his debunked theories. He argues endlessly, and calls those who debunk him all kinds of names. He twists logic and reason and truth into pretzel-like contortions. By sheer denialist chutzpah, he succeeds in gathering a small coterie of admirers who believe and affirm everything he says. He manages to establish a small cult of dedicated followers who support his belief that he’s a genius. He also establishes a much larger group of people who recognize him as a charlatan or a lunatic. You might call this the “Mario Apuzzo” effect.
c) And then there’s the most rare approach: that of the guy who eventually recognizes and admits that he was wrong, who pulls his magnum opus because he comes to realize that it was flawed from the beginning. He’s the most noble, and also the most rare. In fact, in birther circles, he’s pretty much unheard of.
Prove it, bucko! An American arrested in Russia during the Cold War would have rated at least a paragraph in the NY Times or Washngton Post or WSJ. And you are saying that after the 1st arrest and then release the Russians didn’t throw you out nor did you leave? Nor after the second time? Nor the third? Only after the fourth did you get the message? This is prime Grade A bull. As are you
A man who lies about his life and lies about a fine President like Chester Arthur is just a liar. Your book is lies-I don’t need to read it to know, because the author is a proven liar. Beyond a reasonable doubt he would say.
Doc, you would be a fool to debate a liar. Because a liar will lie and you won’t.
OK, that does it.
You are officially either a liar or an idiot. And based on the way you write, you’re not an idiot.
I’m not sure, but I did find this on Bob’s website. Bob is describing an exchange he had with Karl Rove (a.k.a. “Turd Blossom”). Bob says of Rove that,
“One time his adjectives were as onerous as the descriptors of wackos and cranks employed by other high-ranking conservatives. Rove called us ‘cranks and conspiracy nuts.’
“In June of 2011, Mr. Rove read my first email. He responded:
‘sorry – no court in the history of America has agreed with your argument'”
In another email, Rove added,
” . . . no U.S. court has every [sic] agreed with your theory that only someone born on American soil of two American citizen parents is a natural born citizen. Never. Ever. I’ve seen sections of your email (e.g., Vattel – a Swiss philosopher!) in other birther missives and it is all hogwash. No court has ever held your theory is correct and I don’t need to waste any more time with someone who calls me an idiot. Your future emails will be routed directly to the trash.”
Wow. It’s the first time I’ve ever found myself in complete agreement with Mr. Rove.
bit of a problem there bob, the attending physicians signature is on the BC, and is the same as who was on duty working there at that hour on that day – verified.
you see that thing that resembles the hindenburg going down in flames? that’s your arguement, that is.
You’re quite right.
If you aren’t convinced that the birth certificate is authentic, how can you be certain that Obama’s father was a foreigner? The birth certificate is the only evidence which we have that Barack Hussein Obama was his father.
For Bob’s education. here is Jefferson and Adams using “natural born citizen” in a proposed treaty in 1786.
http://books.google.com/books?id=dmgUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA340&dq=adams+%22natural+born%22+jefferson+treaty&hl=en&sa=X&ei=urcSUav4JpKy0QGAxIGgDw&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=adams%20%22natural%20born%22%20jefferson%20treaty&f=false
I assume Bob will stop saying that Jay invented the term which was already shown yesterday.
In February, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.” in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
In February, 1786, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING MICHAEL WALSH.” in which it was declared that Michael Walsh “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be a citizen of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of a natural born citizen.”
In July, 1786, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JONATHAN CURSON AND WILLIAM OLIVER” in which it was declared that Jonathan Curson and William Oliver “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born citizens.“
Everything YOU say is an artifice, Mr Arrested 4 times in Russia, liar about Chester Arthur, liar about Hawaiian law and liar about Vattel.
Bob,
I don’t mean to seem impatient. But would it be possible to get answers from you to the main questions I’ve asked?
If you can answer “yes” to any of the yes-or-no questions, could you provide your evidence and a source reference?
Do you have a single clear, unambiguous statement, from any Framer, any Founder, or any genuine legal authority in the history of the United States, to the effect that:
1) Two citizen parents are required in order for one to be a natural born citizen?
2) Two citizen parents are legally required for Presidential eligibility?
3) The Founders and Framers meant or were referring to Vattel’s idea “indigenes” when they said “natural born citizen?”
4) There is any legal distinction between “citizen by birth” and “natural born citizen?”
5) There is any significant legal distinction between a “native-born citizen” born in the United States and a “natural born citizen,” born in the United States, or that being a native-born citizen of the United States does not necessarily make one a natural-born citizen of the United States?
Finally, are you familiar with the 1856 candidacy of John Charles Fremont, the first Republican candidate for President? And can you provide any evidence whatsoever that any person ever objected to Fremont’s candidacy on any grounds that he was supposed to ineligible?
Fremont ran his campaign for President very openly stating and proclaiming that he was the child of a non-naturalized citizen of France. His father never became a US citizen, never had the slightest intention of doing so, and was planning to return to France with his wife and children at the time of his death.
This being the case, if ANYBODY in the year 1856 (which was no further historically from the drafting of the Constitution that we are from the end of World War II) — if ANYBODY in the entire country had felt that Fremont was Constitutionally ineligible, don’t you think we would have a record of that?
7) Do you have a single clear, unambiguous statement, from any Framer, any Founder, or any genuine legal authority in the history of the United States, to the effect that the Founding Fathers meant something completely different by “natural born citizen” than they meant by “natural born subject?”
If so, please also explain why the two terms were used synonymously by the Massachusetts legislature during the early days of the Republic.
8) You claim that “John Jay attached Vattel’s definition for natives and indigenes to his term.” Please provide a statement from John Jay, or other compelling evidence, that demonstrates this point.
9) Can you explain why the Founding Fathers and Framers would derive their idea of citizenship from a Swiss writer rather than from our own culture, heritage, and language, all of which we acquired from England? Can you provide a statement from any Founder or Framer that we chose to derive our ideas of citizenship from Vattel?
10) A lot of people who read this site would be very familiar with the arguments made by Mario Apuzzo and Stephen Tonchen.
What significant information or evidence do you have that they don’t? And on what significant points, if any, do you disagree with Apuzzo and Tonchen? For example, are there claims made by either of these writers that you find are clearly wrong?
11) Do you have a concise response to the voluminous writings of such folks as ballantine, nbc, John Woodman, and the CRS report on the topic of what “natural born citizen” means? Which of the preceding have you actually read?
I myself do not consider you intellectually dishonest. Nor do I quibble with your life story. I have travelled much myself, seen much, done much, worked in some of the highest spheres and some of the lowest. People do all kinds of things in life. None of that matters, though, as your premise and arguments are fatally flawed, as evident here, on your site, and in your interview on the Terry Lakin site. You will disagree, but it’s rather obvious.
I’m intending/hoping to mostly sit out as a spectator in terms of the details of your amateur scholarship errors. They will get discussed without my help, as they are being discussed. I am trying to spend much less time chasing illusory rabbits down their fantasy holes.
What interests me personally here is your misplaced self-assurance, as I see the same throughout my own family. I’m more compelled by this question of how dilettantes go awry. You seem a classic example, starting right with your eighth grade experience, and the pride I seem to hear in your voice at being a trouble to your teachers in such matters. You are heavily invested, and I have no illusions that it will ever be different. I know being considered a pariah can only strengthen your resolve and belief in your conclusions. I have listened to my own parents go on and on and on and on and on and on and on. Quantity matters not when the premise is flawed.
Just giving you a heads up that 1) it’s not really about your honesty or intelligence, whatever anyone says here, don’t get distracted by that stuff, and 2) that what it is about is that your errors capsize your project despite your confidence. Unfortunately. Because just on a human level I do not wish your massive efforts to be so in vain, but they are. Forget about all those insults; your work has bigger problems.
Just want to be clear about why your efforts are doomed. Your virtues become your vices, it seems. This kind of reflection no doubt matters not to you, and it’s not like I’m doing a full-blown analysis anyway, but it does me a lot of good to reflect upon it. At least you stand as an example of what not to do, and an aid in my seeing through my own family’s miasma. Seeing how a decent impulse loses its bearings and gets lost. So thanks for that.
Looking forward to Dr. C and you debating, if you go forward with that…
Can I point out the irony in your very first post you ‘call names”?
What led you to read Bob’s book.
Were you just browsing on Amazon and came across it?
See here is where I have an issue- no one is ever going to read this book, other than those who want to believe that Obama is not eligibile- and willing to pay for hearing what they already believe.
This is not because of some conspiracy or prejudice, it is because of the reality is that most people will never read most books that are published- especially one by an unknown author, who is very coy about the rational behind his book. Its not going to be game changer because no one is going to read the book.
If Bob wanted it to be a ‘game changer’- then at the least he would be publishing it for free on his website.
In the old days i believe they called this ‘vanity publishing’
I have three separate old editions of Blackstone. Several photos of pertinent pages appear in my eBook. By the way, where was trial by jury started?
LOLOL, insanity, I love it!
Ummm, but did he really drop dead, or was he poisoned? Bob was there, he should know…Bob?
The earliest references in the “Western world” that I know of are to Greece, but I would not presume that to be the origin of trial by jury without a bit more exhaustive documentation of other cultures.
Bob- you already told us how your 8th grade teacher in the ’60’s- just like my very conservative 8th grade teacher in the ’70’s told you that you were wrong.
The American electorate has a good enough memory to remember what we all learned growing up- that anyone born in the United States can aspire to grow up and be elected President.
That is why the American Electorate never once considered your claim. Not because of any memory issues.
LOLOL, plus no beef!
Why do you think collecting old editions means anything. I know you didn’t go to law school. If you did, you would know that most of our law came from English law including our law of trusts, contract, real estate, tort, evidence and on and on. I was surprised by all the old English cases I had to read in law school and memorize on the bar exam. In the early Republic this was even more so the case as our early case law was almost all English law. Indeed, Blackstone was still being used as the primary education of American lawyers decades after the Constitution was adopted.
Our Constitution broke with English law on a number of important points, yet expressly assumed English law in much of the document. This is not a matter of dispute. Indeed, may terms in the document do not exist outside of English law. Accordingly, many provisions of our Constitution have been interpreted in accordance with English law as no one dispute where they came from. Such is why Blackstone has been cited stomething like 800 times by the Court. I do not believe the Court has ever looked to the Law of Nations to define anything in the Constitution. Your statements that we followed the Law of Nations rather than English law is simply ignorant and shows you don’t understand what the Law of Nations means and how insignificant it was not are jurisprudence in general. In fact, I don’t think any birther has understanding of what Public International Law, or Public Law or the Law of Nations, is and how it relates to our law in general. They have merely fallen in love with Vattel because it serve their purpose.
I apologize for not getting back to you sooner. I think you can imagine how difficult it has been for me to keep up with all the emails. Here, at least, are my answers to your numbered questions: 1) no, 2) no, 3) a mass of circumstantial, correlative and corroborative evidence, and 5) no.
In the Preface I admitted that I had no smoking-gun evidence, only the mass of evidence in answer to your 3rd question. In answer to your last question about Fremont, I have not yet studied him.
In my eBook, I wrote: As stated before, I define “beyond a reasonable doubt” to mean a 90 to 98% likelihood of being true. I believe my evidence has to be accepted by all those Americans who accept the kind of reasoning the surgeon general uses to sign off on the warning that “smoking can be hazardous to your health,” which has been elevated beyond this warning to a statement of fact that “smoking causes lung cancer.” Without any causal proof, lawyers and judges have relied on this “fact” to lash the tobacco companies. Thus, I say to all you Americans who accept without question the Surgeon General’s evidence concerning tobacco smoking, in fairness you should accept my evidence concerning Jay’s definition because mine, like the Surgeon General’s, relies on the same kind of correlative, corroborative and circumstantial evidence. Please see Axioms 6 and 7 in Chapter 6. You are ready to accept such evidence to agree with the government’s conclusions about the causes of disease, the causes of deviant behavior, and the man-made causes of global warming (although the correlations in that study are laughable). You never wait for the smoking-gun proof, the proof beyond a shadow of doubt that would be the “cause,” meaning the ability of the government in the case of tobacco to trace the chemical equations that show the chemical reactions between the harmful constituents of tobacco smoke and the creation of cancer cells, and in the case of global warming, prove the undeniable legitimacy of Gore’s idiotic graph of the hockey stick increase in carbon dioxide concentrations, which has already been disproven like so many of his claims. If you won’t wait to make your final conclusion on whether smoking causes lung or other cancers until the government can prove the causal relationship, or you can’t wait till pro-global warming advocates (receiving huge grants from world governments who have the backing of other governments that want to share in our wealth) can come up with realistic, scientific causation in the form of biological and chemical formulas quantifying the carbon dioxide buildup as a result of fossil fuel consumption, then you shouldn’t hold me to a higher standard. I am sure that smoking causes many cancers, but I am also sure that people exist who have genes that will never allow them to get cancers from smoking. Why should they pay the government’s exorbitant taxes or be forced to obey the bans? . . . In other words, those of you who are waiting for the government and biological science to show the causation of cancer by smoking, or those of you who never believed in global warming because you were waiting for a definitive, scientific proof that it was really influenced by man’s use of fossil fuels, those are the ones who have earned the right to ignore me.”
Let me tell you why I think you are a hypocrite with your need to see smoking-gun evidence in my eBook. Have you demanded to see the real, original birth-certificate in the Hawaiian registrar’s folio August 1964 that either contains the typed hospital form or the filled-in form by a walk-in registrant of Barak Obama’s birth certificate? If you haven’t, you are a hypocrite for demanding the same of me.
Yes, exactly. You deliberately exclude the statements of Founders that contradict you. That is virtually the definition of intellectual dishonesty.
Do you really think that Congressman Seybert’s or Representative Smith’s statements (which actually do not support you) should be included in your book but the words of St. George Tucker, James Iredell and James Kent should be ignored.
If you were intellectually honest you would include their statements in your book and then formulate an argument for why you believe they are wrong.
Here for the third or fourth time are their statements:
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague.” St. George Tucker 1803, “View of the Constitution of the United States with Selected Writings…”
“No man but a native, or who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen President.” James Iredell, Debates in the Convention of the State of North Carolina on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.
“The Constitution requires (a) that the President shall be a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and that he shall have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and shall have been fourteen years a resident within the United States. Considering the greatness of the trust, and that this department is the ultimately efficient executive power in government, these restrictions will not appear altogether useless or unimportant. As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot intrigue for the office, and the qualification of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany and Poland, as well as the pontificate at Rome.” James Kent, Commentries on American Law
BTW, note that James Kent uses both terms “natural-born citizen” and “a native citizen of the United States” to describe the requirements for President.
Did you know that one of the Framers (Charles Cotesworth Pinckney) attended law school in England and sat in on the lectures of Sir William Blackstone?
Did you know that during the Constitutional Convention the Framers referred to Blackstone’s Commentaries to determine the meaning of “de facto”?
Did you know that in a legal brief in 1795 Alexander Hamilton wrote that to determine the menaing of terms in the Constitution, we should read English law?
It depends. Are we talking about trial by jury for a civil or criminal case? Or as Monty Python would say, are we talking about an African or European Swallow?
So then if 1 and 2 are No then your entire book is a farce and Barack Obama is a natural born citizen and was eligible to be President.
And did not discover that obscure Swiss until Obama was elected in 2008, and Donofrio got him out of a dustbin.
I don’t know…aieeeeeeeeeeeeeeee…
Uh, Hawaii has stood behind the birth certificate and indeed offered admissable evidence that has been submitted to a court. Unless one believes in wild conspiracies, such is sufficient as a matter of law and for any reasonable person. In the tobacco cases, actual scientific evidence was submitted to courts. In your case, you have shown no evidence at all. Some of your statements are simply historically wrong and the others seem to be simply connecting dots and speculating such statements support your conculsions when they really don’t. Sorry, such speculation is not even circumstantial evidence. Sorry, no one here believes you have evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt,” as, so far, you have made clear that, not only don’t you have any smoking gun, but you don’t appear to have any actual evidence at all and have no explanation why every significant legal authority in the early Republic said you are wrong.
You didn’t answer my question about trial by jury. Here are some paragraphs from my eBook:
As you scan the list of the inordinate number of editions for Vattel’s The Law of Nations in the subsequent tables, I would like you to think about the following footnotes in the Columbian Law Review:
50. See Edwin D. Dickinson, The Law of Nations as Part of the National Law of the United States, 101 U. Pa. L. Rev. 26, 35 (1952) (explaining that this treatise and writings of Grotius, Pufendorf, and Burlamaqui “were an essential and significant part of the minimal equipment of any lawyer of erudition in the eighteenth century”); see also Janis, supra note 49, at 57 (“Those meeting at Philadelphia to draft the document were not deficient in formal training in the law of nations.”); David Gray Adler, The President’s Recognition
Power, in The Constitution and the Conduct of American Foreign Policy 133, 137 (David Gray Adler & Larry N. George eds., 1996) (“During the Founding period and well beyond, Vattel was, in the United States, the unsurpassed publicist on international law.”); Douglas J. Sylvester, International Law as Sword or Shield? Early American Foreign Policy and the Law of Nations, 32 N.Y.U. J. Int’l L. & Pol. 1, 67 (1999) (explaining that in American judicial decisions, “in all, in the 1780s and 1790s, there were nine citations to Pufendorf, sixteen to Grotius, twenty-five to Bynkershoek, and a staggering ninety-two to Vattel”).
52. Abraham C. Weinfeld, Comment, What Did the Framers of the Federal Constitution Mean by “Agreements or Compacts”? 3 U. Chi. L. Rev. 453, 459 (1936) (quoting Albert de Lapradelle, Introduction to Emmerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law, at xxx n. I (Charles G. Fenwick trans., 1916). In 1978, the Supreme Court wrote that Vattel was the “international jurist most widely cited in the first 50 years after the Revolution.” U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Comm’n, 434 U.S. 452, 462 n.12 (1978).
This little tidbit should serve as evidence for the influence of Vattel to all those who have questioned me about it.
I actually found Gard’s 1974 piece on Guinea:
http://authors.library.caltech.edu/25677/1/MALN_27.pdf
This is from the editor’s introduction:
The manuscript from which the following is extracted was completed by Robert Gregory Gard working in Spain and Guinea from June, 1969 to June, 1970. Gard, then a young man of 21, undertook his research in part to demonstrate that dissertations can be written without the preparation of the formal curriculum required of B.A. and Ph.D. students in American universities. His narrative is not always easy to follow, and the work lacks the discipline of a theoretical framework. One occasionally wonders what point is being made or why a bit of information is included. In the main, however, Gard has succeeded in his endeavor, and it is to be hoped that his entire manuscript will be published in due course.
On a thoroughly ironic note, the pdf copy which is available online was made from an issue residing in the Occidental College library!
It also is worth noting that the title page identifies the author as “Robert C. Gard” but the editor’s note refers to him as Robert Gregory Gard. The birthers would have fun making hay of that discrepancy.
Exactly. Anyone who does not include all relevant authority is not being intellectually honest. It is particularly bad when Seybert or Smith’s statements actually support the Vattel argument and no one has ever heard of them. To cite them rather than Tucker, Kent, Story, Bouvier, Dane, Rawle, Madison, Swift, the actual leading scholars of the day, is not serious scholarship. If you want anyone to buy your book, you are going to need to show that it actually has some actual scholarship.
Anyone here ever read “1421: The year China discovered the World”- by Gavin Menzies?
I have- its a fun book- entertaining and full of historical tidbits that I had not known. His premise is that China discovered America.
The problem is that he started with the concept that China may have done this, and then set out to prove that China did.
He took some really good historical facts, some interesting historical puzzles and linked them altogether with speculation to prove his thesis. I think he provided an interesting argument but it is obvious that he didn’t ‘prove’ anything but promoted a pet theory of his. Worth a read though.
I had yet to see anything that Bob Gard has provided that would prompt me to pay for the privelage of hearing his pet theory. Fantastic claims require clear and obvious evidence.
Without reading his book- it appears to me to be no more- and no less credible than Mendes book, or books that proclaim that they have evidence that Atlantis really existed. You have to provide at least enough of a summary of convincing information to get someone to even consider that your fantastic claim warrents reading.
You are a sick joke. There are thousands upon thouands of published studies showing the exact DNA mutations produced by each of the dozens of carcinogens in tobacco smoke, the presence of those mutations in cancer cells taken from smokers who got lung cancer and detailed knowledge of the mechanism by which the mutations lead to the cancer. It is among the best understood processes in all of biology. And by the way, the tobacco companies knew very well that their product caused cancer; their own studies showed it very clearly, though they covered up the results for decades, to which they later admitted.
Now on to the false statement you made about Chester Arthur. I take this very, very seriously, being in Albany, NY where he spent a good part of his life and is buried, In his name and the name of his admirers here, I demand an apology.
You are simply unable to post on any topic witthout lies and ignorance beyond count. It is an awe-inspiring spectacle.
This is true.
Here’s a video of that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkYNBwCEeH4
Bob,
Okay. Now we are getting somewhere. Thank you for being willing to address my questions. And yes, I do appreciate the difficulty in keeping up with this lively discussion. Thanks for answering.
Okay. At this point questions 1, 2, and 5 are answered. You state that you have a mass of circumstantial, correlative and corroborative evidence in regard to question 3. You admit that you have not yet studied Fremont, so we can put down that you have no explanation for his openly no-citizen-father candidacy for President.
This leave us with questions 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.
We can also note that your answer has become rather defensive. I can understand that. Your ideas are under criticism and (frankly) attack here. But if they are the truth and you have sufficient evidence to back them up, then surely they will withstand the light of day.
You wish to brand me as a hypocrite. I can understand that.
I might be a hypocrite if I did not look for reasonable evidence from both sides, if I only sought to prove a pre-selected side of the debate. However, I have not done that. I have looked for evidence from both sides, evaluated that evidence, and gone with the preponderance of the evidence in regard to both issues (birth certificate and meaning natural born citizen). So to answer your question: No, I am not a hypocrite.
Can I get specific responses from you regarding questions 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11? And then we can return to your evidence on question #3. Thanks.
Then the law lends itself to be hoodwinked. For all of you who demand smoking-gun evidence from me, why can’t I demand smoking-gun evidence from you? Where’s Barack’s original birth certificate? Believe me, if I had that piece of hard-copy, original evidence in John Jay’s handwriting, I’d come running with it. I wouldn’t stand by and say, don’t worry because the Smithsonian Museum has it in its vaults where no one can see it but the curator. . . but it’s there, count on me. Why should I rely on the corrupt law profession?
Bob, here again are the remaining questions, for your convenience:
Do you have a single clear, unambiguous statement, from any Framer, any Founder, or any genuine legal authority in the history of the United States, to the effect that:
4) There is any legal distinction between “citizen by birth” and “natural born citizen?”
7) The Founding Fathers meant something completely different by “natural born citizen” than they meant by “natural born subject?”
If so, please also explain why the two terms were used synonymously by the Massachusetts legislature during the early days of the Republic.
8) You claim that “John Jay attached Vattel’s definition for natives and indigenes to his term.” Can you please provide a statement from John Jay, or other compelling evidence, that demonstrates this point?
9) Can you explain why the Founding Fathers and Framers would derive their idea of citizenship from a Swiss writer rather than from our own culture, heritage, and language, all of which we acquired from England? Can you provide a statement from any Founder or Framer that we chose to derive our ideas of citizenship from Vattel?
10) A lot of people who read this site would be very familiar with the arguments made by Mario Apuzzo and Stephen Tonchen.
What significant information or evidence do you have that they don’t? And on what significant points, if any, do you disagree with Apuzzo and Tonchen? For example, are there claims made by either of these writers that you find are clearly wrong?
11) Do you have a concise response to the voluminous writings of such folks as ballantine, nbc, John Woodman, and the CRS report on the topic of what “natural born citizen” means? Before joining us in this thread, which of the preceding had you actually read?
Thanks.
So you still cling to what you believed in the 8th grade. Another case of arrested development. Plus, a pathological liar:
Again, you don’t seem to understand what public law means. Yes, those people say he was cited on public internation law. Do you not know that such is limited to conflicts between nations such as prize cases. It has nothing to do with American municipal law at all and hence was cited a fraction of the time that Blackstone was.
Are you suggesting we got jury trials from the Law of Nations? Jury trials have nothing to do with public international law. Without doing any research, from google:
“The Seventh Amendment provides that, “[i]n Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved . . . .”[3] The Court has construed this language to require a jury trial on the merits in those actions that are analogous to “Suits at common law.” Prior to the Amendment’s adoption, a jury trial was customary in suits brought in the English law courts. In contrast, those actions that are analogous to 18th-century cases tried in courts of equity or admiralty do not require a jury trial. See Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433 (1830). This analysis applies not only to common-law forms of action, but also to causes of action created by congressional enactment. See Curtis v. Loether, 415 U. S. 189, 193 (1974).
To determine whether a statutory action is more similar to cases that were tried in courts of law than to suits tried in courts of equity or admiralty, the Court must examine both the nature of the action and of the remedy sought. First, we compare the statutory action to 18th-century actions brought in the courts of England prior to the merger of the courts of law and equity. See, e. g., Pernell v. Southall Realty, 416 U. S. 363, 378 (1974); Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U. S. 469, 477 (1962). Second, we examine the remedy sought and 418*418 determine whether it is legal or equitable in nature. See, e. g., Curtis v. Loether, supra, at 196; Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U. S. 531, 542 (1970).[4]
Petitioner analogizes this Government suit under 1319(d) to an action in debt within the jurisdiction of English courts of law. Prior to the enactment of the Seventh Amendment, English courts had held that a civil penalty suit was a particular species of an action in debt that was within the jurisdiction of the courts of law. See, e. g., Atcheson v. Everitt, 1 Cowper 382, 98 Eng. Rep. 1142 (K. B. 1776) (characterizing civil penalty suit as a type of action in debt); Calcraft v. Gibbs, 5 T. R. 19, 101 Eng. Rep. 11 (K. B. 1792) (granting new jury trial in an action in debt for a civil penalty).
After the adoption of the Seventh Amendment, federal courts followed this English common law in treating the civil penalty suit as a particular type of an action in debt, requiring a jury trial. See, e. g., United States v. Mundell, 27 F. Cas. 23 (No. 15,834) (CC Va. 1795) (bail not required in a civil penalty case tried by a jury because it was an action in debt); Jacob v. United States, 13 F. Cas. 267 (No. 7,157) (CC Va. 1821) (action in debt by United States to recover civil penalty of $500 and costs of violation of an Act of Congress); Lees v. United States, 150 U. S. 476, 479 (1893) (“[A]lthough the recovery of a penalty is a proceeding criminal in nature, yet in this class of cases it may be enforced in a civil action, and in the same manner that debts are recovered in the ordinary civil courts”). Actions by the Government to recover civil 419*419 penalties under statutory provisions therefore historically have been viewed as one type of action in debt requiring trial by jury.
Tull v. United Statees, 481 U.S. 412 (1987).
Seriously, do you not know where the right to bear arms came from, due process or the notion of cruel and unusual punishmentl? How about legislative immunity, habeus corpus, bill of attender,privileges and immunities, impeahment, presentment and indictment, high crimes and misdemenors, grand juries and on and on. If you don’t know these came from English law you simply are ignorant. I suggest you read what the Supreme Court has said on all these issues.
In Hawaii, you pathological liar.
Bob, do you find the mass of unanswered relevant questions somehow insufficient?
I don’t know why you keep going on about Vattel. You’ve already thrown him under the bus. You’d have Sir William Scott kicking Vattel to the curb just because John Jay whispered sweet natural born nothings in his ear.
It has taken very little time for Gard to prove that he is an anti-intellectual RWNJ, This obviously goes back to his youth, when he was determined to prove that he could write a publishable dissertation without having to go to the trouble of getting formal higher education. He wrote the dissertation, but he was only able to get a highly condensed 41-page excerpt from it published.
Now he has demonstrated that he does not believe that smoking causes cancer, he does not believe that human activities have anything to do with global warming, and he does not believe in the validity of documents which have been certified by the State of Hawaii.
Bob, I hope you will ignore those who simply wish to call names, etc. I am genuinely interested in learning what you do and don’t have.
No, Hawaii has closed records because of identity theft. I’m not nuts enough to fly there and make a scene that I can’t see his folio.
Obama being born anywhere other than Hawaii is physically impossible:
http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-born-in-kenya-no.html
Need I say that the most glaring problem with that analogy is that you are not the Surgeon General?
Like many Americans, I often accept the consolidated analysis of scientists, and when the relevant scientific representative of the United States makes such a warning, I give that warning great weight.
You however are neither in a position of authority, nor do you have any reputation of expertise. I have no reason to place any gravitas on any claim you make- anymore than you would be expected to give great consideration to any legal claim I were to make.
When you become Surgeon General of the United States, I will give your analysis equal weight.
Has anyone come across a birther who is not a global warming denier? Even one. And to answer Bob Gard before he asks, yes there are anti-birthers who are sceptical to various degrees on the topic. As for smoking and cancer, there Bob may be on the far-right fringe even of birthers.
You mean you wouldn’t say “You will never see it unless you come to my abode and sign a non-disclosure agreement”?
Again, you simply don’t understand law and calling the profession ocrrupt because it disagrees with you is kind of pathetic. Obama has submitted evidence to satisfy the civil standard of proof. No birther has any actual evidence to the contrary hence the word of Hawaii prevails. Yes, I know birthers want to demand more and more and more evidence so he superduper disproves every unsupported claim. Such is not how the law or the world works. Leberals wanted more and more evidence that Romney wasn’t a tax cheat but the onus is never on the defendant to super disprove claims unsupported by evidence in court or the court of public opinion.
From you we are asking for any evidence at all, as you have provided none. I have shown that pretty much all legal authority in the early Republic disagreed with you and can keep citing actual evidence all day if you would like, though much has already been cited by our courts. Such early authority is considered actual evidence of the meaning of the provisions. Your speculation and connecting dots is not.
I see you don’t have much respect for lawyers. Well, for a lawyer like me, it is actually somewhat offensive that you are passing yourself off as some kind of Constitutional expert when you appear to lack the most basic understanding of law. What is it about law that so many amateurs think they are smarter than the courts and actual scholars.
Look up in Amazon under Equatorial Guinea with my last name. Visit the The-Constitutionist.com. Here is the dedication Ned Munger wrote to me in one of his many books: For Bob Gard A Truly brilliant and intrepid Explorer of the African trail—with the waken Admiration of The Author. Ned Oct 1995.
Do you ever get tired of denigrating without researching?
Her
Civil law? I thought the Constitution was federal. Some of us think we understand the intent of the law better because we understand simple English.
Absolutely not. You must know that I had to protect myself to get a copyright for the book..
How convenient.
Good job, Bob. How’d you get interested in Equatorial Guinea?
Is there a way to transfer jpegs to one of these comentary boxes?
If you think federal law is not civil law, then I think you should rethink seriously the depth of your failure to understand the law. That is really pretty bad.
At the federal level, there are two types of law, civil and criminal and they are governed by the Federal Code of Civil Procedure, and the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure. When Ballantine said that Obama had met the civil standard of proof, he is referring to the standard of proof in the Rules of Civil procedure which if I am not mistaken is a “preponderance of the evidence” in contrast with the Criminal standard for conviction of a crime: beyond a reasonable doubt.
I had access to all the secret documents of decolonization and to most of the Spanish politicians except Franco.
Convenient? No, I’m sane.
“But Arthur’s do-gooder streak didn’t particularly please other Republicans, and he became one of the few Presidents to fail to win his party’s nomination for re-election. Historians suspect he didn’t campaign very aggressively for it, as early in his term he had learned — but kept secret — that he had a fatal kidney disease. He died less than two years after leaving office.”
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1879648_1879646_1879694,00.html #ixzz2K9vtivAA
“Because he knew that he suffered from a fatal kidney disease, Arthur did not actively seek reelection for a second term and died less than two years after leaving office.”
http://millercenter.org/president/arthur/essays/biography/1
“President Arthur suffered from a kidney illness known as Bright’s disease, and by the time the end of his term as president came up his health had begun to get worse so he did not run for re-election. He retired to his New York home and died there on November 18, 1886, less than two years after leaving office.”
http://www.netplaces.com/kids-presidents/the-gilded-age-18811901/chester-a-arthur-the-twenty-first-president.htm
that’s with minimal effort to research it.
Wow, that’s amazing! What circumstances led to you getting access to secret documents about Equatorial New Guinea? Was that when you were studying in Spain?
The Constitution itself is civil? If that be true, then you are right about my interpretation. I thought it was above all civil codes.
An irony meter! An irony meter! My kingdom for an irony meter!
No, but you can post a hyperlink.
Again, another post that show you simply have no understanding of law. And, of course, people uneducated in law obviously understand simply English better than lawyers. Great argument. So far, you have shown little ability to understand simply English as you have tried to read your theory into statements that do not support it in any version of English. At the same time, you simply ignore all unambigous statements we have provided that say you are wrong.
I assume you will stop saying Jay invented the term. I seriously don’t understand the logic of your theory. So, if you had a smoking gun as to what Jay though the term meant, why would that be relevant. There is no evidence he told any framer what he thought it meant and his letter doesn’t defined, at for those of us who can read English. There is no evidence he told anyone else in the public. Therefor, how is his subjective meaning relevant to the framer’s understanding or to the understanding of the public who ratified the document. Seriously, have you actually thought this through? Simply, doesn’t make sense.
That’s your version. There is a substantial amount of information availalbe that concludes otherwise but I do not claim it to be conclusive. I believe it however.
Would that mean it would be linked to my computer?
All that understood, you actually were just passing up the chance for free publicity. If Rove, for instance, had seen value, your book would have been the talk of Fox News. Of course, the value isn’t really there, but that aside, you weren’t really protecting your work at that point. This kind of overprotection just stifles your work. It’s not how you do it.
Except, amateur astronomers every once in a while get lucky and discover a new comet, which they get credit for and get to name after themselves.
But in this case, not so much.
No, that is the version of historians. Based on your previous response, I suspect that your “substantial amount of information” is pure speculation.
I will make a prediction, in the not to distant future you will claim the Justice Gray’s Wong Kim Ark decision was influenced by the fact Justice Gray was nominated to the court by President Arthur. And that Justice Gray ruled the way he did to hide Arthur’s ineligiblity and to secure his own job.
I never thought the Constitution was considered a part of the civil code. If it be, then you got me there. How is it referenced in the civil code?
“I wouldn’t call Bob a pathological liar.” I would.
We had an agreement. Thanks for spilling the beans. NOT
Your father was wrong. You did amount to a hill of beans.
Civil law is law that deals with the relationships between individuals and organizations (as opposed to criminal law). Most of the Constitution is civil law, although there is some criminal law in it.
I’ve re-evaluated my opinion of Bob. Clearly, he has a deep understanding of Equatorial Guinea, and his ability to get his hands on secret documents proves that he’s a skilled researcher. I don’t know, Misha . . . maybe he’s really on to something.
Bob, I was a doubter, but now, I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. It may very well be that your understanding of this obscure issue of “natural-born citizenship” is superior to that of supposed “experts.” I would be interested in knowing more about how you got into the history of Equatorial Guinea.
Yes, it would be linked to your computer, and anyone could access your hard drive.
Smithsonian “Museum”? Not the Smithsonian Institution? If you’re looking for Jay material, Columbia University Libraries has been putting the papers of Johh Jay online. (See http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/jay/) In their own words:
The Papers of John Jay is an image database and indexing tool comprising some 13,000 documents (more than 30,000 page images) scanned chiefly from photocopies of original documents. Most of the source material was assembled by Columbia University’s John Jay publication project staff during the 1960s and 1970s under the direction of the late Professor Richard B. Morris.
Columbia has a large collection of Jay papers, including the Jay family papers. The project also acknowledges those institutions that have made their Jay material available for digitalizing. They are:
Albany Institute of History and Art / American Antiquarian Society / American Bible Society / American Philosophical Society / Archivo Historico Nacional / Boston Public Library / British Library / Buffalo and Erie County Historical Society / Chicago Historical Society / Cincinnati Historical Society / College of William and Mary / Columbia University / Connecticut Historical Society / Connecticut State Library / Daughters of the American Revolution / Delaware Public Archives / Detroit Public Library / Dickinson College / Duke University / Franklin D. Roosevelt Library / Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History (in process, 2006) / Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center / Historic Hudson Valley / Historical Society of Delaware / Historical Society of Pennsylvania / Independence National Historical Park / Indiana University, Lilly Library
/ John Carter Brown Library / John Jay College / John Jay Homestead / Lafayette College / Lambeth Palace / Lehigh University / Library Company of Philadelphia / Library of Congress / Library of Virginia / Maine Historical Society / Maryland State Archives / Massachusetts Historical Society / McGill University / Museum of the City of New York / Nationaal Archief / National Archives / National Library of Scotland / New Hampshire State Archives / New Jersey State Archives / New York County Clerk Archives / New York County Surrogate’s Court / New York Public Library / New York Society Library / New York State Historical Association / New York State Library (images in process, 2006) / New-York Historical Society / North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources / Oneida County Historical Society / Pierpont Morgan Library / Princeton University Library / Public Record Office, United Kingdom / Rensselaer County Historical Society / Sale record / Senate House State Historic Site / Southern Illinois University / St. Matthew’s Episcopal Church / Stanford University / Union College / United States Naval Academy / United States Supreme Court / University of Michigan, Clements Library / University of North Carolina / University of Pennsylvania / University of Rochester / University of Vermont / University of Virginia / Vermont Historical Society / Virginia Historical Society / Westchester County Historical Society / Wisconsin Historical Society / Yale University, Beinecke Library
Nowhere in this exhaustive list is the Smithsonian Institution (not Museum) mentioned. Where in the Smithsonian’s vaults is this located, since we can count on you to know it’s there?
He was terminally ill and didn’t seek re-election. He died within a year of leaving office.
Duh.
Post it. And no, I am not going to pay. Do you deny Arthur was dead about a year after leaving office? Do you think he was not in ill heath? Show your work. “I believe” is worthless.
As for the mutations caused by cigarette and their associations with lung cancer here are just few reviews. The original papers number in the thousands
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22989067 This one is actually from Philip Morris
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22945513
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12379884
Unfortunately, you will have to pay to get he full text articles in most cases. You can use the money from your book.
No, you would have to put it on Internet, like on a web site. You have one of those.
Isn’t it about time for BG to say “You’ve been punked!.”
Bob Gard is a well respected authority on Equatorial Guinea, and may very well be on to something regarding the eligibility of Mr. Obama. You just wait and see.
Somehow this reminded me of binders full of women.
Speaking of volumes of words…. It means nothing. Mario Apuzzo has probably written the equivalent of several thousand pages on the subject of natural born citizenship on his blog and in comments elsewhere. He still misinterprets at the most basic level almost every case on citizenship.
This thread is beginning to pile up as well LOL
Any. Day. Now.
Ha! Mario Apuzzo?! He’s no Bob Gard. Not even close. I’d like to see Mario Apuzzo’s book on Equatorial Guinea. Still waiting.
Typical Alinsky sarcasm. Next, you’ll be saying I”:MMM cxrazy#1
Your web expert, C. Stanton should hook you up to a photo hosting service.
Doc C said “Obviously we can’t debate a 1722-page book in this forum.” Doc C was wrong.
Yes! Don’t you guys understand? One must not shun history or linguistics. The man has proved it–how can it be denied?
Bob, here’s the thing about your smoking analogy. Forget about cancer. I never took up smoking because it is disgusting. Talk about knowing something in the eighth grade–well, earlier than that, in my case.
In the same way, I can see the suffocating failures in your arguments without buying your truckload of cigarettes.
Wow.
So that Full Faith and Credit Clause is out the window too?
“Full faith and credit ought to be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, of every other state; and the legislature shall, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings, shall be proved, and the effect which judgments, obtained in one state, shall have in another.”
The key phrase was “international jurist.” If on restricts oneself solely to writers on international law, that statement might be correct. No one questions the influence of Vattel on questions of international law (such as on the subject of treaties as in this Supreme Court case instant). However, citizenship is municipal law, not international law.
Bob, if the Supreme Court does not have the authority to interpret the Constitution, who does? It is an inescapable task that someone has to do. Would you have the Executive branch do it? The legislature?
In a system of checks and balances, who do you recommend?
I’ll read them but not today.
I understand. I will go to Hawaii, and try to look at the actual folio.
Since I believe you tried and were turned away, I need someone with a direct connection to Obama. Is there someone you can refer me to?
What airline should I take? What is the address of the building, and the closest hotel? I’ll take your advice.
Bob Gard, I do not pretend to be a scholar of Vattel, but I have read the Law of Nations, since you hold yourself out to be an expert on Vattel, can you please answer the following questions:
In section 212, Vattel, in the Law of Nations says;
212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
But in in section 215, he says this:
215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights ( 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.
How is it that natural born citizenship requires 2 citizen parents (based on your understanding), but he also says that the citizenship rights follow only the father? Is this not an inconsistency based on your understanding of the Law of Nations? And why does the remainder of section 212 refer only to the father and not the parents? Is that not an inherent inconsistency within section 212 itself?
While you are pondering that question, I ask another. If NBC requires being born on the country’s soil, again as you understand it, why doe the second passage (215) refer to the laws of several countries to decide whether the children born on foreign lands are citizens at birth?
And if you look at both sections 215 and 216, Vattel uses the word “supposed”, does this not suggest that there are ways to be a NBC other than what was contained in section 212, or at least that he has contemplated such? If Vattel himself was not sure about how one becomes NBC, how can you be, based on his writings?
The language should be accepted for its simplest meaning. I have a number of quotes concerning just that opinion from founding fathers in the book.
So nice you have made up your own theory of interpretation. However, as I said before, what really matters is what the people understood the terms meant when they ratified the Constitution, not some secret meaning of the framers. The legitimacy of the Constitution is from its ratification by the people, not what a small group subjectively thought. Accordingly, real scholars have always looked to how the term was used at the time in case law, statutes and treatises and the early interpretations of the clause to inform the best understanding of the meaning. This is particularly true when there is no legislative history on point. Such is American law whether you like it or not. Indeed, to the extent one is an originalist, no other theory of interpretation makes sense.
Your theory appears to be based upon your speculation as to what someone who wasn’t at the Convention thought the word meant with no evidence that any people who framed the document or ratified it agreed with it. Kind of sad. I guess we are all going to have to change the way we understand the Constitution and follow Bob’s new theory.
You don’t believe that concepts of citizenship had not evolved for thousands of years and were absorbed by developing nations?
Bob, our entire common law system is based on legal precedent. It is the reason that I say that original intent is irrelevant once the Supreme Court rules. My guess is that you do not have any understanding of our legal system.
I’ve already changed my mind. I want to hear more about his adventures in Africa. I also need Bob’s advice about going to Hawaii.
No, it is given its plain meaning informed by the uses of the terms in the legal world. When they use a legal term of art it is understood in the light of how persons educated in the legal world would understand the term. The Constitution is full of legal terms of art that any educated person would understand, but not necessarily be clear to an uneducated person. Precedent is not necessarily relevant to Constitutional interpretation unless to show what the term was understood to mean at the time. Are you learning anything yet?
So let’s see if I understand you. If we had a dispute about the color of a field of roses that contained 3 million petals of which 2.9 million were red and .1 million were yellow, you are saying it would be OK for you to gather a large sample of yellow petals and argue that the field was yellow?
What it appears that you are doing, however, is more pernicious than just selecting evidence but rather interpreting evidence, calling the redish-orange petals yellow.
Anyone who believes that the Supreme Court does not have the right to interpret the Constitution has shown an inability to learn even fundamental principles.
That’s funny considering that you continue to shun the words of St. George Tucker, James Iredell and James Kent.
I will add another one for you:
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. “ William Rawle, 1825, A View of the Constitution of the United States.
You seem to put a lot of stroy in the familar relationship between John Jay and Sir William Scott. But did you know that James Kent was a protege to Jay? In fact it was Jay who appointed Kent to the New York courts.
And William Rawle was a personal friend to Ben Franklin and was appointed to be the US District Attorney for Pennsylvania by President Washington.
Almost. He died a year and 9 months after leaving office.
Sorry to pick nits, but maybe it’s helpful in illustrating to Bob here that I’m actually not a hypocrite. 🙂
Cool, so you agree with Alexander Hamilton.
“…where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived.” 1795 legal brief on carriage taxes.
I knew you’d come around, Misha. You are disciple number 2 in the Church of the Sub Genius. All hail Bob “Dobbs” Gard. Repeat this three or twenty seven times: “slit the throat rather than mention sludge!”
As with all birthers, Bob Gard mistakes what the law is with what he wants it to be. It is sad really.
Again, another quote that simply show a complete law of understanding of International Law.
Wow! Such a thread! Reading this whole thing is gonna take some time; could someone please give me a quick re-cap of where we are on the “Bob Gard vs. The Sane World” discussion? LOL just kidding…
No, I think what I’ll do is read this thread from the beginning. And then I’ll buy Bob’s Colossal Electric Book and read that. And then I’ll shoot myself in the face.
Seriously now, all I needed to see to convince me not to buy (literally or figuratively) anything Mr. Gard writes is that he doesn’t believe tobacco smoke causes cancer. Good night!!
Doc, is this someone you really want to spend your time debating?
Well, of course . . . how else do you explain their phenomenal record in court and at the ballot box?
Bob –
Still looking for an answer from you on my remaining questions:
Do you have a single clear, unambiguous statement, from any Framer, any Founder, or any genuine legal authority in the history of the United States, to the effect that:
4) There is any legal distinction between “citizen by birth” and “natural born citizen?”
7) The Founding Fathers meant something completely different by “natural born citizen” than they meant by “natural born subject?”
If so, please also explain why the two terms were used synonymously by the Massachusetts legislature during the early days of the Republic.
8) You claim that “John Jay attached Vattel’s definition for natives and indigenes to his term.” Can you please provide a statement from John Jay, or other compelling evidence, that demonstrates this point?
9) Can you explain why the Founding Fathers and Framers would derive their idea of citizenship from a Swiss writer rather than from our own culture, heritage, and language, all of which we acquired from England? Can you provide a statement from any Founder or Framer that we chose to derive our ideas of citizenship from Vattel?
10) A lot of people who read this site would be very familiar with the arguments made by Mario Apuzzo and Stephen Tonchen.
What significant information or evidence do you have that they don’t? And on what significant points, if any, do you disagree with Apuzzo and Tonchen? For example, are there claims made by either of these writers that you find are clearly wrong?
11) Do you have a concise response to the voluminous writings of such folks as ballantine, nbc, John Woodman, and the CRS report on the topic of what “natural born citizen” means? Before joining us in this thread, which of the preceding had you actually read?
Thanks.
Gouging your eyes out with sharp sticks also works.
You don’t believe that concepts of citizenship had evolved for hundreds of years in English common law and were absorbed and integrated into American law?
Bob “Dobbs” Gard doesn’t answer questions. He questions answers. He also tickles hydrogen, but that’s a different story.
Well, at least we know where your priorities lie.
The IMPOSTOR needs to be jailed regardless of who says what about the NBC issue..
“CarlOrcas: My guess is that few, if any of our Presidents in the 19th and 18th centuries had government issued birth certificates like we see today and, of course, none of them had Social Security numbers.”
The comment above surely makes the point that American citizens have the “right” to have an eligible POTUS. How would anyone deem a candidate qualified under the U.S. Constitution to be eligible for office or not?
The facts are … America had common sense people living in America and these people had engrained ‘integrity’ to enforce their rights to have people of their era to obey the laws.
The ‘implied’ rights to have an eligible POTUS is fully indicated by a comment above, made to support the USURPER, but in reality that comment points out that the American citizens have a legal interest in assuring that a candidate was 35 years of age, on American soil for 14 years, born of citizen parent/S, and born on American soil, and of course in that era one wouldn’t have had to FORGE 3 documents required to be America’s POTUS.
All the rules, laws, administrations point out that Americans had the legal interest to determine a candidates eligibility…. when SSN and BC were not available… so how could a candidate for office be vetted for qualifications without those document? Furthermore, the establishment of newer systems in a nation would or should’ve enhanced the American citizens capacity to know who is who and what their agendas were when it concerned a candidate for any government office in America.
This blog shows how ignorant …. the useful idiots with degrees can be.
‘Simplest meaning’?
This is really interesting- because virtually the entire United States accepts that the ‘simplist meaning of “natural born citizen” is anyone born in the United States(other than the cited exceptions).
You devote 1700 pages to try to convince us that virtually everyone but yourself doesn’t correctly interpret the term Natural Born citizen.
But lets continue with your argument- let us assume for one moment that you are correct and the Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of what is Constitutional or not or in this case- who is eligible to be President?
If not the Supreme Court- who does this leave?
The voters? The voters clearly indicate that they disagree with your interpretation.
Congress? Likewise- Congress confirmed the election.
The Electoral College? Again- confirmed the election.
There is no controversy here- the voters, Congress, the courts- we all agree what is the ‘simplest language’ that defines Natural Born Citizen. If there is no BODY that considers that issue, then the issue is already resolved.
It seems to me, that you essentially have nominated yourself to be the final arbiter of what is Constitutional and what is not.
I find the argument that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter more persuasive.
First, please understand that “natural born citizens” didn’t arrive until 1797 in 212. Vattel probably never saw the term before he died. Sir William Scott put it in as a substitution for the former indigenes after asking John Jay what natural-born citizen meant in the U.S. Constitution. Vattel did, however, define the highest form of citizen defined by any jurist, which “are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Where everyone goes wrong is the attempt to use dictionary definitions for natives or indigenes when Vattel added a definition for each. You cannot use the dictionary to pull out the definition of Vattel’s for natives and indigenes.
Vattel adhered to the Roman concept of citizenship following the father. He also maintained that the highest form of citizenship occurred when both father and mother were citizens. Mothers could be citizens without suffrage or property rights. I don’t see the conflict between defining a new form of super citizen, so to speak, and adhering to the tradition of citizenship following the father.
Your third question states that you can’t understand why children born on foreign lands are citizens at birth and not the higher form of citizen? Did Vattel call them citizens or did he call them natives or indigenes? That should answer your question. His definition of natives and indigenes has never found its way into any world dictionary right up to the present times, yet everyone wants to discuss Vattel’s natives and indigenes in terms of present-day dictionary definitions.
Finally your reference and inference to “supposed” has nothing to do with Vattel’s use of it. “The society is supposed to desire this . . .” means that the society should want it for its survival. “But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere.” This is Vattel’s way of saying that the father has not exercised his right of expatriation, the right Americans believed in and the British didn’t.
Where is the information you claimed you had on Chester Arthur?
I agree.
Like natural born citizen = citizen at birth
Note: I didn’t look in the dictionary per your instructions. I just used my natural born brain to come up with the simplest meaning. Adding in parents would complicate matters.
You have a citation for that or is this more intellectual dishonesty?
BtW any chance you will explain the words of Tucker, Iredell, Kent and Rawle.
Ridiculous
And there’s always a useless idiot willing to point that out.
Actually what I said to Karl Rove was that I wanted to get my research to the American people and to Congress and let either decide. If I can disseminate it and everyone thinks I am nuts, then so be it. As long as I have a legitimate one vote, I’ll continue to abide by the decision of the electorate and Congress. Actually more than any other organ, I have to be thankful to Dr. Conspiracy for giving me a platform from which to speak. It’s better than the vast majority of conservative organizations have done for me.
So you can’t answer, don’t know that a citizen at birth is the same as NBC and don’t know what the word suppose means. Otherwise great response.
I agree. What should we do besides writing on a computer?
I’m trying to go to Hawaii.
He has a dinner invitation.
You have made two claims here:
1) Sir William Scott asked John Jay what “natural born citizen” meant in the US Constitution.
2) Sir William Scott was the heretofore anonymous translator of the 1797 edition of Vattel’s Law of Nations.
Do you have verifiable documentation to establish that those two things happened, or is that speculation on your part? What’s your evidence?
Also, still looking for an answer on those remaining 6 questions. They shouldn’t be that hard.
You state this as a fact, but in reality you can’t prove that Sir William Scott ever even asked John Jay what the term meant, much less that Scott put it in, or that Jay’s answer (if he ever gave one) was authoritative. All you’ve got is supposition and guesswork and conjecture; your foundation is built on quicksand. You need to prove the underlying conjectures before your conclusions mean anything, and so far you haven’t.
I hate to correct the legal knowledge of a great mind such as yourself, but copyrights accrue automatically to anyone who writes something. Showing it to someone has no effect on the creator’s copyright and therefore NDAs are irrelevant. You only lose the copyright by assigning it to someone for compensation, like a publisher or if the work was created for hire. NDAs do very much apply to patents (I spent years managing patents and am an inventor on qute a few) and I couldn’t even count the number I have executed.
Does anyone remember John Drew, PhD? He and Bob should contact each other and have an ego fest.
It doesn’t matter what John Jay told Sir William Scott, anyway. Whatever Sir William Scott may or not have been the “secret editor” of, it wasn’t the U.S. Constitution.
Do prosecutors convict defendants of murder without video camera evidence or first hand eye witnesses? Why do you insist that I cannot proceed in the same way as a prosecutor without prima facie evidence. Why do lawyers on this site think they can go into court and get a conviction by means of the same kind of evidence that I present in my eBook. Tell me how my reproduction of two footnotes from the Columbia Law Review , for example, do not carry the same weight as an expert witness in court? All I have seen in the last few days is a double standard. And don’t keep telling me to keep providing more and more evidence. Buy the book.
Quoth He Who Doth Shun History. Yea, verily, he doth shun on the mountaintop; and—lo!—he doth shun in yonder valley as well. Vex him not, for He Who Shuns shuns yet.
This thread must be preserved for posterity LOL It is literally exemplary of the entire birfer phenomenon. All it’s missing is a heavier exploration of PDF Madness, which it has already been dabbled in.
Seriously, this if Hall of … uh …. Fame stuff.
You do not understand what prima facie means.
If they do it with the kind of stuff you’ve come up with, it’s a damn dirty shame.
If Jay was responsible for convincing Washington to include the requisite of natural-born citizen in the presidential eligibility clause in the Constitution with Jay’s definition of natural-born citizen, whatever it was; and Jay later told Scott what he meant by it; and Scott put it into the Law of Nations, you don’t think that is correlational proof? You’re right. I’ll never be able to sway you.
I’m starting to wonder what if any parts of the constitution Bob Gard even believes in.
Bob,
If you’re referring to my questions, I’m trying to establish what evidence you think you have. As far as i’ve seen, I can’t tell whether you have any evidence that actually makes it worth buying the book. So far, I haven’t really seen anything except conjecture and “connecting the dots.”
“Connecting the dots” means that Thing A happened, and Thing B happened. And you believe that there’s a connection between Thing A and Thing B. But you present no evidence to establish that this is the case.
I would still like an answer to the questions I’ve asked. Is that possible?
I’m glad to see you reversed your position on the 12th Amendment as per my earlier question. We now agree that a President is legitimate when approved by the voters and Congress. Who his Daddy is might be relevant during the campaign (in your opinion,but not other people’s) but loses any relevancy once the Pesident is selected.
I’m sure you will reverse your position yet again, but I will just laugh. You are nowhere near the rigid absolutist you pretend to be. In fact, you change your mind =3x/hour.
Assuming your suppositions are true, how is that important given the Wong Kim Ark decision?
I am deeply offended that you didn’t read my message concerning this very subject. You’re referring to the PPACA, Public Law 111-148, which in the final form that was passed and as published by Congress is just barely North of 1000 relatively sparse wide-margined pages.
I would like to know where you get the idea that lawmakers do not read important bills. Not only do they read them, they tear into their minutiae.
I think you might be referring to a quote from a former Speaker of the House, which demonstrates your own ignorance of the rulemaking process that follows from legislative acts.
Others have asked whether you have ever been cited by professionals in the field, or published in any other context besides your self-published e-book, or educated beyond the 8th grade.
For me it would be sufficient to know whether you have ever had a public comment published in the Federal Register, or if you have ever subscribed to the FR or owned an edition of the CFR. For no Acts of Congress do we ever fully “know what’s in them” before they are passed, their authority given to the Executive, and under this authority, rules are promulgated.
But the truth is not as convenient as claiming that lawmakers are reckless and willfully ignorant, is it?
No matter. I am deeply, deeply insulted by you today, and you have completely lost my respect.
Once again John Jay said nothing about natural born citizenship and the Presidency. He spoke of the Commander in Chief of the Army being a natural born citizen.
Prosecutors who convict defendants of murder present compelling evidence that holds up firmly under a gauntlet of questioning. So far, you seem reluctant to even tell us what evidence you think you have!
According to law dictionaries, it is any evidence sufficent to establish the fact. If a video of the act of one person killing another is not a way of establishing a fact, then the Supreme Court must have interpreted it.
Whoa …. Washington dictated the Constitution???
Well you’ve presented no evidence thus far of your claims
To both of your points – indeed.
In some sense, I’m glad I didn’t get involved in this thread earlier…clearly this is an endless rabbit hole in the making that is one part fascinating hobbyist entertainment and many parts sheer futile madness.
I’ve now read the entire thing…and yes, gone through all the tabs at Bob’s website as well.
…so much to say…but so much of me realizes the folly of it at the same time…as I realize what more important things I have already further neglected, just by getting sucked in this far.
If anything, this “hot mess” is already proving a testament to why quantity does not equal quality…as this particular post is already becoming rapidly weighted down, beyond the ability to have any serious or reasonable conversation.
But obviously it is providing sufficient “interest” at this point to keep it going for awhile longer…to which I suggest that Doc should consider closing one thread, once it hits a certain volume of comments (like 600) and simply open a new one to continue, for those who wish to continue. Look at it this way, it provides not only “traffic” during a time when the Birther movement is fading into the dustbin, but more importantly, an opportunity to keep using the “PULP-O-MIZER” to generate new blog entries… 😉
Yes, you are demonstrating quite convincingly just how well The Gard abides. *cough*
You did not use it properly in the previous post. And a video may or may not be prima facie evidence. It depends on what it shows or even if it can be properly authenticated. You really need to not discuss the law. It does not make you look good. By the way, a birth certificate is prima facie evidence of the information contained therein and a certified BC must be accepted as a true and correct copy of the BC.
Again, in a short while after the beginning of the Constitutional Convention, everyone knew that Washington was going to be the first President and the first Commander in Chief.
I have typed below a partial version of the two handwritten columns [of Rutledge’s original sheet when he was told by Washington that he wanted Jay’s desires to be met]: Sorry too hared to unsceramble. You shou0ld get the idea.
The Executive
Rutledge Randolph
overnor of the United People and 1 Shall consist of a single person
States of America 2 who shall be elected by the
legislature by joint ballot
3 and hold his office for the term of
seven years
By ballot in each hav’g a Negative 4 and shall be ineligible thereafter
in the other. 5 his powers shall be
1 to carry into execution the
to be Commander in Chief national laws
of the Land and Naval forces 2 to command and superintend
of the Union, and the Militia the militia
of the several states . . . 3 to direct their discipline
4 to direct the executives of the
states to call them or any
part for the support of the
national government. . .
I believe that it is logical and reasonable to offer this as strong circumstantial evidence with reference to chronology and substance that George Washington asked Rutledge right off to effect two changes in Madison’s and Randolph’s draft—make the President Commander-in-Chief and require that he be a natural-born-citizen. The first request was completed right away with a flourish of Rutledge’s pen. No potential presidential candidate in the Constitutional Convention after the first future administration of Washington would have an objection to that change because any framer putting his eye on a future presidency would not object to being granted greater power. I am afraid that is a natural characteristic of politicians. On the other, the actual citizenship requirements of the President had not been much of an issue before this date and certainly nothing had been said about the possibility of requiring a higher form of citizenship. Natural-born citizenship had to be a higher form of the kind of citizenship that would be required for Senator and Representative because all framers qualified for that kind of citizenship.
What happened to simple language?
You need to put it on Imageshack or some similar repository.
I would say that without that or a confession from the defendant convictions are extremely difficult. They happen, but not very often.
But you wish to take conjecture about a conversation that happened over 200 years ago-and that is all you have- and jump from there to somehow removing a President from office. Or that’s what it says on your website (God knows, you may have changed your mind because you now say you abide by the decision of the voters and Congress).
Now you are aware, that impeachment of a President requires “high crimes and misdemeanors”. But even if every word in your book is true, there is no crime in being unaware of the work of the great Bob Gard, which I am sure the President is, or being aware of it disputing it. So, there are no grounds to remove a President even if your book were other than total poppycock.
Were the words I used not small enough?
Not with the kind of nonsense you’ve come up with so far, no, you won’t. Like I said, whatever Jay told Scott doesn’t matter. Prove that the Constitutional Convention adhered to your definition and then you might be getting somewhere. Considering that the Constitutional Convention made foreign-born citizens just as eligible for the Presidency as Washington, that’s a pretty tough sell.
As explained to you previously the Commander in Chief of the Army and the President were originally going to be separate positions in the government so there was no “everybody knew”. You’re making a claim once again that’s not in evidence.
If Washington did such you should be able to provide a paper trail to prove this. Instead you just make stuff up.
So you like to connect dots. Hows this,
Dot 1.) in Feburary, 1787 William Rawle, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine met and formed the Society for Political. Inquiries. It consisited of a group of Philadelhia’s brightest minds including several signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. They met twice a month a Franklin’s house to discuss the new country.
Dot 2) In April, 1787 William Rawle presented an essay to the other memebrs of the society. It was an essay on immigration and its effect on the citizens.
Dot 3) the society suspended their meetings in the summer of 1787 to allow some of its members (James Wilson, Ben Franklin, Robert Morris, George Clymer, Thomas Fitzsimons and Jared Ingersoll) to attend the Constitutional Convention.
Dot 4) During the Convention William Rawle wrote to George Washington (the President of the Convention) and offered the entire contents of the Library Company of Philadelphia to the delegates.
Dot 5) after the Convention, George Washington became a member of the Society for Political. Inquiries.
Dot 6) President Washington asked William Rawle to become the first Attorney General. Rawle turned him down for personal reasons.
Dot 7) President Washington asked William Rawle to become the US District Attorney for Pennsylvania. Rawle accepted.
Dot 8) William Rawle wrote “A View of the Constitution of the United States of the United States.” In it he wrote, “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”
So if we connect all the dots, we see that William Rawle was a well respected member of the Founding generation and that he presented his views on immigration and citizenship to members of the Federal Convention and that he understood the term “natural born citizen” to include the children of alien parents.
And here is the real key in the 187 years since he wrote those words no one, until 2008 ever disputed his reasoning.
Now please give us a statement from John Jay or any other Founder saying that Rawle was wrong.
Because you can’t, and neither can a prosecutor. A prosecutor in a criminal case and a plaintiff in a civil case both bear the burden of making a prima facie case that the defendant is guilty (or liable, in a civil case).
If you don’t know that, you have no business writing a book about Constitutional law.
But you don’t have any such evidence, Bob.
Beats me. I guess that’s why we need 1700-page books to explain a three-word phrase.
Speaking of that …. new summary maxim: The Birf abideth … nought.
I think it’s “evidence” that Bob’s having a hard time getting a handle on.
Invoking Washington. Straight to the top—nice touch! Can you throw in Abe Lincoln popping out of a time machine for a quick consult?
Oh! Hey! Let’s have zombie Vattel come shambling out of a Philadelphia alley, resurrected just to provide his imprimateur. I would say The Second Coming of Emmerich descending from Heaven …. but zombies are trendy right now, and messiahs are just so last century.
You graduated high school in 1965 and according to your piece in Munger Africana Library Notes you were in Spain and Guinea by June, 1969. What did you do during the intervening four years? Did you go to college? Do you actually have a degree in political science, as is claimed on the Terry Lakin Action Fund website? If so, where did you go to college?
Read your statement out loud to yourself 50 times. Now, if one of us or the President were to make this statement to you, how would you accept it?
As Adam and Jamie on Mythbusters likes to say, “well there’s your problem.”
I tried advance searches but I have been able to come up with the ones using natural-born citizens, only feee citizens. Probably my fault.
What I don’t understand, Bob, is why you seem completely unable to answer six simple questions.
They are not difficult questions. Here, I will reword them for you and make them even easier. I will make all but one of them “yes or no” questions.
4) In your research, have you uncovered any single clear, unambiguous statement, from any Framer, any Founder, or from any genuine legal authority in the history of the United States, to the effect that there is any legal distinction between “citizen by birth” and “natural born citizen?” Yes, or no.
7) In your research, have you uncovered any single clear, unambiguous statement, from any Framer, any Founder, or from any genuine legal authority in the history of the United States, to the effect that the Founding Fathers meant something completely and totally different by “natural born citizen” than what they meant by “natural born subject?” Yes, or no.
8) You claim that “John Jay attached Vattel’s definition for natives and indigenes to his term.” Do you have a statement from John Jay, or other compelling evidence, that demonstrates this point? Yes, or no.
9) Can you provide a statement from any Founder or Framer that we chose to derive our ideas of citizenship from Vattel? Yes, or no.
10) What really significant information or evidence do you have that Mario Apuzzo and Stephen Tonchen don’t? And on what significant points, if any, do you disagree with Apuzzo and Tonchen? For example, are there claims made by either of these writers that you find are clearly wrong?
11) Before joining us in this thread, had you read the writings on the topic of natural born citizenship by:
* ballantine? Yes or no.
* nbc? Yes or no.
* John Woodman? Yes or no.
* The CRS report on what “natural born citizen” means? Yes or no.
If you have read what is written by these writers, does your book contain a detailed response to their writings? Yes, or no.
Go into google books. Cut and paste a phrase in the exact language section and it will come up. I am on a train or I would sent you the link.
Again, you seem to have a logic problem. There is no evidence Jay told Washington what he thought NBC meant. Accordingly, there is no evidence any framer understood Jay’s understanding of the clause. Your argument simply does not work logically as proving Jay’s understanding means nothing unless you can prove he told some framer. Of course, you can’t actually prov Jay’s understanding.
Of course, we all know you have no actual evidence that Jay told Scott his NBC definition. We see all you have is conjecture in all your arguments. And your conjecture makes no sense. If Scott was translating vattel, something you can’t even prove, there is no reason that he would care about the definition in our constitution as such had nothing to do with vattel. Was Scott a dishonest translator?
I am sorry, but you don’t seem to understand the difference between circumstantial evidence and conjecture. The former indicates a necessary inference. The latter is not evidence. You have so far not put forth any actual evidence that would even be circumstantial and your posts here are only convincing us your book is not worth buying. If you want to convince anyone on this site, you need to present actual evidence.
I can’t answer the multitude of questions at once. Here is what you request.
4) no; 7) No (many regarding critical comparisons between the British and American
Constitutions and respective common laws in Madison’s Papers, ratification conferences and the Federalist papers that would cast doubt on the one citizen form being the root of the other. No one has answered my question regarding why America would adopt a form of mutually exclusive citizenship? Answer that and my ears will perk.); 8) no smoking-gun but what I believe compelling evidence; 9) no; 10) go to my debate with Tonchen at The-Constitutionist.com; 11) only NBC if that means the web site.
When I felt I had found the missing link in August of 2010, I stopped researching most of the present day information. I concentrated on sources prior to 1840. I wanted to come up with a finished product before the elections. The reason that no one has done the kind of research I have is because there has never existed the hard-copy evidence you ask for. That presented a very daunting research landscape. Despite the lack, I have never been able to give up what I believed to be the only logical explanation of natural-born citizen. People don’t believe me when I purport that the enigma has bothered me since the 8th grade. I would have researched and written the book if McCain had been elected. I truly believe I have proved the meaning of natural-born citizen beyond a reasonable doubt. I feel our framers were fixed on making the Presidency less prone to foreign influence. It seems a matter of common sense.
They were. They even required the foreign-born citizens they extended Presidential eligibility to to have been residents within the United States for fourteen years. But if that was good enough for them, why do you think they would have denied the eligibility of a person born in the United States who happened to have an estranged foreign parent?
Here, even though you refuse to respond to questions I’ve made this simple for you.
“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.”
http://tinyurl.com/b9q2blr
“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING MICHAEL WALSH.”
http://tinyurl.com/a9ceb8b
“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JONATHAN CURSON AND WILLIAM OLIVER”
http://tinyurl.com/bh9jdqc
“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.”
http://tinyurl.com/b6yzhd9
“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING EDWARD WYER AND OTHERS THEREIN NAMED.”
http://tinyurl.com/apcrvfj
“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.”
http://tinyurl.com/axpogxw
“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ALEXANDER MOORE, AND OTHERS, HEREIN NAMED.”
http://tinyurl.com/acjx5r2
“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MENZIES, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.”
http://tinyurl.com/acroa8g
“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.”
http://tinyurl.com/a4hsc8s
“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JAMES HUYMAN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.”
http://tinyurl.com/b5jcnfm
“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NATHANIEL SKINNER, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.”
http://tinyurl.com/ax6434g
“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.”
http://tinyurl.com/bfbpqg3
“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN WHITE & OTHERS”
http://tinyurl.com/b2uoexq
I understand that, but when did any of the framers ever suggest that a non-citizen father constituted a foreign influence? We’ve both read the eligibility debates for federal office from the Federal Convention of 1787 and we both know that foreign influence and foreign entanglement and foreign intrigue were concerns of some of the delegates and we both know that nobody ever is recorded to have brought up the issue of parentage.
I understand that you, or anybody else, might hold the opinion that a non-citizen parent is of relevance to the question of foreign influence to the child, but why do you think this is true of Americans 250 years ago. What justification do you have from the writings of our ancestors that they thought that way? I’m not going to accept “common sense” as your answer.
I can understand someone being born in a foreign country having a different experience from someone born and raised in the United States, but parentage is different; naturalization was a very small thing in those days, wait a year and take an oath (it varied from time to time and place to place). What bearing a father’s oath has on whether a child can be President is not at all intuitive to me and I wouldn’t put that idea in the heads of the framers, and more importantly the ratifiers of the Constitution, without them, at least some of them, expressing such a sentiment.
I may not understand your definition of circumstantial but I understand the dictionary’s. Circumstance: Jay was in London trying to get an article in the treaty wherein Britain acknowledges our citizenship and respects the inherent right to expatriation in it. In order to do that he must discuss origin, nationality, subjectship and citizenship to resolve the problems of prizes and impressment. Circumstance: Lord Grenville put Jay into face-to-face meetings with Sir William Scott, the man in Britain that had devoted his whole life to these topics and to Vattel more than any other Englishman. That I prove in my book. You can complain all you want but there is overwhelming evidence. With these circumstances, you want me to forgo assuming that two men who had studied Vattel for years did not discuss Vattel and the topics of citizenship, subjectship, origin and nationality when one of the men had written the letter with the term natural born Citizen in it that ended up in the Constitution? The links are simple: Jay-Vattel-Letter-Constitution-London-Treaty-Scott-1797 edition. It fits.
I say the inability of a lawyer to put two and two together due to what seems to be rules of evidence in a court room is so hindered that he cannot see the forest for the trees. You have been trashing me all day. Like my dad used to say, “Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it.” The term natural-born citizen popped up in the 1797 edition of Vattel less than two years later. Explain the coincidence when natural-born citizen was a ridiculous translation for indigenes, unless it meant Vattel’s definition of indigenes—a citizen born in the country, of two citizens? Come on. Explain it another way. Explain why not a single framer raised a voice in protest.
Less than two years later? So you’re saying it was operating on a delay. This is still 10 years after the constitution was adopted. You have not proven that Jay stated anything about two parents needing to be citizens and that it was what vattel ever meant nor that the founders even looked to vattel on citizenship. You continue making a fool of yourself here.
Explain why they didn’t raise a voice in protest when Tucker wrote that the President had to be native-born. Explain why no one raised a voice when Kent used both natural born and native citizen of the United States to describe Presidential qualifications. Explain why no one raised a voice in protest when Rawle wrote that the children of aliens were eligible to be President.
Stop the intellectual dishonesty.
Wow, you really are delusional. You think that the fact that two people who studied Vattel (and of course were educated primarily on Coke and Blackstone) met somehow infers they talked about the definition of natural born citizen under the Constitution, which you admit had nothing to do with Vattel’s defintion. You actually think such speculation is evidence. I am sorry, you have no evidence, even circumstantial, that Jay told Scott Vattel’s definition. In fact, Scott, who was translating Vattel, would have no interest in the defintion under the US Constitution since it had nothing to do with Vattel. That basic logic thing seems hard for you. The bottom line, after all you meaningless bluster, is you have no evidence at all what Jay thought the term meant, only conjecture which you can’t back up. Worse, you have no evidence that Jay told any framer or anyone else who mattered what his defintion was, so your conjecture is meaningless. Let’s summarize:
You suspect that this Scott was involved in the 1797 translation of the Law of Nations, but can’t prove it,
You speculate, but can’t prove, that Jay and Scott discussed the definition of NBC in the US, even tough such definition would have no use to Scott in translating Vattel,
You speculate that Jay told Scott what NBC meant in the US and he incorporated into his translation of Vattel even though such would be dishonest and illogical since our definition of NBC had nothing to do with any translation of Vattel,
You have no evidence that Jay told his supposed definition of NBC to anyone in the US, any framer or anyone else, which means there is no evidence it was relevant to the meaning of NBC in the Constitution,
You simply ignore the overwhelming evidence that every legal authority in the early republic says you ar wrong because your conjecture based upon no actual evidence should control. I guess Jay didn’t get to them.
Seriously, with each post, you seem more ignorant than the previous post. Your arguments are unsupported by evidence and actually make no sense. There is no analogy to criminal cases with circumstantial evidence as your claims are not circumstnatial evidence.
Vattel never said TWO citizen parents (deux parents citoyens). This has been explained to you by Lupin, a French lawyer very familiar with Vattel. And in plain English, ” Parents must pick up their children by 5 PM” does not mean BOTH parents must show up. When both parents are required, the law must specifically say so. At best, Vattel says that at least one parent must be a citizen. At worst he is using “parens” in the French sense of “ancestors”. Swiss law today and in Vattel’s time requires ONE citizen parent. ONE
And what is that supposed to mean? No framer raised an objection to what? You have to first show a single person in the Convention believed in your definition before you can make such a claim and you cannot show any evidence a single persons agreed with your definition. Even if you can show what Jay believed, which you can’t, you can’t show he told any framer what he thought or that any framer agreed with him. Seriously, it really seems that you have a reasoning problem. I am starting to think you are punking us as I can’t believe many adults are really this dumb.
I just want to add a few remarks to this.
On question 4, I would answer “no.” I want to comment, however, that there are several instances where the presidential requirement is described by authorities as “native born citizen” and this has led some to think that there is a requirement for US Presidents to be born on US soil (and hence “born a citizen” wouldn’t strictly equate to “natural born citizen”). In popular usage, we say that someone is a California native only when they are born in California), but this is not quite the formal definition, and a formal definition is where we ought to look when citing authority. The Oxford English Dictionary says of “native-born”:
a. Having a certain status or position by birth Obs. b. Belonging to a particular place or country by birth; sometimes spec. applied to persons of immigrant race born in a country.
One notes that the main definition is the same as the OED’s definition of “natural born.”
In regards 8, it may well be that Jay correctly understood Vattel in the French and knew that “parents” was grammatically plural, but not meaning 2 citizen parents per child, and also that the word parens applies to kinfolk in general and not just parents. It has certainly been argued that Vattel himself would have considered Barack Obama an indegenes of the United States because he was raised by his mother and his mothers family, the father being absent.
Here is the link.
I posted links to all the naturalization acts that use the terms NBC or NBS. They were posted at 8:47 p.m. today.
Why did I never see that before? It doesn’t say “mother and father” or “parents” but “fathers”. If we have to base our definition on the simplest interpretation of the language, then it follows that the only people eligible to be present are those born to two gay citizen fathers! I guess Bob Gard is right – the framers did establish a super special category of citizen.
This of course means no president has ever been eligible under Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen”. Call Fox News!
Bob, you’re not the only one who’s come along claiming to have some unique, world-changing knowledge about Presidential eligibility. Maybe if you look through this, you’ll get a better handle on how that kind of argument comes across:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/120530696/IN-2013-01-14-Guthrie-v-USA-et-al-Complaint
Mr. Guthrie, a.k.a. General Jedi Pauly, has been on the same radio program you’ve been on:
http://www.terrylakinactionfund.com/tlafradio/177-tlafradio20130115.html
Did they take him any less seriously than they did you?
I’ll say this much for General Jedi Pauly– he never said anything like “You will never hear my argument unless you come to my abode and sign a non-disclosure agreement.”
Plus there’s evidence Jefferson originally wrote “subject” in the Declaration of Independence and erased it in favor of “citizen.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/02/AR2010070205525.html
John Adams drafted the Massachusetts Constitution and used both terms citizens of the Commonwealth and subjects of the Commonwealth in the same document.
So, after 700 posts, let’s sum up here:
1. Bob conjectures that John Jay meant to use Vattel’s indigene for natural born citizen.
2. It appears Jay never told any of the others who wrote and ratified the Constitution about this, so the definition is not law.
3. The Vattel definition wouldn’t exclude Obama anyway, since it says ONE OR MORE citizen parents (and likely includes ancestors beyond biological parents).
4.Bob accepts the results of the election as validated by Congress, so even if Obama weren’t eligible he is legitimate and there isn’t anything that can or should be done.
Conclusion: I would rather put $10 towards a totally unnecessary root canal than Bob’s book
First of all, let’s do a reality check here.
Unless you have some actual proof of the translator actually was, it could’ve been just about any one of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND men who happened to live in the city of London at the time. France is just across a very narrow “English” channel, and no small number of Londoners, then as now, speak French.
So apart from some actual proof that the anonymous translator was who you claim, the odds of it are really, really low.
Now. Having said that… heck, I can give a very good reason why someone (not a terribly great translator) might use the term “natural born citizen.”
Vattel’s 1797 translation wasn’t the only use of the phrase to that time. At least 3 other ENGLISH authors, IN ENGLAND had previously used the phrase, in translated books (see Woodman’s article on early uses of the term). Why? Because a very natural phrase to use in England was “natural born subject” – but these authors also knew that “subject” was not necessarily the term used in other countries.
The other 3 authors (who translated from Latin) chose to replace “subject” with “CITIZEN” – which was a better term for the Latin word they were translating. So what might have been “natural born subject” was instead translated “natural born citizen.”
As for the 1797 translator, as soon as he decided to use the phrase “natural born” (which was a mistake in itself, but never mind) the die was almost cast. Then he had only to choose “subject” or “citizen” to complete the phrase.
And why would he choose the word “citizen” instead of “subject?” Well, here’s a likely reason: Vattel, in his book Le Droit des Gens”, used both “citoyen” and “sujet.”
But in the specific passage that was being translated, he used the term “citoyen” exclusively, never “sujet:”
So there really is no mystery as to why an English translator would use the phrase “natural born citizen.” English translators had chosen the exact same phrase before when translating other foreign works from authors that used an equivalent of “citizen” rather than an equivalent of “subject.”
As for the rest of it… you seem to be basing your entire 1,700 page argument, or at least most of it, on something that you think might have happened – you have no proof at all that it did – roughly 3,500 miles away from America and about 10 years after the Constitution was written.
Do you have any idea how incredibly flimsy that is?
If “natural born citizen” in the Constitution meant ANYTHING in early America or for the Constitution very different from the highly similar, well defined, well known – and interchangeably used – term “natural born subject,” then we would have some record of that from the United States, from the time of the writing of the Constitution, or before. That record would be clear, and there would be some evidence that the term was widely understood, by somebody, to mean that two citizen parents were required.
But can you produce any evidence to that effect? No. And why not? Because, apparently, no such evidence exists.
You wouldn’t be the first person to look for it. You wouldn’t be the first person to fail. It just doesn’t seem to exist.
In its place, we have a substantial body of evidence that says citizen parents never were required for a person to be a natural born citizen. You ignore all that, of course.
Because John Jay (you think) had dinner with William Scott years later, and told Scott (you think, but cant prove) the true, secret meaning of “natural born citizen,” and Scott (you think but can’t prove) was the anonymous translator of Vattel’s 1797 edition (instead of the translator being any one of the other 500,000 guys from London).
Oh, and you also think (but can’t prove) that Jay somehow (we have no record of it, maybe he used telepathy) communicated his definition of “natural born citizen” not only to the Framers of the Constitution, but to its ratifiers in every state of the Union, without leaving the slightest hint of a trace.
Have I summed up your research pretty well? If not, perhaps you can illuminate me as to where I went wrong.
I thought the Treaty of Paris took care of that, recognizing that the US and Britain were separate.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/paris/text.html
Then the war of 1812 over the impressment of naturalized seamen.
But *who* determines what is the simplest meaning?
The framers purposely broke governmental power into three branches. Because this is about power. You think the framers who clearly understood the nature of power left such a matter to shoulda woulda coulda?
Have you read the pamphlets full of the names they called each other? You think the comments here are a bit much? Try being a politician back then. These people *argued.*
And you think they left the inevitable disputes over meaning to arise without anyone responsible for resolving them? They said no need for anyone to play Solomon, because no one will ever disagree about the simple meanings? Nothing to worry about. The two women fighting over the baby should just follow the simple meaning of mother, right?
After squabbling over the clearly simple meaning of how much of a man counts as a man, and settling on three-fifths for some, they just figured no need to worry, the simple meaning of language is all we need to secure our country’s future?
To reprise my question, who gets to be Solomon? Who decides what those “simplest meanings” are?
Regardless of *your* interpretations, any guesses why the Supreme Court’s power in such matters has been accepted for our entire history?
The operative phrase below is “judicial power.” The simplest meaning, one would think, is the power to judge. You will notice, too, that the Supreme Court, for instance, does not just issue interpretations at will. They determine meanings in the context of *cases,* as necessary to resolve those cases, necessary according to their *judgment.*
Who else is supposed to implement such “judicial power,” Bob?
Article III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
…
Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;– between a State and Citizens of another State,–between Citizens of different States,–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Watch it buddy. This is a family site.
Some people forget that we had another document before the U.S. Constitution as we have it today. Now honestly I’ll admit that it has little bearing on the argument here in the strictest sense. My question is if the Founders were as paranoid about foreign influence as some of the Birthers proclaim, why are there no requirements as to the 2 parent theory in the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union? I mean it would seem to me that the paranoia would have been at it’s highest that a foreign influence would infiltrate a State or the Congress at that point in time right after the Revolution. I could write more, but I’ll just leave it at that. And if anyone can point to anything of this paranoia in the Articles, I would love to read it.
Okay, let’s see if I can summarize the answers to the questions I asked, which Bob has kindly answered.
1) Does Bob have a single clear, unambiguous statement, from any Framer, any Founder, or any genuine legal authority in the history of the United States, to the effect that two citizen parents are required in order for one to be a natural born citizen?
No.
2) Does Bob have a single clear, unambiguous statement, from any Framer, any Founder, or any genuine legal authority in the history of the United States, to the effect that two citizen parents are legally required for Presidential eligibility?
No.
3) Does Bob have a single clear, unambiguous statement, from any Framer, any Founder, or any genuine legal authority in the history of the United States, to the effect that the Founders and Framers meant or were referring to Vattel’s idea “indigenes” when they said “natural born citizen?”
No. However, he believes he has “a mass of circumstantial, correlative and corroborative evidence.”
4) Does Bob have a single clear, unambiguous statement, from any Framer, any Founder, or any genuine legal authority in the history of the United States, to the effect that there is any legal distinction between “citizen by birth” and “natural born citizen?”
No.
5) Does Bob have a single clear, unambiguous statement, from any Framer, any Founder, or any genuine legal authority in the history of the United States, to the effect that there is any significant legal distinction between a “native-born citizen” born in the United States and a “natural born citizen,” born in the United States, or that being a native-born citizen of the United States does not necessarily make one a natural-born citizen of the United States?
No.
6) Can Bob provide any evidence that any person ever objected to John Charles Fremont’s 1856 openly “son-of-a-Frenchman” (and a clearly never-naturalized one, at that) candidacy for President on any grounds that he was supposed to be Constitutionally ineligible?
No. To date, he has not studied Fremont.
7) Does Bob have a single clear, unambiguous statement, from any Framer, any Founder, or any genuine legal authority in the history of the United States, to the effect that the Founding Fathers meant something completely different by “natural born citizen” than they meant by “natural born subject?”
No. However, he does think he has “many… critical comparisons between the British and American Constitutions and respective common laws in Madison’s Papers, ratification conferences and the Federalist papers that would cast doubt on the one citizen form being the root of the other.”
8) Bob claims that “John Jay attached Vattel’s definition for natives and indigenes to his term.” Can he provide a statement from John Jay, or other compelling evidence, that demonstrates this point?
No. He says however that he has “no smoking-gun but what I believe [to be] compelling evidence.”
9) Can Bob provide a statement from any Founder or Framer that we chose to derive our ideas of citizenship from Vattel?
No.
10) What significant information or evidence does Bob have that Mario Apuzzo and Stephen Tonchen don’t? And on what points does he disagree with Apuzzo and Tonchen?
In answer to this, Bob steered me to his web site. After perusing a web page that is roughly 100 pages in length (really more like 200 pages of average size, as the print on that page is small) my conclusion is:
a) Bob thinks he can connect John Jay, on what appears to everyone else here to be simply speculation, to Vattel’s idea of citizenship, and
b) Bob states that he is “almost in total agreement with [Tonchen] except for [Tonchen’s] belief that natural-born subject had more than a superficial connection with natural born Citizen regarding mutual use of natural born.”
Bob makes no mention of any way he differs with Mario Apuzzo, or anything in Apuzzo’s writings that he considers to be wrong. This, of course, is a red flag, since any rational reader who really examins Apuzzo’s stuff can find all kinds of holes in it.
11) Before publishing his book (and coming to ObamaConspiracy.org to promote it), did Bob read the writings on natural born citizenship of any of the following, and if so, does he have a consise response?
* ballantine:
No.
* nbc:
Yes, he’s read nbc’s web site. But he did not give any response.
* John Woodman:
No.
* And finally, the Congressional Research legal report:
No.
As we have shown you, in your case “uncompromising” most certainly does not mean “showing no willingness to back down from the truth.” Your claims have been proven false; therefore, uncompromising in your case is a euphemism for blind to your obvious errors. A person who is both incorrect and uncompromising about it is not a rational person. One must always be open to truth even if it contradicts previously held beliefs, no matter how strong they may be.
If you believed in eighth grade in a two-citizen-parent theory in order to be president, then you did not go to a good school. No such thing has ever been taught in any school that teaches civics. No such requirement has ever existed in the US.
Yeah, in reading Bob’s site, it becomes fairly clear in some of his back and forth emails that he is clearly familiar with writings of Apuzzo and yes, crazy Jedi Paul Gunthrie. They are both mentioned… you just have to really weed through to find them.
Yet ironically, Bob consistently avoids talking about Apuzzo, Gunthrie or Donofrio in his posts here…even though numerous others have referenced them…
The only one that Bob admits to paying attention to is Corsi and his silly book.
Why…because Bob wants (himself) and us to believe that he is some “serious researcher” who just so happens to be devoted to understanding “history” and “Vattel” and “Constitutional issues such as the NBC clause…
…and that he’s always had such “lofty” concerns…as evidenced by his repeated claims of vividly “remembering” such conversations with his 8th grade teacher…
…yeah….that’s the ticket…try to pretend that he’s “always” had a burning passion to “right the wrongs” of poor misunderstood history and Vattel’s influence…
…*not* of course, that something in 2008 (*cough*) took place that created his “sudden interest” in these topics…or that certain “Birther” voices just happened to put the silly made up notions of 2-citizen-parent theory into his head for the first time…
No…it couldn’t be that he has any personal motives really driving his bias here, could it?
No, certainly not. All that obsessive focus on Rove and other prominent conservatives and trying (and failing) to get them to listen to his (free to them) advice on his eBook research (translation: how to stop Obama)….heck, that stuff is just mere coincidence!
Nor could their possibly be any less-than-noble prejudices motivating his “scholarly” efforts, could there? I mean, just because his own website contains reference to where he states concerns about “illegals”…that couldn’t mean anything, could it? …nah…must be imagining things.
…and his scholarly work on Constitutional intent just arbitrarily stops at 1840…even though we live in 2013 reality…hmmmm…..I wonder what changes could have possibly happened in this country and its views on its citizens and their rights during those intervening years…hmmmm…clearly whatever they were, they are not things that Mr. Gard wants to think about…
….not that there could be any other emotional and non-academic motive driving him on this…such as resentment towards what he perceives as “others” for some perceived slights in his own past that he feels have infringed on his own “rights” and entitlements…
…hmmmm…
To be fair, I don’t know that we can say that we have exactly “proven Bob’s claims false” at this point, since we don’t know what all of them are.
The Table of Contents to his ebook, though, gives a few clues as to topics covered:
Chapter 1: The Problems
Chapter 2: The Eighth Grader
Chapter 3: James Madison, the father of the Constitution?
Chapter 4: The Instigation
Chapter 5: More on My Definitions of Birthers and Anti-birthers
Chapter 6: Axioms
Chapter 7: The Law of Nature and the Law of Nations
Chapter 8: The British Constitution and English Common Law
Chapter 9: Language and Dictionaries
Chapter 10: Natural Born Subject
Chapter 11: Colonial, State and Federal Citizenship
Chapter 12: Emer de Vattel
Chapter 13: The Signers of the Constitution and Two
Chapter 14: The Constitutional Convention
Chapter 15: The Commas
Chapter 16: The Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers
Chapter 17: The Ratification Conventions
Chapter 18: History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United States of America
Chapter 19: William Scott
Chapter 20: War of 1812
Chapter 21: Joseph Chitty
Chapter 22: John Jay
Chapter 23: Preview to Part II
We probably can say, however, that we’ve been able to figure some things out:
a) Bob doesn’t seem to have any compelling evidence that it takes two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.
b) A lot of what he does seem to have looks like conjecture and “connecting the dots.” He believes it’s good “circumstantial evidence.” But instead of it being the kind of strong circumstantial evidence that might get a crime conviction, it doesn’t seem to be solid enough, so far at least, even to take a case to trial. Heck, I don’t think there’s even probable cause here for an “arrest” of the topic. Maybe enough to send a police cruiser driving around the block looking for stray delinquents. But that’s about it.
c) He doesn’t seem to have an answer for the large number of genuine authorities (including some very good early authorities) that directly contradict his claim.
d) He doesn’t appear to have consulted with a French lawyer (like Lupin) and probably not with a native French speaker about what Vattel actually says.
e) His claims so far don’t seem to be based very much, if any, in law. I haven’t seen him quote any of the known early legal authorities or even attempt to reference and discuss any relevant court case.
f) He hasn’t actually read a lot of the important discussion and writing on the topic.
g) He unfortunately appears to have spent a huge amount of time and money on his project without coming up with a work that is likely to be widely read or well reviewed.
h) So far, he seems to me to be a nice enough guy. I appreciate his efforts to engage the questions in this thread, while at times enduring some rather withering criticism. But like a lot of birthers before him, I doubt he will be able to unchain himself from his pet theory.
Nah, couldn’t be. So I can only assume this little missive from his very own site in his very own words is just a mere happenstance of anecdote from his past…and couldn’t *possibly* have *any connection whatsoever* to “motive” and intent…
http://the-constitutionist.com/Page_5.html
(about 9/10 of the way towards the bottom)
…And there we have it. Buried deep within his own site, in his own words. His very personal experiences and motives of resentment and bitterness….
I have a pet theory: Adopt from a shelter. I did it with Angel and Max.
Well, I can sympathize with Bob on the discrimination. Being discriminated against is a bummer, no matter what the direction.
I can also sympathize a bit with his having poured so much time, effort and expense into a project that looks like it’s not going to get him anything other than a reputation for having done a large and diligent compilation of ill-conceived speculation. That’s fairly unfortunate.
Sounds like Bob needs to get together with drjohndrewphd (did he tell you he’s a doctor?) Maybe Johnny will show Bobbie his “major award”.
I think that a clear picture of Bob has formed and it’s not a pretty one…
But that’s how you get families.
G:
That was an interesting find from Gard’s website. I was drawn to this sentence about his supposed encounter with Affirmative Action: “I was told by one Princeton recruiter that he had been forced to give a partial scholarship a week before he interviewed me to a black girl with a 1.8 grade-point average.”
I’ve been involved with recruiting college students for a long time, and I’ve worked closely with different admission offices. From my experience, Gard’s suggestion that a college recruiter could give a scholarship, or even give a promise of a scholarship, is nonsense. A recruiter is an academic salesperson, who works to encourage students to apply, and then to register if accepted. Recruiters may recommend a student to a scholarship committee, but they have no say in who receives a scholarship, especially at a school like Princeton. Moreover, scholarship amounts and financial aid can only be offered to a student after he/she has applied and been accepted to a school. Financial aid is decided by an independent office, and scholarships are typically decided by committees who review a students grades, honors, extra-curricular work, etc. Finally, it would be a major ethical breach for a recruiter to complain to a prospective student about another student receiving a scholarship that the recruiter felt the student didn’t deserve.
Like so much of Gard’s fabulous biography, this supposed encounter with a Princeton recruiter is more fantasy than reality.
I wonder, though, just how many other birthers, if pressed, would reveal some kind of incident in their past, either real or imagined, that encouraged them in later life to take sides against the president.
Oh God, yes! Those two are made for each other. I can just hear them . . . “Well, I would have tenure now if it wasn’t for women and Affirmative Action!” “I know! And I’d be a successful historian if it wasn’t for Negroes and Affirmative Action!”
Woman and Negroes– bane of the mediocre white man.
Why am I not surprised? Look at my previous posts about my feeling about what he actually argued with his teacher, and what his second book will probably be about. That’s why I ask about his background growing up.
Publius: I’m also not prepared to label Mr. Gard (at this point) as “intellectually dishonest.” I do see a couple of hints that he may not have been qualified or suitable to take on the task that he’s taken on.
Thank you, Publius, for battling to keep a truly civil tone in much of the recent discourse. I had earlier thought to assure you that Bob would provide answers to your polite questions but was reluctant to speak for him. I’m glad to see that he has.
As a note to others here, I find it a bit odd that so many were ready to lambaste me for my one-time use of a relatively benign epithet like “bleeding-heart” but remain deafeningly silent about the way that other partisans of yours here have been making far more scurrilous remarks and resorting to some of the most base innuendo.
Far be it from me to think that you might chastise such incivility but allowing it to pass with an almost universal lack of comment bespeaks a rather lopsided approach to netiquette.
So Mr. Stanton are you saying if I look at any place that you reside on websites, that you yourself chastise incivility by your cult when people are civil and try to debate in fact and law? Or are you being a hypocrite? I mean we’ve given Mr. Gard plenty of opportunity to provide anything the might be considered evidence, much less beyond a reasonable doubt. Come on.
False analogy, Stanton. It wasn’t your use of creative reference, but your hypocrisy concerning such use.
I would encourage you to loosen up and have some fun with language; in this medium, it’s all you have!
Again, could you recommend some venues for the intellectual, conservative discourse you were pining for?
As I recall, citizenship was left to the states by the the Articles of Confederation.
For more on citizenship under the Articles, see:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/obots-in-history-george-bancroft/
No offense (and I mean that), but you’ll have to excuse a number of us (myself included) from time to time for seeming “uncivil”. You need to understand that most of us are very, very tired, sick of, disgusted by, the constant, sickening, disrespectful way the birther movement has smeared our duly elected President. Not saying that yourself or Bob has said some of the things some of the other more well known birther personalities have said, but it should be understandable that you will run into some of the same vitriol. And not that it makes it ok, but I promise you – the treatment our side gets on birther sites would make anyone’s mother faint.
Just saying. 🙂
At this point, I would like to join Bob Gard in also thanking Dr. Conspiracy for his efforts at keeping this thread on some sort of a relatively even keel. Not and easy task I’m sure, even at the best of times.
As to a closed debate thread, please permit me to suggest the following:
Why not run a set of parallel threads? One is closed to the general public and can only be added to by the Doctor or via email from Bob Gard, sent to your choice of address. Another could contain the same material and be open to general comments.
Now that most people have taken their potshots, a second more factually oriented thread might be able to progress apace without so much background noise.
I realize that this would entail some measure of extra burden for the good Doctor in having to post all of Bob’s input but that would largely be just cutting and pasting.
This way there could be the best of both worlds. A thread restricted to just a two-party debate without all of the haranguing and another where people can freely vent their spleens if that is what’s so important to them.
To facilitate this matter, I’ll be happy to tutor Bob in using HTML tags for constructing quotes. That should overcome most of the formatting issues involved in posting his emails. Personally, I’d look forward to this a lot as it is something that really hasn’t happened anywhere else even, as Bob noted, at supposedly Conservative websites.
On a final note, a lot of people here seem to think that many self-labeled “conservatives” are the real thing. Nothing could be farther from the truth. For instance, I consider Rush Limbaugh to be an over-inflated, whinging gasbag of monstrous proportions. His credibility was demolished when, after years of advocating hard prison time for recreational drug users, he was caught en flagrante both doctor shopping and in possession of what could only be described as a recreational supply of prescription-only narcotics.
If Rush had possessed an iota of integrity, he would have demanded a jail sentence, served it out in full as a model prisoner and retained some shred of credibility. Instead, he copped out totally, bought himself some “justice” (like O.J.), and, even though I could never stand him in the first place, he now amounts to nothing more than (in old Russian slang), one who is scraped off the sheets with a spoon.
I’m confident that Bob will readily agree with me (as we have many times before), about how the bulk of what passes for Conservatism in America should be more appropriately labeled, Conservatism.inc.
Those who would like more insight regarding this are invited to visit The Constitutionist and read under the tab, “A Conservative Blockade” (please click the link at page bottom to continue reading all the way through). It is difficult to express the contempt I feel for so many of these supposedly “conservative” figureheads while they cheerfully go about selling out America to its financial and political elite (or this nation’s enemies), even as they themselves lustily propel agendas that were once a sole domain of the extreme Left. They make me want to hurl.
This parallels my own thoughts on how it might work, except I didn’t intend to add the restricted content to the general thread. Of course, before we start this, I will need to become familiar with Bob’s book (and that means some time spent before starting). Up until now, there has been a lot of speculation going in.
I cautioned Bob that this was going to get huge and unmanageable, and it did.
JRC: So Mr. Stanton are you saying if I look at any place that you reside on websites, that you yourself chastise incivility by your cult when people are civil and try to debate in fact and law?
Absolutely. Even if you insist on a bit of unwarranted backhand with your “cult” slap.
Hell, I’ll even cheerfully apologize for having used the “bleeding-heart” label. However, I rather doubt that’s going to inspire many others here to end their mud-slinging.
“A Conservative Blockade”
Read it. Karl Rove is correct. And what he said is exactly why Bob and everyone else’s similar theories will always lose. Always.
I can’t stand Rove, but he’s right on the money in this case.
Both you and Bob have answered my questions, and I thank you for that.
Unfortunately the internet is not as civil a place as face-to-face contact. In general. And birther / birther-disbeliever discussions can quickly get pretty impolite. It can be pretty jarring if you’re new to the scene.
And again, I would say this place is actually more civil than most. Still not anything like sitting down to talk about stuff in person with someone, though.
One thing to understand is that most if not all of the folks here have been called very ugly names by an entire succession of people making the same kind of claims as Bob, over a long period of time. I think it’s fair to say that most have evaluated a lot of the same kind of claims that Bob has made, and that they haven’t found them in any instance to actually hold water.
This is not a group of people who are either inexperienced or ignorant on this topic. The audience here includes multiple lawyers (including one who is natively French-speaking and has worked with Vattel) and quite a few people who’ve just about heard it all. And none of it has been convincing.
And that’s not all because the people here support Obama. Most of them do. But not all. But it is more because they know a great deal about the topic, and there is a lot of good, strong, solid evidence to support their views; and to date they have never found any good, strong, genuinely solid evidence that their views are wrong.
I haven’t read Bob’s book, but I think I can say at this point that I do now know at least something about it. I fear that you and Bob have invested your time and energy into a project that leads only to a dead end. Of course even when you have well-done project, it may or may not succeed in the market. Betamax was arguably a better format than VHS, and VHS won.
In your case, though, I frankly don’t see that Bob really has anything more than some interesting conjecture that goes against the flow of the great preponderance of other evidence. Writing on such topics is better done by first going out and reading everything you can on both sides, and never coming to a conclusion until you’ve done an awful lot of research and had the ideas beaten to death looking for flaws. And not getting married to any pet idea.
In other words, the time to come here and debate the issue, really, was 2 or 3 years ago. When Bob was starting his research, rather than after he finished it. People who publish stuff in peer-reviewed journals get their ideas ripped to shreds before they’re published, not after. And they give up on a lot of those ideas before they publicly commit to them. It’s a lot harder to throw an idea in the trash once you’ve written 1,700 pages on it and touted yourself as the first expert in the world who’s figured it all out.
I asked the questions I asked for a couple of reasons. One was to see whether it seemed like Bob might have uncovered something truly remarkable which had a shot at overturning the accepted understanding of the topic. I found nothing in his answers that gave evidence of that potential.
The second reason was to see how thoroughly he had done his homework, not in collecting various editions of Vattel, but in reading the writings of those who have addressed the topic directly, who disagreed with his conclusions, and whose works have stood up solidly against all the questions and objections thrown at them. I think I listed 4 such writers. Those writers have addressed the legal meaning of natural born citizen, and sometimes the historical meaning as well. A couple of them have debated extensively with people like Mario Apuzzo. Bob appears to have read only one of them.
Of course, no effort is wasted if you can learn from it. Particularly if you are willing to let go of your mistakes. An editor can become a better editor. A writer can become a better writer.
I will be frank here. I have not read Bob’s book, but from what I’ve learned of it, it appears to be what Dr. Conspiracy calls on this site, “DOOMED.” Earlier in this thread, I described a typical way that people author stuff (including not testing it adequately before publishing) and 3 possible things that can happen when a researcher finds out his work isn’t as strong as he thought (see my posts at 12:55 and 3:09 pm). I think the best scenario is not to be too wedded to your conclusions, because that can easily block you from being on the side of the truth. In my opinion, if you end up on the side of the truth… you win!
In any event, I’d like to thank both you and Bob for answering questions and being courteous, even when some here haven’t really returned the favor. I will even go so far as to wish you success on future projects. I just don’t think this one is going to turn out to be anything but a dead end.
Dr. Conspiracy: This parallels my own thoughts on how it might work, except I didn’t intend to add the restricted content to the general thread. Of course, before we start this, I will need to become familiar with Bob’s book (and that means some time spent before starting). Up until now, there has been a lot of speculation going in.
Outstanding, Doc! Please consider running that restricted content in the parallel general thread. That way, no matter which thread an individual stumbles onto, all of the material is there in one place. It would also make assimilation a lot easier by eliminating the need to flip back and forth between the two different threads.
If you are not yet in possession of Bob’s book, please visit his web site in order to peruse the glossary and important excerpts. They are there at my insistence and will provide you with a major head start once you have the book in hand.
Again, your fair-mindedness is truly refreshing. Thank you for giving Bob’s work a forum where some degree of honest debate can take place.
Yes, I meant to add that many are also simply offended by claims and accusations of ineligibility that have again and again turned out to be false and/ or without basis in fact.
Publius: In any event, I’d like to thank both you and Bob for answering questions and being courteous, even when some here haven’t really returned the favor. I will even go so far as to wish you success on future projects. I just don’t think this one is going to turn out to be anything but a dead end.
Thank you for the good attitude as well. I will freely agree with you that truth is paramount. That said, far too many people today see truth as relative (e.g., truthiness), while logic and reason are supposedly now subjective.
I would ask you to please consider reading Bob’s book. I know that it’s asking a lot but should the good Doctor set up his parallel threads, your input could become some of the most vital counterpoint in them. Win or lose, I would welcome your sort of polite and well-considered opinion.
In light of this website’s title and its owner’s user name, I’ll leave off with this old chestnut:
NEVER ATTRIBUTE TO CONSPIRACY THAT WHICH CAN BE EXPLAINED BY SIMPLE STUPIDITY.
I agree Dr. C. And I’ve been through most of the State’s Constitutions and not seen that any of them had the 2 parents requirement in them. I will read your article on the topic though.
Yes, the parallels to Drew are quite striking, with both of them thwarted by affirmative action.
I’m curious about his claim that he was a “true 4.0 student.” Did high schools grade that way in California (I’m assuming that Gard grew up in California) in the sixties? Does anyone here know? I’m a year younger than Gard, and in New York high school students in the sixties were graded numerically. No high school student in New York would have referred to himself or herself as a “4.0 student.”
Well I will apologize using the word cult. I like civil discussions. Unfortunately that is not the case when dealing with this issue. I’m a Libertarian. I don’t like Rush either, and he dances around the issue. Don’t like Rove, but I at least respect him that he answered Mr. Gard with the truth. I like when a fact is pointed out that the other side accepts it and acknowledges it. Again unfortunately that is not the case. Mr. Gard hasn’t shown that ability here. Yeah, he’ll side step an issue with a “oh well I was wrong” about the Constitution being a civil contract or what not, but at the same time still not admitting anything wrong with his theory. He doesn’t under circumstantial evidence as sadly I will say most Americans do not. It’s been pointed out that conjecture and speculation is not evidence. Anyway, I look forward to a debate between Dr. C and Mr. Gard. I know Dr. C. is more than capable to handle it in a textual debate. Live debates when people can make up their own facts is more difficult, and I’d still be comfortable with Dr. C. on that level, though I’ve seen it before with Mr. Monckton “winning” debates because he makes up so much bullshit.
“true 4.0 student” = straight white christian male high school senior with two citizen guidance counselors
“NEVER ATTRIBUTE TO CONSPIRACY THAT WHICH CAN BE EXPLAINED BY SIMPLE STUPIDITY.”
That sums up the two citizen parent theory and every other birther bigot’s delusional, fear based, xenophobic and bizarre fantasy. One bonus point for screaming in all caps.
All CAPS is used by the semi-literate and the insane.
I have a comment in moderation. Love it. Anyway, just wanted to let people know….especially those claiming that Dr. C. only moderates Birthers. I’m far from a birther.
Hopefully Dr. C. proofreads and corrects it before letting it be posted. lol Something I should have done.
All of these discussions boil down to very intentional sarcasm v. accidental irony. The outcome is ironically (ha!) predetermined, the journey’s the thing.
I wasn’t sure he was being accidentally ironic (they just can’t heps it!) about the conspiracy/stupidity bit, or if that was his last parting shot, a flip of the bird at, a little urine in the sugar for, the site and at Doc personally.
If it was meant as sarcasm … leave that to the pro’s, Stanton, leave it to the pro’s.
NEVER ATTRIBUTE TO DOC CONSPIRACY THAT WHICH CAN BE EXPLAINED BY FICKLE SPAM FILTERS.
Exactly. 🙂
Actually I may have used another e-mail address by mistake, so it would be the first time that e-mail address was used, and automatically put into moderation.
aesthetocyst: I wasn’t sure he was being accidentally ironic (they just can’t heps it!) about the conspiracy/stupidity bit, or if that was his last parting shot, a flip of the bird at, a little urine in the sugar for, the site and at Doc personally.
Please check the last few comments that I directed towards Dr. Conspiracy.
Now, go ahead and reconcile my words with your assertion that I, somehow, bear the good Doctor ill will in whatever way.
I introduced the saying as an “old chestnut” and if you are so humorless as to be unable to appreciate the jest involved, that says far more about you than it does about me.
Those who search for insults, especially where none are intended, have always struck me as the most insecure and eggshell-ego sort of people but, then again, maybe that’s just my own perception.
Trying my post again to see if I can get around the spam filter, and address Stanton.
Well I will apologize using the word cult. I like civil discussions. Unfortunately that is not the case when dealing with this issue. I’m a Libertarian. I don’t like Rush either, and he dances around the issue. Don’t like Rove, but I at least respect him that he answered Mr. Gard with the truth. I like when a fact is pointed out that the other side accepts it and acknowledges it. Again unfortunately that is not the case. Mr. Gard hasn’t shown that ability here. Yeah, he’ll side step an issue with a “oh well I was wrong” about the Constitution being a civil contract or what not, but at the same time still not admitting anything wrong with his theory. He doesn’t understand circumstantial evidence as sadly I will say most Americans do not. It’s been pointed out that neither conjecture or speculation is not a form of evidence. Anyway, I look forward to a debate between Dr. C and Mr. Gard. I know Dr. C. is more than capable to handle it in a textual debate. Live debates when people can make up their own facts is more difficult, and I’d still be comfortable with Dr. C. on that level, though I’ve seen it before with Mr. Monckton “winning” debates because he makes up so much bs.
Neither Conjecture, nor speculation is evidence. (just missed out on the clock to edit)
Mr. Stanton: Civility is certainly a fine thing, although, as pointed out by others here, the debates over the Constitution went well beyond what you would call civil. If you like the end product, as you claim to, then you should not be overly critical of the process used to arrive at that end product. As for in-person debates being more civil-surely you have seen the many videos of debates in parliaments in Taiwan, South Korea and other places in which chairs are broken over heads.
The fact is that Mr Gard chose to come here in order to peddle his book and his ideas, which frankly, are neither new nor persuasive to any of us. I note that the web site that you designed for Mr Gard has no place for readers to post comments, which I find rather unusual. Thus, both you and he find it necessary to come here to debate your own book, and as noted, only did so after the book was completed, rather than soliciting up-front critiques, which is what someone truly interested in open inquiry would do.
Now to the issue of honesty. There are various degrees of dishonesty. There are those who, for example make up quotes or pull a sentence totally out of context. To Mr Gard’s credit, he has not done that so far as I know. Then there are those who ignore all sources that refute their conclusions. That, in my opinion as someone who has spent 30 years doing science, is also dishonest, and unfortunately, that is what Mr Gard does.
Finally, on ad hominem arguments. Again, it is not black or white. In many cases these are unjustified. But, when someone puts forward that they have done x or y in life in order to boost their credibility on some unrelated topic, then they ought to be prepared to back their claims up. Mr Gard was the one who stated that he had been arrested 4 times in the Soviet Union. I am old enough to have been an adult during the Brezhnev era and I think I am on safe ground to say that a US citizen being arrested in the Soviet Union would have made the news. Certainly I find the claim that he was arrested 4 times to be extraordinarily unlikely. Since Mr Gard was the one who made the claim and imputed that it added to the trustworthiness of his arguments, I feel it is perfectly in bounds to ask for some proof.
I would be interested in your response to these points.
Since he has repeatedly pressed his African research and has mentioned, on his site, how CalTech was refusing him now, some clarification may be in order. This may also demonstrate what some have been trying to explain to him about his current e-book.
In the introduction to Bob Gard’s essay on Equatorial Guinea, Professor Robert Oliver writes:
My impression is that Professor Oliver felt that the research topic was so new that it needed publishing, even if the actual writing style would not have been sufficient. For somebody in their early 20s, that would be understandable. Unfortunately for Mr. Gard, Caltech appears to expect the writing discipline to improve. Here Mr. Gard is writing on a well traveled research subject and so, sloppy narrative and lack of focus will not be overcome by the novelty of the topic.
P.s. Ironically, the copy of the journal in my link above, is stamped, Occidental College Library.
In your opinion.
I’ve read quite a few opinions on who should be considered Christian or truthful or a conservative or a liberal or an “activist” judge (Mr. Gard’s repeated term) or an American citizen and many of those opinions reek of vile bigotry, fascism, intolerance and fear mongering.
Many of the birthers posting here demonstrate this consistently. Their motivation is clear.
It’s also obvious when someone draws a conclusion first and then desperately searches for ways to prop it up.
JRC’s comment was moderated for having a certain keyword in it. I allow comments with that word, but I want to know the context before they appear.
Long time readers will know that I have in the past put anti-birthers in moderation, although none presently. Basically I put people in moderation for these reasons:
– obscenity and threats
– disclosing personal information about private individuals
– posting really too many comments per day all over the place and unresponsively a (troll)
– deliberate combative and disruptive behavior, picking fights (troll)
– persistent posting of off topic material or thread hijacking
– posting under lots of different names
The default is openness. Anybody new can come and post a comment without any moderation. It is only when I find a problem do I use moderation or in come cases a ban.
As aarrgghh mentioned, the third-party spam filter sometimes goes awry and flags a comment as spam (including one of Bob Gard’s a couple days ago). About one-third of the comments here are spam (meaning over 100,000 spam comments), and the filter is about 99.8% accurate.
I was higher than 4.0 in high school, something closer to 5.0, but that was 70s Chicago, not California, and involved honors class A’s counting as 5.0 instead of 4.0. I definitely knew my grade point average, and the average of some of my fellow students. It was a private, not public school. There may have been a reduced tuition for my family being poor, but my parents paid nothing; the only money for tuition came from me (through working).
Oh, yes, given the topic I should add some details, I suppose. This was the Southside Chicago. Catholic school, all boys. Black guys in my class, and in extracurricular activities with me. I grew up with contempt for the racism all around me, particularly the cries of how the black people were moving west through the city. When it came to college, I turned down a full scholarship because the specific program at that college wasn’t what I wanted, and ended up with a financial aid package, work study, and loans at the college I did want.
And I didn’t become a birther. Go figure.
I strongly suspect that would be an extremely HIGH percentage…
You would find agreement on this general point from many, across all aspects of the political spectrum. Yes, there will be differences in what each perspective feels “should be” Conservatism…
…But the issue of greed-driven politics manipulating a “base” and stoking their fears for selfish profit is a very real one…and also, sadly not limited by party…even if the current environment seems to present a much greater amount of cynical manipulation on the GOP side…
There are several aspects of what you just stated here, all which would be worthy of a healthy debate, analysis and introspection… I’m just not sure if this blog is the right place for it… as the nature of the conversation would have to be driven from an angle that related to this website’s purpose.
…However, since there is quite a bit of cynical greed manipulation that encourages and promotes various political conspiracies…. that might be a valid topical angle for discussion.
Thanks for that info. When I was in high school a student who got 90s in all of his/her classes might be referred to as a “straight A” student, but until I went to college I was never graded on a GPA scale. However, not all schools graded the same way, so perhaps Gard really was a 4.0 student. But even if that is true, I agree with Arthur that no college recruiter would tell an applying student that he wasn’t going to be accepted because his place was being taken by an affirmative action applicant – and not just any affirmative action applicant, but one with a mediocre GPA.
So basically what we have here is a bitter, old white guy who probably believes that Barack Obama was one of those “affirmative action” applicants who got into Columbia and Harvard ahead of more deserving white applicants like Bob Gard.
I would note that the word “truthiness,” as coined by Stephen Colbert does not mean relative truth. Quite the contrary, it means truth as you feel it, from your gut, more of an absolute declaration, free of any entanglements relative to facts, if you will. Something like, say, having a feeling that Scott translated Vattel according to something he was told by Jay about what natural-born citizen meant in the new constitution. Quite nicely circular, too.
Of note is that while Bob Gard uses books, his truth does not come from the books, but from his gut, or if you insist, his imagination. He freely admits he has no smoking gun, no outright statement to be found in his books. He may think it all lines up neatly, but it does so in his imagination. I can make a lot of things line up nicely in my imagination. It just feels right to Bob Gard. That is perfect truthiness, to be fair.
Note in particular the 2nd definition in Merriam Webster’s Word of the Year for 2006, which lists truthiness as “the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true.”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/info/06words.htm
1. truthiness (noun)
1 : “truth that comes from the gut, not books” (Stephen Colbert, Comedy Central’s “The Colbert Report,” October 2005)
2 : “the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true” (American Dialect Society, January 2006)
If there was any doubt that Bob was intellectually dishonest, this comment should prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt:
Publius, ballantine, and I (and possibly others that I missed) all answered that question previously – others have since addressed it as well. The British signed the Treaty of Paris, and under Articles 1, 6, and 7 in particular, acknowledged that America was an independent and sovereign nation, that its citizens were no longer British subjects, and furthermore, they agreed not to prosecute for actions taken in the War, which would include treason. In order for the British to invade sovereign American soil, arrest one of its citizens, and try him for treason, they would have to break the Treaty of Paris, which would be a violation of international law. Mutually exclusive citizenship thus is not a problem.
Here’s the original question:
So, he didn’t get his partial scholarship to Princeton, for whatever reason. “Woe is me.” Corruption exists in the world, and I’m not going to argue about whatever some fool might have said or done, especially when it is irrelevant. The point I wanted to make by mentioning my own experience is that with a 4.0 grade average the man had to have options. Affirmative action, even if Gard somehow hit up against a corrupt situation/person, has not derailed the 4.0’s of the country.
I find more telling the comment on his Equatorial Guinea piece, that he was trying to prove he didn’t need all that special education. Tied in with his eighth-grade story, I personally suspect the seeming chip on his shoulder has had more to do with the path he ended up taking, more than anything else. That is the kind of thing that more generally derails and sabotages intelligent people, in my experience.
I went to international schools. One of them was based on a “modern” Hungarian system where the highest grade awarded was “1” and the lowest was “4”. “4” was failure… Other schools were more standardized “college preparatory” forms with a more conventional GPA system. When I got to grad school I was totally unprepared. When we got books, they were very thin, and for the most part we didn’t get grades.
I wonder how many lawyers he needs and how much he has to pay them to keep his education records sealed.
Are you sure? O.K.
Russians did not provide proof of arrest in those days. I was one of about 800 tourists a year that went overland through Russia. One’s route was approved and controlled by Intourist. I was travelling with an architectural student and his girlfriend on the main road to St. Petersburg when he glimpsed a large glass building with Lenin’s portrait stretching over several stories. It was the only modern building he had seen. He wanted to take photographs and turned onto the byroad leading to the building. I warned him that it was stupid. If you were smart, you did not deviate from your proposed route. He thought there would be no problem in taking pictures. He owned the car; I couldn’t stop him. When we reached the building, he asked me to drive so that he could lean out the window to snap photos. Again, I warned him of the danger. He ignored me. When I advised him that an unmarked car was following us, he thought I was imagining things. In a short while, we were blocked off at a four-way intersection by four unmarked cars. We were arrested and taken to the Commissar’s office for interrogation.
A female English teacher was enlisted from the local school to act as interpreter. While she interpreted, another Russian was writing up our group confession to being American spies. They guaranteed us we would be allowed to return to Finland or even continue on our trip if we signed. My companions wanted to sign. I refused. I figured the sights of our Russian comrades might be more on Siberia. Signing would increase the possibility. At the very least, they would use the confession as propaganda against the American government.
After continued interrogation, the interpreter asked me to open my camera even though my camera was not the one that had the photos of the building on the film. I told her I needed to rewind it so that the film would not be exposed to the light and be ruined. I did. I opened the camera and handed her the cassette. It contained Kodak color slides. I guess she asked for mine first because I was the one who flatly refused to cooperate. My companions believed the soothing promises of the interrogators. The school teacher immediately started to pull the film leader out of the cassette to view the pictures. I grabbed her hand and told her she would destroy the film, which might mean they would certainly regard us as spies since we had disappearing film. I explained to her that her government must develop the film using the process identified on the cassette body. She said she understood. After a long day of interrogation, the Commissar made some telephone calls. Apparently someone higher gave him permission to allow us to proceed. You needed permission to do anything in Russia if you were Russian.
After days of sightseeing, we arrived in Moscow where we were detained and taken to an Intourist camp ground not on our official itinerary. There, a government agent proudly told us we were in the clear and handed back my developed film. She told us not to think badly of Russia. See how the Russians respected private property just like the Americans did in America. The film had been developed by the wrong process. My slides were in black and white. That’s the only proof I have.
Sometime later we visited a friend of a friend who was a revolutionary artist. He gifted my friend with several water colors. I urged my friend not to accept. He promised not to. We were detained soon afterwards by the secret police who probably thought otherwise. Naturally they had surveilled where we had visited. They searched the van but found nothing. I breathed easier. I now truly believed my architect friend had not accepted the drawings. We were allowed to resume our trip.
We picked up a hitch hiker and drove him to his home. He offered me two 17th-century religious icons, one gold-plated and one silver-plated, in exchange for a promise to take him to the Ukraine. Come to think of it, I have pictures of them somewhere. They were the real thing, worth thousands. I declined them. Trying to smuggle religious artifacts out of Russia could land you in a gulag for many years. I suspected it might be a trap. What dirt-poor Russian would give up such things for a lift down the way? We took him on his way to the Ukraine but we were stopped at a random checkpoint and he was arrested. I was proud as a peacock that we didn’t have random checkpoints in America then. We were told that we wouldn’t be arrested this time but we would be if we ever picked up a hitchhiker again. Picking up hitchhikers was against the law. The government didn’t want Russian civilians to have contact with foreigners. I have often wondered whether the whole escapade was a setup. Isn’t that how American police and FBI set up stings nowadays? I detest entrapment.
At an Intourist camp, we were approached by the Intourist camp leader and asked if we wanted to visit the Xerex vineyard, the equivalent of Spain’s Jerez factory. Of course we said yes. The young Intourist guide that escorted us was allowed to get more intoxicated on Sherries than we got, and we were intoxicated. Driving drunk in Russia was not against the law. The guide started badmouthing America, harping on all the usual drivel. I contained myself till he escorted us to a picturesque lake. He spouted how all American girls became prostitutes because they chewed gum. I had had enough. We had a scuffle and I threw him into the lake. Little did I know that under the water at the shoreline was a mass of broken Vodka bottles. Upon landing, he suffered a horrible gash that cut halfway through his palm all the way to the bones. We rushed him to a clinic. The doctor came out and told me that I needed to convince the guide to get stitches because without them he might suffer a bad infection and lose his hand. He had refused because he wanted to be a real man. A Soviet cosmonaut would not accept stitches. I told the doctor I was sure I couldn’t convince him because I had been the one that had hurled him into the lake.
We left with the agent, his hand bandaged without stitches. Within a few days, we were approached by a band of soldiers, rifles in tow, who were holding a warrant for the arrest of me or one of the others. We were never quite sure. The architect’s girlfriend was the daughter of Russian immigrant parents. She talked a little Russian and I had been studying the language. As best we could make out, I was the object of their desires and they were accusing me of murder. I could be wrong. I was far from fluent but that was my honest perception. We joined hands and told them they had to arrest all of us because we were not going to abandon each other. They did not have arrest “warrants” for all of us. They made a half-spirited attempt to pull us apart. We held on tight. The soldiers could not find any superior officer to get more specific orders. They couldn’t make a decision on their own. They didn’t know what to do. They let us go. We raced to the Romanian border where the girl kneeled and kissed Romanian soil, ruled over by Ceausescu, such was the oppression in Russia. Her dreams of returning to her wonderful communist homeland where everybody shared in everything had been shattered. She was the original Michael Moore. Sorry. That just snuck in there.
The architect then pulled out from the van the revolutionary drawings from their hiding place. I was glad I hadn’t known he had accepted them. My companions and I went on our separate ways after we declined an offer in the Istanbul bazaar to buy his girlfriend.
You demanded proof from me, but you hide behind a pseudonym like almost everyone on this site. Who are you? I’d like to check your credentials. Under a pseudonym, you can pose as anything you want. You say you are knowledgeable enough to “think I am on safe ground to say that a US citizen being arrested in the Soviet Union would have made the news.” My government was never notified and they wouldn’t have done a thing to help me anyway.
Oh boy, are you naïve! When I followed the Russian invasion into Czechoslovakia, I wanted to telephone my parents to let them know I was safe. I asked the American embassy in Prague (perhaps consulate; I can’t remember) to use their telephone. I offered to pay. The head official (not sure if he was the consul) refused and told me he was going to phone the Czech police and have me arrested and deported because it was illegal to cross the border since the invasion had supposedly closed it tighter than a drum according to the American official’s naïve assessment of the situation. This serves as an example of our excellent intelligence service. I said, “Go ahead. I’ll just slip them a ten spot and they’ll let me go. How do you think I crossed the border?” I opened my passport and showed him my legal visa. He looked so depressed at my having thwarted his power. I have a fair amount of photos of the invasion. One had to be careful not to get caught photographing.
Years after in a university class, a female professor taught a session on Russian politics to us and proudly showed off the Russian consul. When he gave his version of the good Russia had done in Czechoslovakia, I responded, you are regurgitating nothing but propaganda. The teacher became infuriated at my insensitivity and ordered me to write a paper on the Russian invasion. I did. She graded it with an F. She didn’t know I had been there and seen it. When I approached her desk and told her, she marked the essay up to a D-. You know what I think of lawyers. Ask me what I think of liberal professors.
I was abducted at gunpoint by the PLO in bombed-out Beirut. I was taken prisoner because I took a picture of the PLO building. I didn’t realize at the time that there was a man pointing at me from one of the balconies. Since the “freedom fighters” ended up letting me keep my camera and film, you might say I have indirect proof. I apologize that my abductors didn’t let me take a group portrait. I was interrogated by a famous leader of a splinter group who was visiting the PLO headquarters at the time. I talked my way out with life intact. The only reason you know about most abductees today is because the right-wing press and less the mainstream press find out and force the U.S. government to react under penalty of intense negative publicity.
I have many stories like these but I am not going to offer them or any more proof.
I will say that I have always resented the U.S. Embassy in Yaounde where a CIA agent (his name published in my publicly available East Berlin book of “Who’s Who in the CIA”) tried to extract information from me about Equatorial Guinea without agreeing to trade information. I declined and he knowingly let me walk into a death trap without warning. No news agency ever found out. I admit one might have today because EQ is in the news for its corruption and oil resources.
As far as my writing abilities, I don’t brag about them. I don’t think they are better than adequate based on the old standards. I received one great compliment from the literary agent of Norman Mailer who told me he could have published my 800-page “Black Jack and the Hide” if I had been a published author. He thought it was well-written and so descriptive that he was sure I was the main convict character. Over 300 pages is death in the literary world for an unpublished author. People–perhaps you are one–usually look for credentials and resist reading a long book. Since a former warden of Cummins State Prison Farm had credentials and a cowriter, he published “Accomplices to the Crime” about the same correctional facility. Unfortunately for me, it preceded my manuscript while I was in the middle of writing it. Hollywood screenwriters gave Tom Murton’s book a plot and rewarded Murton with movie rights and a consulting contract. “Brubaker,” starring Robert Redford, was filmed and released.
Spending $12.45 to find out what history is contained in my eBook seems incomprehensible to all the self-professed experts under pseudonyms on this site that have been grilling me for hours about what’s in it under the pretense of needing to make an intelligent decision whether or not to fork up the same money that they would in a restaurant to buy a carafe of house wine.
Come on fellows; let’s all fess up as to who we are. Let’s divulge all our credentials since you are demanding mine. You know my name. I’d like to know yours. You have me at a disadvantage. It reminds me of the old Soviet Union. The kids used to turn in their politically dissident parents (me being the dissident parent) into the authorities with complete anonymity, another practice that we have adopted extensively in the world of American police and Obama web sites.
Yes, I have watched the Constitution raped first hand. That should answer why I am so passionate and refuse to yield. I want the American public to read what I wrote and decide for themselves. I know you would rather not because I am a “dishonest liar,” as you reproach behind your masks.
Bob, it was clear to see before you made your first post here that most of us do not use our real names and now you say this?
You placed yourself at this “disadvantage.”
Some advice, Bob. Take up writing fiction.
There’s a larger audience and you’re much better suited for it.
Thanks, Bob, that’s a very interesting story.
I have never once questioned your credentials (frankly, I don’t care about your previous adventures), I have limited my comments to your postings here at this site, not to what is in your book which I have not read. And I don’t care whether you or others publish under your real names or under pseudonyms, that is your choice.
I do care that you have continually refused to respond to one of the key points in your posts that native born and natural born meant different things to the Framers/Founders, even after being shown on more than one occasion that you are wrong.
Will you admit that you are wrong and that the Founding generation used both terms interchangeably to describe Presidential qualifications? If not how do you explain the writings of Tucker, Iredell and Kent?
My name is Chester Arthur. Some time ago I was president of the U.S.A. But one night, it was a cold and blustery night, I was abducted by Neptunians and my status as a NBC was removed from my right buttock.
Bob, my biography makes as much sense as yours and is just as believable.
Brevity, Bob. Brevity. It forces you to eliminate the b.s. and concentrate on what’s important. You might want to look into it.
Bob,
But here is the thing. The voters and Congress have already decided.
You are suggesting an extreme change in how all of us understand who is eligible to be President. You are suggesting that the only way that we will understand your reasoning is to pay for and plow through 1700 pages of your writing.
You also seem to think that members of Congress will pay for your book, in order to be convinced of something that none of them feel particularly interested in being convinced of.
I am all in favor of your right to say what you will and believe what you will. But I think your mission is beyond quixotic.
If your mission is to inform people, then charging them $12.00 and telling them that they have to read 1700 pages to understand what you are trying to say, then your mission is doomed.
And, Bob, I would like very much to tell you my name. Unfortunately, that is not possible for a number of legal and security reasons. I’m sure a guy who talks NDAs with Karl Rove and follows the Soviets into Czechoslovakia understands exactly where I am coming from. Perhaps some day when this war is over and we are both retired we can meet for drinks. You remember that cafe on the Quai du Mont Blanc in Geneva where all the people in our profession used to go? Of course you do. I’ll see you there.
Stay thirsty, my friend.
Yeah, pretty much every birther who comes here gets around to making such attacks when they realize they can’t win any legal arguments. Your problem is not your lack of credentials, it is you don’t appear to know what you are talking about. Almost everything you have said about law is wrong. You appear to have no understanding of American citizenship in the early republic and don’t understand the role of the Law of Nations. YOu claim to have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and only serve up weak conjecture that actually doesn’t even make sense. The bottom line is you don’t have a shred of evidence a single framer in the Convention shared your definition of NBC and to say otherwise makes you dishonest. And citing Stephen Tonchen approval isn’t going to impress anyone as he is another person who is pretty much is wrong on most everything he writes.
If you want anyone to spend time on your book, you need to do a much better job showing that there is something worth reading.
“I regret that we meet in this way. You and I are of a kind. In a different reality, I could have called you friend.” Balance of Terror
We’ll always have Paris.
I notice that, according to Bob’s definition of arrest, I have been “arrested” five times at the US-Canadian border. I particularly delight in the apparent fact that he believes being called in to be told he is cleared of any charges and getting his property returned counts as being arrested. While I question his terminology, I don’t question his account of his travel through Russia. He certainly comes across here as stupid as he sounds in his account of the trip.
I thought Paris didn’t exist until after 1840. 😉
I personally go to some length to hide who I am, in obvious and subtle ways, in large measure because I come from a large family of birthers, one of whom has threatened my life. In terms of the conversation here about this topic, it doesn’t matter who I am. Your stories are colorful, but I don’t actually care in terms of the topic at hand. It matters not to me whether or not any of it is true. I don’t even care if, say, you are actually C. Stanton, using the name Bob Gard to hide behind. I also don’t care if Scientist is a scientist or a precocious twelve year old girl who hates algebra.
You have something to sell. You need to reveal who you are to sell it. Sorry you are getting a lot of insults, but perhaps you should keep your eye on the big picture? You are getting more attention here than I can see you having gotten anywhere else.
I myself make no pretense of using what you say here to determine whether or not I will pay for your book. I have read through your website. I have read you here. I have listened to you on the Terry Lakin website. I have a library, and typically spend lots of money on books. I will not willingly increase your coffers one cent.
You are puzzled by what people spend their money on? Capitalism not working for you? This is how it works. You’ve got to sell. You’ve got to know your market. You’ve got to know your product. I suspect you don’t properly understand your own product, and its limitations, nor understand what kind of market buys such “hair tonic” without reading the ingredients.
See all those people on television shows talking about their books, basically giving away their ideas on national television? They sell more books than you do. Capitalism 101.
For someone more in your market, though I gather you may have hesitations, see Jerome Corsi. I have no doubt he fully comprehends his market. You made a decent start with the Terry Lakin radio interview, though I think the interviewer wanted more juice, less white noise. He seemed fairly gentle in steering you.
You need some World Net Daily love. Some Alex Jones affection. But if you think your work is better than that market, and believe you are the Doris Kearns Goodwin of the U.S. Constitution, my strong suspicion is you’re going to have a tough time making money, never mind getting people to read it, hear about it, or decide for themselves.
Bob, if you wrote your story well, you could probably be successful at selling your fictional tale of exploits in the Soviet Union. It would certainly be a larger market than your birther treatise. Think “Shantaram” but in Russia. I’d certainly want to read it. But you seem to be spewing it as a narrative here and trying to claim it is a true story. I don’t believe you. Since you already cost yourself any possible respect that I may have had for you, it doesn’t really matter that I don’t believe you. I think you should probably change your name, take a few community college writing classes, and write your spy novel. You’ve got a good idea, even if it is born from your own desperate fantasy. It could make a good novel. This is good advice. Take it or leave it.
James–I’m appalled! How can you suggest that Bob Gard take a community college class! Think about it . . . would you really want to inflict Bob on some poor unsuspecting community college English professor? And what about the other students in the class? Oh, the horror . . . the horror.
I for one haven’t questioned Bob’s stories of his adventures in other countries. I would note that he doesn’t seem to have been truly what I would call arrested or at least booked into prison in the USSR, but rather detained for fairly lengthy periods of time (e.g., all day). The whole Soviet experience sounds quite plausible to me.
I don’t think, however, from what I see, that Bob has really done his homework in the important areas. Nor do I think his methods are sound. A lot has been written by others on what “natural born citizen” means. The court cases that helped clarify its meaning have been thoroughly discussed. The Congressional Research Service published a very good review of the term’s legal history. There are tons of historical quotes out there, and an entire historical review. About the only “new” things I see from Bob (only one of which actually seems to be new) are:
1. He thinks he has “circumstantial” evidence that the Framers were referring to Vattel’s idea of citizenship.
2. He thinks he can “cast doubt on” our term “natural born citizen” originating from the highly similar term in English common law, “natural born subject,” and
3. He thinks he can “connect the dots” to imply that John Jay met with an Englishman and told him the “true,” secret meaning of “natural born citizen,” and that Englishman secretly and anonymously translated the London-published 1797 edition of Vattel’s Law of Nations.
Neither 1 or 2 are new at all. It’s beyond question by any serious observer that we got most of our legal terminology, and most of our legal framework, from our mother country England. Both Alexander Hamilton and the US Supreme Court, as I recall, have said we need to look to the English common law to understand terms used in the Constitution. The terms “natural born citizen” and “natural born subject” are virtually identical. So identical, in fact, that it’s simply inconceivable that anyone wanting to coin a new term that was DIFFERENT from “natural born subject” would NEVER have chosen anything so closely resembling that well-known term.
Specifically, anyone in 1787 who wanted to refer to Vattel’s idea of natives, or indigenes, would have certainly used one of those terms. The very LAST term on earth that they would have chosen to mean “native” or “indigene” would have been “natural born citizen.”
In fact, if they had meant “native” or “indigene,” then they would have said “native” or “indigene.”
The whole idea is just preposterous, like claiming to have some really good evidence that suggests that when the New Testament says that Jesus fed a large crowd of people with several loaves of bread and a couple of small fish, what it actually means is that Jesus fed the crowd with several loaves of bread and some barbecued pork chops. I mean, it’s really that clear.
You can rationally argue whether the feeding of the crowd was really the miracle described or not. But to argue that the writer of the New Testament meant “a bunch of barbecued pork chops” when he wrote the words “a few small fish” is beyond any credibility. Unless, of course, you have some hard, documentary evidence from the original sources of that period, that establishes beyond any doubt that there was a special Jesus-people slang, that when they said “a few small fish,” what they really meant was “a bunch of barbecued pork chops.”
That’s how it is with this term “natural born citizen.” There’s virtually no difference between “natural born citizen” and the very well known “natural born subject.” In fact, the two were used absolutely, 100% interchangeably in some instances in early America (a point which Bob has yet to respond to here).
All this has been talked about before, of course.
As far as I an see, point 3 seems to be the only really “new” thing of any significance that Bob brings to the table. As noted earlier, it doesn’t seem to be a claim he has the documentary evidence to support.
Far worse, even if he could establish his extremely doubtful claim that John Jay secretly meant “indigene” when he said “natural born citizen,” that still has no bearing at all on what the Framers of the Constitution meant by the term (Jay wasn’t even at the Convention!),or what the ratifiers of the Constitution understood by it.
No, I’m afraid the book doesn’t sound promising at all.
Uh, oh, busted!!
My honest advice to Bob is that 1722 pages is way too long for the birther audience, which is largely semi-literate, and he uses way too many words of >1 syllable. Frankly, birtherism is dead marketwise anyway, as Corsi found out with his last non-seller. Since the election no one cares. And really, why should they?
What Bob ought to do is rewrite the thing as a historical novel of John Jay’s time in London. That way, in an honest work of fiction, he can imagine conversations to his heart’s content. He could even introduce a half-African, half-British character named Barack who rises from humble beginnings as a barman’s assistant in a tavern to become the Prime Minister who leads Britain to victory over Napoleon.
If it were well written, I would consider buying it and wouldn’t care if any of it were true.
Sorry, make that:
Getting careless on the editing.
Are you sure? OK. The city in question was only called St Petersburg again after 1991. From 1924 until then it was Leningrad.
And you still haven’t told me where in the “Smithsonian Museum” vault Jay’s letter is reposing.
Scientist: The fact is that Mr Gard chose to come here in order to peddle his book and his ideas, which frankly, are neither new nor persuasive to any of us.
That is something over which I had zero control.
I note that the web site that you designed for Mr Gard has no place for readers to post comments, which I find rather unusual.
I agree that it would be very unusual, if true. You are welcome to visit the site’s Contact page and submit a comment. As in:
We welcome your feedback regarding this site’s content or Bob Gard’s eBook about Obama’s unconstitutional presidency.
You may also use this form when requesting permission to publish or cite content posted at this website or in the eBook.
Or contact the author online at Obobma@aol.com when seeking permission for reproductions.
We cordially invite your comments so long as they maintain an acceptable degree of decorum.
Thus, both you and he find it necessary to come here to debate your own book, and as noted, only did so after the book was completed, rather than soliciting up-front critiques, which is what someone truly interested in open inquiry would do.
Again, that is something over which I had no control. As I have mentioned before, I was brought in at the eleventh hour and did my best to ensure overall continuity, readability and quality in those chapters given me to work upon.
There are those who, for example make up quotes or pull a sentence totally out of context. To Mr Gard’s credit, he has not done that so far as I know.
Nor have I seen anything of the sort. I can assure you that Bob would be deeply ashamed if he had done anything such thing in the eBook.
Then there are those who ignore all sources that refute their conclusions. That, in my opinion as someone who has spent 30 years doing science, is also dishonest, and unfortunately, that is what Mr Gard does.
Permit me to suggest that you provide a list of contrary sources—preferably with chapter or page numbers—so that Bob might have a chance to review that material or, even note that he has already looked it over. This might be a splendid way of creating a more level playing field while the Doctor reads over the eBook. Again, all of this is up to Bob. I am just seeking to provide you with an honest reply.
Finally, on ad hominem arguments. Again, it is not black or white. In many cases these are unjustified. But, when someone puts forward that they have done x or y in life in order to boost their credibility on some unrelated topic, then they ought to be prepared to back their claims up. Mr Gard was the one who stated that he had been arrested 4 times in the Soviet Union.
I am unsure as to what possible evidence there is that might be provided. Perhaps a stamped passport page? However, I have visited Bob’s home numerous times and his vast collection of museum quality curios and art objects alone stands as solid proof of his world travels. Bob is one of the few people I know who is more widely traveled than myself. Again, I do not offer this up as any proof, merely an assurance that there is substance to his claims.
Thank you for a civil inquiry. I hope Bob will provide you with some answers.
The conversation seems to be turning to offering Bob some friendly advice on how he might succeed in publishing. I think most of us are agreed that a 1700-page book full of birther claims probably is not going to get him very far.
Personally, I would like to see Bob succeed by writing something much better founded than his current project. Yeah, he could probably do a bit better sales-wise with the birther audience by cutting the length of his current book drastically, but I must confess I don’t really want to see an ill-founded birther book “succeed.”
If he wants to write a good book on natural born citizenship (in the sense of being accurate and well-grounded in reality), then he needs to get away from the wild speculation and away from his preconceived pet theory, and do a lot of real research. But honestly, a realistic and truthful book on natural born citizenship isn’t going to draw much of an audience. Heck, even the abbreviated birther version probably isn’t going to sell that well at this point. Birtherism is dying on the vine. There are a few die-hards out there, but overall I think the level of interest is steadily fading.
Really, it sounds to me like Bob’s best bet of getting an audience would be to take his world traveling experience and use that as a background to write a fictional adventure novel of some kind set in some foreign country. Even that would take some really hard work, and some significant writing skill, some creativity, and some marketing persistence and expertise.
This is in answer to several people’s comments.
I am vehemently against affirmative action. I do wonder how much favoritism Obama was shown. I did have a 4.0 in high school and I was denied a partial scholarship due to my gender and race to the six Ivy League universities I applied to. That didn’t mean I didn’t study at other universities.
You don’t know what happpened in my living room when the recruiters from the Ivy League universities came to interview to me. They didn’t know what race I was. How could some of you possibly make such inane statements while inveighing at the same time that I don’t have the smoking-gun proofs that you demand of me. Their showing me the lists of minorities and the one gender to be awarded the partial scholarships was most likely their way of apologizing. They informed me their hands were tied. Some offered other reasons. All made bitter remarks about the federal policy. After all, they were all old white guys, right?
I know you will find it impossible to believe that I would have researched and written this eBook if McCain had won. He was an unconstitutional candidate too in my book.
I’m astounded by the incredible arrogance of some birthers who post here as guests on a private blog, advertise their sites or books for free and then make demands or try to impose rules on others as if they run the place.
I realize you are a novice at designing web sites. There is a difference between “Contact” which is a direct communication between the reader and the owner of the website and normally does not get posted on the site and the type of open “Comment” section that Doc has and virtually every other blog/website I am aware of has (Doc also has a “Contact” button up above where you can contact him privately). If Bob wants honest debate, then back-and-forth, one-on-one emails are not what is needed. An open forum where everyone can comment, within rules of decorum, is the route.
Besides I cannot comment on “Obama’s unconstitutional presidency” since no such thing exists, as I have explained to Bob at length and even got him to somewhat agree.
As far as Bob’s travels, I have said my piece. You can join us in Geneva too, if you want. Please consider my advice of readapting Bob’s book as a historical novel
That has been done on this thread time and again. Mr. Gard has chosen not to respond. But on the off chance that he has not seen them, here again is Mr. Gards comment and explicit contradictions from the Founders:
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague.” St. George Tucker 1803, “View of the Constitution of the United States with Selected Writings…”
“No man but a native, or who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen President.” James Iredell, Debates in the Convention of the State of North Carolina on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.
“The Constitution requires (a) that the President shall be a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and that he shall have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and shall have been fourteen years a resident within the United States. Considering the greatness of the trust, and that this department is the ultimately efficient executive power in government, these restrictions will not appear altogether useless or unimportant. As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot intrigue for the office, and the qualification of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany and Poland, as well as the pontificate at Rome.” James Kent, Commentries on American Law
BTW, let Mr. Gard know that I provided a link to all the Massachusetts Act of Naturalization (I understand he was having problems finding them). The links were posted on this thread on February 6, 2013 at 8:47 pm
“I do wonder how much favoritism Obama was shown.”
Statements like speak volumes about someone’s character, motives and integrity.
You don’t know what happened in London between John Jay and William Scott, yet you guessed, as did some here about your conversations. Since their guess, based on good circumstantial evidence from their own knowledge, was wrong (so you claim) you ought to admit that it is at least as likely that your guess about Jay’s conversations is wrong.
Sure Bob. Whatever life-lie you need to keep the home fires burning.
Really? These people want to make up requirements that appear no where in law or the constitution, they think they have the right to demand anything they want from our President, they call people trying to do their jobs liars and criminals, and they think everyone around should bow to their delusions. Why should this be any different?
Thank God he wasn’t elected president–think of all the trouble you’d have caused him.
Good point. I was too lazy to check on whether the name had been changed to St. Petersburg. I should have checked. It’s been well over forty years. I knew when I was inputting it, I might be wrong. Lenin’s statues were still quite popular then. I was there a few years ago too. The city was called St. Petersburg. The names of a number of cities I had visited previously had been changed. I was given a replica of some kind of medal given to survivors of the Siege of Leningrad by a survivor. The Russians wanted to promote goodwill. I am also too lazy to search the attic for it in order to identify it better.
The Smithsonian Museum’s vault is known only to me.
And you were in my living room.
Bob,
What I am wondering is whether you understand why people here (myself included) have asked smoking-gun proofs of you.
I can give you my own reason.
I have already read 50-page the Congressional Research Service paper on the legal meaning of “natural born citizen.” I’ve read the criticisms of that paper by those who claim Obama is ineligible. I’ve looked to see whether those criticisms were valid. I’ve read the major court cases that everyone talks about. I’ve read debates between birthers and those who disagree with them. I’ve read stuff at this site. I’ve read stuff at Mario Apuzzo’s site. I’ve read stuff at John Woodman’s site. I’ve read stuff by ballantine. I’ve read stuff at nbc’s site. I’ve read stuff at Leo Donofrio’s site. And I can tell you that the evidence that’s out there is overwhelmingly against your claim.
ballantine has told you that he can quote relevant authorities (a lot of them from early America) all day, all of whom say you’re wrong. He is not exaggerating. He has quoted a few of them in this thread. Like others who are wedded to the idea that it takes two citizen parents, you seem to have ignored the authorities he’s quoted.
What he’s quoted so far is only the tip of the iceberg.
The fact is, the legal and historical evidence is overwhelmingly against your claim. Since that’s the case, if you have a “smoking gun” of some real evidence to support your claims, then that would be of interest to me. It would also be of interest to others here, I’m sure.
But if all you have is speculation, built on, hey, John Jay was in England in 1794, and I know he had some meetings with Bill Scott, and I think I know what John Jay was thinking although I don’t have any record of it in his writings, and I would guess that John and Bill most likely talked about citizenship, and Bill Scott lived in London, so he could’ve written that anonymous translation of Vattel… well, you can see that against about a zillion hard quotes from early legal authorities that contradict your idea of what “natural born citizen” meant, all of your paperwork is kind of like pitting a high school B football team against the Ravens.
Or, to put it another way, if you expect to sink the legal and historical battleship of a vast amount of documentation as to what “natural born citizen” has always meant, legally and historically, you’re going to have to have a real and powerful torpedo to do it. You’re not going to sink that ship with a baseball bat, a BB gun, a pellet gun, or even a 12-gauge shotgun. Or even 1700 boy scouts, all armed with pellet guns.
That’s why you need, that’s why you HAVE to have a “smoking gun.” Because the evidence against your claim, even though you might not realize it because you haven’t read all the stuff a lot of people here have read, is a battleship and your book shows no signs of being anything stronger than a troop of boy scouts armed with pellet guns.
I mean, I kind of hate to be the bringer of bad news here. If you want people to believe in your claims, they’re out there. There are gullible people who want to believe that Mr. Obama is ineligible, who will undoubtedly happily accept anything that you say. Bill yourself as an expert, and they will proclaim you as one. But it’s going to be a hollow victory. Because for anyone who hasn’t started out really wanting to believe the premise, and who does the due diligence of really researching both sides of the issue, your claims (unless you’ve got something a lot better than what we’ve seen here) are not convincing against the massive amount of other evidence that is out there that contradicts those claims.
I know that’s going to be a disappointment to you. I’m sure this whole thread so far has been a bit of a disappointment. And I don’t like seeing people disappointed. But not every project succeeds. Maybe you can write a successful adventure novel.
Excellent point.
Yes. I was the recruiter.
As much as you were in the London dining room of John Jay.
Here for your next tome:
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F40C13FD3E59157493C2AB1788D85F408584F9
What strikes me is how many are now coming here to argue their points (no matter how bad they are) now that the birther sites are only allowing citizens of Birfastan to post on their sites…seems it’s not nearly as fun without the other side of the debate.
If I hadn’t found out about the meetings, then I would not have been able to make what I termed a small leap of faith. I did admit an estimated chance between 2% and 10% of being wrong. I gave an analogy that the likelihood of these two not discussing citizenship and subjectship, the crux of the prize and impressment problem, at their meetings, would be the same as two NFL Super-Bowl ring holders having a meeting and not discussing their Super Bowls, especially I might add here, if they were on a committe to discuss new rules. Yeah, there is a chance but miniscule. I also uncovered in Pellew’s book that Scott and Jay became friends and kept in touch afterwards with correspondence.
Withholding of evidence is no way to establish proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
C. Stanton, you can understand why we are skeptical of his claims on that.
We have heard claims like this before. We have heard people claim that they’re forensic experts in the field of computer forensics, only to find out that their only expertise is working in a Kinkos and running copiers for 20+ years with no formal education. We’ve heard about trips to Kenya from convicted forgers who then refuse to back up their claims with any sort of evidence other than a video that looks more like the Dominican Republic than Kenya. We’ve heard fantastical claims, only to find out time and time again that those fantastical claims are not true, so we’re a little cynical.
Now, we have someone who insists on the “Plain English” meaning of the constitution, and yet is claiming that instead of the plain English meaning of “Natural Born”, that we should disregard everything that would lead us to the “Plain English” meaning of the word, and instead adopt some Swiss philosopher who didn’t even use the term. He admits that he has no expertise in either International Law, citizenship law, nor even municipal law, and distrusts those who do. He then peddles that he’s an expert on “Natural Born Citizen” because he’s written a 1700 page book, and then tells us that 200+ years of legal analysis on the subject is wrong because John Jay supposedly had contact with someone who then anonymously translated a version of de Vattel 10 years after the Constitution was written, and that proves that the founders had meant to completely change the meaning of Natural Born from the Common English definition, to a definition that went completely against the Common English definition.
We’ve heard it all before. It’s not original, nor correct.
I do believe Bob made a joke. Way to go, Bob!
You must have me confused with someone else. I am quite certain that I have never voiced an opinion regarding “affirmative action.”
There you go. And you are right. I have been treated with more openness here than on some popular conservative sites. We agree on something. Liberals have scared the heck out of conservatives when it comes to birtherism and political correctness.
In a word, so?
That they met and may have been likely to discuss citizenship and the rest is not very relevant. Perhaps they had such discussion.
The big leap (not a small one, sorry) is that Jay then told Scott the definition of natural born citizen means two parents who are citizens, and that then that became the basis for Scott to use that term in a translation of Vattel (even if he was the one to write it).
The central necessity in your chain is the problem. Not the surrounding construction, whatever merits or demerits that construction may have.
As many have said here, where is the slightest indication that any of the founders ever considered two citizen parents as part of the definition of natural born citizen? You can’t sidestep that point, nor build distracting edifices around it. Given the actual evidence and record in existence, your leap here is immense, alpha centauri immense.
There is a 100% chance that you are wrong about native born and natural born. But of course you ignored that.
Here is some more historical stuff you can ignore in your next book:
http://tinyurl.com/b59h3wu
Here is an excerpt for you:
“The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, (it is, in fact,made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural—home-born—and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien—foreign-born—making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former.”
Two types of citizens natural and naturalized.
Like his dad said, don’t dish it out if you can’t take it. 😉
(and certainly don’t try to sell it for $12.95 either..)
Oh, I am failing…I was supposed to sit this one out…
If you were to read my book, I feel even you would stop to defend the belief that our political system was based on the British. Once you get over that hurdle, you might be ready to accept some of my conclusions. If you are interested in history, my eBook is almost all original history based on quotes in full context. I would like you to decide after you read my eBook. Are you a history buff? If you want a free copy, I’ll send you one. As Tonchen says, my eBook is a treasure trove of raw facts.
Really astounding that you think that is evidence. Yes, there was nothing else in all of public and municipal law to discuss but citizenship or subjectship. Actually, when I get together with other lawyers socially, the last thing we do is talk about law. And, of course, you don’t understand prize cases or impressment, as neither has anything to do with one’s native nationality. Prize cases were generally dependant upon domicile, not native citizenship. Impressment cases did not dispute one’s native citizenship or subjectship, but whether it could be changed and where it applied. The dispute between England and the United States was that England was violating black letter Public Law by impressing sailors in our territory and on our ships. We generally agreed they could impress our naturalized citizens if they were in England as such was the state of public law. I can’t believe you have conviced yourself that you have proof that two people ending up discussing the translation of one of the hundreds of thousands of words in Vattel’s treatise without a shred of evidence. To think that is circumstantial evidence is quite sad. A fingerprint is circumstantial evidence as it provides a necessary inference that the person was there. The fact two people met does not present any inference that they would talk about the translation of a single word in a huge text or about a single provision of the Constitution.
And, of course, if all means nothing unless you can prove that Jay told his definitions to the framers, which, of course, you can’t. Your arguments are worse than the sovereign citizens.
The number of comments on this article are now over 800, and the page creation times are becoming long and slowing down the blog. I am closing comments on this article.
I will be opening a new related article in a short time, titled “The Great Debate – kibitzer’s edition.”
Thank you for your patience.