The occasional open thread: Summertime edition

221 Responses to The occasional open thread: Summertime edition

1. richCares says:

   June 1, 2013 at 12:56 am  richCares(Quote)

   Zullo needs to raise money, he hasn’t got much from the birther crowd, so he will be selling his official clown car on ebay. Get your bids in.
2. donna says:

   June 1, 2013 at 1:11 pm  donna(Quote)

   “The Most Controversial Article In All Of English Wikipedia Is George W. Bush’s”

   in which

   “Wikipedia’s most controversial articles cover most of the subjects that engender controversy at the dinner table: religion, philosophy and politics.”

   “Americans are stuck in the past: the most controversial U.S. Wikipedia article is on George W. Bush. Czech Wikipedians are really interested in homosexuality; 3 of the top 10 most controversial articles deal with homosexuality. Unsurprisingly, Jesus causes controversy in most languages.”

   “The study includes some incredible graphics”

   and concludes “one of the study’s authors, Taha Yasseri, wrote that ‘these results could help Wikipedia and similar projects (which are already many, and growing) to be better designed.’ Yasseri and his partners also hope that this case study will help other social scientists to ‘understand more about human societies’.”

   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/controversial-wikipedia-articles_n_3367573.html
3. US Citizen says:

   June 1, 2013 at 8:41 pm  US Citizen(Quote)

   Take a look at this photo of Carl Gallups a few paragraphs down on this page:

   http://www.ppsimmons.blogspot.com/2013/06/law-men-and-elected-officials-shocked.html

   That man has either found his brand of hair coloring or is wearing a rug.
   Do the curtains match the doormat?
4. Majority Will says:

   June 2, 2013 at 1:22 pm  Majority Will(Quote)

   Cheerios commercial with mixed-race couple draws attention

   (excerpt) The Adweek article said that before the YouTube comments were disabled, it had “predictably…devolved into an endless flame war, with references to Nazis, ‘troglodytes’ and ‘racial genocide.'”

   http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500395_162-57587233/cheerios-commerical-with-mixed-race-couple-draws-attention/
5. Dave B. says:

   June 2, 2013 at 7:17 pm  Dave B.(Quote)

   I was revisiting the ocala.com article about Klayman’s latest grand jury mess, which Doc covered here:
   http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/05/the-third-alternative/
   and a particularly nutty all-caps commenter led me to this:
   http://michigancommonlaw.com/forumz/showthread.php?p=166
   Somebody must be trying to help the Postal Service out.
6. donna says:

   June 2, 2013 at 11:33 pm  donna(Quote)

   fox asks ted cruz about his eligibility – cruz says he’s an american citizen because his mother is american – no follow-up about his “natural born” status – “shocking” that there were no questions about vattel and the 2-parent “requirement”

   caption under the video on ORYR “but not a ‘natural born citizen’ as required to be POTUS”

   http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/06/fox-news-us-senator-ted-cruz-attempts.html
7. Keith says:

   June 3, 2013 at 1:24 am  Keith(Quote)

   donna:
   fox asks ted cruz about his eligibility – cruz says he’s an american citizen because his mother is american – no follow-up about his “natural born” status – “shocking” that there were no questions about vattel and the 2-parent “requirement”

   caption under the video on ORYR “but not a ‘natural born citizen’ as required to be POTUS”

   http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/06/fox-news-us-senator-ted-cruz-attempts.html

   To their credit, Faux News has never been on the birther bandwagon.
8. bovril says:

   June 3, 2013 at 3:55 am  bovril(Quote)

   @Keith

   Not…..wholly……accurate

   Faux news has over the years been very Birfoon friendly, even enabling over the years, particularly when it came to Donnie Combover and his insane stupidity.

   Now, as far as the deluded of Freak Rethuglic, the likes of Butterdezillion, Edge919, DiogenesLamp, ColdCasePosseSupporter, RedSteel etc are concened, Faux is ebil and lieberal and spawn of satan for not going full on Birfoon…except of course when they make up ODS shit.
9. Majority Will says:

   June 3, 2013 at 9:37 am  Majority Will(Quote)

   Keith: To their credit, Faux News has never been on the birther bandwagon.

   I hope you were being sarcastic.

   “Fox News Goes Full Birther”

   April 20, 2011

   “Following Donald Trump’s lead, Fox News figures have recently embraced or promoted aspects of the birther conspiracy theory by falsely claiming that President Obama has not produced his birth certificate, or by hosting birthers to hype their discredited theories unchallenged.”

   Numerous examples cited: http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/04/20/fox-news-goes-full-birther/178860

   “Hannity Pimps New “Birther” Theory”
   August 08, 2012
   http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/hannity-pimps-new-birther-theory-0

   And this brilliant example of hypocrisy:

   “Hannity Runs Interference On Any Birther Issues For Sen. Ted Cruz”
   March 19, 2013

   (excerpt) During his suck-up interview with Senator Ted Cruz last night, Sean Hannity made a point of assuring viewers that the Canadian-born Cruz has no birther problem should he decide to run for president. Which would be of no interest had Hannity not done his best to attack American-born President Obama’s citizenship on far flimsier grounds.

   Unlike President Obama, Senator Cruz was not born in the U.S.A. But also unlike Obama, Fox has bent over backwards to eradicate any birther concerns by pointing out that Cruz’ mother was born and raised in the United States. So was President Obama’s mother. But that didn’t stop Fox from endlessly promoting bogus questions about Obama’s birth certificate. Sean Hannity, in particular, hyped the phony controversy. So it was especially and hilariously hypocritical of him to pro-actively assure his viewers last night that despite Cruz’ foreign birth, there is no doubt he is eligible to be president – and no need to even bring up a birth certificate!

   . . . However, Hannity was not to be deterred. “Alright, but your mother was a U.S. citizen, just to clarify,” he continued. When Cruz verified that, Hannity added, “I hear birther cries building on the left if you ever do run, so…”

   http://www.newshounds.us/hannity_runs_interference_on_any_birther_issues_for_sen_ted_cruz_03192013
10. donna says:

    June 3, 2013 at 10:23 am  donna(Quote)

    Keith: To their credit, Faux News has never been on the birther bandwagon.

    IMO, the ONLY reason fox does not reside in birtherstan is that their “word doctor”, frank luntz, probably doesn’t think it plays well with their audience ….. not like benghazi 24/7, impeachment, IRS, etc …………. their red meat

    the fox geezers probably lose interest getting into “vattel” (who the heck is that?), 2 american parents (huh?), natural born/native born (what’s the dif?), forgery (obama couldn’t get a good forger?), african v negro v african american (black?), etc

    and there’s a fox interview of one of obama’s classmates:

    Obama Classmate Dishes to Fox News

    http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2013/01/04/obama-classmate-dishes-fox-news
11. JPotter says:

    June 3, 2013 at 11:11 am  JPotter(Quote)

    Keith: To their credit, Faux News has never been on the birther bandwagon.

    Whaaaaaat? You don’t recall the glorious pre-LFBC days when they would trot out Corsi and Mustache Joe as semi-regular guests? Their various “opinion” shows would have them as guests, they would inevitably birf, and the FOX talking head would play it down.

    The day the LFBC was released, FOX went full PDF madness for at least the first day, then quickly drop the whole thing like the loser it was.

    And, oh, how the birfers did howl. They cried “Never watching FOX again” all summer long. Yeah, just like when they swear they’re never shopping at Wal-Mart again.
12. donna says:

    June 3, 2013 at 11:50 am  donna(Quote)

    an interesting article “Tea Party group boycotting Fox News for becoming ‘too liberal’”

    A number of Tea Party activists are turning their back on Fox News, claiming the news network is becoming too liberal. According to The Daily Beast, disgruntled conservatives are boycotting the right-leaning news network, their second such action.

    “Particularly after the election, Fox keeps turning to the left,” said 70-year-old Stan Hjerlied to the Beast. After the network dropped its obsessive focus on the raid on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and Fox News CEO Roger Ailes gave an interview in which he said the Republican Party needs to retool its message on immigration, Hjerlied believes that “we are really losing our only conservative network.”

    “If I want news, I go to Breitbart News and Drudge and I can find all the news I need, very quickly,” he said, noting that since the first boycott, he has all but “kicked” the Fox News “habit” for good. “I used to have it on all day long, and I probably watched maybe six hours last week,” he said. “The more I looked at it, I have come to the conclusion that Fox is not as fair and balanced as I thought. They shade the truth also.”

    Boycotters have listed their agenda, that Fox become “the right-wing CBS News: to break stories, to break information, and to do what news organizations have always done with such stories: break politicians.” They have also demanded that the network feature ”at least one segment on Benghazi every night on two of its prime-time shows; that Fox similarly devote investigative resources to discovering the TRUTH of Obama’s BIRTH CERTIFICATE; and that the network cease striving to be ‘fair and balanced.’”(emphasis mine)

    “We need Fox to turn right,” Hjerlied said. “We think this is a coverup and Fox is aiding and abetting it. This is the way Hitler started taking over Germany, by managing and manipulating the news media.”

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/23/tea-party-group-boycotting-fox-news-for-becoming-too-liberal/
13. The Magic M says:

    June 3, 2013 at 11:58 am  The Magic M(Quote)

    donna: They have also demanded that […] the network cease striving to be ‘fair and balanced.’

    Well, it looks like they’re more and more open about what they *really* want.

    2 years ago, they would’ve claimed Fox isn’t “fair and balanced” because they dare to ignore the wingnuts, now they’re openly admitting that fairness and balance isn’t what they’re after.

    And they have the audacity to invoke Hitler as a comparison when in fact it’s them who openly favour biased and one-sided “news” that only favour a single political agenda.
14. JPotter says:

    June 3, 2013 at 2:11 pm  JPotter(Quote)

    donna: an interesting article “Tea Party group boycotting Fox News for becoming ‘too liberal’”

    Not surprised to see that the Tea Party doesn’t grasp that movement is relative. As the TPers burrow in deeper, continue to doubling down, of course it appears to them that stationary FOX is drifting left while the TP keeps redoubling to the right. To them, he entire universe would appear to be going left 😀
15. Arthur says:

    June 3, 2013 at 2:19 pm  Arthur(Quote)

    Did you see this article based on a 95-page report by the College National Republican Committee? It concerns a study of 18 to 29 year olds and how they perceive the GOP.

    “A new report out from the national ‘College Republicans’ has blistering news about the party’s standing among young voters. From the report: “In the focus group research conducted in January 2013, the young ‘winnable’ Obama voters were asked to say what words came to mind when they heard ‘Republican Party.’ The responses were brutal: closed-minded, racist, rigid, old-fashioned.”

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/06/gop-report-young-voters.php?ref=fpa

    A perfect description of birthers, too.
16. misha marinsky says:

    June 3, 2013 at 3:29 pm  misha marinsky(Quote)

    Arthur: in January 2013, the young ‘winnable’ Obama voters were asked to say what words came to mind when they heard ‘Republican Party.’ The responses were brutal: closed-minded, racist, rigid, old-fashioned.”

    I knew Obama would win, 2 days before the election.

    I went out with Angel, at 10 AM. As I started down the sidewalk, a couple walked towards me. They were both white, mid-twenties, impeccably dressed and carrying Starbucks cups. Each had a large Obama button.

    Philly is 80% registered Democrats.
17. misha marinsky says:

    June 3, 2013 at 3:31 pm  misha marinsky(Quote)

    And now it’s Borscht Belt time:

    Rapoport hands his wife two aspirins and a glass of water.

    She asks, “What’s this for? I don’t have a headache.”

    He says, “Good, let’s make love.”
18. Majority Will says:

    June 3, 2013 at 4:05 pm  Majority Will(Quote)

    “The birth certificate is reborn!”

    “London based creative design agency IWANT gives the all-important document a visually playful redesign for the digital age.”

    http://www.creativebloq.com/illustration/birth-certificate-reborn-5133129
19. BatGuano says:

    June 3, 2013 at 4:29 pm  BatGuano(Quote)

    from orly to the birthers:

    “Are you going to allow all of these people to use you as complete morons?”
20. misha marinsky says:

    June 3, 2013 at 6:24 pm  misha marinsky(Quote)

    BatGuano: from orly to the birthers:

    “Are you going to allow all of these people to use you as complete morons?”

    “What kind of fool do you take me for?”

    “First class.”
21. misha marinsky says:

    June 3, 2013 at 6:26 pm  misha marinsky(Quote)

    Majority Will: “The birth certificate is reborn!”

    “London based creative design agency IWANT gives the all-important document a visually playful redesign for the digital age.”

    http://www.creativebloq.com/illustration/birth-certificate-reborn-5133129

    Don’t forget my famous birth certificate:

    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2009/09/another-kenyan-birth-certificate.html
22. misha marinsky says:

    June 4, 2013 at 2:25 am  misha marinsky(Quote)

    Libertarian calls 911:

    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2013/06/libertarian-calls-911.html
23. ZixiOfIx says:

    June 4, 2013 at 4:49 am  ZixiOfIx(Quote)

    The birther world suffered two setbacks this week.

    The important birther downfall news is the firing of radio announcer and birther Peter Boyles, of KHOU, 530 Denver. Boyles interviewed pretty much every well-known birther on his show, and sometimes seemed obsessed with the subject.

    He apparently got into a scuffle with the show’s producer, who was said to have red marks on his neck in the aftermath.

    Peter Boyles in “heated exchange” with producer at KHOW Radio, Denver Post, May 24th, 2013

    and was subsequently let go today:

    Peter Boyles, radio show host, no longer with KHOW

    The minor birther loss was an invective-flinging birther who posted frequently on Free Republic, and who went by the name of MHGinTN. This person liked to accuse non-believers of all sorts of nasty things, and seemed hung up on President Obama’s parentage, frequently slinging churlish insults about “Little Barry b*st*rd boy”

    He/she met his/her end after saying, “Still wearing those barry kneepads I see … obamadrones are so predictable”, then following up with a comment which was removed.

    See the exchange here, comments 13 & 20. Clicking on the screen name leads to a “This account has been banned or suspended”.
    BREAKING! Mike Zullo: NOTHING Can Stop Us Now – exclusive interview (6-1-13)
24. misha marinsky says:

    June 4, 2013 at 5:56 am  misha marinsky(Quote)

    Borscht Belt time II:

    A traveler arrives in a shtetl and orders trousers from a Jewish tailor; when the traveler has to leave, they are not yet ready. Seven years later, he returns, and the tailor finally delivers.

    The customer remonstrates, “God made the world in seven days, yet you take seven years to make a pair of trousers?!” “Yes, but look at the world,” the tailor ruefully replies. “And,” he beams, “look at my trousers.”
25. misha marinsky says:

    June 4, 2013 at 6:10 am  misha marinsky(Quote)

    ZixiOfIx: The important birther downfall news is the firing of radio announcer and birther Peter Boyles, of KHOU, 530 Denver.

    It’s AM radio. That band is sooo 1960.
26. donna says:

    June 4, 2013 at 8:32 pm  donna(Quote)

    Colorado ‘birther’ radio host loses job after assaulting producer

    A controversial Colorado “birther” radio host has lost his job after an in-studio brawl with a longtime associate and producer. According to Denver’s Channel 9 News, Peter Boyles was fired by KHOW in the wake of a “heated physical exchange” with producer Greg Hollenback.

    What sparked the fight is unknown, but it reportedly took place on May 23, mere minutes after U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) visited the studio to announce on Boyles’ show that he is seeking the Colorado governorship in 2014. Moments later the melee erupted and Boyles was observed “throttling” his friend and coworker of 20 years.

    Other witness reported seeing angry red marks on Hollanbeck’s neck after the attack.

    Raw Story readers may remember Boyles for the billboards he helped erect in Denver accusing President Barack Obama of being in cahoots with Nidal Hassan, the former U.S. Army major who killed 13 and wounded 32 in a shooting rampage at Ft. Hood Army Base in Texas. Boyles also supported a number of billboards and signs in the Denver area demanding to know “Where’s the birth certificate?”, insinuating that Obama was born abroad and is working to undermine the U.S. from within the government.

    In September of 2012, Boyles joined in speculation that the president is secretly gay, running the headline, “Some People Think Barack Obama is a Homosexual,” which the KHOW station website later scrubbed.

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/04/colorado-birther-radio-host-loses-job-after-assaulting-producer/
27. Rickey says:

    June 4, 2013 at 9:17 pm  Rickey(Quote)

    donna:
    Colorado ‘birther’ radio host loses job after assaulting producer

    A controversial Colorado “birther” radio host has lost his job after an in-studio brawl with a longtime associate and producer. According to Denver’s Channel 9 News, Peter Boyles was fired by KHOW in the wake of a “heated physical exchange” with producer Greg Hollenback.

    I actually was a guest on Boyles’ show once back in 1985. His show, which in those days was on KOA, was not particularly controversial. In fact, he was a close friend of Allen Berg, a KOA host who was gunned down by white supremacists in 1984. Berg was a liberal who would have been appalled at Boyles embracing the birthers.
28. donna says:

    June 4, 2013 at 10:29 pm  donna(Quote)

    Rickey:

    thanks for sharing your personal story

    as an aside, former Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) is moving closer to publishing his first book.

    Then came the Obama reference:

    The prankster in me thought about naming the book, “Dreams from my American Father”…but you all will just have to wait for official release from our publisher.
29. Monkey Boy says:

    June 5, 2013 at 3:01 am  Monkey Boy(Quote)

    Rickey
    :….
    Berg was a liberal who would have been appalled at Boyles embracing the birthers.

    Talk radio is a jungle, and if you want to do it and still pay the mortgage and put Cherios on the table, you have to attract a fervent and loyal listenership. If you are bland, you simply won’t attract a persistent audience–like nobody willingly listens to Muzak for very long.

    The most faithful audience out there are the crazies, and you can only attract them by saying crazy stuff to validate their craziness. Ergo, Herman Cain, Michael Weiner, et al.
30. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    June 5, 2013 at 8:47 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

    Here’s the local news report video:

    http://bcove.me/1s05vmrl

    donna: Colorado ‘birther’ radio host loses job after assaulting producer
31. donna says:

    June 5, 2013 at 1:57 pm  donna(Quote)

    WOW from taitz:

    that’s it! I’d rather vote for Ted Cruz born in Canada to a Cuban citizen father for the U.S. Pres than for Mr. Crispie Cream, who had a chance to do something positive for his country and state, yet he chose to serve his personal interests first

    He could staple his stomach, but he cannot staple his reputation and integrity which were shred into pieces!

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=423566
32. misha marinsky says:

    June 5, 2013 at 3:46 pm  misha marinsky(Quote)

    I was thrown out of a Cricket Wireless store, along with Angel:

    http://cricketwirelesssucks.tumblr.com/
33. Majority Will says:

    June 5, 2013 at 4:04 pm  Majority Will(Quote)

    misha marinsky:
    I was thrown out of a Cricket Wireless store, along with Angel:

    http://cricketwirelesssucks.tumblr.com/

    Tell a local TV station.
34. misha marinsky says:

    June 5, 2013 at 9:31 pm  misha marinsky(Quote)

    “It really pains me to say that but I see no other conclusion one can draw.

    –Redd D, Kilowatt”

    Here is Redd D. Kilowatt in person: http://www.portlines.com/REDDY-KILOWATT.gif
35. Dave B. says:

    June 5, 2013 at 10:03 pm  Dave B.(Quote)

    IMPOSTOR! No, that’s not my old friend, Reddy Kilowatt. We go way back. I was just showing somebody a picture of Reddy, my hog and me from the State Fair when I was sixteen years old. Reddy would never descend to such depths.

    misha marinsky:
    “It really pains me to say that but I see no other conclusion one can draw.

    –Redd D, Kilowatt”

    Here is Redd D. Kilowatt in person: http://www.portlines.com/REDDY-KILOWATT.gif
36. Dave says:

    June 6, 2013 at 10:38 am  Dave(Quote)

    I’m starting to get the feeling that the Reed Hayes report that Zullo was talking about is never going to actually appear.
37. GLaB says:

    June 6, 2013 at 6:38 pm  GLaB(Quote)

    The mental stability of birthers is questioned here from time to time… okay, from minute to minute, realistically. I’m not a fan of pop psychology myself, but …

    Peter Boyles, Colorado ‘Birther’ Radio Host, Out At KHOW After Reportedly Assaulting Producer

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/05/peter-boyles-out-khow-radio_n_3391825.html?utm_hp_ref=denver
38. donna says:

    June 8, 2013 at 9:39 am  donna(Quote)

    is anyone here on “the list”?

    “People exposing the truth about Benghazi, killing the U.S. Dollar, even those questioning Obama?s legal status and eligibility to be President are the current targets.”

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/55749
39. Majority Will says:

    June 8, 2013 at 9:46 am  Majority Will(Quote)

    He’s a good example of a paranoid lunatic trying to incite a lone wolf into violence.

    donna:
    is anyone here on “the list”?

    “People exposing the truth about Benghazi, killing the U.S. Dollar, even those questioning Obama?s legal status and eligibility to be President are the current targets.”

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/55749
40. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:

    June 8, 2013 at 9:51 am  Andrew Vrba, PmG(Quote)

    So, apparently Orly is angry that the judge didn’t like how she “redacted” her latest poopies. He told her that the redacted numbers were still very visible. She screeches something along the lines of “I used a pen! Well what else am I supposed to use?!”
    Apparently she’s not privy to the fact that the black marker has been the gold standard for redacting things on paper for several decades.
41. John Reilly says:

    June 8, 2013 at 10:33 am  John Reilly(Quote)

    I have read Judge Lambreth’s order through The Fogbow. I don’t have a link which I can post, but, hopefully, Doc will post the order because Dr. Taitz is not going to do that.

    Judge Lambreth points out that the redaction of the numbers is badly done, so that what was “redacted” can be plainly seen. In addition, in one case, rather than redact the first numbers, she redacts, so that even if he could not read through her redactions you could assemble the complete number.

    Dr. Taitz says she will re-submit with proper redactions, and is reporting on her blog:

    “So, the court will have the new packet redacted with black marker tomorrow. So, tomorrow they will have no more excuses. Judge Lamberth will have to order release of Harrison J. Bounel’s CT SSN 042-68-4425 under SSA 120 year rule, the whole nation will see that we have a criminal with a stolen Social Security number sitting in the White House and Obama will be out and facing criminal charges for identity theft. Even Arpaio in one of his interviews in regards to arrest of Mexicans using stolen SSNs, stated that stealing a Social Security number is an identity theft and a class 4 felony.”

    Dr. Taitz assumes that Judge Lambreth must put in his order all of the things wrong with her papers at one time or the objection is waived. I’m fairly confident the Judge will disabuse her of that notion. If I recall correctly, Social Security reports that the number belongs to a living person and thus information about it cannot be disclosed. And that does not even deal with any legal defects in te motion, which I leave to the lawyers here to parse.
42. donna says:

    June 8, 2013 at 10:46 am  donna(Quote)

    DC – Taitz v Astrue – Order denied

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/dc-taitz-v-astrue-order-denied/#more-43709
43. Thinker says:

    June 8, 2013 at 11:14 am  Thinker(Quote)

    After Judge Lamberth wrote his “toying with the court or displaying her own stupidity” order in this case, she STILL failed to properly redact all the SSNs in the very next document she submitted in this case. There is not a chance that she will properly redact every SSN in her resubmission.
44. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:

    June 8, 2013 at 11:18 am  Andrew Vrba, PmG(Quote)

    I wish someone would redact her license to practice law already!
45. donna says:

    June 8, 2013 at 11:46 am  donna(Quote)

    taitz has been warned for years now – IMO, many of those social security numbers were of staffers who opened campaign offices around the country in obama’s name with the staffers’ social security numbers

    por ejemplo:

    OBAMA, BARACK
    Gender – MaleStreet Address –
    355 POMELO AVECity, State, Zip –
    BREA CA 92821-4129
    Probable Current Address – No
    Telephone –
    Telephone Accountholder –
    Social Security – 537-36-xxxx
    Age –Date of Birth –Deceased – NoDate
    Record Verified – Oct 08 – Dec 08

    Name – OBAMA, BARACK
    Street Address – 3535 OLIVE ST City,
    State, Zip – DENVER CO 80207-1523
    Probable Current Address – No
    Telephone – 720-336-7722 – MST
    Telephone Accountholder –
    Social Security – 456-73-xxxx
    Age –Date of Birth –Deceased – NoDate
    Record Verified – Sep 08

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/31453666/Neil-Sankey-Barack-Hussein-Obama-et-al-Addresses-Social-Security-Numbers

    June 4, 2013 Licensed Investigator Neil Sankey Responds To Team Arpaio Obama SSN Statements

    I certainly stand by my original list which, incidentally was originally formulated in 2008, long before the first coronation. The original list, as constructed was much longer, in fact, over two hundred names, bits of names and addresses and bits of addresses. I eventually put the list out, in refined and somewhat verified form through Orly, who uses it still in her cases, as an exhibit. I have not tried to interpret the cause of the list, that would be futile. But, because of factors, of which we are aware the list displays, to an experienced investigator if no-one else, the extreme need for a detailed and thorough investigation.

    etc

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/06/licensed-investigator-neil-sankey.html
46. donna says:

    June 8, 2013 at 1:16 pm  donna(Quote)

    Club Of Rich, Powerful Meet In Secret Near London

    It’s a busy weekend at the luxury Grove Hotel, favored haunt of British soccer players and their glitz-loving spouses.

    More than 100 of the world’s most powerful people are at the former manor house near London for a secretive annual gathering that has attained legendary status in the eyes of anti-capitalist protesters and conspiracy theorists.

    When 130 of the leaders from all across the West get together, and many of these are billionaires, they are people who are immensely wealthy and immensely powerful,” said Michael Meacher, a lawmaker from Britain’s Labour Party.

    �”And when they all get together, it’s not just to have a chat about the latest problem, it is to concert plans for the future of capitalism in the West. That is on a very different scale.”

    Others go even further, putting Bilderberg at the heart of a global web of conspiracy. The protesters in Watford include U.S. talk-radio host and Sept. 11 “truther” Alex Jones, and former professional soccer player David Icke, who believes the world is run by a race of reptiles in human form.

    Judd Charlton, a ventriloquist from London who showed up Thursday to jeer at cars with blacked-out windows entering the hotel compound.

    “We are basically here to bring down the parasites who are drug dealers and bank collapsers who seem to want to destroy this world,” he said.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=189476474
47. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:

    June 8, 2013 at 5:26 pm  Andrew Vrba, PmG(Quote)

    *facepalm*
    Now she’s asking her cavity creeps to proof-read her work. http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=424091
    She’s like that lawyer that the late great Phil Hartman voiced, on early seasons of the Simpsons.
    I also get the feeling that she’s the DDS equivalent of Dr. Nick.
48. Rickey says:

    June 8, 2013 at 10:09 pm  Rickey(Quote)

    donna:
    (Quoting Sankey) I eventually put the list out, in refined and somewhat verified form

    “Somewhat verified” is like being “somewhat pregnant.” Sankey has cleaned up his original list, but at least 25 of the addresses on his current list are non-existent:

    3 MULTIPLE ST
    DENVER CO 80207

    123 WHITE HOUSE
    IRVINE CA 92618

    40 TRANSFER ST
    DENVER CO 80207

    15 A 1A
    MANALAPAN FL 33462

    APPLE ST
    MELBOURNE FL 32940

    567 WESTLY N
    MOUNT PROSPECT IL 60056

    123 MAIN ST
    LANSING MI 48910

    83775 BATES RD
    JACKSON NJ 08527

    123 MAIN ST
    CHARLESTON SC 29464 (29464 is the Zip Code for Mount Pleasant, SC)

    435 DALLAS AVE
    LANCASTER TX 75146

    OBAMA LN (Seriously?)
    FRANKLIN WI 53132

    N 1N
    CHICAGO IL 60615

    54501 SE VW
    CHICAGO IL 60615

    1009 DIGITAL HWY
    LOS ANGELES CA 90045

    1680 VIDEO DR
    LOS ANGELES CA 90045

    22 SCOTT RD
    SOUTHINGTON CT 06489

    1234 HAPPY ST SE
    COVINGTON WA 98042

    1313 LANE
    BOCA RATON FL 33433

    1234 MAIN
    ATTICA NY 14011

    123 MAIN ST
    COLUMBUS OH 43207

    123 MAIN ST
    NORTH CHICAGO IL 60064

    123 MOHEGAN AVE
    NORTH BRANFORD CT 06471

    5719 N CANAL # 4
    SPOKANE WA 99216

    3112 1 2 ST
    SAINT AUGUSTINE FL 32080

    WHITE HOUSE
    BALTIMORE MD 21454
49. misha marinsky says:

    June 9, 2013 at 1:56 am  misha marinsky(Quote)

    Orly mentioned me in one of her posts, http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=424073 , but she got the address wrong. Here is my story:

    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2012/11/obama-i-am-suing-orly-taitz.html
50. Keith says:

    June 9, 2013 at 3:13 am  Keith(Quote)

    Some random Jefferson quotes that I ran across while trying to find something else:

    The proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right.
    — Thomas Jefferson, “Statute for Religious Freedom,” 1779. Papers, 2:546

    The declaration that religious faith shall be unpunished does not give immunity to criminal acts dictated by religious error.
    — Thomas Jefferson, to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:98

    Whatsoever is lawful in the Commonwealth or permitted to the subject in the ordinary way cannot be forbidden to him for religious uses; and whatsoever is prejudicial to the Commonwealth in their ordinary uses and, therefore, prohibited by the laws, ought not to be permitted to churches in their sacred rites. For instance, it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children. It is ordinarily lawful (or temporarily lawful) to kill calves or lambs; they may, therefore, be religiously sacrificed. But if the good of the State required a temporary suspension of killing lambs, as during a siege, sacrifices of them may then be rightfully suspended also. This is the true extent of toleration.
    — Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers, 1:547

    … the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced or knew that such a character existed.
    — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Major John Cartwright, June 5, 1824 (see Positive Atheism’s Historical section)

    Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.
    — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814, responding to the claim that Chritianity was part of the Common Law of England, as the United States Constitution defaults to the Common Law regarding matters that it does not address. This argument is still used today by “Christian Nation” revisionists who do not admit to having read Thomas Jefferson’s thorough research of this matter.

    For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement of England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of the Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law … This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first Christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it … That system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians.
    — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814, responding to the claim that Chritianity was part of the Common Law of England, as the United States Constitution defaults to the Common Law regarding matters that it does not address. This argument is still used today by “Christian Nation” revisionists who do not admit to having read Thomas Jefferson’s thorough research of this matter.

    The clergy … [wishing to establish their particular form of Christianity] … believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.
    — Thomas Jefferson, to Benjamin Rush, 1800. ME 10:173 (capitalization of the word god is retained per original (see inset); see full letter in Positive Atheism’s Historical section)

    History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.” –Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813. ME 14:21

    Ah… I finally found what I was looking for:

    “Whenever… preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science.” –Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:281
51. Northland10 says:

    June 9, 2013 at 6:50 am  Northland10(Quote)

    donna: taitz has been warned for years now – IMO, many of those social security numbers were of staffers who opened campaign offices around the country in obama’s name with the staffers’ social security numbers

    There are many that start with 364. That is most likely Friends of Barack Obama who had an EIN with the very same starting numbers. Many Illinois companies have an EIN staring in 36 (a simple check of my W-2s confirms this).
52. nbc says:

    June 9, 2013 at 5:04 pm  nbc(Quote)

    Eligibiity and judicial review.

    Following the logic in Missouri v. Andriano, 138 US 496 – Supreme Court 1891, I come to the conclusion that only when Congress rules against eligibility that such a ruling can be heard by the courts.

    So, decisions on eligibility by Congress can only be reviewed if the Congress denies the right or privilege.

    Here is clearly a right or privilege claimed by respondent under a statute of the United States within the meaning of Rev. Stat. sec. 709, and had the judgment of the Supreme Court of Missouri been adverse to his claim, there could be no doubt of his right to a writ of error from this court to review its ruling. It is insisted, however, that the relator has no right to a review of the ruling in favor of respondent, as he claimed no right or privilege personal to himself or to his own status as a citizen, from such statute. The question thus presented is, whether the right or privilege must necessarily be personal to the plaintiff in error, or whether he is not entitled to a review where such right or privilege is asserted by his opponent, and the decision is in favor of such opponent and adverse to himself. While there is some force in the argument that the right of review in cases involving the construction of a federal statute should be mutual, the act limits such right to cases where the state court has decided against the title, right, privilege or immunity set up or claimed under the statute. Now, the only claim made under the federal statute in this case is by the respondent. The difficulty with the position of the relator is that he asserts no right under the statute, but, to establish the alleged alienage of the respondent, relies solely upon the fact that the latter was born abroad. To this, respondent replies, admitting his foreign birth, but claiming that the statute makes him a citizen, and the state court has adopted his view.

    However, the court ruling remains unclear as to the extent state courts can rule on these issue and when the Scotus can review.
53. nbc says:

    June 9, 2013 at 5:10 pm  nbc(Quote)

    The ruling also destroys further, the hopes of those trying to use Quo Warranto against our President. And even the runner up, Mitt Romney could not apply to the courts for relief.
54. nbc says:

    June 9, 2013 at 5:12 pm  nbc(Quote)

    Oh and the court in Boyd v. Nebraska ex rel. Thayer, 143 US 135 – Supreme Court 1892, citing the Missouri Ruling also ruled that

    Naturalization is the act of adopting a foreigner, and clothing him with the privileges of a native citizen, and relator’s position is that such adoption has neither been sought nor obtained by respondent under the acts of Congress in that behalf.

    Since without an act, a child born abroad to US children would be an alien, I believe the Court reiterated that they become such under the naturalization powers of Congress.
55. donna says:

    June 9, 2013 at 5:44 pm  donna(Quote)

    “major” news: ‘Impeach Obama’ Demonstration on I-5 Overpass Snarls Southbound Traffic

    http://carlsbad.patch.com/groups/around-town/p/impeach-obama-demonstration-on-i5-overpass-snarls-southbound-traffic
56. Majority Will says:

    June 9, 2013 at 6:29 pm  Majority Will(Quote)

    donna:
    “major” news: ‘Impeach Obama’ Demonstration on I-5 Overpass Snarls Southbound Traffic

    http://carlsbad.patch.com/groups/around-town/p/impeach-obama-demonstration-on-i5-overpass-snarls-southbound-traffic

    “It is not even clear that he is eligible for the office he holds.”
    – Roger Ogden, a Tea Party activist and advocate of impeachment

    Just another birther bigot moron.

    And in the comments:
    “There is no better use of a citizen’s time than to rattle the population out of their slumber and force awareness on government corruption.”

    – borderraven, a prolific and bloated birther bigot who stalks teenage girls with his camera and lives on a government pension.
57. donna says:

    June 9, 2013 at 6:38 pm  donna(Quote)

    Majority Will:

    do these people still use their fingers to count and do they still have velcro on their shoes?

    BlueAngel2;

    Thank goodness you (and we) still have the right to ‘voice our opinion’, no matter how stupid and uninformed it may be. My bigger concern is the shame you must feel as you pay homage and give legitimacy to the Muslim jihadist using forged ID’s and a self-published stolen SS # 042-68-4425 that fails E-Verify – for employment in the Office of President of these United States. Your shame, as with all 435 members of Congress and the 9 members of the Supreme Court, must cut deep inside your body, as you look yourself in the mirror each and every day. May God have mercy on your treasonous souls.
58. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    June 9, 2013 at 7:00 pm  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

    Yea, a wreck always does that.

    It is an interesting article, tough. They were lucky, though, that there were no accidents or injuries as unexpected backups can cause.

    donna: “major” news: ‘Impeach Obama’ Demonstration on I-5 Overpass Snarls Southbound Traffic
59. donna says:

    June 9, 2013 at 10:05 pm  donna(Quote)

    i think hell has frozen over – for once i agree with orly:

    “If Zullo has a statement from a forensic document examiner, he should make it public. what is he waiting for? why is he making a deal for the examiner not to make public his report?”

    1. I contacted multiple forensic document examiners. They all told me that they cannot sign an opinion that the copy produced for public consumption is a forgery without seeing the original document on file, and Hawaii refuses to release the original (wet ink) document, even after I served them with a federal subpoena. Zullo never had any subpoenas and he never saw the original document, so I am extremely surprised that the Forensic Document Examiner agreed to sign an opinion that the document is a forgery without actually seeing the original document on file. I am not saying he didn’t, but we need to see it, we need to see what did he actually write.

    there’s more (none seems to be written by her, IMO)

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=424217
60. h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ says:

    June 10, 2013 at 4:13 am  h2ooflife.wordpress.com/(Quote)

    Obviously, the examiner didn’t declare the non-existent “document” to be a counterfeit but instead dealt only with the 9-layer computer-fabricated unembossed, digital abstract pdf birth certificate image. What’s inconceivable is how a document expert could fill 40 pages with exposition on what is seen in the pdf. He would have to focus on the text of the pdf and not the nature of how it was constructed and what the pdf file revealed about it’s processing history since that wouldn’t be his area of expertise.

    ~Those seeking truth need to read my final exposition on citizenship: The Greatest Fraud in Human History (4805 words)

    “Similarly, being a citizen is not the same as being a native of a country. The government cannot create new natives but it can create new citizens. Nevertheless, it cannot create new *natural* citizens, yet it can deem all citizens to be natural citizens by fundamentally embracing the fiction of law that all citizens are equal to natural citizens and therefore are viewed as being nothing other than natural citizens.

    That is the fundamental philosophy of citizenship in the United States, and by it all naturalized citizens become not just legal citizens but also natural citizens because they have been “made natural” by the natural-ization process.

    Born natural citizens cannot be “unmade” because they were never “made citizens” in the first place. They were born as citizens, just as a lion is born as a lion. Its lion-ness cannot be rescinded because it isn’t something that it possesses. It is what it is by nature. So also, native citizens are members of their country and nation by nature, -political nature, -not by law.

    That truth is so fundamental, so primal, so origin-al, so “a priori” that law was never needed to declare such an inescapable self-evident truth, -and so there is no law by which you are an American nor a citizen, -unless you are Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, or Bobby Jindal. Then law is absolutely necessary for your citizenship because you were not the natural product of American parents.” They did not inherit American citizenship from an American father and mother. Their citizenship is purely legal, -not natural.

    http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2013/06/09/the-greatest-fraud-in-human-history/
61. The Magic M says:

    June 10, 2013 at 5:07 am  The Magic M(Quote)

    Now birthers are completing abusing the rules of basic English:

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.de/2013/06/late-breaking-kenyas-leading-newspaper.html

    So according to them, “Kobe Bryant, an NBA champion born and raised in the US” means that Bryant was born an NBA champion but not in the US.

    These are the funny moments that attracted me to watching birtherism, they’ve become so few and far between… 😉
62. The Magic M says:

    June 10, 2013 at 7:08 am  The Magic M(Quote)

    Dave: I’m starting to get the feeling that the Reed Hayes report that Zullo was talking about is never going to actually appear.

    Just like the full name of “forger Mike” or many other things birthers have promised. For the propagandists it’s enough that their gullible followers will now have “a real forensicalistic document analysticizer agrees it’s a forgedy-forged forgery” meme implanted in their remaining brain cells.
63. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    June 10, 2013 at 7:19 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

    And nobody is saying that it is.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Similarly, being a citizen is not the same as being a native of a country.
64. Dave B. says:

    June 10, 2013 at 1:01 pm  Dave B.(Quote)

    If this is so all that, how come it takes a nut like you to come up with it?

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: That truth is so fundamental, so primal, so origin-al, so “a priori” that law was never needed to declare such an inescapable self-evident truth, -and so there is no law by which you are an American nor a citizen, -unless you are Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, or Bobby Jindal. Then law is absolutely necessary for your citizenship because you were not the natural product of American parents.” They did not inherit American citizenship from an American father and mother. Their citizenship is purely legal, -not natural.
65. nbc says:

    June 10, 2013 at 2:06 pm  nbc(Quote)

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: “Similarly, being a citizen is not the same as being a native of a country. The government cannot create new natives but it can create new citizens. Nevertheless, it cannot create new *natural* citizens, yet it can deem all citizens to be natural citizens by fundamentally embracing the fiction of law that all citizens are equal to natural citizens and therefore are viewed as being nothing other than natural citizens.

    True, our Constitution does not deal with those born abroad, even to US citizen parents, and leaves that to Statutes. However, it does considered anyone born on soil and subject to our jurisdiction to be natural born, regardless of the status of the parents. This was the conclusion in the seminal case of United States v Wong Kim Ark, where the court was faced with defining the meaning of the term natural born and clearly rejected the Vattel interpretation as lacking.
66. Dave says:

    June 10, 2013 at 2:07 pm  Dave(Quote)

    ORYR has a post about Columbia Prof. Emeritus Henry Graff saying that he doesn’t remember Obama going there. I thought, haven’t we heard this before? It seems Wayne Allen Root called up the professor and got him to say it again, so I guess that makes it a new story.

    My favorite part is this line: “Meet Professor Henry Graff, perhaps the most legendary and honored professor ever at Columbia University.” Perhaps the most legendary and honored professor. Ever. Why do birthers feel the need to say stuff like that?
67. ballantine says:

    June 10, 2013 at 2:32 pm  ballantine(Quote)

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/:

    That truth isso fundamental, so primal, so origin-al, so “a priori” that law was never needed to declare such an inescapable self-evident truth, -and so there is no law by which you are an American nor a citizen,

    http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2013/06/09/the-greatest-fraud-in-human-history/

    Got to love the logic of this genius. He’ right because he say it is so obvious he’s right, because he says so, it’s so self-evident. Really sad. Even a 4-year old would not think that such is an argument. It is really hard to understand the mind that thinks the law is something they reason out in their head or understand through devine revelation. Makes on wonder how such people are able to function at all in our society.
68. nbc says:

    June 10, 2013 at 3:24 pm  nbc(Quote)

    ballantine: Makes on wonder how such people are able to function at all in our society.

    They function but hardly “exist”, as their fears drive them towards ignorance, fear, hatred. It’s sad really to see how so many of our fellow ‘travelers’ of life seem to be unwilling or unable to enjoy it to its fullest.
69. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    June 10, 2013 at 5:16 pm  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

    They say it out of habit, the habit of making stuff up for convenience.

    Dave: Why do birthers feel the need to say stuff like that?
70. donna says:

    June 10, 2013 at 5:54 pm  donna(Quote)

    Political extremism can be moderated by asking people a simple question

    Could we diffuse some of the intense political polarization in our country — on matters, say, like health care or global warming or voter registration — by asking individuals who hold extreme views to describe exactly how their proposed policy solutions would work in the real world?

    YES, according to a study published in the journal Psychological Science. In a series of experiments, a team of researchers found that 1) people generally know less about public policies than they think they do, and 2) once they realize their lack of knowledge, they tend to moderate their views.

    http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2013/06/political-extremism-can-be-moderated-asking-people-simple-question
71. Benji Franklin says:

    June 11, 2013 at 2:27 am  Benji Franklin(Quote)

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: That truth is so fundamental, so primal, so origin-al, so “a priori” that law was never needed to declare such an inescapable self-evident truth, -and so there is no law by which you are an American nor a citizen,

    But since the only “Natural Law” is anarchy, where as you have done here, every individual is free to not only declare THEIR personal idea of what is so fundamentally, so primally, so originally, and so “a priori” TRUE but also insist that their personal interpretations of what is true, must then become the basis for OFFICIALLY and LEGALLY labeling what citizenship consists of, and by what means it comes about, it follows that nations must have a kind of ongoing consensus interpretation of those matters by their people and such a consensus must always ultimately be expressed as official law(s).

    That law will either establish a mechanism to bestow that citizenship, or inform the public what circumstantial factors their government recognizes (like birth factors) which determine that citizenship automatically (as in the style of the 14th Amendment.)

    There is ALWAYS a government determined legal standard (law) by which every nation on Earth, representing accurately or inaccurately its people’s consensus opinion on the subject (and not any one person’s declaration of their personal opinion as being the ultimate “truth” of the matter) dictates who will have various citizenship designations, and be entitled to which attendant rights, and obligated to which responsibilities.

    Each Anarchist imagines himself or herself to be, a philosopher king, possessing the right to declare what the a priori truths about nations and societies are, and insisting those interpretations must preemptively inform subsequent discussion of those matters. Put simply, you openly aspire to dictatorily interpret the Constitution by subtending it to your own private interpretation of what constitutes “natural law”.

    Few positions amounting to approaches to governance, could be more antithetical to what the Founders intended to provide for the then and future citizens of the United States of America.
72. The Magic M says:

    June 11, 2013 at 4:45 am  The Magic M(Quote)

    Benji Franklin: Put simply, you openly aspire to dictatorily interpret the Constitution by subtending it to your own private interpretation of what constitutes “natural law”.

    Which is a standard crank MO because it’s the only foundation they can build their case on. There is nothing that supersedes the Constitution so they have to make something up that allegedly does and, what coincidence!, says exactly what they want it to say.
73. The Magic M says:

    June 11, 2013 at 4:52 am  The Magic M(Quote)

    ballantine: Got to love the logic of this genius. He’ right because he say it is so obvious he’s right, because he says so, it’s so self-evident. Really sad.

    Douglas R. Hofstadter gives such an example in his “Gödel, Escher, Bach” book.

    A man claims he’s superior to a woman. The woman objects. The man reasons “I can look you in the face, something you cannot do, so I am superior to you”. The woman retorts: “But I can look you in the face, too, so I am superior to you”. But the man replies: “No, since we’ve already established I’m superior to you, what you do isn’t ‘seeing’, it’s something inferior to that”.

    (Paraphrased since I read the book in German.)

    Birther logic is a lot like that. “Because we have established 100 (false) claims about Obama, all your claims about him are falsehoods, lies and forgeries.”
74. h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ says:

    June 11, 2013 at 4:59 am  h2ooflife.wordpress.com/(Quote)

    “Put simply, you openly aspire to dictatorily interpret the Constitution by subtending it to your own private interpretation of what constitutes “natural law”.”

    You fail to grasp reality because you inhabit a realm that is a closed system of thought, -one that has no acknowledgement of natural reality. You are like a one-eyed man who is told that perspective can be perceived if only one has two eyes, but you refuse to believe it.
    I do not interpret the Constitution nor the Laws of citizenship regarding the natural citizens of America because there is no such Law nor any mention of such a set definition or determination in the Constitution. Natural citizenship is beyond and outside of the legal realm because it is inherited, and law cannot alter that because it pre-exists and pre-dates the law.

    National Law begins in Time, at some date, but natural membership in the country of one’s parents exists even before their country is organized into a nation that begins to write laws. Natural citizens create nations. Nations do not create natural citizens. Nations are the creation of natural citizens. In the case of America, it was the natural citizens of the States of America that agreed to form the United States of America.

    Their national citizenship was via their state citizenship. They were the natives of their home colonies and were born as natural citizens, while children of foreigners were not born of natives and thus were not natural citizens since they inherited their father’s foreign national membership and allegiance unless he had become an American.
    Then they inherited his American membership only due to the Oath of Allegiance & Renunciation which cut all ties to his former government. Dual citizenship did not exist since foreign wives became Americans by marrying an American male.

    If Obama had been born when his grandfather had been born, we would not be having this discussion because he would have been recognized as being purely British by birth since his married mother would have lost her citizenship by marrying a foreigner. No natural citizen can lose his citizenship by anything, which just goes to show what a false foundation underlies any assumption that Obama is an American citizen by any avenue of American law. He is purely a perfunctory presumptive policy-citizen. His presumed citizenship could be cancelled overnight by abandoning the erroneous policy that it’s based on.
    Since that policy began in 1898, it will never be corrected in the conceivable future. But it doesn’t follow that the truth should be buried just because it won’t be acknowledged by the cowards in Washington.
75. h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ says:

    June 11, 2013 at 5:07 am  h2ooflife.wordpress.com/(Quote)

    Dave B.:
    If this is so all that, how come it takes a nut like you to come up with it?

    Because I live a unique life in an amazing natural environment, -one where one encounters bears and giant Redwood trees 20 feet wide. If you’ve seen After Earth then you’ve seen my backyard. City dwellers cannot begin to grasp reality because everything is artificial. It was not so two hundred years ago.
76. h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ says:

    June 11, 2013 at 5:27 am  h2ooflife.wordpress.com/(Quote)

    nbc: our Constitution does not deal with those born abroad, even to US citizen parents, and leaves that to Statutes. However, it does considered anyone born on soil and subject to our jurisdiction to be natural born, regardless of the status of the parents. This was the conclusion in the seminal case of United States v Wong Kim Ark, where the court was faced with defining the meaning of the term natural born and clearly rejected the Vattel interpretation as lacking.

    Are you totally self-deluded, a practiced liar, or a devoted Kool-Aid drinker? Why does no one here correct your absurd statement that the Wong opinion had anything to do with defining citizenship other that legal citizenship? It’s the ultimate asinine statement to claim that the court defined or was faced with defining the meaning of the simple common words “natural”, “born”, and “citizen”.

    They do not constitute a “term”. They are no more a term than are the words “a beautiful blond woman”. They consist of the words “woman”, blond woman, and beautiful woman. No law degree, or court ruling is needed to understand plain English.
    Similarly, a natural born citizens is simply one born as a natural citizen, -a born natural citizen, a citizen by nature, by birth, by inherited political nature, being the same as one’s parents.
    The only ones who don’t understand are those who don’t want to understand, or those who live in an artificial environment whose consciousness is suffused with unreality and the delusion that there exists no fundamental principles beneath the monstrosity of the legal system.
77. Majority Will says:

    June 11, 2013 at 7:36 am  Majority Will(Quote)

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: You fail to grasp reality

    What a steaming pile of idiotic, racist crap. You need help.
78. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    June 11, 2013 at 9:55 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

    Earth to Adrien: Your natural environment is not helping you. In fact, you write like the stereotypical rude city dweller (an unjustified stereotype in my experience). Perhaps you should get out more.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Because I live a unique life in an amazing natural environment, -one where one encounters bears and giant Redwood trees 20 feet wide. If you’ve seen After Earth then you’ve seen my backyard. City dwellers cannot begin to grasp reality because everything is artificial. It was not so two hundred years ago.
79. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    June 11, 2013 at 9:58 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

    Probably time to read it again (after 33 years).

    The Magic M: Douglas R. Hofstadter gives such an example in his “Gödel, Escher, Bach” book.
80. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    June 11, 2013 at 10:02 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

    The office of President of the United States is, however, defined by the Constitution and does not pre-exist or pre-date the law. Your natural law argument might have been appropriate in 1787 when they were debating the Constitution, but it is not appropriate today to apply it to presidential eligibility under that Constitution.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: I do not interpret the Constitution nor the Laws of citizenship regarding the natural citizens of America because there is no such Law nor any mention of such a set definition or determination in the Constitution. Natural citizenship is beyond and outside of the legal realm because it is inherited, and law cannot alter that because it pre-exists and pre-dates the law.
81. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

    June 11, 2013 at 10:10 am  Dr Kenneth Noisewater(Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Earth to Henry: Your natural environment is not helping you. In fact, you write like the stereotypical rude city dweller (an unjustified stereotype in my experience). Perhaps you should get out more.

    Henry? I thought that was Bob Gards alias. Ahh theres so many crackpots its hard to keep track of them.
82. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    June 11, 2013 at 10:42 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

    Sorry. I had a hiccup there. It should have been Adrien. But yes, there are a lot of them.

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Henry? I thought that was Bob Gards alias. Ahh there’s so many crackpots its hard to keep track of them.
83. Majority Will says:

    June 11, 2013 at 10:59 am  Majority Will(Quote)

    “Because I live a unique life in an amazing natural environment, -one where one encounters bears and giant Redwood trees 20 feet wide. If you’ve seen After Earth then you’ve seen my backyard. City dwellers cannot begin to grasp reality because everything is artificial. ”

    Ted Kaczynski lived in solitude in the forest as well.

    “The best place, to me, was the largest remnant of this plateau that dates from the tertiary age. It’s kind of rolling country, not flat, and when you get to the edge of it you find these ravines that cut very steeply in to cliff-like drop-offs and there was even a waterfall there. It was about a two days hike from my cabin. That was the best spot until the summer of 1983. That summer there were too many people around my cabin so I decided I needed some peace. I went back to the plateau and when I got there I found they had put a road right through the middle of it… You just can’t imagine how upset I was. It was from that point on I decided that, rather than trying to acquire further wilderness skills, I would work on getting back at the system. Revenge.”
    – Ted the Unabomber
84. Dave B. says:

    June 11, 2013 at 11:17 am  Dave B.(Quote)

    I will discontinue any presumption that you can’t get any dumber.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Because I live a unique life in an amazing natural environment, -one where one encounters bears and giant Redwood trees 20 feet wide.If you’ve seen After Earth then you’ve seen my backyard.City dwellers cannot begin to grasp reality because everything is artificial.It was not so two hundred years ago.
85. Dave B. says:

    June 11, 2013 at 11:18 am  Dave B.(Quote)

    So, tell me– in this unique life of yours, have you discovered how you catch a unique rabbit?

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Because I live a unique life in an amazing natural environment, -one where one encounters bears and giant Redwood trees 20 feet wide.If you’ve seen After Earth then you’ve seen my backyard.City dwellers cannot begin to grasp reality because everything is artificial.It was not so two hundred years ago.
86. Dave B. says:

    June 11, 2013 at 11:20 am  Dave B.(Quote)

    In your case, I vote for door number 1.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Are you totally self-deluded, a practiced liar, or a devoted Kool-Aid drinker?
87. CarlOrcas says:

    June 11, 2013 at 11:21 am  CarlOrcas(Quote)

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: You fail to grasp reality because you inhabit a realm that is a closed system of thought,

    Hell Pot. Let me introduce you to Mr. Kettle.
88. dunstvangeet says:

    June 11, 2013 at 11:23 am  dunstvangeet(Quote)

    Um…

    Stanley Armour Durham was born on March 23, 1918. That is still after U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. So, even if Barack Obama was born in 1918, he still would have been a U.S. Citizen, as defined by the 14th Amendment. There is absolutely no question on that, as the Supreme Court said that back in 1896. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark would have been exactly his situation, being born to two people who were not citizens.

    So, the United States Government, via their constitution, would have considered him 100% American. So, how would he have been 100% British?
89. Rickey says:

    June 11, 2013 at 11:25 am  Rickey(Quote)

    Dave:
    ORYR has a post about Columbia Prof. Emeritus Henry Graff saying that he doesn’t remember Obama going there. I thought, haven’t we heard this before? It seems Wayne Allen Root called up the professor and got him to say it again, so I guess that makes it a new story.

    My favorite part is this line: “Meet Professor Henry Graff, perhaps the most legendary and honored professor ever at Columbia University.” Perhaps the most legendary and honored professor. Ever. Why do birthers feel the need to say stuff like that?

    They believe that it boosts the credibility of the story by giving Professor Graff prominence which he never had. He may have been a fine professor, but “most legendary and honored” is a gigantic stretch. There is a long line of Columbia professors who are Nobel Laureates and Pulitzer Prize winners, and Graff is not in that line.
90. Lupin says:

    June 11, 2013 at 11:32 am  Lupin(Quote)

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Dual citizenship did not exist since foreign wives became Americans by marrying an American male.

    That is certainly NOT true. A French woman who married an American citizen may have acquired American citizenship (I’m willing to defer to you here), but she most certainly DID NOT lose her French citizenship.

    So whether you like it or not, she was a dual citizen.

    As for your argument about “a born natural citizen” to the extent that President Obama’s mother was an American and he was born on US soil, he was indeed — even according to the so-called Vattelists — born a natural citizen.

    You might argue that, had his father removed him from the US and taken him to the UK, he would likely also been deemed a UK citizen because of parentage, but that fact alone did not automatically change his birth status — that of a child born a natural citizen of the United States of America.

    France used to have a very similar system to that which you choose to apply (correctly or not is not mine to say), and I can assure you that had Obama been born here from a French mother and a visiting British father, he would have been considered as having been born a natural French citizen.
91. Benji Franklin says:

    June 11, 2013 at 11:46 am  Benji Franklin(Quote)

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: You fail to grasp reality because you inhabit a realm that is a closed system of thought, -one that has no acknowledgement of natural reality.

    To A.R.Nash:

    It is you who inhabits a realm that is a closed system of thought, -one that acknowledges as correct, only its own definition of natural reality. Such an anti-social perspective precludes any kind of civilization apart from a dictatorship, because it ignores the most salient characteristic of civilized interaction. That is a willingness to yield one’s own imagined privileged perspective on how society must organize and proceed to the stabilizing consensus agreement of the majority of the people who are to be thus associated.

    You don’t seem to realize that the factors you say underlie and comprise your notion of “natural law”, are themselves (in anything but a dictatorship) necessarily the products of some consensus agreement. Like what constitutes the physical boundaries of the country and who is entitled to claim they are natives and what constitutes property and family to nomads and farmers and fishermen etc.

    Any concept of natural law is moot until there is some formalized consensus agreement (verbal or written) on what it officially means operationally to those who wish to socialize in a civilized manner, indeed, only by such agreement can a geographically defined country or politically defined nation even come into acknowledged existence. Even a 1 acre island is not one country if its 4 families each claim sovereignty over a described portion of its territory. There must similarly be agreement in each about what constitutes “family” etc.

    In any event, it is only by the substance of necessary voluntary agreement within the population of a given organizing group about from what the official laws derive and consequently mean, that anyone can legitimately then interpret what the rights and privileges are of any member of that resulting society.

    Government begins where individual concepts of natural law end by giving way to the organizing consensus of enough of the group’s members’ notions of what the official laws should be.

    Your notion of what constitutes natural law doesn’t qualify to interpret or pass judgment on what constitutes a correct interpretation of any nation’s laws. Such of your ideas are not universal and superior; they apply only to the circumstances in countries where the nation’s populace has incorporated their agreement with your ideas into formal law, either explicitly written or judicially interpreted and approved, whether by the courts’ action or inaction.

    Your natural law interpretation is universal only in the nation of You; every other nation on Earth exists necessarily by its own consensus agreement about what official legal system seems naturally most wise.

    I too live away from the cities, on lots of land containing and surrounded by well-preserved water and trees. Such an environment artificially insulates one from the concentrated, populous social milieu which is overwhelmingly the baseline reality for the vast majority of our citizens. It diminishes the extent to which one feels more common lifestyles deserve their share of national consideration.

    I feel lucky to be so situated, but I have apparently avoided to a greater extent than you, a danger of having such relative isolation, create a socially repugnant and intellectually crippling personal resultant consequence.

    That would be, “the big head”.
92. nbc says:

    June 11, 2013 at 12:00 pm  nbc(Quote)

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Are you totally self-deluded, a practiced liar, or a devoted Kool-Aid drinker? Why does no one here correct your absurd statement that the Wong opinion had anything to do with defining citizenship other that legal citizenship? It’s the ultimate asinine statement to claim that the court defined or was faced with defining the meaning of the simple common words “natural”, “born”, and “citizen”.

    Let me help you understand the Wong Kim Ark Decision

    1. Wong Kim Ark could not be naturalized
    2. In order for Wong Kim Ark to still be a citizen, he had to be born one.
    3. The constitution recognizes natural born citizens but does not define the term
    4. The meaning of the term had to be found in Common Law
    5. The court rejected Vattel and accepted that our common law was based on English common law.
    6. Under our common law, anyone born on soil and subject to our jurisdiction is born a natural born citizen
    7. Wong Kim Ark was born on our soil and fully subject to our jurisdiction.
    8. Wong Kim Ark therefore was a natural born citizen.

    So simple, I am sure even you may understand. It is natural because it requires no statute. It is natural because, as the court in the Calvin case had found, such children are, under natural law, born natural born children.

    So simple and yet…
93. nbc says:

    June 11, 2013 at 12:05 pm  nbc(Quote)

    Lupin: That is certainly NOT true. A French woman who married an American citizen may have acquired American citizenship (I’m willing to defer to you here), but she most certainly DID NOT lose her French citizenship.

    I guess our friend does not really understand the laws of nationality, and how conflicts in laws between nations inevitably leads to dual citizenship.
    While the early US did not like the concept, the courts came to realize that such dual allegiance is inevitable.

    Have you ever looked at our laws, our history, our Constitution?
94. Rickey says:

    June 11, 2013 at 12:06 pm  Rickey(Quote)

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/:
    City dwellers cannot begin to grasp reality because everything is artificial.It was not so two hundred years ago.

    I’m pretty sure there were cities two hundred years ago. New York, Boston, Charleston, and Philadelphia come to mind. Believe it or not, city dwellers actually visit the country from time to time. Some of them have even seen giant redwoods
95. sfjeff says:

    June 11, 2013 at 12:11 pm  sfjeff(Quote)

    California has a fine tradition of providing refuge to persons who view reality far differently than most people. That is my only excuse for h200
96. nbc says:

    June 11, 2013 at 12:18 pm  nbc(Quote)

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/:

    If Obama had been born when his grandfather had been born, we would not be having this discussion because he would have been recognized as being purely British by birth since his married mother would have lost her citizenship by marrying a foreigner.

    Birth on US soil would still have rendered Obama a natural born citizen, my silly friend. Imagine though what our nation would have done in the 19th century with a child born to a white woman and a black man…
    Is that the kind of standard we want to apply though? President Obama is a natural born citizen of the US and dual citizenship has NO impact on said status.

    Hope this helps. If not, I have hundreds of pages related to US v Wong Kim Ark for your to explore.
97. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    June 11, 2013 at 12:32 pm  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

    I’m not sure exactly all that’s involved, but the site has really sped up. One thing I did intentionally is to change the way that the JavaScript libraries are served. You’re getting them from distributed Google sites now instead of here. But beyond that the pages are internally generated 5-10 times faster.

    I also installed Windows 8 and Internet Explorer 10, and it is wicked fast too.
98. Daniel says:

    June 11, 2013 at 12:34 pm  Daniel(Quote)

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Because I live a unique life in an amazing natural environment, -one where one encounters bears and giant Redwood trees 20 feet wide.If you’ve seen After Earth then you’ve seen my backyard.City dwellers cannot begin to grasp reality because everything is artificial.It was not so two hundred years ago.

    I live in the mountains, far away from the city, in an environment just like you describe. We grind our own wheat to make flour. We grow our own vegetables. We milk our own cow to make our own cheese. We raise our own livestock and fish in the sea. We’re about as far away from artificial as you can get.

    You’re still looney tunes as far as your political and historical fallacies show, nice view of the trees notwithstanding.
99. Paper says:

    June 11, 2013 at 5:11 pm  Paper(Quote)

    My questioning of a limited aspect of nbc’s emphasis on statute aside, he still is correct about all those born here. The reason no one corrects him on this point is he is accurate, and you are not.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Are you totally self-deluded, a practiced liar, or a devoted Kool-Aid drinker?Why does no one here correct your absurd statement that the Wong opinion had anything to do with defining citizenship other that legal citizenship?
100. nbc says:

     June 11, 2013 at 5:22 pm  nbc(Quote)

     I have been uploading more Wong Kim Ark relevant briefs, some of which I had not seen before.

     Compliments to Nolu Chan…
101. Paper says:

     June 11, 2013 at 5:25 pm  Paper(Quote)

     Forget your obsession about natural born Citizen not being a term. The *word* is natural born, or natural-born. It is not natural, born citizen. It is natural-born citizen. Just as naturalize is also its own word. Discounting your etymological digging, you are not even looking at the correct word.

     In you analogy, you discuss beautiful, blonde women, not beautiful-blonde women. Beautiful-blonde is not a word. Natural-born is.

     One may not need a law degree for such basics, but a dictionary remains handy.

     h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: It’s the ultimate asinine statement to claim that the court defined or was faced with defining the meaning of the simple common words “natural”, “born”, and “citizen”.

     They do not constitute a “term”.They are no more a term than are the words “a beautiful blond woman”.They consist of the words “woman”, blond woman, and beautiful woman.No law degree, or court ruling is needed to understand plain English.
102. Benji Franklin says:

     June 11, 2013 at 5:57 pm  Benji Franklin(Quote)

     h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: It’s the ultimate asinine statement to claim that the court defined or was faced with defining the meaning of the simple common words “natural”, “born”, and “citizen”.

     Courts routinely clarify the meaning they accept for key words that bear on their decision, whether or not those words are legal terms. Disputes and clarifications about the sense in which a word is used or the precise connotative meaning implied or inferred constitute a significant part of almost all verbal communication, formal and informal, that takes place in our society and only “mr. know-it-alls” assert that their interpretation must always be reckoned correct.

     And Nash, when you state that, “The only ones who don’t understand are those who don’t want to understand, or those who live in an artificial environment whose consciousness is suffused with unreality and the delusion that there exists no fundamental principles beneath the monstrosity of the legal system.”, you are ignoring the obvious fact that different governments and nations only exist because their people disagree about WHICH principles THEY officially CHOOSE to make fundamental to their nation’s way of life, and which their governing structure will then codify and/or judiciously endorse.
103. Keith says:

     June 11, 2013 at 8:25 pm  Keith(Quote)

     The Magic M: Douglas R. Hofstadter gives such an example in his “Gödel, Escher, Bach” book.

     One of the 20th century top 10 masterpieces.

     I put Joseph Campbell’s ‘The Masks of God’ in the top 10 too.

     Everybody else can jostle for the other 8 places.

     (Edit: I guess something by Richard Feynman needs to be there too, so everybody else has maybe 7 places to squeeze into)
104. Keith says:

     June 11, 2013 at 8:31 pm  Keith(Quote)

     h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: In the case of America, it was the natural citizens of the States of America that agreed to form the United States of America.

     Was Alexander Hamilton a ‘natural citizen of the States of America’?
105. Keith says:

     June 11, 2013 at 8:47 pm  Keith(Quote)

     nbc: Let me help you understand the Wong Kim Ark Decision

     1. Wong Kim Ark could not be naturalized
     2. In order for Wong Kim Ark to still be a citizen, he had to be born one.
     3. The constitution recognizes natural born citizens but does not define the term
     4. The meaning of the term had to be found in Common Law
     5. The court rejected Vattel and accepted that our common law was based on English common law.
     6. Under our common law, anyone born on soil and subject to our jurisdiction is born a natural born citizen
     7. Wong Kim Ark was born on our soil and fully subject to our jurisdiction.
     8. Wong Kim Ark therefore was a natural born citizen.

     So simple, I am sure even you may understand. It is natural because it requires no statute. It is natural because, as the court in the Calvin case had found, such children are, under natural law, born natural born children.

     So simple and yet…

     Even simpler: your lines 3 to 6 are superfluous, and can in fact be replaced by one line bringing in the effect of the 14th Amendment. Also the word ‘natural’ in line 8 is unnecessary.

     So your explanation becomes:

     1. Wong Kim Ark could not be naturalized
     2. In order for Wong Kim Ark to still be a citizen, he had to be born one.
     3. The constitution recognizes persons born in the in the United States under jurisdiction to be citizens of the United States.
     4. Wong Kim Ark was born on our soil and fully subject to our jurisdiction.
     5. Wong Kim Ark therefore was a born citizen.
106. nbc says:

     June 11, 2013 at 8:59 pm  nbc(Quote)

     True, of course, the court had to address the arguments by the opposing counsel that birth on soil required two citizen parents, required domicil, etc. The parents were only ‘temporarily’ domiciled because they had to return to China. The court observed that the 14th was declaratory of common law principles.

     In his original brief solicitor general of the US, Holmes Conrad presented some interesting arguments which I had not seen before. He also suggests that the 14 Amendment may not have been constitutionally valid.

     The solicitor general had also argued that before the passage of the 14th Amendment, the law clearly was in favor of denying Wong Kim Ark his citizenship. The court showed how the constitution contained a term which had meant birth on soil, subject to jurisdiction and that the 14th Amendment was merely declaratory.

     It was a well rounded approach to exploring the fullest extents of the arguments raised.
107. Keith says:

     June 12, 2013 at 1:29 am  Keith(Quote)

     nbc:
     True, of course, the court had to address the arguments by the opposing counsel that birth on soil required two citizen parents, required domicil, etc. The parents were only ‘temporarily’ domiciled because they had to return to China. The court observed that the 14th was declaratory of common law principles.

     In his original brief solicitor general of the US, Holmes Conrad presented some interesting arguments which I had not seen before. He also suggests that the 14 Amendment may not have been constitutionally valid.

     The solicitor general had also argued that before the passage of the 14th Amendment, the law clearly was in favor of denying Wong Kim Ark his citizenship. The court showed how the constitution contained a term which had meant birth on soil, subject to jurisdiction and that the 14th Amendment was merely declaratory.

     The question was whether or not Wong was a citizen.

     That neither he nor his parents could have been naturalized was not in doubt.
     That he was born in the United States was not in doubt.

     What was in doubt was whether or not he was ‘under the jurisdiction’. All relevant argument went to answering that one question, and that question alone. I would argue that the entire edifice of discussion of the common law boiled down to an understanding of ‘jurisdiction’. In Calvin’s case, for example, the argument hinged on whether ‘the Crown’ was a person, James VI (of Scotland) and I (of England) or an individual kingdom that happened to have the same person as Monarch as some other kingdom. Was the jurisdiction of the Crown, ultimately the jurisdiction of the King or the Kingdom?

     (Aside: it is interesting that James had two numbers depending on which kingdom you refer, but Elizabeth II of England, etc isn’t referred to as Elizabeth I of Australia).

     It was a well rounded approach to exploring the fullest extents of the arguments raised.

     Agreed. It does not follow however, that all arguments are equally relevant to the topic. You only have one shot at a precedent setting Supreme Court decision like this, you need to put EVERY argument,’of however feeble ray‘ on the table. You never know which one might stick (I refer you to the recent decision on the PPACA non-compliance penalty which was decided in the Government’s favor due to the authority to levy taxes even though it was not the Governments favored argument).

     Conrad makes the remark ‘The fourteenth amendment, if ever lawfully adopted at all, was at least adopted de facto, on the 21st of July, 1868‘. If ever there was a nonsensical, throw away line, that has to be one of the biggest in Supreme Court history. After casting doubt on the adoption of the Amendment, he never attempts to justify that doubt, or to make an argument that would follow if the Amendment had not been legally adopted (other than by implication Dred Scott would still be controlling, I suppose).

     Likewise the ‘citizen of a state, but not citizen of the country’ argument is irrelevant and is just a waste of words, another of his ‘feeble rays‘.

     Now I admit that this stuff, so ‘obvious’ now, was not so obvious then. I know it offended the sensibilities of the day that Wong, if he was a citizen at all, was a Natural Born Citizen and therefore eligible to hold the office of the President. I know this drove an emotional ‘need’ in some people for him to not be a citizen. Fortunately the majority of American opinion understood citizenship (and indeed, natural-born citizenship) differently than those emotional cripples (and indeed the Taney (Dred Scott case) Supreme Court) and insisted on the 14th Amendment.

     It took more than a hundred years for someone to actually make the nightmares of those emotional cripples come true, but they are still with us, and those folks who have an emotional need for President Obama to be somehow ineligible, are just as ignorant, just as crippled, as those arguing against Dred Scott and Wong Kim Ark.
108. nbc says:

     June 12, 2013 at 1:58 am  nbc(Quote)

     Keith: The question was whether or not Wong was a citizen.

     Sure, and not being able to be a naturalized citizen, the court found that the Constitution provided for natural born citizens.

     The court’s ruling is even better understood when reading the various briefs filed by both sides.

     Fun…
109. nbc says:

     June 12, 2013 at 2:15 am  nbc(Quote)

     Keith: Likewise the ‘citizen of a state, but not citizen of the country’ argument is irrelevant and is just a waste of words, another of his ‘feeble rays‘.

     It was in those days extremely relevant. If we cannot understand the ruling in light of the prevailing thoughts and objections, then we miss out on the substance.
110. Keith says:

     June 12, 2013 at 2:41 am  Keith(Quote)

     nbc: It was in those days extremely relevant. If we cannot understand the ruling in light of the prevailing thoughts and objections, then we miss out on the substance.

     Except that there was no argument that Wong was a citizen of California but not a citizen of the United States. He was being denied entry due to an interpretation of Federal law and the question was whether or not he was born under the jurisdiction of the United States. And the 14th makes it clear that that if you are born in the US and under the jurisdiction, you are a citizen of both the Union and the State.

     Again, the only question was jurisdiction. All else followed from that.

     An argument about whether or not you can be a citizen of a state and not a citizen of the United States is not relevant to a discussion of whether you are subject to the legal system of the United States.

     An analogy: a discussion about whether or not a horse can be ridden bareback or with a saddle has no relevance to the discussion about whether or not a saddled horse can pull a cart.
111. nbc says:

     June 12, 2013 at 3:04 am  nbc(Quote)

     Keith: Again, the only question was jurisdiction. All else followed from that.

     That is somewhat overly simplistic when looking at the arguments that were presented. But I hear your point. Of course that opens up the whole debate as to what kind of citizen was President Obama.

     Note that it was also not clear that the 14th Amendment was the only path to citizenship.

     It’s tempting to ignore the arguments presented at the court, but then we fail to understand the ruling.
112. Keith says:

     June 12, 2013 at 8:01 am  Keith(Quote)

     nbc: Of course that opens up the whole debate as to what kind of citizen was President Obama.

     Obama is a jus soli citizen as defined by the 14th Amendment, and thus a natural-born citizen, even using your own argument. What possible question is ‘opened up’? You aren’t going birther on us are you?

     Note that it was also not clear that the 14th Amendment was the only path to citizenship.

     Because it is not the only path to citizenship. See Minor v Happersett; there are two paths to citizenship: born and made.
113. Lupin says:

     June 12, 2013 at 8:20 am  Lupin(Quote)

     nbc: I guess our friend does not really understand the laws of nationality, and how conflicts in laws between nations inevitably leads to dual citizenship.
     While the early US did not like the concept, the courts came to realize that such dual allegiance is inevitable.

     Indeed.

     nbc:Have you ever looked at our laws, our history, our Constitution?

     It depends what you mean by “looked at” 🙂 I have a superficial acquaintance with your Intellectual Property laws and some knowledge of US history, but I would not try to pass myself off as an expert, which is why I stay away from arguments grounded in US law and history.

     (I took a semester intro course at a Sorbonne-based NYU unit but that was a long long time ago.)
114. ballantine says:

     June 12, 2013 at 10:20 am  ballantine(Quote)

     Keith:

     What was in doubt was whether or not he was ‘under the jurisdiction’. All relevant argument went to answering that one question, and that question alone. I would argue that the entire edifice of discussion of the common law boiled down to an understanding of ‘jurisdiction’. In Calvin’s case, for example, the argument hinged on whether ‘the Crown’ was a person, James VI (of Scotland) and I (of England) or an individual kingdom that happened to have the same person as Monarch as some other kingdom. Was the jurisdiction of the Crown, ultimately the jurisdiction of the King or the Kingdom?

     I believe the problem for Calvin was that he wasn’t subject to the jurisdiction of England when born. There were two separate legal jurisdictions, with two parliaments, united under one King. I believe that was the crux of the losing side’s argument. Hence, Coke needed to come up with a rationale that persons under another jurisdiction were still born in the allegiance of the crown. The case doesn’t really make much sense to me and by Blackstone’s time the rationale of the case was pretty much gone while the basic rule remained. It is ironic that Congress used the word “jurisdiction” to represent the common law rule when Coke and the English generally didn’t use such word.

     As for Wong Kim Ark, I think one has to start with the recognition that Gray said the language and history of the 14th Amendment made clear the clause was declaratory of pre-existing law. Hence, Gray had to define pre-existing law to explain what the Amendment was declaratory of. That is why the discussion of natural born citizenship and the common law is not dicta. The decision would make no sense without such explanation. So the whole case was about defining the “subject to the jurisdiction” language but it also counts how the court got there.
115. Keith says:

     June 12, 2013 at 10:58 am  Keith(Quote)

     ballantine: I believe the problem for Calvin was that he wasn’t subject to the jurisdiction of England when born. There were two separate legal jurisdictions, with two parliaments, united under one King.

     Yes, that is how I understand it too. Was ‘Calvin’ (not his real name) a subject of Scotland or of James VI? And if he was a subject of James VI is that the same as being a subject of James I?

     (For those who came in late, James VI, King of Scotland (since 1567) and James I, King of England (since 1603) were the same person; ‘Calvin’ was born in Scotland after 1603, that is after the union of the crowns).
116. Greenfinches says:

     June 12, 2013 at 11:30 am  Greenfinches(Quote)

     h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: it was the natural citizens of the States of America that agreed to form the United States of America.

     What do you mean? Those who decided to form the USA were born either overseas, eg in France, or within a British colony in north America – and nary a one of them was American. By say 1780 a lot will have called themselves citizens of the US; not one would have done so in 1770, surely?

     Let’s face it, natural law knows no ‘states’ or ‘citizenship’ as we are all simply homo sapiens together.
117. Greenfinches says:

     June 12, 2013 at 11:34 am  Greenfinches(Quote)

     ballantine: two separate legal jurisdictions

     They still are; Scotland is one ‘law district’ and England and Wales are (is?) another. A matter of history – England united with Scotland, but conquered Wales. Everyone wants to beat us at rugby these days, for revenge.
118. nbc says:

     June 12, 2013 at 11:59 am  nbc(Quote)

     Keith: nbc: Of course that opens up the whole debate as to what kind of citizen was President Obama.

     Obama is a jus soli citizen as defined by the 14th Amendment, and thus a natural-born citizen, even using your own argument. What possible question is ‘opened up’? You aren’t going birther on us are you?

     Nope. Just pointing out a weakness in your argument as you now have to still go back to the definition of natural born as outlined in the WKA ruling. The statement and ‘thus a natural-born citizen’ is a step that needs support. WKA provides that support.

     NBC: Note that it was also not clear that the 14th Amendment was the only path to citizenship.

     Because it is not the only path to citizenship. See Minor v Happersett; there are two paths to citizenship: born and made.

     The 14th Amendment included birth or naturalization. Some ‘birthers’ are saying that the 14th naturalized those born on soil, not born to two citizen parents. Not that I agree with that conclusion.
119. Benji Franklin says:

     June 12, 2013 at 12:30 pm  Benji Franklin(Quote)

     nbc: The 14th Amendment included birth or naturalization. Some ‘birthers’ are saying that the 14th naturalized those born on soil, not born to two citizen parents. Not that I agree with that conclusio

     Of course the 14th Amendment’s reference (“… ARE citizens of the United States…) was by that language, ONLY declaratory of a pre-existing fact reaffirmed thereby Constitutionally . The 14th Amendment did not “make” citizens going forward with the necessary enacting language, “shall be citizens”. The Amendment only recognized circumstances which had already determined the two forms of citizenship so those so entitled could not be denied the rights associated with them. Also, the Amendment did categorically distinguish between circumstances that produced citizens and naturalized citizens, so we know the birth circumstances described were NOT leading to naturalization at all. Consequently, the 14th Amendment itself had no power to naturalize anybody.
120. Keith says:

     June 12, 2013 at 1:03 pm  Keith(Quote)

     nbc: Nope. Just pointing out a weakness in your argument as you now have to still go back to the definition of natural born as outlined in the WKA ruling. The statement and ‘thus a natural-born citizen’ is a step that needs support. WKA provides that support.

     I don’t see it isn’t a weakness in my argument, as I am only discussing the ‘on the face’ attributes of WKA. WKA didn’t HAVE to prove anything what-so-ever about Natural-born Citizen, and neither do I. WKA wasn’t trying to run for President, he was trying to live his life in America as a citizen.

     It happens that person who is a citizen at/from birth is a Natural Born Citizen however that result is secondary to requirements in WKA. It is a natural consequence of being born a citizen.
121. nbc says:

     June 12, 2013 at 1:09 pm  nbc(Quote)

     Benji Franklin: Of course the 14th Amendment’s reference (“… ARE citizens of the United States…) was by that language, ONLY declaratory of a pre-existing fact reaffirmed thereby Constitutionally .

     Yes, that is what the courts have found in various relevant cases, including the seminal case of US v Wong Kim Ark. It is important to understand that the 14th Amendment was only needed because some courts had interpreted our citizenship to not include blacks and it was necessary to point out that they had been, all along, natural born citizens, at least, as long as they were born free. The 14th Amendment discussions show that Congress understood that such children were as much natural born children as those born to white people.
122. nbc says:

     June 12, 2013 at 1:16 pm  nbc(Quote)

     Keith: It happens that person who is a citizen at/from birth is a Natural Born Citizen however that result is secondary to requirements in WKA. It is a natural consequence of being born a citizen.

     I understand your perspective here but it is put in doubt by the findings in US v Wong Kim Ark.
     The term natural, is far more likely to refer to: not requiring any statute or law. The argument in WKA was that only those born to citizen parents were natural born, but the concept of jus sanguinis was never part of our common law and followed only through statute.

     The claim that natural means citizen at the time of birth is poorly supported although it has been argued as such. What is certain however is that the concept of jus sanguinis was only implemented through statute. While our latest immigration statutes have, for the purpose of the section of that law, defined naturalization to be limited to those not being citizens at the time of their birth, or those who may ‘retroactively’ obtain such a status. However, the courts appear to have been clear in recent rulings as well that in the context of the Constitution, naturalization includes citizenship acquired by statute.

     Certainly no appeal to common law can be made to argue that such children are natural-born, so the question becomes, by what other logic could such children be argued to still be natural born citizens. Especially since the term natural born had to be understood in light of our common law usage, which excluded children born abroad to citizen parents from being citizens, as they were born outside the limits and jurisdiction of our nation.
123. nbc says:

     June 12, 2013 at 1:26 pm  nbc(Quote)

     Keith: I don’t see it isn’t a weakness in my argument, as I am only discussing the ‘on the face’ attributes of WKA. WKA didn’t HAVE to prove anything what-so-ever about Natural-born Citizen, and neither do I. WKA wasn’t trying to run for President, he was trying to live his life in America as a citizen.

     The on the face attributes are ignoring the in depth arguments provided by the Court in light of the arguments provided by the appellant and appellee.

     WKA had to show that the Constitution and the 14th, which was merely declaratory of the Constitution, would grant them citizenship, and by finding that one is either born or naturalized, the court focused on the born part as well as the term natural-born, used in our Constitution, to understand the meaning of the term. If the Constitution had required two citizen parents for example, it would have to be found in our common law practices.

     Even the appellant, in one of its briefs, identified the issue as “was Wong Kim Ark natural born” as they claimed the finding of the lower court had been.

     Important nuances that may have been forgotten were it not for the fact that most of the briefs are still accessible to us and which show a wonderful insight in two opposing fields of thought.
124. ballantine says:

     June 12, 2013 at 1:34 pm  ballantine(Quote)

     Keith: WKA didn’t HAVE to prove anything what-so-ever about Natural-born Citizen, and neither do I. WKA wasn’t trying to run for President, he was trying to live his life in America as a citizen.

     Wrong, wrong, wrong!!! Since the Amendment was declaratory, his status was defined by pre-existing law under the original Constitution. The court makes clear he would have been a natural born citizen and hence was also a 14th Amendment citizen. One cannot get to the disposition of the case without the first step.
125. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     June 12, 2013 at 1:35 pm  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     Just because a term appears in common law does not mean that it is a common law term, and is defined by the common law. “Natural born” could just as well be a term of common usage, and the dictionary definition of “natural born” is inconsistent with how you are defining it according to the common law. I think that saying a term is defined by common law in contradiction to normal usage is very problematic, especially when the dictionary’s specific example is “natural born subject.”

     Second, the British declared persons natural born subjects who were not born in the country. British statutes are in tune with the dictionary definition of “natural born” (quality from birth) but they are not in line with what you claim is the common law “definition” (born in the country…).

     I would think that British lawmakers used their terms with care and not in a contradictory manner. It makes a whole lot more sense for the statute to say: these persons born overseas a subjects by birth than they way you would have it, these persons born overseas are born in in the country.

     One other thing is, I think, lost in the discussion and that is that in 1789, citizenship for the native-born was defined by the states. Look at the eligibility debate in the first Congress over Congressman Smith of South Carolina. James Madison says: “I take it to be a clear point, that we are to be guided, in our decision, by the laws and constitution of South Carolina, so far as they can guide us; and where the laws do not expressly guide us, we must be guided by principles of a general nature, so far as they are applicable to the present case.”

     Madison goes on to invoke a general principle (since the laws of South Carolina were not helpful), saying that:

     “It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to investigate any other.”

     So sometimes allegiance derives its force from parentage. Now in 1789 there was no federal law granting citizenship by parentage, but Madison and the Congress fixed that the next year, calling such persons natural born citizens. Calling the Naturalization Act of 1790 unconstitutional is also very problematic.

     nbc: Certainly no appeal to common law can be made to argue that such children are natural-born, so the question becomes, by what other logic could such children be argued to still be natural born citizens. Especially since the term natural born had to be understood in light of our common law usage, which excluded children born abroad to citizen parents from being citizens, as they were born outside the limits and jurisdiction of our nation.
126. donna says:

     June 12, 2013 at 1:52 pm  donna(Quote)

     Does Sen. Jeff Sessions Think Obama Is Secretly a “Radical Machiavelli”?

     The last chapter of Horowitz’s 2012 book, Radicals: Portraits of a Destructive Passion—which prompted Sessions’ eureka moment—is entitled, “A Radical Machiavelli,” and it opens with a quote from Obama: “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” In this chapter, Horowitz attempts to explain the progressive mindset. The key to understanding these folks and their ultimate aims, Horowitz contends, is Saul Alinsky, the legendary organizer. His influence, Horowitz notes, has extended to Obama and “captured the heart of the Democratic Party.”

     One of his websites bears this slogan: “Inside Every Liberal Is a Totalitarian Screaming to Get Out.” And in the chapter Sessions hailed, Horowitz describes Alinsky’s disciples in stark terms: “Within the framework of their revolutionary agendas, they are flexible and opportunistic and will say anything (and pretend to be anything) to get what they want, which is power.”

     And what do these people want to do with this power? Horowitz has the answer:

     to create a new race of men and women who are able to live in harmony and according to the principles of social justice. To be as God. Creating such a race requires the total control—the totalitarian control—of individual behavior.

     If Sessions does believe, as he told Horowitz and his crowd, that this chapter explains Obama, he has accepted a fundamentally radical and terrifying assessment of the man.

     http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/jeff-sessions-david-horowitz-obama-secret-totalitarian-radical
127. ballantine says:

     June 12, 2013 at 2:00 pm  ballantine(Quote)

     Dr. Conspiracy:
     Just because a term appears in common law does not mean that it is a common law term, and is defined by the common law. “Natural born” could just as well be a term of common usage, and the dictionary definition of “natural born” is inconsistent with how you are defining it according to the common law. I think that saying a term is defined by common law in contradiction to normal usage is very problematic, especially when the dictionary’s specific example is “natural born subject.”

     Second, the British declared persons natural born subjects who were not born in the country. British statutes are in tune with the dictionary definition of “natural born” (quality from birth) but they are not in line with what you claim is the common law “definition” (born in the country…).

     I would think that British lawmakers used their terms with care and not in a contradictory manner.

     The problem with your argument is that overwhelming historical evidence shows the common usage of the term in the early republic was in accordance with the English common law.

     I am still not sure what dictionary you are referring to. However, the term clearly was tied to “natural born subject” which is England was almost exclusively tied to native birth. The status of statutory subjects was never quite clear in England. They were not treated the same a native born subjects and the 1773, for example, says they were declared natural born subjects as if they had been born in the Kingdom. I’m not sure giving people the status of the native born i the common understanding of what native born means.

     Thus, as has been said repeatedly, one can speculate how Americans viewed these English statutes. Did it mean that they thought Congress could grant foreigners the status of natural born citizens like Parliament? Did it mean that Congress could make citizens at birth either natural born citizens or naturalized citizens? Who knows. But it certainly isn’t obvious that they thought anyone natualized at birth was a natural born subject since Parliament had called such persons natural born subjects. Parliament obviously could have only made them naturalized subjects if they had wanted. But clearly the law of England was that children of subjects born overseas were aliens unless naturalized by Parliament. Such became the law of the United States.

     One can speculate forever. Accordingly, that is why people focus on actual historical evidence of the period. What evidence is there that anyone thought that anyone who was a citizen at birth was natural born? There is very little. We know about the 1790 Act but, as has been shown repeatedly, one can draw contrary inferences from such statute and there is no legislative history or early commentary making clear what was intended. Thus, one is left with a plausible theory but a far from compelling one.
128. gorefan says:

     June 12, 2013 at 2:04 pm  gorefan(Quote)

     Is the IRS scandal about to implode?

     *** Why isn’t Issa releasing all of the IRS transcripts? …

     [Elijah] Cummings has said he will release transcripts of interviews with IRS employees by the end of this week if Issa won’t. Cummings said that in one interview, a self-identified ‘conservative Republican’ said the effort to scrutinize Tea Party groups was done to ensure consistency and that there wasn’t White House or political involvement.”

     MSNBC First Thoughts
129. donna says:

     June 12, 2013 at 2:30 pm  donna(Quote)

     gorefan:

     Issa told (RIGHT WING) The Washington Times, he wants to investigate Obama because “it’ll be good theater.”
130. BatGuano says:

     June 12, 2013 at 2:48 pm  BatGuano(Quote)

     i didn’t see this mentioned before. orly is promoting here appearance on an anti-semite blog radio show ( i don’t think she realized that):

     http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=424597
131. ballantine says:

     June 12, 2013 at 4:59 pm  ballantine(Quote)

     Here is a question for the “citizens at birth” argument. Now, as NBC and I have pointed out, it is well settled law for over a century that Cruz would be an alien if not for the statute that conferred him citizenship at birth. Thus, Congress today could repeal such statute and make all such persons in the future aliens. However, what if Congress amended the statute to say they would be naturalized, but not natural born, citizens. According to the “citizen at birth” argument, I presume such statute would be unconstitutional since such children would be citizens at birth, but not natural born by the express text of the statute. Thus, the argument would be that Congress can make such persons aliens or natural born citizens, but not just plain naturalized citizens. And what would be the argument for this. That Parliament decided to treat such persons as though they were native born and hence called them “natural born.” Of course, that was Parliament’s choice as they could have called them plain naturalized subjects if they had wanted. Is there any evidence anyone thought Parliament didn’t have such power? The answer can’t be that people made citizens at birth arn’t naturalized as Congress only has the power of naturalization with respect to citizenship and the English jus sanguinis statutes were generally understood to naturalize people (for example, by people such as Blackstone and Jefferson). If Congress can make foreigners either natural born citizens or just plain citizens through its naturalization power, as it purported to do in 1790, why are persons naturalized at birth automatically natural born even if Congress says otherwise? Doesn’t really make sense. The only answer would be if the common understanding in the founding period in England and America was that “natural born” necessarily meant the same thing as “citizen at birth” and hence Parliament or Congress could only naturalize at birth if it made persons natural born. Obviously, there is little actual evidence to support such a proposition.

     Another argument one can make is that Congress in its modern nationality acts intended to distinguish between citizens at birth and people naturalized after birth with the intent that the former should be treated as natural born. Thus, Congress intended to follow the distinctions made in the 1790 Act even it is didn’t expressly say so. However, to really make such argument one would need to find some helpful legislative history to support such intent, though if such existed it probably would have surfaced by now.
132. Dave says:

     June 12, 2013 at 6:29 pm  Dave(Quote)

     Birther lawyer got an article in US News & World Report for a class-action lawsuit he’s filed over PRISM. The article gives the impression that the reporter doesn’t know that his subject is a crackpot.

     Link

     For other Larry Klayman news see this article at Wonkette
133. Dave says:

     June 12, 2013 at 6:39 pm  Dave(Quote)

     US News has doubled down with a second article about Klayman, and still hasn’t mentioned his use of Citizens’ Grand Juries.
134. donna says:

     June 12, 2013 at 6:44 pm  donna(Quote)

     Tea Partiers Don’t Have a Good Legal Case Against the IRS
     Here’s why.

     http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/tea-partiers-dont-have-case-against-irs

     “As for the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches, the Supreme Court has long held (Smith v. Maryland, 1979) that there is no legitimate expectation of privacy for phone records that are held by a third party, which can be seized without a warrant. ”

     http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324299104578529373994191586.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
135. Dave B. says:

     June 12, 2013 at 6:45 pm  Dave B.(Quote)

     It isn’t at all conclusive, but there’s some interesting commentary here:
     http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/1940nat-act-comm-print-pt-1a.pdf
     The ambiguity over Presidential eligibility of persons acquiring U.S. citizenship at birth abroad is referred to beginning on page 3 of the report (page 11 of the pdf).

     ballantine: Another argument one can make is that Congress in its modern nationality acts intended to distinguish between citizens at birth and people naturalized after birth with the intent that the former should be treated as natural born. Thus, Congress intended to follow the distinctions made in the 1790 Act even it is didn’t expressly say so. However, to really make such argument one would need to find some helpful legislative history to support such intent, though if such existed it probably would have surfaced by now.
136. nbc says:

     June 12, 2013 at 7:41 pm  nbc(Quote)

     ballantine: The only answer would be if the common understanding in the founding period in England and America was that “natural born” necessarily meant the same thing as “citizen at birth” and hence Parliament or Congress could only naturalize at birth if it made persons natural born. Obviously, there is little actual evidence to support such a proposition.

     Another argument one can make is that Congress in its modern nationality acts intended to distinguish between citizens at birth and people naturalized after birth with the intent that the former should be treated as natural born. Thus, Congress intended to follow the distinctions made in the 1790 Act even it is didn’t expressly say so. However, to really make such argument one would need to find some helpful legislative history to support such intent, though if such existed it probably would have surfaced by now.

     Excellent points. In the 1917 Immigration Act it refers to native born or naturalized, even further clouding the issue. It will be hard to argue that those born abroad to citizen parents are somehow native-born…
137. nbc says:

     June 12, 2013 at 7:48 pm  nbc(Quote)

     ballantine: Wrong, wrong, wrong!!! Since the Amendment was declaratory, his status was defined by pre-existing law under the original Constitution. The court makes clear he would have been a natural born citizen and hence was also a 14th Amendment citizen. One cannot get to the disposition of the case without the first step.

     Excellent point
138. Keith says:

     June 12, 2013 at 8:37 pm  Keith(Quote)

     nbc: The argument in WKA was that only those born to citizen parents were natural born, but the concept of jus sanguinis was never part of our common law and followed only through statute.

     ONE of the arguments against Wong was the ‘citizen parents = natural born’ argument. If that argument had been confirmed, it does not follow that Wong would would have lost the case. He only needed to demonstrate that he was a born citizen, not a Natural Born Citizen. Since that argument did not win the day, it established that, for someone born in the USA the only qualification is jurisdiction.

     If the two parent idea had won, Wong would have been a born Citizen, but not a natural born Citizen – we would have two classes of born citizen. Since the two parent idea did not win, a ‘jus soli’ Citizen is always a Natural Born Citizen as well.

     The 14th Amendment was declaratory of the common understanding about jus soli citizenship that had been tossed out in Scott v. Sandford. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 took jus soli citizenship out of the realm of common law and put it into statute law. The 14th took it out of statute law and put it into the Constitution.

     nbc: Certainly no appeal to common law can be made to argue that such children are natural-born, so the question becomes, by what other logic could such children be argued to still be natural born citizens.

     This question was not in WKA. At no time was it alleged that Wong Kim Ark owed his citizenship to statute of any kind.
139. nbc says:

     June 12, 2013 at 8:50 pm  nbc(Quote)

     Keith: ONE of the arguments against Wong was the ‘citizen parents = natural born’ argument. If that argument had been confirmed, it does not follow that Wong would would have lost the case. He only needed to demonstrate that he was a born citizen, not a Natural Born Citizen.

     Ah, but the argument was that natural born citizen was the only path left for him and that such was precluded by the two citizen parents rule.

     If the two parent idea had won, Wong would have been a born Citizen, but not a natural born Citizen – we would have two classes of born citizen.

     Not if the 14th were declarative of the Constitutional rule and the rule had been birth on soil to two citizen parents. You have to realize that what appears to be simple facts to us, had to be argued hard and eloquently. Ignoring that, reduces a beautiful argument into ‘well, they could just have said: the constitutional amendment says so’. Instead, they chose to address the real issues raised, and found that the 14th Amendment did not create any new rules towards citizenship.
140. nbc says:

     June 12, 2013 at 8:52 pm  nbc(Quote)

     Keith: nbc: Certainly no appeal to common law can be made to argue that such children are natural-born, so the question becomes, by what other logic could such children be argued to still be natural born citizens.

     This question was not in WKA. At no time was it alleged that Wong Kim Ark owed his citizenship to statute of any kind.

     Again missing the point, the court was told that jus sanguinis was the rule of law, and the court observed that jus sanguinis has always been dealt with through statute, not common law. You may not like their findings here but it was essential to dealing with the eloquent arguments raised by the appellants.
141. Ballantine says:

     June 12, 2013 at 8:55 pm  Ballantine(Quote)

     Keith: ONE of the arguments against Wong was the ‘citizen parents = natural born’ argument. If that argument had been confirmed, it does not follow that Wong would would have lost the case. He only needed to demonstrate that he was a born citizen, not a Natural Born Citizen. Since that argument did not win the day, it established that, for someone born in the USA the only qualification is jurisdiction.

     If the two parent idea had won, Wong would have been a born Citizen, but not a natural born Citizen – we would have two classes of born citizen. Since the two parent idea did not win, a ‘jus soli’ Citizen is always a Natural Born Citizen as well.

     The 14th Amendment was declaratory of the common understanding about jus soli citizenship that had been tossed out in Scott v. Sandford. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 took jus soli citizenship out of the realm of common law and put it into statute law. The 14th took it out of statute law and put it into the Constitution.

     This question was not in WKA. At no time was it alleged that Wong Kim Ark owed his citizenship to statute of any kind.

     Seriously, just give it up. Pretty much everything you say is wrong. The court said that we adopted the definition of natural born subject in the original constitution and the 14th amendment restated the same rule. Can you really not understand that? He didn’t need to show he was born a citizen, he needed to show he was natural born under the common law as such was the basis of 14th amendment citizenship. Are we sure you are not Apuzzo’s sock puppet as you show the same inability to understand the court cases on this subject. Seriously, you seem to have no understanding of what is dicta or holding in a case. In fact, the other day you posted on what was dicta and holding in Minor that was wrong in pretty much every respect. Why are you posting on things you don’t understand? If you dispute this, please explain the citizenship discussion in Minor with respect to dicta or holding. Then I will tell you why you are wrong.
142. nbc says:

     June 12, 2013 at 8:55 pm  nbc(Quote)

     Keith: The 14th Amendment was declaratory of the common understanding about jus soli citizenship that had been tossed out in Scott v. Sandford. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 took jus soli citizenship out of the realm of common law and put it into statute law. The 14th took it out of statute law and put it into the Constitution.

     A bit confusing but an act can really never override a constitutional fact. Jus soli had always been the rule under our constitution. The civil right’s act was not the make it statutory as much as naturalize the blacks who could not have otherwise become our citizens under precedent rulings. The 14th was passed to reiterate the rules under our Constitution.

     Your interpretation, while interesting, misses the point that if the 14th was merely declarative of our Constitution, it could not really put it back in. Nor could the 1866 act override the Constitution. It was merely a band aid.
143. nbc says:

     June 12, 2013 at 8:59 pm  nbc(Quote)

     Ballantine: Seriously, just give it up. Pretty much everything you say is wrong. The court said that we adopted the definition of natural born subject in the original constitution and the 14th amendment restated the same rule. Can you really not understand that? He didn’t need to show he was born a citizen, he needed to show he was natural born under the common law as such was the basis of 14th amendment citizenship

     It seems quite simple to me, of course, arguing that the 14th amendment put jus soli back in allows the door to be opened to Apuzzo like arguments as the foundation for natural-born equals citizen at birth is not that well developed.
144. Keith says:

     June 12, 2013 at 9:05 pm  Keith(Quote)

     ballantine: The problem with your argument is that overwhelming historical evidence shows the common usage of the term in the early republic was in accordance with the English common law.

     I am still not sure what dictionary you are referring to. However, the term clearly was tied to “natural born subject” which is England was almost exclusively tied to native birth. The status of statutory subjects was never quite clear in England.

     It was clear enough for Scottish born Robert ‘Calvin’ Colville to be a Natural Born Subject of England over 150 years before the American Revolution.

     ballantine: But clearly the law of England was that children of subjects born overseas were aliens unless naturalized by Parliament.

     That is clearly and unequivocally wrong.

     Not only was ‘Calvin’ not naturalized, but British Law provided for “children of subjects born overseas” to be Natural Born Citizens since at least 1351 and the Edward III’s De Natis Ultra Mare. That law was the decisive citing in Calvin’s Case.

     There was over 400 years of precedent before the American Revolution.

     The express purpose of De Natis Ultra Mare was to assure soldiers fighting in France that their sons could inherit in England – that was the advantage of the distinction of Natural Born Citizen: inheritance.

     I find this 1351 law is directly analogous to John McCain and 8 USC � 1403.
145. ballantine says:

     June 12, 2013 at 9:17 pm  ballantine(Quote)

     Keith: It was clear enough for Scottish born Robert ‘Calvin’ Colville to be a Natural Born Subject of England over 150 years before the American Revolution.

     That is clearly and unequivocally wrong.

     Not only was ‘Calvin’ not naturalized, but British Law provided for “children of subjects born overseas” to be Natural Born Citizens since at least 1351 and the Edward III’s De Natis Ultra Mare. That law was the decisive citing in Calvin’s Case.

     There was over 400 years of precedent before the American Revolution.

     The express purpose of De Natis Ultra Mare was to assure soldiers fighting in France that their sons could inherit in England – that was the advantage of the distinction of Natural Born Citizen: inheritance.

     I find this 1351 law is directly analogous to John McCain and 8 USC � 1403.

     Again, you are wrong again. The English statutes were deemed to naturalize foreign born persons. Try reading Blackstone. Calvin was natural born because he was born in the allegiance, or under the protection, of the crown. The statutes you refer to actually said such persons were born out of the allegiance of the crown and hence were not covered by Calvin’s Case. And Coke actually did say Calvin was naturalized by birth and procreation. However, the term “naturalized” by the late 18th century came to be defined as only applying to the foreign born. This was the law in the United States as set forth by our Supreme Court and legal scholars. Are we sure you are not Mario?
146. Keith says:

     June 12, 2013 at 9:19 pm  Keith(Quote)

     ballantine: However, what if Congress amended the statute to say they would be naturalized, but not natural born, citizens. According to the “citizen at birth” argument, I presume such statute would be unconstitutional since such children would be citizens at birth, but not natural born by the express text of the statute.

     I don’t think it would be unconstitutional.

     The state of play now is that Congress has defined two classes of people born overseas:

     (1) those who have certain blood ties to American citizens and meet certain other criteria, and
     (2) those who don’t.

     Those people in category 1 do not require naturalization to become citizens; they are acquire their citizenship at birth, naturally.

     Those people in category 2 do require naturalization to become citizens; they acquire their citizenship sometime after birth, by explicit action.

     Congress is absolutely free to redefine those categories, and has from time to time.

     Once a person has acquired citizenship, however, it cannot be affected by future changes. If Congress passes a law today that says that no one born on Panamanian soil can become a citizen under any circumstances, that will not affect John McCain’s citizenship in any way.
147. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     June 12, 2013 at 9:27 pm  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     Mike Zullo “True News” interview 6/12 transcript:

     http://www.scribd.com/doc/147433876/Mike-Zullo-True-News-Radio-Interview-June-12-2013
148. ballantine says:

     June 12, 2013 at 9:27 pm  ballantine(Quote)

     Keith: I don’t think it would be unconstitutional.

     The state of play now is that Congress has defined two classes of people born overseas:

     (1) those who have certain blood ties to American citizens and meet certain other criteria, and
     (2) those who don’t.

     Those people in category 1 do not require naturalization to become citizens; they are acquire their citizenship at birth, naturally.

     Those people in category 2 do require naturalization to become citizens; they acquire their citizenship sometime after birth, by explicit action.

     Congress is absolutely free to redefine those categories, and has from time to time.

     Once a person has acquired citizenship, however, it cannot be affected by future changes. If Congress passes a law today that says that no one born on Panamanian soil can become a citizen under any circumstances, that will not affect John McCain’s citizenship in any way.

     Again, you seem to be unable to comprehend English. The Supreme Court has said over and over and over that people in the first category are aliens unless naturalized by naturalization statute. Do you have a reading disability? How many times do we have to repeat the same thing? How many quotes do you want? In the past century, no court has ever suggested a foreign born person can be a citizen without naturalization and there is an entire body of case law on the subject. If you think otherwise, cite an authority. Seriously, with each post you look more and more clueless.
149. Keith says:

     June 12, 2013 at 9:37 pm  Keith(Quote)

     Ballantine: The court said that we adopted the definition of natural born subject in the original constitution and the 14th amendment restated the same rule.

     It most certainly did not say that.

     It said that the definition of natural born citizen was NOT in the Constitution and had to go digging in the common law to address it.
150. Keith says:

     June 12, 2013 at 9:44 pm  Keith(Quote)

     nbc: Your interpretation, while interesting, misses the point that if the 14th was merely declarative of our Constitution, it could not really put it back in. Nor could the 1866 act override the Constitution. It was merely a band aid.

     You and Ballantine are riding the wrong horse. The 14th is not declaratory of what was already in the Constitution. It was declaratory of what the Common Law understanding was.

     The Court in WKA couldn’t look for it in the pre-14th Amendment Constitution because it wasn’t there.

     Scott v. Sandford proved that it wasn’t in the Constitution and was subject to judicial twisting and legislative manipulation. CRA1866 didn’t override the Constitution, it corrected Dred Scott. Congress realized that if they could pass CRA1866 a future Congress could repeal it, so it was enshrined in the Constitution.
151. ballantine says:

     June 12, 2013 at 9:52 pm  ballantine(Quote)

     Keith: It most certainly did not say that.

     It said that the definition of natural born citizen was NOT in the Constitution and had to go digging in the common law to address it.

     Again, your record is perfect in being wrong about everything. The court said natural born citizen was not defined and hence had to be defined by reference to the English common law and its definition of natural born subject. After explaining what such definition was, i.e., birth within the allegiance, it said such definition prevailed under our Constitution as originally enacted. It then cited authority saying natural born citizen and natural born subject meant the same thing as both were defined by the concept of birth within the allegiance, which did not include any foreign born persons other than children of ambassadors and similar person. After establishing what the rule was under the original Constitution, the court said the 14th Amendment was simply declaratory of the same ancient rule of birth within the allegiance that the court had just spend 20 pages explaining was the law prior to 1866 under the original Constitution. Its definition of a citizen at birth under the 14th Amendment was thus the definition of natural born subject, the same definition it gave to a natural born citizen. Seriously, try actually reading the decision.
152. ballantine says:

     June 12, 2013 at 10:05 pm  ballantine(Quote)

     Keith: You and Ballantine are riding the wrong horse. The 14th is not declaratory of what was already in the Constitution. It was declaratory of what the Common Law understanding was.

     The Court in WKA couldn’t look for it in the pre-14th Amendment Constitution because it wasn’t there.

     Scott v. Sandford proved that it wasn’t in the Constitution and was subject to judicial twisting and legislative manipulation. CRA1866 didn’t override the Constitution, it corrected Dred Scott. Congress realized that if they could pass CRA1866 a future Congress could repeal it, so it was enshrined in the Constitution.

     Again, wrong. the Court said the common law definition was is what prevailed under the original Constitution. Have you ever read the case? Dred Scott was treated as a nullity by the Court. Nevertheless, Dred Scott never actually addressed the question of natural born citizenship anyway except in the dissent which agreed with the common law. The majority just excluded blacks from the class of persons who can be citizens. The CRA1866 was said by its author and almost all members of Congress to simply restate what was in the original Constitution. Its author stated that the original Constitution, in the natural born citizenship clause, made clear that we adopted the English common law which he said was the common law of all nations. He said it was unnecessary to re-state the common law rule but thought since some people had doubt it was natural for Congress to declare what the law was. They were in no way changing the law. Again, why do you post on things you don’t appear to understand?
153. gorefan says:

     June 12, 2013 at 10:20 pm  gorefan(Quote)

     Mario was interviewed by an internet radio show that is put on by two immigration lawyers from Atlanta.

     http://www.americaswebradio.com/podcasts/ImmigrationHourJune11.2013.mp3

     I got the impression the two lawyers were playing devil’s advocate but don’t really agree with Mario. At one point, Mario says that Senator Santorum is a natural born citizen and one of the hosts response “Oh d@mn really.”
154. CarlOrcas says:

     June 12, 2013 at 10:25 pm  CarlOrcas(Quote)

     Dr. Conspiracy:
     Mike Zullo “True News” interview 6/12 transcript:

     http://www.scribd.com/doc/147433876/Mike-Zullo-True-News-Radio-Interview-June-12-2013

     Any day now!!

     Unbelievable drivel.
155. donna says:

     June 12, 2013 at 11:30 pm  donna(Quote)

     CarlOrcas: Any day now!! Unbelievable drivel.

     INCREDIBLE!!!!!!

     4 aliases; no one remembers him at columbia; he never authored a paper at harvard; no evidence he was in the US before the age of 5; no evidence that dunham and obama are his parents; “that background could not get you a job as a janitor in the White House, let alone the President of the United States”; we have never seen hard copies of his birth certificate, etc

     thank for the link, Doc
156. Keith says:

     June 13, 2013 at 12:23 am  Keith(Quote)

     ballantine: Again, wrong. the Court said the common law definition was is what prevailed under the original Constitution.

     Now you are saying the same thing I said and telling me I’m wrong?

     Common Law is NOT Constitutional Law, do you not know the difference?

     For terms mentioned but not defined in the Constitution, we need to look to the Common Law to determine what the Framers understanding of the term was, but that does not make Common Law part of the Constitution.

     Until the 14th Amendment there was nothing in the Constitution about who was and who was not a citizen. The Constitution certainly implied that citizens existed, and that some of them were Natural-born and some were Natural-ized; but it was silent on who were citizens, except to say that Congress was empowered to make a uniform law on the subject.

     It was, however, understood who were citizens, and it was the law of the various States that provided that understanding. Where the States were silent, then the Common Law is what provided that understanding. Scott v Sandford demonstrated that that was a dangerous oversight because biased Courts (as the Taney Court most definitely was) can twist Common Law to suit those biases if they choose. CRA1866 sought to correct this problem, and the 14th cemented it in the Constitution.
157. donna says:

     June 13, 2013 at 12:39 am  donna(Quote)

     from “Major Changes In The Washington Media Scene” at ORYR:

     “What tripped up the Washington Examiner with me, was a very simple question: if the man sitting behind the desk at 1600 Pennsylvania is spending 5 million clams on defending a “document” in court, over a question that could be solved with $40 in photocopies, doesn’t that “document” deserve a forensic document review? After all, the conservative movement had agreed that a computer file that had pixels that matched perfectly cleared George W. Bush from a false accusation about his national guard service. Shouldn’t a conservative newspaper be wise to the ways of the left in that regard? At the Washington Examiner in March 2012, they clearly weren’t.”

     http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/06/washington-examiner-reporters-corporate.html
158. nbc says:

     June 13, 2013 at 1:13 am  nbc(Quote)

     Keith: ballantine: Again, wrong. the Court said the common law definition was is what prevailed under the original Constitution.

     Now you are saying the same thing I said and telling me I’m wrong?

     Then you are not saying the same thing because you still seem to hold to a position about natural born which in light of Wong Kim Ark, remains quite shaky.

     I believe the problem is that you fail to understand the nuances in the ruling of US v Wong Kim Ark. The 14th was merely declarative of the Constitution, and as the Court showed, an as other courts have concluded as well, before the passage of the 14th Amendment, the Constitution provided for citizenship by birth on soil as well as naturalization by statute. Born or made, the former following from birth on soil, subject to our jurisdiction, the latter made by statute.

     You argue that the 14th was sufficient but since it was declarative of our Constitution the court had to address the meaning of born on soil, to determine if the appellee’s arguments about jus sanguinis and law of nature was at the foundation of our citizenship, or if it was jus soli.

     All in all, the ruling in US v WKA was thorough, well argued, and addressing the arguments raised by both sides. Which explains why it has been so often cited and even in more recent times was cited to show that all those who become citizens by statute are naturalized, just as the Court had observed.

     Time after time, the courts, the legislature, the scholars all revisit these issues and most often come to the same conclusions.

     Which is why the status of children born abroad to US parents is so interesting. In fact, I recently read an author who argued that it was congress’s foreign policy powers which allowed them to make children born abroad to citizen parents, citizens. They reject the more logical naturalization powers because that would mean that such children are not natural born. Of course, that is a pretty poor argument, begging the question, so to speak.

     While our legislators have treated such children different from alien born, it seems rather straightforward that they all fall under the naturalization powers of Congress.

     Naturalization historically means the adopting of a foreigner and clothing him with all the rights of native citizen (with constitutional exceptions) although nowadays it is taken to mean voluntary or after birth, but those are mostly modern day inventions. Even the INA, for purpose of the act, has defined naturalization

     (e) The term “naturalization” means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a per-son after birth.

     But see Osborn v. Bank of the United States – 22 U.S. 738 (1824)

     A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an act of Congress, but the act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native.

     Cooley, Principles of Constitutional Law

     The Constitution. — Congress is further empowered “to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” [4] Naturalization is the act by which the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizenship are conferred upon a person born an alien.

     Without the statute, a child born abroad to citizen parents would be born an alien.

     alien is defined as one born out of allegiance to the king; in the United States, as one born out of the jurisdiction of the United States, not naturalized in accordance with the constitution and laws of the United States, or declared to be a citizen by statute.

     I think we fail to understand that such children are alien until a statute is in place which clothes them with all the privileged and rights of the native born.
159. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     June 13, 2013 at 1:31 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     There is no reference in the Constitution to “born on soil.” You’re begging the question.

     nbc: The 14th was merely declarative of the Constitution, and as the Court showed, an as other courts have concluded as well, before the passage of the 14th Amendment, the Constitution provided for citizenship by birth on soil as well as naturalization by statute.
160. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     June 13, 2013 at 1:37 am  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     Isn’t it begging the question to use the word “defined?” Certainly the Court had to look to the common law to see whether Wong was a natural born citizen or not, but the Court had no need to determine the status of people not like Wong. If they didn’t consider all the cases, then they weren’t defining the term.

     We can agree that Minor didn’t define natural born citizen, but just determined that one class of persons were such. How is Wong different? Just a larger class. Look at this language used in Wong:

     In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.

     It does not say here that the common law was used to define the term, but rather to ascertain “who shall be natural-born citizens.” Class membership, not definition.

     ballantine:The court said natural born citizen was not defined and hence had to be defined by reference to the English common law and its definition of natural born subject.
161. Keith says:

     June 13, 2013 at 1:59 am  Keith(Quote)

     nbc: Then you are not saying the same thing because you still seem to hold to a position about natural born which in light of Wong Kim Ark, remains quite shaky.

     Focus NBC, Focus.

     Ballantine said: (and I quote): “The court said that we adopted the definition of natural born subject in the original constitution and the 14th amendment restated the same rule.”

     I said: (and I paraphrase): That isn’t what the Court said at all, it said that the Constitution did not define natural born citizen. That is why the Court had to resort to the Common law to find the definition.

     Ballantine said: (and I quote): Again, wrong. the Court said the common law definition was is what prevailed under the original Constitution.

     I said: (and I paraphrase): You just repeated my assertion and claimed I was wrong. “Adopting a definition” is not the same as “assuming the prevailing common law definition”. “Restating an existing rule” is not the same as “enshrining the prevailing common law rule”.

     That exchange has nothing to do with Wong Kim Ark. It has to do with the difference between Common Law and Constitutional Law.

     There was no definition of citizenship, natural-born or otherwise, in the Constitution prior to the 14th. If it were so, there would be no need for the 14th and the Taney Court could not have twisted it so badly in Scott v Sandford.

     The 14th Amendment restated the Common Law understanding and enshrined it in the Constitution, it did NOT restate what was already there.
162. nbc says:

     June 13, 2013 at 2:01 am  nbc(Quote)

     Dr. Conspiracy:
     There is no reference in the Constitution to “born on soil.” You’re begging the question.

     Ah, that’s where the Court in Wong Kim Ark came to the rescue as the Constitution recognized the term natural born, a term commonly used to refer those who become citizens without the need for a law or statute.

     There were competing explanations as to who were our citizens. The Court however observed that people born on our soil and subject to our jurisdiction became automatic citizens, a principle found in our common law history.

     Jus sanguinis was taken care of through statute, under the naturalization powers as early as 1790, just as in England.

     Jus soli, native born citizenship has a rich history in our nation, as so beautifully outlined in US v WKA. Native born citizenship has always been accepted as how people become automatic citizens of our nation, and the tradition has continued into the modern times.
163. nbc says:

     June 13, 2013 at 2:03 am  nbc(Quote)

     Keith: Ballantine said: (and I quote): “The court said that we adopted the definition of natural born subject in the original constitution and the 14th amendment restated the same rule.”

     I said: (and I paraphrase): That isn’t what the Court said at all, it said that the Constitution did not define natural born citizen. That is why the Court had to resort to the Common law to find the definition.

     Ballantine is correct. The constitution used the term natural born and its meaning had to be found in common law. But the Constitution clearly recognized the concept.

     Focus my dear friend
164. nbc says:

     June 13, 2013 at 2:03 am  nbc(Quote)

     Keith: The 14th Amendment restated the Common Law understanding and enshrined it in the Constitution, it did NOT restate what was already there.

     Then you have failed to understand the Wong Kim Ark ruling.
165. nbc says:

     June 13, 2013 at 2:07 am  nbc(Quote)

     Dr. Conspiracy: It does not say here that the common law was used to define the term, but rather to ascertain “who shall be natural-born citizens.” Class membership, not definition.

     They are equivalent. Class membership was based on birth on soil. Birth on foreign soil required statutes for such a child to become a subject/citizen.

     Natural born was clearly a common law concept, and even Congress understood this quite well, when they found it necessary to take care of children born abroad to citizen parents. If they were indeed natural born, they would not have needed a statute.

     WKA clearly excluded such children, even the dissenting Judge understood the impact.
166. nbc says:

     June 13, 2013 at 2:22 am  nbc(Quote)

     Keith: There was no definition of citizenship, natural-born or otherwise, in the Constitution prior to the 14th. If it were so, there would be no need for the 14th and the Taney Court could not have twisted it so badly in Scott v Sandford.

     There was a necessity because Scott v Sandford failed to understand the common law meaning of the term as used in the Constitution. The 14th, which was merely declarative of the Constitution, reminded everyone of our founding principles.
     Note that various people had indeed argued that no amendment was necessary, not even a statute, as the history of natural born had been well established. Even those who passed the 14th understood it to be merely declaratory of our constitutional principles.

     You fail to understand that the definition was to be found in common law, but the constitution was clear about natural born citizens, a well understood concept.

     US v Wong Kim Ark

     These considerations confirm the view, already expressed in this opinion, that the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is throughout affirmative and declaratory, intended to allay doubts and to settle controversies which had arisen, and not to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship.

     and

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

     Similarly

     Senator Howard, in the first of the statements relied upon, in part, by the Court, said quite unreservedly that “This amendment [the Citizenship Clause] which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is . . . a citizen of the United States.

     and

     [43] Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 3031. See also Flack, The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment 93. In the same fashion, tenBroek, supra, at 215-217, concludes that the whole of � 1 was “declaratory and confirmatory.” Id., at 217.
167. nbc says:

     June 13, 2013 at 3:18 am  nbc(Quote)

     Keith: ballantine: But clearly the law of England was that children of subjects born overseas were aliens unless naturalized by Parliament.

     That is clearly and unequivocally wrong.

     Not only was ‘Calvin’ not naturalized, but British Law provided for “children of subjects born overseas” to be Natural Born Citizens since at least 1351 and the Edward III’s De Natis Ultra Mare. That law was the decisive citing in Calvin’s Case.

     You are supporting Ballantine’s view because you accept that such children were subjects only if naturalized by statute. In fact, the statute shows no evidence that it was describing common law, but rather implemented a forward looking statute.

     I am not sure why you are disagreeing with Ballantine when you yourself just showed how statutes have been the foundation for the status of children born abroad to citizen parents. And in fact, the statutes changed over time, again no evidence of a clear common law rule.

     Which is exactly what Wong Kim Ark observed.

     What am I not understanding here? You appear to agree with Ballantine and yet you claim he is wrong.

     Fascinating but we have just established that McCain was naturalized by statute 🙂
168. nbc says:

     June 13, 2013 at 3:19 am  nbc(Quote)

     ballantine: Again, you are wrong again. The English statutes were deemed to naturalize foreign born persons.

     Yep… I find it quite ironic that Keith himself agrees that it was by statute that these children were made citizen.
169. nbc says:

     June 13, 2013 at 3:21 am  nbc(Quote)

     Keith: (1) those who have certain blood ties to American citizens and meet certain other criteria, and
     (2) those who don’t.

     Those people in category 1 do not require naturalization to become citizens; they are acquire their citizenship at birth, naturally.

     And yet they require statutory enactment, under the naturalization powers… Fascinating how we keep coming back to the same findings, even though you insist that they are not naturalized, the courts have disagreed.

     Thank you Keith.
170. Keith says:

     June 13, 2013 at 4:13 am  Keith(Quote)

     ballantine: Again, you seem to be unable to comprehend English.The Supreme Court has said over and over and over that people in the first category are aliens unless naturalized by naturalization statute.Do you have a reading disability?How many times do we have to repeat the same thing?How many quotes do you want?In the past century, no court has ever suggested a foreign born person can be a citizen without naturalization and there is an entire body of case law on the subject.If you think otherwise, cite an authority. Seriously, with each post you look more and more clueless.

     And yet, my response to your question reflected the actual LAW actually IN EFFECT today.

     See 8 USC � 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth (this is congruent to INA Section 301). This is the basis for my statement that Congress divides foreign born persons into two classes: blood relatives and not blood relatives.

     You repeatedly ask if I have a reading disability or problem with the English language when in fact you are clearly not reading what I am writing. Well, I do understand what the Courts have said; I understand the difference between Common Law, Statute Law, and the Constitution. I also understand what the current law of the land is? Do you?

     You repeatedly try to continue the argument about Natural Born Citizen when I haven’t discussed it, except peripherally for a long time, and not, I think in this thread, except to point out that even though the issue in WKA was couched in the term ‘natural-born’ what was actually at stake was simple citizenship, yes or no and hinged on jurisdiction. That ‘natural-born’ was a natural consequence of a yes answer, that wasn’t what the case was about. And there was no question of foreign birth in WKA so it isn’t applicable to any discussion about foreign born citizenship.

     That said, if you really, really want to discuss natural-born citizenship with respect to foreign born children of citizen parents, then you need to develop some understanding of the tools at your disposal, and sort out the underlying meaning of those tools.

     Definition of Alien

     From a summary of the Immigration and Nationality law at the Cornell University Legal Information Institute

     When Congress passed the INA, it defined an “alien” as any person lacking citizenship or status as a national of the United States.

     (INA Section 101 = 8 USC � 1101)

     Clearly a person who acquires citizenship at the instant of birth does not and never has lacked citizenship and is therefore not an alien and never has been.

     Since the concept of naturalization is to grant citizenship to aliens it makes no sense what-so-ever to apply the term to persons who are already citizens. What can be clearer than that?

     ‘jus sanguinis’ and natural born has never been tested in Court

     Not one of your cases where the Court has supposedly restricted the status of ‘Natural-Born” to those born on the soil has actually been about a person who was foreign born. There is no case on record about the ‘Natural Born’ status of a foreign born person, except the one that you reject because it didn’t actually go to trial. There is also the McCain resolution, which, since it is non-binding is Common Law.

     Common Law v Statute

     It would seem that you are locked into this idea that Common Law is entrenched in the Constitution or is somehow superior to it. That cannot be further from the truth. Common Law is inferior to Statutory law and to the Constitution. Here is a simple, but adequate definition:

     A law that is developed by parliament is known as a statute law. A statute is a formal, written law of a country or state, written and enacted by its legislative authority…

     A law that is developed in response to the rulings of the court is known as a common law. Common law was originated under the adversarial system in England from judicial decisions that were based in tradition, custom, and precedent.

     By that definition, if a court decides that ‘jus sanguinis’ citizens are naturalized, absent a statute or Constitutional provision saying so, that is COMMON LAW. The result of Calvin’s Case is COMMON LAW. It is based on tradition, custom, and precedent.

     Common law can be overridden by statute, and it is done all the time. The CRA1866 overrode Dred Scott which was Common Law. The intent of that act was further enshrined in the Constitution in the 14th Amendment.

     There is both Common Law (Calvin’s Case) and Statute Law (INA) that indicates that foreign born persons can be considered Natural Born. Calvin was born in Scotland but was ruled to be a Natural Born Subject of England. As shown above, the INA does not provides only for the naturalization of aliens.

     Since Minor v Happersett showed that there are only two sources of citizenship – natural-born and natural-ized – a foreign born person, if they are a citizen, must be either natural-born or naturalized. Since the INA defines naturalization as applicable only to aliens, and birthright citizens are by definition not aliens, then they must be natural-born citizens.

     My Argument

     Notice that the key here is ‘birthright’. I am not arguing that ‘jus sanguinis’ children do not owe their citizenship to Congressional statute, that is trivially obvious. What I am arguing is that ‘statute’ is not the crux of issue, ‘birthright’ is.

     Just as we had to look to the Common Law for the definition of the term ‘natural-born’, we also have to look to the Common Law for the definition of the term ‘naturalization’. When we do that, the definition is ‘the acquisition of citizenship and nationality by somebody who was not a citizen of that country (foreign)‘ or perhaps ‘to confer the rights of a national on; especially : to admit to citizenship‘. What is missing from that Common Law definition of naturalization is it is ‘any citizenship conferred by statute’.

     Citizenship acquired by statute is NOT the definition of ‘Naturalization’. Someone who is not an alien cannot be naturalized, regardless of the fact that the citizenship was acquired by way of a statute.

     My other argument, espoused in the other thread, is much simpler that all that and arrives at the same conclusion just using the ordinary definition of the words, the really fundamental ‘common law’. Natural-born citizenship is acquired “naturally” at birth through either of the birthright processes, jus soli or jus sanguinis. Natural-ized citizenship is acquired by aliens who have no birthright to citizenship.

     It happens that jus soli citizenship is enshrined in the Constitution via the 14th amendment and jus sanguinis citizenship is not. So what of it? There was no definition at all before the 14th amendment, yet there were certainly citizens, both natural-born and naturalized. This really isn’t that controversial, in my opinion.

     As always, I acknowledge that while my opinion is the same as the majority of legal scholars both practicing and academic, and of the USCIS, and the U.S. Attorney General that have to implement the provisions of the INA, and of Congress and its Research Service, there is a minority opinion that holds as you do. It is an honest technical gray area debate.
171. Keith says:

     June 13, 2013 at 4:43 am  Keith(Quote)

     nbc: What am I not understanding here? You appear to agree with Ballantine and yet you claim he is wrong.

     The letter of the law of De Natis Ultra Mare did not apply directly to Calvin’s Case. It was the interpretation of that law by the Court based on its wider implication. De Natis Ultra Mare was a statute applicable to English Soldiers stationed abroad, its application to Calvin’s Case became Common Law. Calvin was born in Scotland, yet he was considered a Natural Born Subject.

     Was Calvin made a Natural Born Citizen by the Statute De Natis Ultra Mare or was he a Citizen due to Common Law recognition of ‘jus sanguinis’ via a widening of the intent of that statute. I suspect the latter is probably more technically correct, but it doesn’t make any difference to the end result.

     If the statute is the direct source of Calvin’s citizenship, then he was made a natural born citizen via statute, as were any children of foreign stationed soldiers that the law was intended for. This result absolutely disagrees with both you and Ballantine, who both claim that NBC cannot be acquired via statute.

     Fascinating but we have just established that McCain was naturalized by statute

     I wasn’t aware that there was any dispute of the fact that McCain acquired Citizenship via a statute, however, no, it has not been established that that fact constitutes ‘naturalization’.
172. Keith says:

     June 13, 2013 at 4:48 am  Keith(Quote)

     nbc: Yep… I find it quite ironic that Keith himself agrees that it was by statute that these children were made citizen.

     What part of ‘the statute made them NATURAL BORN SUBJECTS’ do you not understand?

     NOT naturalized. Natural-born.

     Who has the reading comprehension difficulties?

     The advantage of natural-born over naturalized in 14th century England (and into Calvin’s time) was inheritance of property, not eligibility to be President, of course. So it had a much more important effect on the lives of the ordinary person, especially soldiers in a foreign land who often took their entire family with them on campaign.

     (the Monarch was never subject to such issues).
173. Keith says:

     June 13, 2013 at 4:51 am  Keith(Quote)

     nbc: And yet they require statutory enactment, under the naturalization powers… Fascinating how we keep coming back to the same findings, even though you insist that they are not naturalized, the courts have disagreed.

     Thank you Keith.

     And yet the CURRENT BLACK LETTER LAW says they are NOT naturalized.

     I do not argue that ‘jus sanguinis’ citizens do not owe their citizenship to statutes.

     I argue that it is ‘birthright’ not ‘statute’ that is the defining characteristic.

     This is not rocket science.
174. nbc says:

     June 13, 2013 at 4:53 am  nbc(Quote)

     You are confusing those how implemented the INA defining naturalization for the iimited purpose of the act as somehow being relevant to your claims.

     So far you have been totally unable to find any support beyond appealing to authority, without being able to overcome the findings in US v Wong Kim Ark and others which clearly reject your position.

     While currently the definition of naturalization, for the limited purpose of a statute, is different from the historical one, you seem to believe that this lends credibility to your arguments .

     So why did Congress pass the statute granting citizenship to children born abroad to citizen fathers under their naturalization powers?

     Why did Wong Kim Ark considered such children naturalized by statute?

     Why do more recent court rulings similarly observe that children who become citizens by virtue of birth abroad are naturalized?

     You make a totally unsupported claim that natural means ‘at birth’ but present no relevant case law, historical evidence, nothing at all, other than an attempt at logic. But the INA writers accept that the status of children born abroad may fall under naturalization and also point out that their definition of naturalization is merely for the purpose of the statute.

     It is tempting to just take these statements out of their proper context but as I have shown with WKA, this leads you down a path of error.

     Yes common law can be overridden by statute, but not the constitutional use of the term natural born which was to be understood by common law at that time.

     It’s so simple and straightforward and you yourself have provided much of the arguments as to why these children are naturalized.

     Now listen to the courts, and understand the limited definition in the INA and things become much simpler and you do not have to jump through imaginary hoops to make your arguments, whatever foundation they may have.

     You still refuse to understand or accept the simple fact that common law never included statutory citizenship of children born abroad, a finding clearly established in WKA. As such, since the term natural born had to be understood in view of common law, the conclusion is simple. Ever wondered why people have used natural and native born interchangeably?

     For a very good reason, as they are.

     So far there is NO support for your interpretation that natural born means citizen at birth. We know from common law that it is citizen by birth on soil and that citizenship of those born abroad to citizen parents was, as it is in the US, granted by statute and thus through naturalization.
     While it may be tempting to point at the INA’s limited definition, it is important, once again, to understand the term as it was used in earlier days.

     I wish you good luck in that, I have been providing you with lots of data, as has Ballantine and whenever we get close to you, you resort to ‘well the authorities say I am right’.

     Which by itself is evidence of the shaky foundation of your claims.

     May I once again suggest you read WKA in light of the briefs that were filed? It is a magnificent ruling, thorough and quite helpful in understanding that which even Judge Scalia understands to be jus soli, as being the foundation of natural born citizenship.

     From a legal, and historical perspective there is just little support for your arguments, but you are lending quite a bit of support to people like Apuzzo.
     I find that somewhat ironic, as I am sure that is not your intention.

     There is NO common law foundation for children born abroad being natural born citizens, not under English law, not under US law.

     That as much the court in US v WKA fully laid to rest. Something you appear to have a hard time accepting and yet, the court was quite forceful in its rejection of jus sanguinis here, even though the appellees had made valiant efforts to lay out a foundation for such a rule, the court found that it failed.

     Just like Mario’s concept about two citizen parents, which was argued and rejected as well.

     WKA was quite thorough in its rulings and, given the issues argued had to go through a long argument to make its point.

     To fully appreciate this, you may want to read all the relevant briefs, as well as the lower court’s ruling. Very helpful in understanding how the court reached its decision and why.

     Ballantine is a formidable force as he is the source of many relevant rulings, scholarly observations, historical evidence, and more all putting to rest the hope that somehow jus sanguinis sneaked into our common law. There is more than enough evidence that it never was part of common law, that it was statutory enactment and that it was not even natural as it came with conditions, it changed its conditions and for about half a century there was not even a statute caring for many children so born, rendering them aliens.

     If it had been part of common law, nothing of this would have happened. So now you have to move the goalposts to ‘natural born means citizen at birth’ without any relevant court ruling, scholarly understanding, etc.
     Nothing. Well, the INA uses a particular definition for purpose of the statute. But even there it is clear that they very well understood that it may not match the constitutional definition.
175. nbc says:

     June 13, 2013 at 4:56 am  nbc(Quote)

     Keith: And yet the CURRENT BLACK LETTER LAW says they are NOT naturalized.

     Only for purpose of the statute my friend. You really need to understand how naturalization used to be defined and why it was defined more restrictively for the purpose of a statute.

     You may want to read in more depth the remarks by the house committee who passed the INA and observe that the limited definition is for purpose of the act, and its relevance to the constitutional definition remains less clear.

     Just saying.
176. nbc says:

     June 13, 2013 at 4:59 am  nbc(Quote)

     Keith: I wasn’t aware that there was any dispute of the fact that McCain acquired Citizenship via a statute, however, no, it has not been established that that fact constitutes ‘naturalization’.

     Did you miss Rogers v Bellei or the fact that the 1790 act was passed under the naturalization powers of congress?

     All arrows point away from your interpretation. It is hard to deny that under US v WKA and other rulings, such children are not naturalized. Or perhaps you can explain under what constitutional powers congress can grant citizenship? The constitution is clear here, it is called naturalization.
177. nbc says:

     June 13, 2013 at 5:11 am  nbc(Quote)

     Keith: The letter of the law of De Natis Ultra Mare did not apply directly to Calvin’s Cas

     The history shows that even in England, the status of children born abroad was never part of common law, but rather part of statutes, which naturalized such children. Now you may not like these simple facts as outlined in US v Wong Kim Ark but the court made an important determination here about the meaning of natural born and explicitly excluded those born abroad to citizen parents calling them naturalized.

     De Natis Ultra Mare was an act to deal with the realization or worries about the status of children born abroad, especially children of the King and it was found that children of the king by common law were included, but that children born abroad to others, required statutes. Even the way the act was phrased indicates that it was forward looking and never was declaratory in the sense the 14th Amendment was declaratory of our constitution.

     Time after time, Parliament found it necessary to pass naturalization statutes to deal with children so born, understanding that such children were, under common law, born alien.

     Our Founders were fully aware of this and found it necessary to take care of the status of children born abroad to citizen fathers, by statute, under their naturalization powers. While for a brief moment in time calling them natural born, this was removed in future acts, and in fact, from 1802 to 1855, many children born abroad were not even citizens but aliens.

     You may also want to read Horrace Binney’s Aligenaea which laid the foundation for congress to finally rectify this oversight.
     US v WKA did look at some of the rulings which suggested that common law had included those born abroad and pointed to a common source of misunderstanding and rejected the conclusion reached by a few courts.

     Again, US v WKA lays the foundation for rejecting many of your claims. There is just NO foundation that common law included such children born abroad to citizen parents, so they were not natural born under the constitution. The claim that congress could still make them natural born as the term means ‘at birth’ again is strongly contradicted by US v WKA and other rulings, and so far I have seen little or no arguments that show that we should accept this definition.

     So, once you understand that the INA’s definition is for purpose of the act, and that the report introducing the bill accepts that the constitutional meaning may have been broader, you may see where you went wrong in your arguments.

     I appreciate your tenacity, even though there appears to be little supporting evidence for your position, but we keep returning to the same rejected positions. Rejected by various court, especially US v Wong Kim Ark.

     It is thus tempting to ignore its findings, claiming that it is just dicta, but such a position fails to understand and appreciate the logic of their arguments especially in light of the submitted briefs.

     Ignoring this, inevitably leads you down a path of errors and misunderstanding
178. ballantine says:

     June 13, 2013 at 7:48 am  ballantine(Quote)

     Keith: What part of ‘the statute made them NATURAL BORN SUBJECTS’ do you not understand?

     NOT naturalized. Natural-born.

     Who has the reading comprehension difficulties?

     The advantage of natural-born over naturalized in 14th century England (and into Calvin’s time) was inheritance of property, not eligibility to be President, of course. So it had a much more important effect on the lives of the ordinary person, especially soldiers in a foreign land who often took their entire family with them on campaign.

     (the Monarch was never subject to such issues).

     Again, they were considered naturalized subjects by Blackstone and pretty much all authority. The notion that jus sanguinis was part of the common law was rejected by all important authority in England and the United States. Congress only had the power of naturalization and hence the supreme court has said the foreign born must be naturalized.

     “Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case [p703] of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.’

     Such was cited in Weedin, Rogers v. Bellie, Montana v. Kennedy, Miller v. Allbright and a number of other equal protection cases. The modern authorities who say such persons are not naturalized are playing word games as they can only become citizens through the power of naturalization. As Justice Scalia said in Miller, petitioner was an alien unless Congress through it power of naturalization made her a citizen. This is settled law whether you like it or not.
179. ballantine says:

     June 13, 2013 at 8:04 am  ballantine(Quote)

     Keith:

     Notice that the key here is ‘birthright’. I am not arguing that ‘jus sanguinis’ children do not owe their citizenship to Congressional statute, that is trivially obvious. What I am arguing is that ‘statute’ is not the crux of issue, ‘birthright’ is.

     Just as we had to look to the Common Law for the definition of the term ‘natural-born’, we also have to look to the Common Law for the definition of the term ‘naturalization’. When we do that, the definition is ‘the acquisition of citizenship and nationality by somebody who was not a citizen of that country (foreign)‘ or perhaps ‘to confer the rights of a national on; especially : to admit to citizenship‘. What is missing from that Common Law definition of naturalization is it is ‘any citizenship conferred by statute’.

     Citizenship acquired by statute is NOT the definition of ‘Naturalization’. Someone who is not an alien cannot be naturalized, regardless of the fact that the citizenship was acquired by way of a statute.

     My other argument, espoused in the other thread, is much simpler that all that and arrives at the same conclusion just using the ordinary definition of the words, the really fundamental ‘common law’. Natural-born citizenship is acquired “naturally” at birth through either of the birthright processes, jus soli or jus sanguinis. Natural-ized citizenship is acquired by aliens who have no birthright to citizenship.

     It happens that jus soli citizenship is enshrined in the Constitution via the 14th amendment and jus sanguinis citizenship is not. So what of it? There was no definition at all before the 14th amendment, yet there were certainly citizens, both natural-born and naturalized. This really isn’t that controversial, in my opinion.

     As always, I acknowledge that while my opinion is the same as the majority of legal scholars both practicing and academic, and of the USCIS, and the U.S. Attorney General that have to implement the provisions of the INA, and of Congress and its Research Service, there is a minority opinion that holds as you do. It is an honest technical gray area debate.

     The problem is you have to look at what naturalization was meant to mean in the early republic, not how Congress has used the term today. Blackstone and most English authority used the term as to persons made citizens by statute, never with respect to the native born. In America, the term was used solely with respect to foreign born persons made citizens by statute. It was well understood that Congress only had the power of naturalization which was one of the most debated points of territorial acquisition and of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 since the Supreme Court had stated that native born persons could not be naturalized. As we have pointed out, you can keep saying these people were considered natural born rather than naturalized. However, there are almost no legal authorities in the early republic that called them that. The fact that modern scholars do doesn’t change the fact that there is almost no authority in the early republic to support such notion.

     As to your birthright point, the problem again is no one in the early republic supported it. The ordinary meaning of the words does not lead one to believe citizenship from parents is natural. You are simply making up your own definition of what was natural and what was not. Nobody in such period said citizenship from parents was birthright and there is nothing in the plain meaning of the words that leads to that. You can speculate all you want, but you can’t show evidence. As I have said, if anything “natural” would mean without a statute that can be amended or revoked at any time.
180. Paper says:

     June 13, 2013 at 9:05 am  Paper(Quote)

     This is where I enter the picture with my observation that it is inaccurate to say WKA “explicitly excluded those born abroad to citizen parents calling them naturalized.” That would be an extra logical step to conclude that calling them naturalized means they are excluded. If anything, it certainly is not explicit. This is the point where ballantine also has noted that WKA left it open, that WKA does not preclude naturalized citizens from being considered natural-born citizens. I am making a clear distinction from Keith in this specific regard, so don’t mix the two considerations.

     WKA says there are only two *sources* of citizenship, birth and naturalization. As ballantine notes, that is well settled. But are they mutually exclusive? Is natural-born citizenship in Article II a source (and thus only one of the two) or a category (comprising more than one source)? Multiple sources are a commonplace occurrence in life, so it is not a wild and wooly notion pulled out of a hat. I don’t think it is accurate to say that *WKA* says “if naturalized not natural-born.” I am interested in legal cases that may say support that conclusion, but I just set aside your insistence on *WKA* locking that down, as well as at least some of the later citations you list, which do not take that extra logical step.

     Again, I do not have a horse in this race, as no matter what the definition ultimately would be considered, I think we should amend presidential eligibility to include those clearly naturalized after birth. So to me personally, either way doesn’t matter.

     nbc: Now you [Keith] may not like these simple facts as outlined in US v Wong Kim Ark but the court made an important determination here about the meaning of natural born and explicitly excluded those born abroad to citizen parents calling them naturalized.
181. Paper says:

     June 13, 2013 at 9:17 am  Paper(Quote)

     I do not think it is “moving the goal posts.” I think you overstate your case. I think you are in the same position, needing to move things around to say that natural-born *only* means those born here. At the very least, with regards our early days.

     There may not be decisive references making clear that natural-born citizenship meant by or at birth anywhere, but there also are not decisive references making clear that natural-born citizenship meant only by birth here.

     We may get some later references that shift in that direction (or the other way for that matter), but it is not clear with regard our founders, nor is this specific question settled by WKA.

     nbc:
     So now you have to move the goalposts to ‘natural born means citizen at birth’ without any relevant court ruling, scholarly understanding, etc.
     Nothing. Well, the INA uses a particular definition for purpose of the statute. But even there it is clear that they very well understood that it may not match the constitutional definition.
182. Paper says:

     June 13, 2013 at 9:19 am  Paper(Quote)

     I also would think we need to be extremely fastidious in our considerations of native-born viz. natural-born, and how those two terms have been used, by whom and in what context. It may be that in the end they should be considered equivalent, plain and simple with no distinction whatever, but that seems a very basic area in which to be careful.

     nbc: Ever wondered why people have used natural and native born interchangeably?

     For a very good reason, as they are.
183. Keith says:

     June 13, 2013 at 10:37 am  Keith(Quote)

     nbc: The history shows that even in England, the status of children born abroad was never part of common law, but rather part of statutes,

     That is correct. No disagreement at all. By 1351, Parliament was operating pretty much as we know it today.

     which naturalized such children.

     That, however, is incorrect and I completely disagree.

     The specific purpose of of the 14th Century act was to establish the foreign born children of English soldiers as natural-born, not naturalized. Only natural-born subjects could inherit property in England and the King was having trouble convincing folks to fight his war with France, what with the labor shortages and all, and at a particularly crucial time.

     If you don’t understand that vital point, then you don’t understand any of what follows from it, including Calvin’s Case. The King was facing the very real question that anti-war protesters asked during the Viet Nam War: ‘what if they gave a war and nobody came’?

     You want historical record? Edward captured Calais in 1347, England’s first real foothold on the continent since the beginning of the Hundred Years War. Then the plague struck in 1348.

     Over the next 2 years the disease killed between 30-40% of the entire population. Given that the pre-plague population of England was in the range of 5-6 million people, fatalities may have reached as high as 2 million dead.

     The economic disaster was enormous, labor shortages and mass migrations put the nail in the coffin of the medieval Feudal system. Edward needed soldiers for his wars on the continent. But who is going to pack up his family to go to war when there are huge labor shortages (and thus high wages) available right there at home. De Natis Ultra Mare was promulgated in 1351(the year after the Plague died down), providing his English subjects with assurances that their foreign born children could inherit. This went a long way to convincing them to show up for the war.

     Had De Natis Ultra Mare only ‘naturalized’ the foreign born children it would not have been worth the paper it was written on, because only ‘natural-born’ children could inherit, and that was the whole point.

     The 1351 STATUTE provided for FOREIGN BORN children to be NATURAL BORN in order to satisfy the COMMON LAW inheritance rules.

     My final comment is that all law in England before about 1322 was either Common Law, Cannon Law, or Law of Equity. Cannon Law applied to the Church of course, and the Law of Equity to the Monarch and his ability to order specific acts. Common law was the law of everyday life. It was not unwritten, it was well known precisely because it had been recorded and continuously updated as needed. Though Parliamentary (statute) law began taking over from Judicial (Common) around 1322, I strongly suspect that they would have considered their Statutes and Common Law to be on an equal footing.

     Good night.
184. Keith says:

     June 13, 2013 at 10:44 am  Keith(Quote)

     ballantine: The ordinary meaning of the words does not lead one to believe citizenship from parents is natural.

     That is not what I said, for crying out loud.

     I said that acquiring citizenship AT BIRTH is natural. No reference to the status of the parents (or location) what-so-ever.

     Acquiring citizenship after birth is NOT natural – it is being MADE natural-like.

     Your willful refusal to understand my plain English is as bad as the birthers refusal to understand the plain English of the 14th amendment which makes no reference to the parents either.
185. ballantine says:

     June 13, 2013 at 10:57 am  ballantine(Quote)

     Keith: That is not what I said, for crying out loud.

     I said that acquiring citizenship AT BIRTH is natural. No reference to the status of the parents (or location) what-so-ever.

     Acquiring citizenship after birth is NOT natural – it is being MADE natural-like.

     Your willful refusal to understand my plain English is as bad as the birthers refusal to understand the plain English of the 14th amendment which makes no reference to the parents either.

     I am sorry. You are simply making up your oiwn definition. Who in the founding period sai aquiting citizen at birth is natural? No one. Being made a citizen at birth by statute in no way falls under the plain meaning of natural. You can make up definition all you want, but unless you show someone in the founding period agreed with you, it is just your opinion. You are not much different than Mr. Nash who also has his own definition of natural citizenship.
186. ballantine says:

     June 13, 2013 at 11:14 am  ballantine(Quote)

     Keith: That is correct. No disagreement at all. By 1351, Parliament was operating pretty much as we know it today.

     That, however, is incorrect and I completely disagree.

     The specific purpose of of the 14th Century act was to establish the foreign born children of English soldiers as natural-born, not naturalized. Only natural-born subjects could inherit property in England and the King was having trouble convincing folks to fight his war with France, what with the labor shortages and all, and at a particularly crucial time.

     If you don’t understand that vital point, then you don’t understand any of what follows from it, including Calvin’s Case. The King was facing the very real question that anti-war protesters asked during the Viet Nam War: ‘what if they gave a war and nobody came’?

     You want historical record? Edward captured Calais in 1347, England’s first real foothold on the continent since the beginning of the Hundred Years War. Then the plague struck in 1348.

     The economic disaster was enormous, labor shortages and mass migrations put the nail in the coffin of the medieval Feudal system. Edward needed soldiers for his wars on the continent. But who is going to pack up his family to go to war when there are huge labor shortages (and thus high wages) available right there at home. De Natis Ultra Mare was promulgated in 1351(the year after the Plague died down), providing his English subjects with assurances that their foreign born children could inherit. This went a long way to convincing them to show up for the war.

     Had De Natis Ultra Mare only ‘naturalized’ the foreign born children it would not have been worth the paper it was written on, because only ‘natural-born’ children could inherit, and that was the whole point.

     The 1351 STATUTE provided for FOREIGN BORN children to be NATURAL BORN in order to satisfy the COMMON LAW inheritance rules.

     My final comment is that all law in England before about 1322 was either Common Law, Cannon Law, or Law of Equity. Cannon Law applied to the Church of course, and the Law of Equity to the Monarch and his ability to order specific acts. Common law was the law of everyday life. It was not unwritten, it was well known precisely because it had been recorded and continuously updated as needed. Though Parliamentary (statute) law began taking over from Judicial (Common) around 1322, I strongly suspect that they would have considered their Statutes and Common Law to be on an equal footing.

     Good night.

     I believe the 1351 statute just said they could inheret, not that they were natural born subjects. The later statutes did, but England never treated such persons the same as native born subjects. And the 1773 statute by its terms makes clear that the natural born are people born in the Kingdom and such children were to be treated as if born in the Kingdom. Think if they used the term “native-born” instead. Saying you are going to treat a non-native as a native does not change the meaning of native. As Blackstone said, such statutes were for commercial purposes, like inheritance, but such persons were not treated as British subjects at birth owing allegiance to England. Accordingly, the status of such persons was never quite clear in England, much less in America. One can speculate how Americans viewed these statutes. Maybe they thought them as bestowing equal status, maybe not. Maybe they thought they meant Parliament could make natural born subjects. Maybe not. Law is generally not based upon speculation. The problem with all your arguments, and the arguments of people like Maskell and others, is they are based upon nothing but speculation. The birthers can rightly speculate that the framers relied upon Vattel or Locke for the basis of our citizenship. The problem is they have no evidence to support such speculation. You can speculate that the framers understood the term “natural born” to include jus sanguinis. The problem is there is little actual evidence to support such speculation. Yours and the others are generally arguing that “natural born” was generally understood to include jus sanguinis, but when any early legal authority talked about Presidential eligiblity, no one of significance mentioned such people. Take the 14th Amendment. Nearly everyone involved in the citizenship debates talked about Presidential eligilbity at some point. Not one person suggested it applied to someone who was not a native. Not one. How can this be if you are righ?. Was it a secret? Did people think such class too small to ever mention? It is simply a very weak argument to claim something was a common understanding when you can’t find any person of significance saying so.
187. Dave B. says:

     June 13, 2013 at 12:26 pm  Dave B.(Quote)

     I would just like to point out that INA Sec. 101 provides the definitions of terms “as used in this Act.” Whether or not such definitions would apply in a broader context would remain to be seen.

     Keith: Definition of Alien

     From a summary of the Immigration and Nationality law at the Cornell University Legal Information Institute

     When Congress passed the INA, it defined an “alien” as any person lacking citizenship or status as a national of the United States.

     (INA Section 101 = 8 USC � 1101)

     Clearly a person who acquires citizenship at the instant of birth does not and never has lacked citizenship and is therefore not an alien and never has been.

     Since the concept of naturalization is to grant citizenship to aliens it makes no sense what-so-ever to apply the term to persons who are already citizens. What can be clearer than that?
188. Thinker says:

     June 13, 2013 at 12:36 pm  Thinker(Quote)

     Taitz has filed her appeal in her Judd case that was dismissed last fall. It’s a doozy. She should be disbarred for filing this kind of crap. But we know the court will simply affirm the lower court ruling and she will keep abusing the court system.
     [edit: deleted bad link]
189. nbc says:

     June 13, 2013 at 2:36 pm  nbc(Quote)

     ballantine: I am sorry. You are simply making up your oiwn definition. Who in the founding period sai aquiting citizen at birth is natural? No one. Being made a citizen at birth by statute in no way falls under the plain meaning of natural. You can make up definition all you want, but unless you show someone in the founding period agreed with you, it is just your opinion. You are not much different than Mr. Nash who also has his own definition of natural citizenship.

     My point as well. We can all have our private definitions of terms, but finding actual support for them is, as Keith may have noticed, a bit more complex.
190. nbc says:

     June 13, 2013 at 2:37 pm  nbc(Quote)

     Dave B.: I would just like to point out that INA Sec. 101 provides the definitions of terms “as used in this Act.” Whether or not such definitions would apply in a broader context would remain to be seen.

     Exactly, this is even noted by the committee who wrote the 1940 act. Understanding these terms and how they are used in proper context, avoids flawed conclusions.
191. nbc says:

     June 13, 2013 at 2:39 pm  nbc(Quote)

     Also the following ruling may help Keith

     Wong Kam Wo v. Dulles, 236 F. 2d 622 – Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1956

     The question to be decided, therefore, is whether � 1993 of the Revised Statutes is a “naturalization” law, as Congress used that term in � 100 of the Hawaii Organic Act. If so, the father’s residence in Honolulu prior to the birth of appellants must be deemed equivalent to residence in the United States, thereby satisfying the requirements of � 1993. Appellee contends that � 1993 provides for nationality by birth, rather than by naturalization.

     In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890, it was held that � 1993 was enacted in the exercise of the power vested in Congress by the constitution “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”.[4] The court said:

     “* * * A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in 625*625 the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.”[5]

     Appellee argues that the quoted language from United States v. Wong Kim Ark is dictum. We do not agree. The question before the court was whether Chinese racial extraction prevented a person born in the United States from becoming a citizen by birth. It was necessary for the court to distinguish between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization. The quoted language was pertinent to that inquiry and a part of the rationale of the decision.

     Section 1993 is therefore a naturalization law in the constitutional sense. Absent considerations which require a contrary conclusion, this would appear to be the sense in which the term was used in the Hawaii Organic Act. Appellee, however, urges that there are considerations which indicate that the term as it appears in the latter act was used in the more limited sense of judicial naturalization.
192. nbc says:

     June 13, 2013 at 2:41 pm  nbc(Quote)

     Keith: I said that acquiring citizenship AT BIRTH is natural. No reference to the status of the parents (or location) what-so-ever.

     You may consider that to be natural but there is no real support for this claim. Sure, others like you may have attempted to make similar claims but natural refers to no requirement for statute and there is no authority that shows otherwise.

     Even the INA has to be understood in its proper context. But i provided you a reference to Wong Kam Wo v. Dulles, 236 F. 2d 622 – Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1956 which removes many of the doubts you should have.
193. nbc says:

     June 13, 2013 at 2:47 pm  nbc(Quote)

     Paper:
     I also would think we need to be extremely fastidious in our considerations of native-born viz. natural-born, and how those two terms have been used, by whom and in what context.It may be that in the end they should be considered equivalent, plain and simple with no distinction whatever, but that seems a very basic area in which to be careful.

     The terms are used interchangeably in statutes, in the discussions around the New York Convention, in court rulings.

     See for instance the dissent in Schneider v Rusk

     Distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens in connection with foreign residence are drawn in the Constitution itself. Only a native-born may become President, Art. II, � 1. A naturalized citizen must wait seven years after he obtains his citizenship before he is eligible to sit in the House, Art. I, � 2.

     or the majority

     While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from � 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rights of the naturalized citizen derive from satisfying, free of fraud, the requirements set by Congress, the latter, apart from the exception noted, “becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual.” Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827. And see Luria v. United States, 231 U. S. 9, 22; United States v. MacIntosh, 283 U. S. 605, 624; Knauer v. United States, 328 U. S. 654, 658.

     Perkins v Elg

     “Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States; but the father, in accordance with the treaty and the laws, has renounced his American citizenship and his American allegiance and has acquired for himself and his son German citizenship and the rights which it carries, and he must take the burdens as well as the advantages.
194. nbc says:

     June 13, 2013 at 2:48 pm  nbc(Quote)

     Keith: Your willful refusal to understand my plain English is as bad as the birthers refusal to understand the plain English of the 14th amendment which makes no reference to the parents either.

     Oh, we understand your plain English, we doubt your interpretation of the term natural.
195. nbc says:

     June 13, 2013 at 2:51 pm  nbc(Quote)

     Keith: The specific purpose of of the 14th Century act was to establish the foreign born children of English soldiers as natural-born, not naturalized. Only natural-born subjects could inherit property in England and the King was having trouble convincing folks to fight his war with France, what with the labor shortages and all, and at a particularly crucial time.

     You are still missing the point. These statutes were never part of common law, but rather passed through explicit statute.

     This is the whole extent of its relevance, namely that it, never being part of english common law, meant that it was never part of our common law and thus, as the court found in US v Wong Kim Ark, such children only become citizens through the naturalization acts.

     The same applied in England.

     Not that hard to follow.
196. nbc says:

     June 13, 2013 at 3:00 pm  nbc(Quote)

     Keith: Though Parliamentary (statute) law began taking over from Judicial (Common) around 1322, I strongly suspect that they would have considered their Statutes and Common Law to be on an equal footing.

     Sure but irrelevant to the discussion.

     Let’s walk through it once more:

     1. Wong Kim Ark could not be naturalized
     2. For Wong Kim Ark to be a citizen, he needed to be one under our Constitution
     3. The court recognized that the Constitution uses the term natural born for citizens who become such without the need of statute.
     4. The term however was not defined in the Constitution
     5. It’s meaning was to be found in common law.
     6. It was argued that jus sanguinis, was in fact part of common law, but as the Court observed in WKA, it never was part of common law, not in England, not in our colonies, not in our Republic, where it required specific naturalization statutes.

     Simple and straightforward.

     In order to succeed you have to show that such children would be born citizens under common law, and that’s, in light of US v WKA and countless other cases and authorities an impossible task.

     You must have realized this when you redefined natural to be ‘at birth’ but even that position remains totally unsupported. You refer to naturalization statutes in England which are used to bring these aliens under the crown, but fail to appreciate that natural-born never meant at birth, but rather owing allegiance, which follows in this country from birth on soil and jurisdiction. In other words, jus soli.

     As others have similarly observed, calling such children natural born does not mean that this term is equivalent to the constitutional term.

     It is interesting to note, however, that the statute declares that such children shall be “considered as natural born citizens.” Whether the term “natural born citizen,” as used in section 1 of article II of the Constitution, with refer-ence to eligibility to the office of President of the United States, includes persons born abroad to citizens of the United States is still a subject of debate.

     See: NATIONALITY LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, A REPORT PROPOSING A REVISION AND CODIFICATION OF THE NATIONALITY LAWS ,OP THE UNITED STATES, PREPARED AT THE REQUEST OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND THE
     SECRETARY OF LABOR, 76th Congress, first session, 1939.
197. nbc says:

     June 13, 2013 at 3:02 pm  nbc(Quote)

     Paper: I do not think it is “moving the goal posts.” I think you overstate your case. I think you are in the same position, needing to move things around to say that natural-born *only* means those born here. At the very least, with regards our early days.

     There may not be decisive references making clear that natural-born citizenship meant by or at birth anywhere, but there also are not decisive references making clear that natural-born citizenship meant only by birth here.

     Again I urge you to read US v Wong Kim Ark, where the court indeed found that those born abroad to citizen parents, and the concept of jus sanguinis was never part of our common law, and that children so born are naturalized.

     Even the dissent understood that this deprived them from being natural born.

     I am following simple logic, based on the US v Wong Kim Ark ruling. It is clear that common law did not include children born abroad as natural-born. They could only become citizens by naturalization.

     There is certainly no support for the concept that ‘at birth’ plays any relevant role in whether or not someone is natural born. There is significant support, if not overwhelming, that those born natively are considered, with minor exceptions, to be natural born.

     To suggest that the arguments have equal strength, ignores these straightforward facts.
198. nbc says:

     June 13, 2013 at 3:06 pm  nbc(Quote)

     Paper: This is where I enter the picture with my observation that it is inaccurate to say WKA “explicitly excluded those born abroad to citizen parents calling them naturalized.” That would be an extra logical step to conclude that calling them naturalized means they are excluded.

     The court found that such children were not natural born under common law, even the dissent understood what that meant.

     Since the courts have found that one is either natural born or naturalized, the conclusion that there is a third form that straddles the two becomes quite tenuous, especially when courts also use the term native born in similar circumstances.
199. donna says:

     June 13, 2013 at 4:04 pm  donna(Quote)

     ORYR Shock Claim: Glenn Beck Has Hacked Emails Used To
     Blackmail Chief Justice John Roberts Over Obamacare Ruling?

     Before Its News has an anonymous source who has provided this information on the scandal Glenn Beck promises to reveal on Thursday, June 13, 2013.

     Here’s the GLENN BECK scandal that he will reveal within 24 hours…

     It will be announced that hacked emails were used to blackmail and extort Chief Justice Roberts. Very embarrassing emails were obtained, and he was told to vote to declare Obamacare constitutional, or his family life would be destroyed.

     http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/06/shock-claim-glenn-beck-has-hacked.html

     where to begin?
200. CarlOrcas says:

     June 13, 2013 at 4:19 pm  CarlOrcas(Quote)

     donna:

     where to begin?

     Let’s get General Zullo on this right away. He and the posse should get to the bottom of it in…..oh…..a couple years?
201. nbc says:

     June 13, 2013 at 4:44 pm  nbc(Quote)

     donna: where to begin?

     with Beck, you know that there is nothing
202. donna says:

     June 13, 2013 at 5:20 pm  donna(Quote)

     NBC: with Beck, you know that there is nothing

     lol – i’m looking for my beck “survival kit”

     do i have to tinfoil my windows again? what a pain!!!
203. Rickey says:

     June 13, 2013 at 6:45 pm  Rickey(Quote)

     donna:
     ORYR Shock Claim: Glenn Beck Has Hacked Emails Used To
     Blackmail Chief Justice John Roberts Over Obamacare Ruling?

     Before Its News has an anonymous source who has provided this information on the scandal Glenn Beck promises to reveal on Thursday, June 13, 2013.

     The day isn’t over yet, but nothing about this from Beck – probably because Beck never said that he has hacked e-mails. Apparently on his radio show he theorized that Roberts might have been threatened or blackmailed and that there might be e-mails. In birtherspeak, that means that he has ironclad evidence.
204. Jim says:

     June 13, 2013 at 6:54 pm  Jim(Quote)

     Rickey: The day isn’t over yet, but nothing about this from Beck – probably because Beck never said that he has hacked e-mails. Apparently on his radio show he theorized that Roberts might have been threatened or blackmailed and that there might be e-mails. In birtherspeak, that means that he has ironclad evidence.

     Time to hit the birther sites and get them on the phones and emails to Beck!!! 😀
205. ASK Esq says:

     June 13, 2013 at 8:45 pm  ASK Esq(Quote)

     PPSimmons/Carl Gallups has officially announced that he will fall for anything. His newest video is about one of his followers sending him a map of Kenya with a town named Hawaii listed. Ignoring the language problem, is it even possible that no birther would have found this already? Or maybe they did, but even birthers found it too ridiculous to spread.
206. CarlOrcas says:

     June 13, 2013 at 8:57 pm  CarlOrcas(Quote)

     ASK Esq:
     PPSimmons/Carl Gallups has officially announced that he will fall for anything. His newest video is about one of his followers sending him a map of Kenya with a town named Hawaii listed. Ignoring the language problem, is it even possible that no birther would have found this already? Or maybe they did, but even birthers found it too ridiculous to spread.

     Never seen this site before – http://thefounderskeeper.com/12-06-11.htm – but when I Googled “Hawaii Kenya” this popped up. Scroll down for the map of Kenya…..from 2011.

     If it’s on the Internet it has to be true…..right?
207. Keith says:

     June 13, 2013 at 9:14 pm  Keith(Quote)

     nbc: You must have realized this when you redefined natural to be ‘at birth’ but even that position remains totally unsupported.

     I didn’t define natural to be ‘at birth’. I said that citizenship acquired at birth has been acquired naturally. Citizenship acquired after birth is naturalization.

     I accept the dictionary definition of the word ‘natural’ and applied it appropriately. See especially definition 3a(1) from Merriam-Webster Online dictionary:

     1: based on an inherent sense of right and wrong

     2a : being in accordance with or determined by nature
     2b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature

     3a (1) : begotten as distinguished from adopted; also : legitimate
     3a (2) : being a relation by actual consanguinity as distinguished from adoption
     3b : illegitimate

     4: having an essential relation with someone or something : following from the nature of the one in question
     
208. Keith says:

     June 13, 2013 at 9:27 pm  Keith(Quote)

     nbc: You are still missing the point. These statutes were never part of common law, but rather passed through explicit statute.

     It is you that is missing the point. The 1351 Statute ‘made’ natural born citizens out of foreign born children. Something you deny is possible.

     In Calvin’s Case the English Court based its decision on the 1351 Statute. ‘Calvin’ was born in Scotland and that was foreign born from the point of view of England. Yet the Court found him to be a natural born citizen of England. That is Common Law.

     So you have BOTH Statutory Law and Common Law concluding that foreign born persons can be natural born, and both examples come together in Calvin’s Case.

     The result of Calvin’s Case is that a foreign born person was declared ‘natural born’. Calvin’s Case IS Common Law and was cited as such in WKA.

     As always, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. These are straight forward facts that you cannot get around by repeating the mantra that it isn’t so.
209. ASK Esq says:

     June 13, 2013 at 10:07 pm  ASK Esq(Quote)

     CarlOrcas: Never seen this site before – http://thefounderskeeper.com/12-06-11.htm – but when I Googled “Hawaii Kenya” this popped up. Scroll down for the map of Kenya…..from 2011.
     If it’s on the Internet it has to be true…..right?

     It turns out that there’s a school in Kenya that named its dormitories after places around the world. One is named Hawaii. So, using birther math, that means that Obama was born in a dorm. Or something. The video also points out how close it is to something called Hell’s Gate National Park. Of course, the pinhead failed to realize that the map wasn’t life size, and the school is about 1,000 miles away from the park.
210. Dr. Conspiracy says:

     June 13, 2013 at 10:09 pm  Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

     Common law could be described as “the way things have always been done.” There is certainly an open question as to whether the 1351 statute and early successors (which as I recall dealt with inheritance primarily) entered into the common law because of itheir antiquity. (I say that it is an open question because I have seen it argued in scholarly papers).

     I think most authorities have said that it didn’t, citing the fact that any number of later statues made the children born overseas of natural born subjects themselves natural born subjects would not have been necessary if it had been a common law principle.

     However, I’m not comfortable with the idea that just because the common law didn’t make these foreign born persons natural born subjects, that the term is defined that way.

     Keith: In Calvin’s Case the English Court based its decision on the 1351 Statute. ‘Calvin’ was born in Scotland and that was foreign born from the point of view of England. Yet the Court found him to be a natural born citizen of England. That is Common Law.
211. Rickey says:

     June 13, 2013 at 11:51 pm  Rickey(Quote)

     I have some friends in Colorado Springs and while talking to them this evening it occurred to me that birther Gregory Hollister’s property is right in the middle of where the Black Forest fire has been raging.

     At least 360 homes have been destroyed, but it’s unclear if Hollister’s is among them. I’ll update this when I have more information.
212. Keith says:

     June 14, 2013 at 12:58 am  Keith(Quote)

     Dr. Conspiracy: Common law could be described as “the way things have always been done.”

     This is the description that I use as the differentiator:

     Distinguish between common law and statute law.?

     Common Law vs. Statute Law
     A law that is developed by parliament is known as a statute law.A statute is a formal, written law of a country or state, written and enacted by its legislative authority. Statutes command, prohibit, or declare something. It is sometime reffered as legislation or “black letter law”. In some of the countries, published statutes are organized in topical arrangements called codes.

     A law that is developed in response to the rulings of the court is known as a common law. Common law was originated under the adversarial system in England from judicial decisions that were based in tradition, custom, and precedent.The common law, when applies in civil cases is devised as a means of compensating someone for wrongful acts known as torts, including both intentional torts and torts caused by negligence, and as developing the body of law recognizing and regulating contracts

     Under that description, the 1351 law is clearly a Parliamentary Statute as the ‘modern’ Parliament had been in operation for about 30 years.

     Just as clearly, the result of Calvin’s Case, is Common Law as it is a ruling of the Court.

     Whether or not the ages of the 1351 Statute makes it Common Law is immaterial to my argument, and, in my opinion to nbc’s error in claiming that Foreign Born Children cannot be ‘natural-born’ citizens.

     I understand nbc’s claim on this topic as two-fold: a person who acquires citizenship via statute cannot, by definition, be ‘natural-born’, and common law does not provide for foreign born persons to be ‘natural-born’.

     The 1351 statute specifically contradicts the first assertion, and Calvin’s case specifically contradicts the second assertion.

     If the statute has been ‘aged’ into the Common law doesn’t really matter to the argument, because in 1351 it was still a new statute, not Common law and it unequivocally ‘made’ foreign born persons ‘natural-born’, providing the counter-example to nbc’s assertion. Furthermore, if it is Common law, then it just adds to the force of the argument that Common Law does indeed provide for foreign born persons being ‘natural born’.
213. Keith says:

     June 14, 2013 at 1:11 am  Keith(Quote)

     Dr. Conspiracy: the 1351 statute and early successors (which as I recall dealt with inheritance primarily)

     Yes, that is correct. In England, only ‘natural-born’ subjects could inherit, this was ancient common law, an integral part of Medieval Feudalism, restricting movement and ensuring local control of resources.

     Edward was having difficulty obtaining troops to prosecute the war in France (the Hundred Years War) due to extreme labor shortages after the Plague died down.

     One of the stumbling blocks was the reluctance of men to pack their families off to the continent when any children they fathered there would be unable to inherit once they had returned to England.
214. Paper says:

     June 14, 2013 at 10:28 am  Paper(Quote)

     Again, I urge *you* to read US v Wong Kim Ark, where the court indeed did not find that common law covered the totality of the definition of natural-born citizenship. You are adding in your own logical step. Perhaps other cases may help you lock it down, just not WKA.

     More, as time allows…

     nbc: Again I urge you to read US v Wong Kim Ark, where the court indeed found that those born abroad to citizen parents, and the concept of jus sanguinis was never part of our common law, and that children so born are naturalized.
215. ballantine says:

     June 14, 2013 at 12:39 pm  ballantine(Quote)

     Keith: It is you that is missing the point. The 1351 Statute ‘made’ natural born citizens out of foreign born children. Something you deny is possible.

     In Calvin’s Case the English Court based its decision on the 1351 Statute. ‘Calvin’ was born in Scotland and that was foreign born from the point of view of England. Yet the Court found him to be a natural born citizen of England. That is Common Law.

     So you have BOTH Statutory Law and Common Law concluding that foreign born persons can be natural born, and both examples come together in Calvin’s Case.

     The result of Calvin’s Case is that a foreign born person was declared ‘natural born’. Calvin’s Case IS Common Law and was cited as such in WKA.

     As always, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. These are straight forward facts that you cannot get around by repeating the mantra that it isn’t so.

     The situation is much more complicated than you think. The 1351 statute only gave them the right to inherit. It said nothing about being a natural born subjects. Natural born subjects had more than the right to inherit. They had the right to hold property, sit in Parliament and to be protected by the King anywhere in the world. They also owed their political and military obligations solely to the King. Subjects naturalized after birth still had the right to inherit and hold property, but they were generally not called or considered natural born subjects. Neither Persons naturalized after birth or persons naturalized at birth to have the status of natural born subjects were not necessarily protected outside of England and didn’t necessarily owe their political obligations to the King. In fact, their status was always the subject of debate. They were rather generally treated as subjects for commercial purposes, at least outside of England.

     So here are the relevant unsettled questions with respect to your argument:

     Did the early Americans view statutory natural born subjects as equal to common law natural born subjects. Maybe yes, maybe no. If England generally didn’t, why would people in America. The United States did not treat its statutory citizens at birth the same as native born citizens either. See the opinion of Secreatary of State Marcy or Attorney General Hoar.

     Did early Americans think the common law included jus sanguinis as well as just soli. A few did, the vast majority rejected such theory.

     Did early Americans think anyone made a citizen or subject at birth was natural born. Maybe yes, maybe no. General rules of statutory construction would rather make one think that Parliament or Congress would have to specify what type of subject or citizen they were as there was no reason Parliament had to give the foreign born all the rights of the native born.

     You see, speculation is speculation. It is not much of a legal argument. One can come to come up with different inferences looking at English law and the various statutes involved. A substantive legal argument would show what the common understanding of this issue was at the time. The birthers can speculate that the framers relied upon Vattel. Such speculation is meaningless in light of the fact that there is no evidence to support it to be true. You just can’t get you hands around the fact that, in the normal course, these arguments need actual evidence. Claiming something was the common understanding at the time when one can produce no evidence other than speculation to support such claim is what is usually deemed a frivolous argument. The historical facts are is that the term natural born was used almost exclusively with respect to jus soli in the early republic which is almost impossible to explain if it was commonly understood to have a broader meaning.

     And no one aswered my question of why Congress could amend our naturalization laws to provide that children of citizens born overseas are just citizens and not natural born citizens. If it can, and it can’t imagine a reason why, then such is an admission that such is wholly in the power of Congress and the issue should be resolved with respect to their intent.
216. nbc says:

     June 14, 2013 at 2:51 pm  nbc(Quote)

     Paper: Again, I urge *you* to read US v Wong Kim Ark, where the court indeed did not find that common law covered the totality of the definition of natural-born citizenship. You are adding in your own logical step. Perhaps other cases may help you lock it down, just not WKA.

     The court found that the term natural born had to be understood in terms of common law. It explicitly found that those born abroad to citizen parents become citizens by statute. The dissenting judge clearly understood the effect of the ruling.

     You need to show that somehow, the court allowed such children to be born abroad and naturalized and still considered to be natural born.

     It is clear that the court rejected that jus sanguinis was part of our common law tradition. So you have to find another way for someone to become natural born, and the ‘at birth’ approach, while interesting, is somewhat lacking in supporting evidence.

     The Court in US v Wong Kim Ark observed

     The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.

     it must be interpreted in the light of the common law… Not in light of the statutory law. Under common law, it required immediate allegiance at birth, which was only established by birth on soil, under jurisdiction. Birth abroad, as the court observes, under common law, means that such a child is owing allegiance to a foreign potentate.

     Finding that

     Here is nothing to countenance the theory that a general rule of citizenship by blood or descent has displaced in this country the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty.

     The fundamental rule of citizenship by birth…

     Now you can object all you want to the obvious findings here, and you may also find that the courts have continued to argue that it limits to natural/native born

     Distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens in connection with foreign residence are drawn in the Constitution itself. Only a native-born may become President, Art. II, � 1.

     Dissent in Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163 – Supreme Court 1964

     We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, � 1.

     Ruling in Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163 – Supreme Court 1964

     So now you have to argue the impossible, that native somehow means at birth rather than on soil.

     It’s an uphill battle either way.
217. nbc says:

     June 14, 2013 at 2:55 pm  nbc(Quote)

     Keith: Whether or not the ages of the 1351 Statute makes it Common Law is immaterial to my argument, and, in my opinion to nbc’s error in claiming that Foreign Born Children cannot be ‘natural-born’ citizens.

     Well, do not take my argument for it but naturalization and being natural born are somewhat at odds.

     We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, � 1.

     Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163 – Supreme Court 1964

     But it’s helpful that we have established that jus sanguinis was enacted by statute, jus soli by common law, as that makes the conversation much more straightforward.

     So now you have to show, in light of the wording by the Supreme Court, that somehow those born abroad to citizen parents are somehow ‘native born’, where native born clearly refers to birth on soil. OR you have to show a different power of Congress which can be used to render such children natural born. Calling them citizen at birth is not enough.
218. Paper says:

     June 14, 2013 at 8:33 pm  Paper(Quote)

     First of all, before getting into anything else, the *it* in your citation refers to the *Constitution.* So your argument, as you are making it, is that the entire Constitution is *encompassed* by common law. Is that your argument?

     WKA says use the light of common law with regard the entire Constitution, in this and other aspects. It does not say one must interpret the Constitution, in this or other aspects, using only common law, nor does it say common law encompasses every consideration of this or any other aspect of the Constitution.

     We have been over this ground before.

     nbc:

     The Court in US v Wong Kim Ark observed

     The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.

     it must be interpreted in the light of the common law… Not in light of the statutory law.
219. nbc says:

     June 14, 2013 at 8:42 pm  nbc(Quote)

     Paper: First of all, before getting into anything else, the *it* in your citation refers to the *Constitution.* So your argument, as you are making it, is that the entire Constitution is *encompassed* by common law. Is that your argument?

     Nope. Read again. When a term is undefined in the Constitution, its meaning must be found in light of common law. You are still missing the point here. The word “natural-born”, not the constitution.

     If we have been over this before, how come that you still seem to be confused as to the arguments presented in Wong Kim Ark, because it does certainly not say that the entire constitution is encompassed by common law.

     Wong Kim Ark’s ruling is quite straightforward here. It does not refer to the constitution but to undefined terms in the constitution. Does this help?

     Even the dissenting judge understood.
220. nbc says:

     June 14, 2013 at 8:50 pm  nbc(Quote)

     Natural born citizen recognizes and reaffirms the principle common to all nations and as old as political society the people born in a country do constitute the nation and as individuals are natural members of the body politic Bates on Citizenship 10 Op 382. Every person born in the country is at the moment of birth prima facie a citizen Id Nativity furnishes the rule both of duty and of right as the individual and the government 2 Kent’s Com Part 4 Lect

     Source:: The Constitution of the United States Defined and Carefully Annotated, with an Appendix, Supplement, and Index Thereto, George Washington Paschal
221. Paper says:

     June 14, 2013 at 10:12 pm  Paper(Quote)

     When I addressed this point before, ballantine responded in part as follows:

     “…the relevant test, as stated in South Carolina v. United States [the case I, Paper, cited on this very point, and a case which also uses this citation from WKA], is what the term was understood to mean to the framers and the people who ratified the Constitution and such understanding is not necessarily limited to the common law. That is the most basic rule of statutory interpretation and I agree it need not be limited necessarily to the common law….Does this mean that the term could not been understood to have a broader meaning? No, such is possible. For example, the Court has looked to the English Declaration of Rights to define the 2nd and 8th Amendments whether or not such provisions were considered part of the common law. Does that mean that the term could not have been understood to mean the common law as modified by statute. No, that is possible as well.”

     Of course, he then goes on to speak of the problems of mere speculation about what a term means, and I would agree with him there. But that is not relevant here, as my point is just about you overstating *your* case. My point is that WKA does not lock the door as you say it does.

     You read it again. Then go read South Carolina. And in the meantime, pay attention to the word “light.” To cast light upon a definition is different than saying that the meaning, its complete scope, must be found within common law and only there.

     As to: “It does not refer to the constitution but to undefined terms in the constitution. Does this help?”

     That is what I was saying by referencing the phrase “in this as in other respects.” There obviously is no need to use common law to interpret defined terms, nor what the number 35 means. I was using a shorthand way of speaking, with that point being implicit. The point remains. They were talking about a general approach to interpreting the constitution, in this as in other respects. Does that help you?

     nbc: Nope. Read again. When a term is undefined in the Constitution, its meaning must be found in light of common law. You are still missing the point here. The word “natural-born”, not the constitution.

     If we have been over this before, how come that you still seem to be confused as to the arguments presented in Wong Kim Ark, because it does certainly not say that the entire constitution is encompassed by common law.

     Wong Kim Ark’s ruling is quite straightforward here. It does not refer to the constitution but to undefined terms in the constitution. Does this help?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.