The reason is quite simple, and it comes from the Hon. John A. Gibney, Jr. United States District Judge for the Eastern District for Virginia, writing in his decision in Tisdale v. Obama:
It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.
I like to cite a long list of court decisions on the issue of Obama’s eligibility to refute the claims that US Presidents must always have citizen parents. I use the list because it’s impressive, but there’s something more important than its length, and that is its uniformity. Judge Gibney says that the question is well settled, and that list of cases demonstrates that it is settled. All the courts that have ruled on the merits in all the states where Obama’s eligibility has been challenged on the basis of his father’s status have gone the same way.
The Supreme Court gets involved when there are differences between the circuits, or between state supreme courts or between federal and state courts. There are no differences on this issue; it’s settled. The US Supreme Court will not review it. That was a rough summary of Supreme Court Rule 10. Considerations Governing Review on Writ of Certiorari. There is one additional situation where the Supreme Court might review a decision:
(c) a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.
I suppose this where the birthers must hang their hopes; however, the essential issues were already decided by SCOTUS in 1898 in the case of US v. Wong and nothing in the more recent decisions conflicts with that. Birthers will say, of course, that the state decisions and the one federal decision are contrary to the Supreme Court’s decision in Minor v. Happersett, but that’s just because they don’t understand that case.
One might argue that the Supreme Court can hear any case it wants to. That’s true, but there have been several birther cases already that it could have heard if it wanted to weigh in on the issue. It didn’t.
Amazing how one succinct sentence, completely obliterates the 2 citizen parent argument, and the 1 parent argument for that matter!
I suggested that Paige and Apuzzo read the follow article on how to write a cert petition when there is no split in the Circuit Courts or “splits involving state courts of last resort.”
http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/05/commentary-writing-a-convincing-cert-petition-when-there-is-no-direct-circuit-split/
I suppose Paige’s best hope is that the Alabama Supreme Court rules that the 2012 Presidential election is not moot. Then at least he can claim a split between state courts of last resort. Of course that’s not going to happen.
Doc, You wrote in closing your article: “Birthers will say, of course, that the state decisions and the one federal decision are contrary to the Supreme Court’s decision in Minor v. Happersett, but that’s just because they don’t understand that case.”
You’re being a little too generous, Doc! When Birthers endlessly come up with an, often quite convoluted, Obama eligibility rejecting interpretation for every case mentioned in connection with Presidential eligibility, in my view, it isn’t because they “don’t understand that case”, it’s because they CHOOSE to MISUNDERSTAND that case.
SCOTUS does have the ability to take a case because they feel it to be a great importance of law or policy for the future the country. Unfortunately, the birther movement has died off considerability so that will never ever happen.
Very good point. To my way of thinking, they couldn’t possibly come up with some of the things they have if they didn’t understand exactly what is there that they are trying to twist to in the exactly opposite direction to suit their own ends.
Well, whatever happens with Paige’s case, I’m sure it will be another WIN for Mario Apuzzo, who is thus far undefeated! And will remain so forever because he gets to make up the rules retroactively and is free to change them whenever he feels like it.
WINNING!
While those are good reasons, we got an even better one on 20 Jan 2009. The Supreme Court is not going to precipitate the constitutional crisis that would result from calling into question the legitimacy the president.
For the title of the birthers’ stupidest idea, which is a strong field, I’d nominate that that the vote of the Electoral College, confirmation of that vote in a joint session of Congress, transition of power by the outgoing administration, and swearing in by the Chief Justice of the United States still left us without a final decision on whether Barack Obama could be President*.
Today the talk is about the eligibility of foreign-born citizens from birth. The general consensus of scholars is that they’re eligible, but some discussions note historical doubts. However seriously the doubts get taken, the question would be completely and finally settled in the affirmative by the inauguration of a foreign-born president, changeable at that point only by constitutional amendment.
(* I grant that subgroups within the birthers have ideas that are arguably even stupider, but my nomination can be attributed to birthers generally, at least after 20 January 2009.)
I wonder if Mr Paige is aware of how really really really really bad a lawyer Apuzzo is?
Numerous Legal Scholars have said that no one actually knows what a “Natural Born Citizen” really is and the SCOTUS has never ruled on the issue. So, the judge’s statements are really a misnomber. “Natural Born Citizen” is term used in the Constitution and fundamental constitutional jurisprudence tells that every term in the Constitution has special and specific meaning. Neither Wong Kim Ark Nor Minor actually told us what an NBC is. In Minor, the NBC did actually define the term but it wasn’t part of the fundamental ruling of the court. In Wong Kim Ark, Wong Kim was NEVER declared an NBC by SCOTUS but was declared a Citizen under the 14th Amendment who “AS MUCH LIKE” an NBC as an NBC. To date no one knows what an NBC is and SCOTUS has never ruled on the issue.
John is back, offering his opinion on the Supreme Court.
John, I post solely to note that you have not answered the questions I and others posed based upon your rambling rants.
That’s not quite true. Judge Gibney’s statement is true. “Natural born citizen” is only in doubt for the foreign-born, where the question is not 100% settled and should Ted Cruz become a serious candidate it is possible that different courts could rule in different ways, resulting in a Supreme Court decision. For Obama we have the Chester A. Arthur precedent, but there is no precedent for a foreign-born president.
Hey John….so tell us what’s next in the Zullo script that’s of interest? When will Zullo expose the top secret Hayes Report to the public? How’s the IRS review going? How about letting the public know how many dollars have been donated to the Obama birth certificate investigation? Has Zullo filed the 990 forms yet? When will the new Zullo / Cold Case Posse book be released? When will Zullo and Corsi update the first book? Has Zullo made any corrections to his daffydavit submitted to the Alabama Supreme Court? When will Zullo arrest “Roxy” the misbehavin’ Xerox WorkCentre machine? How about exposing the source of those pesky race codes John? John, will the charade end after the second book is published or is this a new career for Zullo? How about telling us about the “decades” of law enforcement experience the Reverend Gallups said Zullo has under his belt? John, time to remove your CCCP leash and speak up. We’re waiting.
Well, I’ll take the word of a judge over a “legal scholar” any day. Pack it in John, you’ve lost.
Birther movement died off? About bloody time too.
That and there is no conflict in the law. There has been no conflict between the courts and the law has been well established. There would be no reason for the Supreme Court to look at this again and they’ve consistently denied birther cases in conference.
John, “Numerous Legal Scholars have said that no one actually knows what a “Natural Born Citizen” really is….”
Really?
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity…..Under our constitution the question is settled by its express language,….no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.”
William Rawle, LL. D, “A View of the Constitution,” published 1825.
It’s no surprise that after all these years you still don’t understand the ruling in Wong Kim Ark.
The District Court’s ruling – the ruling which the government appealed to the Supreme Court – specifically stated that Wong Kim Ark was a “natural born citizen.” The government admitted that this was the case in its SCOTUS brief. The government’s brief even states that if the District Court decision were upheld, it would mean that Wong Kim Ark was eligible to be President.
This District Court’s ruling was upheld without exception. The Supreme Court had every opportunity to rule that the District Court was wrong about Wong Kim Ark’s NBC status, but it did not.
John, it’s time to be honest with yourself and others by admitting that you never heard of the “two citizen parent” requirement until you became a birther. It wasn’t taught to you in school; it doesn’t appear in any civics textbooks; it doesn’t appear in any Constitutional Law textbooks. It isn’t taught anywhere, from kindergarten to law school. It exists only in the fevered minds of birthers.
Who are these “Numerous Legal Scholars”?
So how can you be sure any previous President was eligible if that is the case? Somehow you birthers never ask what would happen if GWB or Reagan was ineligible and which laws and international treaties would be “null and void” then.
Yet the Chief Justices of the Supreme Court have sworn in all previous Presidents, including Obama, twice, without ever going “hm, well, I’m not really sure I’m swearing in the right person”, let alone “hey wait a minute, this guy I’m supposed to swear in is not eligible”.
Besides, john, we all know those birthers who claim they are just waiting for SCOTUS to “clarify” the issue will immediately call SCOTUS “traitors” when such a thing actually happened and they ruled against your precious Vattelism.
So it’s pretty dishonest to claim SCOTUS needs to decide, yet already have made up your mind that only one specific SCOTUS decision will be “the correct one”.
Dumb and Dumber?…
Poor John does not understand the facts and is upset that our Constitution has allowed President Obama to be elected…
8 years of misery for John… All because he does not like our Constitution or perhaps because he does not understand it.
Seems that John is still struggling with Wong Kim Ark…
Hilarious…
I imagine John struggles with not burning himself on foods labeled “contents are hot”, and pulling open those pesky “push” doors.
SCOTUS has had several opportunities to hear Obama eligibility cases, and they did not.
And SCOTUS MAY CHOOSE to NEVER rule on the issue in a bright-light definitively narrower or even ultimately exclusive way than that court has to date.
An element of ambiguity exists in practically every law or Constitutional provision, from its inception and going forward.
If you study the history of how Constitutions are written and ratified, it becomes clear that significant disagreements about how government should be established and endure, often cannot be settled among disagreeing factions during the framing process nor can either opposing idea prevail between disagreeing voting entities in the ratification process, if the proposed government’s position on the controversial issue is clearly specified in the text of the founding documents.
In such cases, rather than let the interest-holding parties inability to compromise or yield on several issues prevent the establishment of the new nation, the issues, if they are not left unmentioned entirely (effectively assigning any resolving discussion or continuing delay going forward to the government once it is successfully established) are characterized in the founding documents with sufficient ambiguity to make all opposing factions at the time of framing and ratification, think they can later successfully argue that their preference in regard to that issue was what was meant by the text, or is the most sensible clarification of what the original text was supposed to mean.
In a smaller sense, ambiguous language in statutes created by legislative bodies is sometimes required to get statutory coverage of certain issues started or advanced.
The issue of slavery at our nation’s founding is a good example of this principle of the role of purposeful ambiguity in both framing constitutions and legislating statutes.The above described process defers the settlement of such irreconcilable issues to a later time. In the case of slavery, the later unsuccessful statutory and Constitution-amending attempts to settle the issue by peacefully eliminating slavery were challenged by a Southern political decision to go to war and secede from the Nation.
In a smaller sense, ambiguous language in statutes created by legislative bodies is sometimes required to get statutory coverage of certain issues started or advanced.
While both Constitutional and legislative instances of residual ambiguity can theoretically be resolved or settled by later governmental action, like superseding statutes, or Constitutional amendments, there is, absent any specific passed legislative directive or ratified Constitutional directive, no obligation on the part of government to resolve or eliminate that residual ambiguity.
While the judiciary can also settle or resolve such ambiguity, it similarly is not obligated to eliminate such ambiguity. It can wisely leave ambiguity in the Law when it thinks other processes, social or political, will ultimately most effectively settle the issue.
Parties interested in resolving residual ambiguity in a constitutional provision or a statute, like Birthers in this instance, may wildly exaggerate the amount or degree of remaining ambiguity, and try to minimize the extent to which social and political forces have over time established a well-settled interpretation as judged by the legal community. Birthers want to alternately pretend that there was never any ambiguity because “Natural Born Citizen” from the outset, required SOMETHING (really anything) that Obama does not possess, or that if it was ambiguous from the beginning, that it remains COMPLETELY unresolved by other forces over the passage of time, and now must be definitively settled by the courts in their favor if Liberty, the Constitution, and the United States of America is to survive.
Everyone who disagrees is a criminal or traitor in their view, including all disagreeing government officials and citizens including judges.
They even say in advance of any possible SCOTUS decision, that those Justices would be traitors if they disagreed. This extreme perspective is seen also in any analysis of the most reasonable and objective resolution of the meaning of the term if we assume it was carelessly left without further clarification.
If that was the case, it was either thought already understood in the common vernacular, or not judged critically important as it would function Constitutionally. We have no discussion from the Framers that underscores its importance, and , for what clue we can take from common usage and educational texts including historians, the use of the term since the revolution has overwhelmingly been exceedingly well-settled to mean simply being born in the United States satisfies the requirement.
Also,anyone objectively analyzing the need to resolve the ambiguity would be weighing the Birther argument that formalizing their definition of NBC MIGHT substantially increase the likelihood of Presidential loyalty to the U.S., against opposing argument that that definition would absolutely forfeit the right of every citizen not meeting their specification, to ever be elected to the Presidency.
On the presumption that we don’t know for sure what the Framers intended, the latter is resolution would be, without any political consideration at all, intrinsically more unfair and extreme, and therefore, presumably unlikely before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court can grant a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari that four of the nine Justices are interested in. Its really that simple. “The Rule of Four.”
Nonsense: what it tells us is that those terms often have quite NONspecific, sometimes even (at least arguably) vague, meanings that can be subject to interpretation in the context of the times.
That’s why it’s no longer acceptable to have public floggings of pickpockets, or “separate but (not really) equal” school districts.
In the book, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, we read:
Well kiddies, let me clue you in on something—no matter how you say it and no matter how you swish and flick your genuine Hermione Granger Collectors Edition replica wand, the feather is not going to lift itself and fly round the room. Magic like that doesn’t work. It’s not that you don’t have the right wind, or the right intonation; it’s that magic spells don’t make things fly.
By the same token, no combination of state and federal courts, the right judge, the right Latin legal jargon or legal maneuver is going to get Barack Obama declared ineligible as President. Magical thinking doesn’t work.
Nor does the idea that if Obama was somehow removed, it would be hitting some magical reset button, where all the bills he’s signed into law would be automatically undone. But those wacky birthers and their complete detachment from reality, just can’t seem to grasp the concept.
Actually,, that is not quite accurate. What the ruling actually says is that there is no doubt that a citizen born of parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen, but that other definitions do exist, however; for the purposes of their ruling it was not necessary to rule one way or the other on what defines a natural born citizen. Judge Waite went out of his way to say so, but birthers frequently misquote the actual ruling intentionally leaving out the part that it was not necessary to rule on what constitutes a NBC.
Oddly enough, it was Judge Waite who swore in Chester A. Arthur after having written the decision in Minor. As Doc said earlier, Chester A. Arthur is the precedent for Obama, so until they remove Arthur from the history books, he remains a sticky little legal argument for the likes of people like Apuzzo.
I looked that up in my Webster’s, my Macquarie’s, my Funk and Wagnall’s without success.
I even tried to find it in Durante’s Handbook and Stengle’s Style Manual. No luck.
Does anybody have a copy of Palin’s Lexicon?
Obots don’t really understand the Wong Kim Ark case. I suggest the following metaphoric scenario to explain the reasoning behind the court’s ruling.
Wong Kim Ark is in custody. He tells SCOTUS, he wants out. I am a Natural Born Citizen. I look like an NBC, I sound like an NBC, I smell like an NBC, and I taste like an NBC. SCOTUS responds: You are right Mr. Wong, you do look, sound, smell and taste like an NBC. But, under a microscope, your DNA is different from an NBC. But, for all intensive purposes, the senses matter so we have no reason to deny your freedom. We can’t say you are an NBC because your DNA is different but we will say you a Citizen by birth under the 14th Amendment which is essentially equilvalent (But not equal) to an NBC. Am I eligible to be the POTUS says Mr. Wong. Well, we consider the senses are what matter and even though your DNA is different we don’t consider critical to overall situation and it not something you can really see. You look, feel, sound and taste like an NBC, you are eligible.
Applying the same metaphoric scenario to Ankeny: A man approaches the court. Obama is NOT an NBC. He looks, sounds, feels and tastes like an NBC but his DNA is different from an NBC. The court responds – Look Wong Kim Ark said that anyone who look, sounds, feels and tastes like an NBC is eligible. The fact the Obama’s DNA is different is really something that can’t be seen without a microscope. To us, the senses matter and Obama is an NBC. 44 Presidents have served before Obama and all of them have looked, sounded, felt and tasted like NBCs. The DNA difference is something that hasn’t been discussed in the past and we will not really consider it. Obama is an NBC and is eligible.
Personally, I think that the idea that the image of the LFBC released by the White House is a forgery is the acme of birther stupidity, but you’re right, that is pretty dumb.
Remember that even after the debacle in Georgia, David Farrar still thinks highly of Orly Taitz. I’m sure Mr. Paige looks at Mario with the same rose-colored glasses he looks at all birther issues with.
Basically, the Wong Kim Ark Court was saying Wong Kim was NBC but at the same time held its judicial restraint in that he was not an NBC. By doing so the court created the 3rd class of citizenship – Citizen by birth under the 14th Amendment. NBC was a citizen by birth under the 14th Amendment but he was NOT an NBC. The court construed the citizen by birth under the 14th amendment to be EQUIVALENT BUT NOT EQUAL to a Natural Born Citizen. (An NBC was defined in Minor that both parents had to be citizens) Due to this equivalency, the court was compelled to rule in Wong Kim’s favor. As far as being eligible to be the POTUS, they felt the equaivalency between a citizen by birth under the 14th Amendment and a NBC was was strong enough to allow Wong Kim to be eligible. When the Ankeny Court studied the Wong Kim Ark ruling they dismissed the judicial restraint the Wong Kim Ark had completely and misconstrued as making a Citizen By Birth Under the 14th equal to that of an NBC even it wasn’t although it was equivalent and made Obama an NBC. This erroronous ruling spawned a bunch of other court rulings state that Obama was an NBC and that the question had been settled.
The court felt that a citizen by birth under the 14th Admendment was equivalent to an NBC because both derived their classifications by the same operating principles under the law. However, we know they not equal because an NBC must have 2 citizen parents.
The mind truly boggles.
Am I the only one who (tries to) read this and comes up with “word salad”?
What on Earth DNA has to do with the issue????
If I didn’t know this is a common error, I’d have said this gave you away as pulling our leg.
(It’s “intents and purposes”, dude.)
Case and (sic! ;)) point: another “misnomber”. *lol*
I think his twisted “analogy” had the intent of trying to say that the “real NBC issue” is something so delicately hidden that it is only visible to the “enlightened ones”, just like DNA analysis was totally unknown 100 years ago. And that john, compared to the judges of WKA, is a modern geneticist compared to the quack doctors of the Dark Ages.
John, John, John
I note you fail spectatcularly fail to mention the whole piece in the case where it was stated as fact, that ruling meant that this very imaginary “14th Amendment citizen” you are babbling about could therefore run for President, You remember, in the dissent
“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
So, the US Government argued that a ruling was could not pass and was dead naughty ’cause it meant horrid Orientals or anyone born in the US, IRREESPECTIVE of parental lineage ands status could therefore run for an stand as President., They also agreed that the only type of citizen to be such had to be an NBC.
Yet the court, you know the final arbiter of Constitutional meaning, ruled exactly that, born = NBC.
For goodness sake, Lupin, as john said, DNA is a metaphor. It symbolizes skin color.
A distinction without a difference.
Except you missed a few steps. He took it to court the district court ruled in his favor and the government tried to appeal it. In the governments own briefs they stated that they thought the lower court was in error in claiming Wong Kim Ark was natural born. The Government knew what their case was to lose. So did the dissent when they wrote their opinion in which they thought the majority was making people like Wong Kim Ark eligible to the presidency. So no we don’t have a misunderstanding, you do.
And birthers don’t really understand anything.
You’re boring us, John.
I still don’t get john’s metaphor, and frankly, I’m not alone: Arthur seems to think “DNA” in the metaphor stands for skin color while Magic M thinks it stands for something hidden, not visible.
I don’t care which is right — it just proves it’s a bad metaphor.
If you were a natural born US citizen, you would recognize it as garbage.
That’s True Doc. A Citizen at Birth and a Natural Born Citizen are both distinct classifications of citizens. The are both equivalent in that their origins derives themselves from same operating principales under the law – eg. Both require a birth on the soil and that citizenship is bestoded on the instance of the birth. However, they not equal because an NBC requires 2 citizen parents. The US Constitution says that ONLY NBCs can be POTUS.
In the Wong Kim Ark case, the language of Article II Section 1 of the US Constitution regarding POTUS eligibility not withstanding, the court felt that a Citizen from birth under the 14th Amendment was strong enough in equaivalency to that of an NBC to be eligible to be the POTUS. The Ankeny court certainly had no problem ruling on this.
As my metaphor suggests, if a Citizen at birth looks, sounds, smells and tastes like an NBC, he is entitled to same rights as an NBC including the POTUS even though the DNA of the Citizen at birth may be different from the DNA of an NBC.
I don’t have a clue what you’re trying to say.
For the purposes of arbitrary class membership, a person with US citizen parents is not the same as a person without US citizen parents; however, that class distinction has no relevance under the Constitution (which never mentions the word “parent’).
There have been a very few voices in American history that thought citizenship by descent was superior to citizenship by place of birth, but these voices are not found among the framers of the Constitution or the ratifiers of the Constitution, or any early authority. They appear a century later among those who didn’t like immigrants. For all intents and purposes, the two-citizenship requirement is something the birthers made up.
If you are saying that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen for Article II purposes, but that his quality of citizenship is not up to what you consider the best, then that is your own value judgment to which you are entitled.
In my value system, the quality of citizenship is measured by actions and not by circumstances.
I have a more important question, John…how did that letter to the National Park Service about digging for treasure at Arlington National Cemetery work out?
Have you found out yet that NPS does not run the cemetery? It’s run by the Department of Defense.
And did they respond to your letter? I’d like to see their response.
I’d also like to know when you plan to show up at Arlington with your metal detector and shovels. I want to see what happens, and put it on YouTube.
I never sent the letter. It was a parody for illustrating the point.
The letter had no point, and was utterly meaningless.
So why didn’t you send it? Don’t you stand up for what you believe? what happened to the courage of Americans that you claim to stand for…men like Zebulon Pike, Daniel Boone, Lewis and Clark, Robert Peary, Richard E. Byrd, and Charles Beckwourth. They defined the greatness of America and the American way of life, standing up for our noble pioneering traditions.
If you believe in your position, you should stand up like them, square-jawed as Kit Carson or Davy Crockett, type out that letter, send it to the Department of Defense (they run Arlington, not NPS), and report to their main gate on the planned day, metal detector in one hand, shovel in the other, ready to dig for pirates’ gold, Jimmy Hoffa’s remains, and lost car keys, just to show that evil Muslim usurper the courage, patriotism, and firmness of a TRUE AMERICAN!
John, you have no allies here and no one’s mind is going to be changed by your nonsense and lies.
In keeping with your metaphor, the Founders never bothered to tell the people that they should look to DNA in the genetic sense (and somehow assumed everyone would know the genetics book on “The Ribosomes of Nations” written in French), while the concept of DNA meaning “looks, sounds and smells like …” was well-known to the people on the streets.
Totally misunderunderstanding Wong Kim Ark, as usual… Poor deluded John… He is his own best parody…
It was neither funny nor very good at illustrating any point. Other than that, it does resemble your usual ‘arguments’ and thus perhaps you understand that you are nothing more than a parody of yourself?
Neither do I. Honestly, it looks like it’s in English, but it’s word salad.
May be Doc. We know that under the law, the court can only consider the operation principles of each citizenship and not really the actual meaning or definition of the class of citizenship. Since both Citizen at birth and NBC citizen work basically the same way under the law, they are considered equivalent. However, they not equal or identical because in order to an NBC, you need have 2 citizen parents. But in Wong Kim Ark, the court reasoned enough to believe that the underlying operation principles under which Citizen at Birth and NBC work were strong enough to consider Wong Kim eligible to be the POTUS even he was not a NBC by definition.
Where does this come from? And don’t say Vattel, because we’ve proven incontrovertibly and ad nauseam that Vattel did NOT say that — quite the opposite in fact.
Bulls-eye. Perfectly stated.
John’s little “letter” was drivel. However, I urge him to send it to the Cemetery, and make his suggestion.
Here is their website…it includes their mailing address and comments/questions link.
I eagerly await their answer to John’s proposal…and his explanations on why he is going to hunt for buried treasure at Arlington.
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/
I think John should stop arguing on the Internet, and stand up like those men at Valley Forge, and put his money where his mouth is…remember that line about “pledging our lives and sacred honor” in the Declaration of Independence? Those guys were risking being drawn and quartered for treason. You are weaker than them? For shame, John.
—-
Huh? What does this even mean? What law are you referring to?
Masochism?
So, you agree that the Supreme Court declared that Wong was eligible for the Presidency. That must mean, that under the Constitution, that Wong is a Natural Born Citizen, therefore, your two-citizen definition of Natural-born Citizen is wrong.
Gotta love self-contradictory logic!
john, i know that the last 5 years have been hard for you, and time is running out, but you’re starting to get desperate
if it was discovered that your president’s DNA did actually support his NBC status, would you then start looking at attempting to disqualify him at a sub-atomic level?
just interested as to how far you’re willing to go.
Hey, John: Wrong site. You meant to post at Stormfront. Clear your brower cache.
Everything to the neo-Confederates who threatened to destroy the US economically.
Quantum signatures don’t match…
See the following Supreme Court opinion from Chief Justice Worf:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallels_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation)
But that is not what the court reasoned, they reasoned that WKA WAS a NBC, no qualifications or quibbles. Your DNA analogy, or whatever that gibberish was, is just flat wrong. The only, and I repeat, ONLY constitutional qualification for being a NBC, is being born in the US or under its jurisdiction. WKA was born in the US, he was a natural born citizen according to the constitution and the decision of the WKA court affirmed that. Obama was born in Hawaii, a state of the US need I remind you, he is a NBC for the same reason. There is nothing in the constitution about parentage, only place of birth.
Totally misunderstanding Wong… Again…
Does John not learn from his mistakes. In fact, the court rejected the restricted definition John hoped for and rejected the government’s arguments. Why John refuses to accept these facts is fascinating.
Sad but still fascinating.
This is probably the most convoluted and twisted “analysis” of WKA so far. It clearly outdoes “the court was wrong”, “the court was deliberately paving the way for the dark-skinned Marxist who was planned to be born nearly a century later” and “the court didn’t say what it said”.
So now it is: “The court created a different type of citizen which was so indistinguishable from NBC with the methods of its time that it appeared that class of citizens was eligible; and only today, with our modern ways of legal DNA analysis – brought to you by Prof. Dr. Dr. Dr. Apuzzonofrio and some Jedi mind meld – are we able to see that the court missed that eenie-weenie-tiny-miny difference between those two classes.”
Well, this almost beats the theory that the WKA ruling was the result of Obama using his time machine to alter history and that we are actually living in a parallel reality to the “real” one where he isn’t eligible.
It’s also self-contradicting…
The requirements of the Presidency are as follows:
1. Natural Born Citizen
2. 35-years-old
3. 14-year resident
All three of those requirements must have been met.
So, if the Supreme Court ruled that Wong was eligible to be President, then they also ruled that he had to be a Natural Born citizen…
Here’s the formal logical premise
If Eligible to be President, then Natural Born.
Wong is eligible to be President
Therefore, Wong is Natural Born
John:
Forget about the DNA crap…that’s the standard argument for racists, who are obsessed with melanin content in people’s skin. You expect me to believe that J.T. Ready was a superior man to Neil De Grasse Tyson, because of their respective melanin counts? What planet do you come from?
No, John, I just want to know about your plans to hunt for treasure at Arlington National Cemetery. Aside from wanting to know what that was all about, I want to know how that works out for you…what the response from the DoD was, and when you’re going. I want to be there to put it on YouTube.
And to see how the authorities address it. I want to start a betting line on whether they toss you in the slammer or the looney bin.
So tell us more about the quest for Captain Kidd’s doubloons at Arlington.
And this is going to be the ONLY thing I discuss with you, so you better get used to it.
Well if this “definition” is not in the law and it is not in the dictionary, and it is not in the writings of any early American authority, and it is not even in the writing of that Swiss guy who was writing in French and used a different word, I guess it’s just in the heads of the birthers.
John,
The folks here have had their minds made up since the day they set their eyes on their “Hawaiian Messiah”. They will twist the rules of logic and the law to prove that he is “The One!” (and a “natural born citizen”) regardless of the facts. Born in Hawaii, Kenya or Mars – no problem! Born to a British National father or a Klingon from Star Trek – no problem! Fake Birth Certificate, Stolen Social Security Number, Created or Altered Draft Card, Foreign Student Aid Application, Illegal Family Members taking down Welfare Benefits, confessed drug use, affiliation with known communist and terrorist, etc. – No Problem! No don’t get me wrong, I am quite sure a lot of this is not true, however I have read “Dreams from My Father” and at least some of it is true because Obama has told us so, especially the fact of his father’s British National citizenship (and that I ate the dog thing).
So forget about arguing about the founding era or the importance of de Vattel ( the celebrated Swiss political philosopher ) who wrote his epic “Law of Nations…” in French because that was the diplomatic common language of the time.
If I am correct, and it is possible that I am not, at the end of the day SCOTUS will find that the intended definition of “natural born citizen” in the founding era was “born in country to two citizen parents” given that none of the Constitutional Amendments have altered this Constitutionally mandated Presidential Qualification, it remains the law of the land today. Hopefully!
H. Brooke Paige
H. Brooke Paige
P.O. Box #41
Washington, Vermont 05675
Home: 1-802-883-2320
Cell: 1-802-224-6076
e-mail at: donnap@sover.net
Are you going to join John in digging for Captain Kidd’s doubloons (and Obama’s birth certificate) at Arlington?
That is because we can read case law and know that his father’s British citizenship is irrelevant. Clearly you have never read Wong Kim Ark or have no understanding of what it says. In your brief you pretty much say exactly the opposite of what it says. Doesn’t that bother you that you would put such falsehoods in a legal document? It would bother most people. The entire point of the case was that Wong was a citizen because he was a natural born citizen since the 14th Amendment was simply a restatement of the common law rule incorporated into the original Constitution. Again, go to a competent attorney and ask him what the case says if you have the guts to do so.
This is the problem you keep having you claim stuff that isn’t true.
There is no fake birth certificate, His social security number isn’t stolen. The draft card is legit as verified by the selective service system that originally released it to a birther during the Bush administration. There has been no proof of a foreign student aid application.
This has nothing to do with presidential eligibility.
Who never even used the term natural born citizen in the french language. He didn’t claim what you think he said and he was a monarchist. His own beliefs contradict the bill of rights but you wouldn’t know that since you haven’t actually read the book.
He also didn’t read the Vermont Supreme Court decision tossing his case against the President out on its derriere.
When you deny the very possibility of rational disagreement, it’s really, really stupid to expect that people will engage in a serious discussion with you.
The best you can hope for is that they’ll be gentle and/or courteous in disagreeing with and correcting you.
Alas, you used up the good will needed for that a long time ago, so you’ll probably need to settle for less-nasty mockery.
You aren’t correct, and it’s impossible that you are. That’s not my opinion, it’s a long-established fact.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that we are all Obama supporters. I most certainly am not. I guess that just one more ridiculous assumption of yours that you’re completely wrong about.
One doesn’t have to be an Obama supporter to fight sedition like yours.
—-
I wonder if anyone has ever told you how offensive this type of remark is to people who actually believe in the coming of the Messiah–how utterly offensive it is, right in the middle of a political/legal argument, to stand falsely accused of following a false messiah–a very egregious accusation. Its worth noting that I have never heard anyone suggest that Obama is the Messiah, except from someone on the right. I know I certainly haven’t done so myself nor seen any “Obot” do it. Yet, relentlessly one is subjected to such a religion-based slur from the right. Why is that? Why would you bear such false witness, and do so with such a religiously-egregious accusation? Can’t you find a more civil way to deflect from the issues under discussion?
Moreover, at a time when many congressional Republicans absolutely hate the president and would do anything to discredit him, it is inconceivable that they would ignore the claims of birthers unless they knew them to be baseless. Anti-Obama reps like Yoho and Stockman might give lip-service to birthers, but they refuse to take real action. That alone is proof positive of the emptiness of the birther movement.
And as soon as you set your eyes on President Obama, you decided we needed a new definition of natural born citizen.
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Thanks, that one had me cryin’ laughing!
Mr Paige,
The reason you, John and all of the birthers continue to fail is because you refuse to understand that you are wrong. Throughout all of these cases, I find it difficult to come up with one point of law they the birthers have gotten correct.
They have been wrong on standing.
They have been wrong on jurisdiction,
They have been wrong on mootness,
They have been wrong on NBC.
They have been wrong about the birth certificate.
They have been wrong about a host of other issues.
You failed for one simple reason which you refuse to accept:
You… Are… Wrong…
p.s. For some us who follow Christ (and I suspect others, as well), believe that your use of “Hawaiian Messiah” not only is offensive to us it is offensive to God. Even to those who may no have any faith or belief in God, I am confident that many will find your statement unworthy of an American.
Mr. Paige, I add my voice to at least Daniel and others, that we are not and have never been supporters of Pres. Obama.
You sir, on the other hand, are nuts. Your friend John, for all “intensive” purposes, as he would say, is a troll living under a rock in a foreign country.
Pres. Obama was vetted and approved as eligible to be President by the process we use in this country, and I, among the vast majority, respect the outcome of that process. I didn’t vote for him, but he is my President, and I will respect him and his office, because that is the American way. And if he called me back to active duty, I would go without question. You, Sir, need to go back to your civics classes, because it appears you missed a fair number of important things.
Ditto here.
Vattel specifically wrote that only one relative (the father) transmitted citizenship. The mother if the child was born out of wedlock. Other blood relatives if etc., etc. (it gets complicated.)
That is what Vattel wrote. NOT two citizen parents. ONE.
I’m sorry if you have been deceived by a meretricious attorney who is conning you into carrying some kind of ill-conceived legal battle, but that is the truth.
I speak as a French lawyer with long-standing knowledge of Vattel and Vattel scholarship.
And you obviously believe your only way out is blatant trolling to provoke stern reactions so you can pat yourself on the back and say “I knew these people couldn’t partake in a rational discussion”.
Just bummer you still believe the Founders relied on their private translation of a French book without ever telling the people on the streets that “natural born does not mean what you know it means from Common Law, it means this new thing we just translated from this language you don’t understand and from this guy you never heard of”. You have a really high opinion of the Founders who, therefore, were either pranksters (“These $50 say that nobody will find out until the first black guy runs for office!”) or elitist conspirators (“hey, let’s use this sooper-dooper-sekrit meaning; before anyone finds out, we’ll all be long dead”).
This would be stuff for a Dan Brown novel, but it’s not the reality we sane people live in.
Mr Paige would go alomg well with the folks who penned the Letter of Secession, which was sent immediately after the Election of President Abraham Lincoln, even before he took Office.
In it, Texas stated the following:
“We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.”
There we are, again.
Thank you. Well said.
It’s Handel’s Messiah. Didn’t you read about classical music at the newsstand?
I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That’s something you can sink your teeth into.
Interesting quote. Now it’s even more ironic that the racist birthers claim “there is no ‘African race’, so the BC is a forgery” when their own forefathers said there is. *facepalm*
Other than that, birthers are still looking for the real Constitution (likely penned in invisible ink on the back of the current one) that would not only make Obama eligible but allow the South to reclaim trillions of dollars in reparation for the Civil War (“now that’s does proves we wuz right all alongs!”).
Coming up on the WND superstore: Dan Brown – “Restitution” (book, DVD, shellack record)
Abstract: Prof. Langdon (Mike Zullo as Tom Hanks) embarks on a search for the hidden real Constitution that takes him from the offices of the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse to the vaults of Hawaii. He’s being followed by double agent Soetoro (Christoph Waltz as Quentin Tarantino) from Indonesian secret service unit SOEBAR-K. His only help is former Miss White Pride, Klara Klayman (Sharon Rondeau as Jennifer Farahston), who may have her own secret agenda.
Nominated for 54 razzies and 3 Trump awards!
Coming to a cinema near you ANY DAY NOW.
There is, of course, no such thing as ‘race’ in (human) biology.
On the other hand, there is certainly ‘race’ in sociology.
Race is a human invention, and a very recent one at that.
I love how insane fringe tools abuse language to further their propaganda. Paige uses “Hawaiian Messiah” in quotes, as if that’s how his supporters referred to him. Nobody I know and nobody I’ve read ever used the word Messiah to refer to Obama, much less Hawaiian Messiah. It’s a straw-man technique cloaked behind grammar and the appearance of polite discourse. It is not polite, it is not correct, and it is without honor. It is a hallmark of small, feeble, desperate minds and it stinks to high heaven.
Plus, he had that little caveat that they do things differently in England. All the Vattel apologists seem to ignore this little fact.
Absolutely correct!
Also they miss the entire point: Vattel was merely describing how things worked at the time in his corner of the world, in effect codifying what was. He wasn’t promulgating or even advocating a new system.
Your arguments have already been eviscerated by others on this blog, so I have just one question for you: when did you first learn about the “two-citizen parent” requirement? Did you ever read it in a civics textbook, a history textbook, or a Constitutional Law textbook? If so, please cite the titles of those textbooks and let us know in what schools the “two-citizen parent” requirement was taught.
Or did you first learn about it after a black man was elected President?
I have in my possession a home-schooling textbook written by W. Cleon Skousen, the conservative founder of the National Center for Constitutional Studies. The title is “The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution.” The book is still in print (you can look it up on Amazon). In it Skousen declares that “natural born citizen” and “native born citizen” are one and the same.
Can you cite a textbook which contradicts Skousen?
We’ve asked this question many times.
What’s amazing and somewhat pathetic is that bigoted birther jackasses appear to be entirely incapable of comprehending a question that is so simple and straightforward.
It’s glaring and delusional birther bigot revisionism.
I am aware that de Vattel said that citizenship was transferred by the father (when the parents were married) as the mother assumed her husband’s citizenship when they were wed! It is my understanding that the child assumed the mother’s citizenship when the father could not be determined. The bottom line was undivided allegiance of the “natural born citizen” to one nation – the country of his birth. The two parent model is a result of the change in the status of married women in the United States after the passage of the Cable Act.
Sincerely,
Brooke
I am truly sorry if you found my expression offensive.
I certainly do not believe that Obama is anything but a sinful, flawed, failed human – as we all are. It is his followers who hold him up as some sort of deity (in the 2008 campaign he was “THE ONE”). The majority of the press treats him as infallible and unfaultable, perfect and sinless – certainly he is not! However if he was, as his followers proclaim, the perfect man – he might well be claimed to be a “messiah”. This world has had many false messiahs and false gods through the ages – Obama is just another in a very long list false gods.
Not that it matters to you or the folks here, but I am a follower of Jesus Christ and I do look forward to his second coming – when all of this will seem quite small and irrelevant!
Sincerely,
Brooke
Brooke, a note on “apologies.”
Yours says: “I apologize if you found my note offensive.”
That’s wrong. An apology of that sort makes the person who was offended into being the cause of the trouble. It’s his or her fault that the note was offensive.
That is not the case. You wrote the note. You should have said something along the lines of “I apologize for having offended you.”
Personal responsibility and accountability for one’s acts. I believe the Conservatives are very big on that topic. So am I. Since you undoubtedly hold such attitudes, you should step up and accept accountability and responsibility for writing words that cause offense to others…not blame them.
Here endeth the lesson.
So the Framer’s intent was that only the father’s citizenship was relevant? Does Apuzzo know that?
While I did not intend to sound blameless in my apology to you – I am quite sure that you are correct, therefore “I am sorry that I offended you AND I apologize for offending you!” I did not mean to offend and I it distresses me that I offended you.
Sincerely,
Brooke
H. Brooke Paige
Much better.
And for what little it’s worth, I also support President Obama, but I do not nor have I ever looked upon him as a “messiah.” Being Jewish, I’m still awaiting that appearance, but I’m not holding my breath.
There are only four people I have ever heard of who were perfect, in this order: Don Larsen, David Wells, David Cone, and Matt Cain.
They threw perfect games for the New York Yankees and the San Francisco Giants, my two favorite baseball teams, in order (both loyalty and chronologically).
27 up, 27 down. Can’t do better than that.
Changing the model is changing the definition. Who on Earth convinced you that a mere act of Congress could change the operational definition of “Natural Born Citizen” as used in the Constitution, in such a manner as to deny eligibility to the same individual under one “model” and grant them eligibility under the other?
Actually nobody called Obama “THE ONE,” in quotes or out of it in 2008. No one. The closes was John McCain, who called Obama “that one” in the second presidential debate.
BWAHAHAHAAA! Really? For a complete liar you are completely crackers. Just a few small examples, Wolf Blitzer can’t stand Obama, and the first question CNN asked its reporters the night of the Military coup is “this is bad for President Obama, isn’t it?” And who fills up the sunday shows every week, and who reports every stunt by Daniel Issa as though its breaking news while not mentioning that Issa hasn’t found a scrap of scandal to pin on Obama despite 5 years of looking under every rock?
So you are proclaiming Obama as a god now? Wow, pass the lightning. So you don’t think he’s an anti-christ… accept that you do.
Why are you looking forward to the second coming? It will be the most terrible day in history, and the final judgement where all sins will be judged. Including, by the way, lying your ass off on this very thread. And while American fundamentalists might imagine that they will get a “get out of Jail free” with the “rapture” that they invented so that they can imagine themselves sitting back with margarita’s and enjoy the spectacle of everyone else getting the stuff they are cheerfully prophesying, in truth the faithful will be tested and bloody awful things will happen to everyone.
Anyway, we all know that this will be just another David Farrar event where the Birther swears blind that they will accept the judgement if the court rules against him… until it happens, when suddenly they don’t accept it to no-one’s surprise. SCOTUS will just deny cert to your silly birther case just like they have to every other one that got to them, and you know it the same as everyone else here does.
That is indeed correct.
On the other hand, that is NOT correct.
The example I usually give is that of famous 19th century French writer Emile Zola who was born of an Italian artesan father who had married a French woman.
As per the system in force at the time, described by Vattel and subsequently codified by Napoleon, Zola was born with Italian citizenship. But he acquired French citizenship through his mother (something which could not be denied to him in the absence of a criminal record) and went on to a rather prominent political career.
Despite being a dual citizen at birth, Zola was also deemed a natural-born citizen of France (I’ll leave the quibble about translation of terms to another time). In effect, the two were NOT incompatible, as you claim. Since you’re not a scholar yourself, I suspect you have been misinformed about this point by your meretricious attorney, Mr. Apuzzo.
There is about 200 years of scholarship on Vattel and citizenship in general in French and German-speaking countries. There is NOT a single scholar in 200 years who has put forward the views that Mr. Apuzzo hold to be true. NOT ONE, you hear me.
The falseness of Mr. Apuzzo’s views can easily be demonstrated by (a) a consistent and careful analysis of what Vattel wrote in its original language, and (b) looking for contemporaneous precedents that would back up said analysis. (Or on the contrary disprove it.)
This is what I have done here.
I will not speak to your Constitution and SCOTUS decisions and US legal precedents, because that is not my field of expertise. Others here have done it outstandingly well.
But I can, with some authority, tell you that, hypothetically, had Mr Obama been born in Switzerland in the 19th century from a British father and a Swiss or French mother (for example), he would indeed have been considered a natural-born citizen of France or Switzerland, with all rights & privileges attached thereto.
Had he returned to England (with his father, for instance), he might also have obtained British citizenship, but that would have had no effect on his “natural-born” status in France.
In simple terms, Vattel does NOT help your case, he unravels it. Seek no support in his writings. Use British or American legal sources as you see fit, but don’t turn to Vattel to support your lawyer’s loopy theories. He does not.
Do with that as you will.