The following letter from Michael Cole appeared on the Pierce County Herald (Wisconsin) website.
TO THE EDITOR: It has not been widely reported by the liberal press, but this week criminal charges were filed with the FBI by a computer expert who alleges that the “birth certificate” released in April by Mr. Obama was a total fraud.
It’s funny that he waited two-and-a-half years to release it and he spent more than two million dollars of taxpayer dollars to pay federal lawyers to try to cover it up. This makes Watergate look like a shoplifting charge.
Let’s refer to the United States Constitution which the “president” has no regard for. It states, “No person except a natural born citizen shall be eligible for the office of president.” That means that both of your parents must be American citizens and that you must be born on American soil.
Barry’s Dad was a Kenyan citizen, not an American. Strike one. In his childhood, he moved to Indonesia and had to renounce his U.S. citizenship to attend school there. Strike two. And now he has allowed some computer geek to forge a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii for him. That is a class B felony. Strike 3, you are out.
Oh, let’s not mention that his own grandmother and wife claim that he was born in Kenya. Strike 4?
We can’t impeach him because he was never eligible to be the president in the first place. This man doesn’t belong in the White House, he belongs in jail.
How is that letter mistaken? Let me count the ways…
Mr. Cole did get one thing right. The liberal media has not covered Douglas Vogt’s letter to the FBI. In fact, I don’t know of any mainstream news outlet that has mentioned it (I consider WorldNetDaily a tabloid, not a news outlet). “Crank writes FBI” just doesn’t sound all that unusual to warrant coverage. The liberal media has not covered Vogt’s prediction that the Sun would go Nova in October of 2046, that he has discovered the lost altars of Moses in the Sinai desert, nor his contention that pyramids have mysterious power. Vogt credentials as a computer expert are at best questionable. But I digress…
Things wrong:
[ordered_list style=”decimal”]
- A private citizen cannot “file charges” with the FBI; the FBI can file charges or a prosecutor can file charges with a court. All Vogt did was to write a letter.
- No one spent $2 million dollars to cover up Obama’s birth certificate
- “Natural born citizen” definitely does not mean having citizen parents, and it probably doesn’t mean being born on American soil.
- Obama did not renounce his citizenship in Indonesia (State Department confirmed)
- Obama’s father was a Citizen of the UK and Colonies in 1961 when Barack Obama was born, not a “Kenyan citizen.”
- “President” should be capitalized.
- Obama’s wife and grandmother did not say he was born in Kenya.
- The State of Hawaii said Obama was born in Hawaii and that long form birth certificate he posted was his original birth certificate; it is not a forgery.
- A sitting President cannot be indicted for a crime.
- Cole’s last is a run-on sentence.
[/ordered_list]
Other than that, Mr. Cole is right on the money.
WorldNetDaily and some letters to the editor like this are about all that’s left to birther media coverage.
Doc, when you see something like that, do you post a response on the site?
That’s a lot of inaccuracies in that dense of a space. Just 5 more and the whole article would have formed a black hole of stupidity and collapsed in on itself. It would have become unreadable, as no intelligent thought can escape the force of its gravitational suck pull.
Am I the only one who finds it Ironic that birthers claim the founding fathers “intended” for a NBC to require two citizen parents, when one of the reasons for people leaving England and Europe to found America, was to escape a system in which your success was determined by your parentage?
I just wish Birthers could stick to one lie.
It’s easier to pretend you’re sane when you’re dancing.
“9.A sitting President cannot be indicted for a crime.”
Can you provide a link for this?
In this case, the site doesn’t appear to allow comments. Other sites require sign-up before commenting and I comment on those less often. If the site is open for comments, or I can sign in with OpenID, Twitter or Facebook, I will often say something. I may comment under Dr. Conspiracy, or my real name depending on the site’s requirements and the phase of the moon. The more mainstream the site, the more likely I will use my real name.
I see birther and anti-immigrant activist BorderRaven all the time on sites that allow comments with his private version of the Constitution. A handful of others you would recognize are also pretty vocal.
Yes, of course, and I will add it to the article too.
http://www.justice.gov/olc/sitting_president.htm
However, the President can be sued in both his personal and official capacity (happens all the time). See Clinton v. Jones.
“he waited two-and-a-half years to release it”
in a vain attempt to avoid humiliating the Birthers.
I found that link right after I asked but it is too long and uses too many big words.
All kidding aside, I was thinking of the case of a capital crime like murder or proposing tax increases at a CPAC gathering. Then I read this:
“U.S. Const. art. I, § 3, cl. 7. The textual argument that the criminal prosecution of a person subject to removal by impeachment may not precede conviction by the Senate arises from the reference to the “Party convicted” being liable for “Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment.” This textual argument draws support from Alexander Hamilton’s discussion of this Clause in The Federalist Nos. 65, 69, and 77, in which he explained that an offender would still be liable to criminal prosecution in the ordinary course of the law after removal by way of impeachment.”
So if a President was suspected of a serious crime, that President could be impeached and if convicted, removed from office and face normal criminal prosecution.
Quote: “Natural born citizen” definitely does not mean having citizen parents, ……”
But it actually does mean a child born of parents.
From a legal dictionary:
Quote:
child
n. 1) a person’s natural offspring. 2) a person 14 years and under. A “child” should be distinguished from a “minor” who is anyone under 18 in almost all states.
See also: minor
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=185
The term ‘natural born Citizen’ is descriptive of a person who is a citizen at birth via a natural process rather than via a place or a legal process, i.e. the moment they become a ‘child’ of parents.
As it can be seen from the definition taken from a legal dictionary, the word ‘natural’ as it applies to a child, is relative to parents.
We don’t call children ‘native offspring’.
When the framers of USC DELIBERATELY & INTENTIONALLY chose the word ‘natural’ in Article II, they intended it to mean of the parents and not of the land, because of the land would be described as ‘native’.
As one can see (in the following) the SCOTUS recognizes ‘native’ citizen – attained by birth in a place, and ‘natural’ citizen – attained by citizenship status of parents.
‘native’ and ‘natural’ have different legal meanings.
U.S. Supreme Court
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)
Perkins v. Elg
No. 454
Argued February 3, 1939
Decided May 29, 1939*
307 U.S. 325
Quote:
“Although there is no express provision in the law of the United States giving election of citizenship in such cases, this department has always held in such circumstances that, if a child is born of foreign parents in the United States, and is taken during minority to the country of his parents, such child upon arriving of age, or within a reasonable time thereafter, must make election between the citizenship which is his by birth and the citizenship which is his by parentage.”
The framers of USC Article II chose NATURAL born for eligibility for POTUS.
‘native’ = of the place
‘natural’ = of the blood, of the parents.
This distinct difference is made clear in both legal dictionary and in SCOTUS legal dicta throughout a myriad of cases.
The framers of USC Article II eligibility clause chose ‘natural’ rather than ‘native’, they knew full well the distinctly different meanings between the two terms.
Well, now you’ve hoisted yourself on your own petard. Anyone born in the United States becomes a citizen at birth via a natural process. No naturalization nor any other legal proceeding is required.
As for the passage you quote from Perkins v Elg, this has been superceeded by more recent decisions. Under current law, no election is required. A person born in the US can leave the day after they are born and live overseas for their entire life and remain a US citizen unless they formally renounce their citizenship. They could return at any point to the US and after lliving here for 14 years could run for President (though as a practical matter, their chances of winning would be remote).
Whether it pleases you \or not,that is the law. I would tell you that if you don’t like it to write your Congressperson and ask him to propose a connstitutional amendment. Of course, since you are an Australlian you don’t have a Congressperson. You could write your MP, but they can’t amend the US Constitutiion.
Did you contact them at a seance or use a Ouija board? It is extremely disrespectful, not to mention unsanitary to attempt to put words in the mouth of dead people. You don’t speak for the framers. Now be gone Bruce….
Don’t forget though, that the President has absolute authority to issue pardons and nothing prevents him from pardoning himself before he leaves office.
Dr. C.:
I was a bit startled when you observed that, “‘Natural born citizen’ . . . probably doesn’t mean being born on American soil.” Then I remembered the circumstances of John McCain’s birth, and surmised you were referring to the fact that though McCain was born outside the United States, no significant objections were raised to thwart his presidential ambitions.
Here’s a question: is there legal precedent that establishes natural-born status to children born to American citizens living overseas? If there is, does it apply to all American citizens or only to those serving in the military? For example, would a child born in Korea to American citizens working as missionaries be able to serve as president?
The other thing this means is if the child was overseas eventually when he comes of age he must choose which country he wants to be a citizen of. However in Mandoli v Acheson this changed in that a child didn’t even have to choose when overseas for a long time. Being overseas and choosing only applies to those who are naturalized.
“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,”
“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,”
Ummmmmmmmmm……
How many people do YOU know, who are not the child of a parent?
Does the term “Du-uh” mean anything to you?
Unfortunately for you, the definition you quoted does not halp your case at all, in that it doesn’t say that you have to be born of citizen parents to be NBC. What it does say is that you have to be born of parents, in order to be a child.
You’re not really very bright when it comes to figuring out what helps you and what doesn’t….
Once again, you quote things which do you no help at all. The pathos is that you probably actually think it makes your case for you.
You see that passage only applies to children born of parents, both of whom are from another country (“to the country of his parents” note plural). Since Obama’s mother was an American citizen, your quote does not apply.
But you do like to pretend that only portions of any particular quote exists, don’t you…. remember….
“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,”
You have no idea how much I pity you.
You know I’m pretty sure the framers of the Constitution were pretty well educated for their time, and as such knew the etymology of “Natural” and “Native” render them equivalent.
Apparently they were more educated than you on the subject, at any rate.
FEDERALIST No. 68
The Mode of Electing the President
From the New York Packet.
Friday, March 14, 1788.
Alexander Hamilton
“Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?”
The point is that the SCOTUS recognized a distinct difference between the native born citizen and the natural born citizen.
Ergo: ‘native’ and ‘natural’ have different legal meaning.
The framers chose ‘natural’, which clearly does not mean ‘native’, they were so learned that if they intended to mean ‘native’, they quite simply would have stated ‘native’ ………. but they deliberately chose ‘natural’
“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,”
“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,”
No they didn’t.
Hamilton proposed the President serve for llfe. It’s easy to propose all sorts of things. .
Nope, that’s not what it says at all.
At least not in English.
Are you, perhaps trying to read it in another language?
And noooooooooooooo…
One does not have to say “native” if one wants to mean “native”
You see here where we speak English, we have a concept called “interchangeable terms”. It’s two (or more) words which mean the same thing, and so you can use one or the other with wild abandon, and everyone (well everyone except birthers) will know what you mean.
Does a peach have a pit, or a stone?
Oh My Goodness…… whatever shall we do?
Let’s sue the guv’mint, cause ever one know a pit ain’t no stone.
Well now I’m embarrassed.
I had no idea at all that was actually in the Constitution.
Oh wait…. that’s not the Constitution, it’s the 18th Century equivalent of a blog.
Aaaaaaand, it still doesn’t say a NBC has to have two citizen parents….
Are you ever going to come up with something that actually helps your delu…. er premise?
Sherley it is French.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/01/hawaii-department-of-health-obama-faq/#comment-51659
Quoting only parts of things again, Michael?
Will you ever learn?
If this was about natural born citizenship, we’d expect the solution to corruption, cabal and intrigue to, maybe, mention citizenship? Well, let’s quote the rest of the paragraph. Here’s how they fix the concerns:
Citizenship isn’t even mentioned.
Possibly,,,,, but stop calling me Sherley
The only effect of the phrase “natural born citizen” in law is eligibility to be President or Vice-President, and the Supreme Court to my knowledge has never decided a case of Presidential eligibility. So there’s no precedent.
According to various law review articles, most authorities would say yes that person you describe would be eligible. However, I think most all also would agree that the question is not settled.
I would refer you to Charles Gordon’s article for an extensive discussion of the legal status of the question.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/07/obots-in-history-charles-gordon/
In reality, for the average person, the issue never, ever really mattered.
Even for birthers, the issue never, ever mattered…. until a black man decided to try to be their President.
In 1775, any child born in Boston became a natural born subject of England and Massachusetts. Regardless of parental citizenship!
In 1777, any child born in Boston became a natural born citizen of the United Colonies under the Articles of Confederation and of Boston. Regardless of parental citizenship!
And, you’re telling us that in 1787, the Framers redefined natural born to require parental citizenship.
Without mentioning it to anyone?
We can see the evidence of how completely stupid that notion is by looking at whether that change in definition stuck.
In 1803, Tucker edited his version of Blackstone’s Commentaries and defined natural born citizen the same way the British did – born here without regard to parental citizenship.
In 1829, Rawle said:
In 1844, in Lynch v. Clarke, the judge said it was universally understood that the children of aliens were natural born citizens and eligible to be President.
So, we’re left with one of two conclusions:
1. The Founders didn’t actually change the meaning of natural born.
2. The Founders were idiots who changed the meaning of the words in such a way that they had no legal effect!
(Michael, if you and I write a contract that says I’m to deliver 1,000 chickens to you and before signing it I lean over and whisper in your ear, “by chickens, I mean monkeys,” do you think you’ll be successful in suing me when I deliver chickens?)
Didn’t the 1790 naturalization act grant NBC statis to the children of Dual parents born abroad with “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”?
So it goes back pretty far.
I think the real problem is that MichaelN has no real understanding of the things he posts here. That’s why it’s so easy to point out why he’s wrong about the conclusions he draws.
That pattern is indicative of someone who cut-and-paste posts from other sites, without taking the time to understand the subject matter. When you paste from someone who doesn’t understand, things which you also don’t understand, it compounds the problem and you are stuck.
This is also why MichaelN never really gets around to answering the reasonable objections to his premise, but rather just posts more crap overtop.
You run into the same problem with people who insist that we can never run out of oil because the earth’s core is manufacturing it. They post all sorts of scientificish sounding crap, but it becomes very plain very quickly they don’t have the education to understand why what they’re posting is crap, much less understand real science.
Oh but yes they did.
Here is an example (one of a myriad), that shows that the SCOTUS held that those born in US were legally called ‘native-born citizen’.
“Naturalization has been defined by the Supreme Court as “the act of adopting a foreigner, and clothing him with the privileges of a native citizen.”
“Despite these dicta, it is clear that particularly in the past but currently as well a naturalized citizen has been and is subject to requirements not imposed on native-born citizens.”
http://supreme.justia.com/search.py?query=native&Search=Search+Cases
Now if it were the (absurd) case that the SCOTUS considered them to be ‘natural born’ based on being ‘native-born’, then don’t you think SCOTUS would have used the term ‘natural’?
Ergo: according to SCOTUS dicta, ‘native citizen’ does not mean ‘natural born’
This may help you to understand, where SCOTUS in dicta held that the ‘native born citizens of the United States’ just that ‘native born’ & were NOT referred to as ‘natural born’.
W. McCreery left at his death no children, but a brother, Ralph McCreery, a native of Ireland, who is still living and who has not been naturalized, and three nieces, Letitia Barwell, Jane McCreery, and Isabella McCreery, the latter being the lessor of the plaintiff, who are the daughters of the said Ralph, and native born citizens of the United States.”
So how come SCOTUS didn’t use the term ‘natural born’?
Answers: because native means of the land and natural means of the parent, Ralph was Irish & not naturalized a US citizen, therefore his daughters were only ‘native born’ and not ‘natural born’.
because SCOTUS were conversant with Lord Coke- Calvin’s case where it was held that if the parent wasn’t a subject, then the child could not be a natural born subject.
There is a proliferation of similar instances in SCOTUS cases where this can be seen.
“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,”
I think MichaelN is just a sad, little simpleton.
The strap on this bigot’s safety helmet may be too tight.
“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,”
Translated = I don’t want to argue these points, come on gang, lets attack the person rather than argue the point. lol how bloody pathetic!
Send in the dog-pack …………. attack! lol
Funny how they forgot to mention citizenship when attempting to sell the voters on the concept of the electoral college. Apparently, MichaelN forgot to notice the intent of the essay.
It helps him even less because, if he understood, or cared, about the intent of the essay, he would realize that the writers were confident that the structure of the electoral college would ensure that an unqualified person would not be elected by various intrigues. If he is quoted the essay, he believe the the writers were correct and we have an eligible and qualified President. Congratulations MichaelN (or Sherley).
Oh, and by the way, “if enemies…”
“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,
“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,
SCOTUS defines born in the land is ‘native born’ NOT natural born.
[“Held by a majority of this Court, that § 352(a)(1) is discriminatory, and therefore violative of due process under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, since no restriction against the length of foreign residence applies to native-born citizens”]
[“The argument continues that it is not invidious discrimination for Congress to treat such naturalized citizens differently from the manner in which it treats native-born citizens”]
http://supreme.justia.com/us/377/163/case.html
Ergo: According to SCOTUS, ‘native’ = of the land …………… ‘natural’ = of the parent.
The framers of Article II eligibility clause wisely chose ‘natural’.
Would this begin to make more sense if I drank a great deal of Fosters? It would give me the joy of drinking Fosters but I am not sure I would accomplish much else.
Except, that’s not what it said. It said that if a person came into the country and wasn’t an enemy soldier, that person owed enough ligeance to sire a natural born subject.
Same as occurred in the American colonies.
Same as occurred in the United States under the Articles of Confederation.
Same as occurred in the United States under the Constitution.
How come if SCOTUS was so conversant with your interpretation of Calvin’s Case do we not see that interpretation in the only case directly on point – Wong Kim Ark?
How come Wong argued that Calvin’s Case made him a citizen, the government argued that the US had rejected Calvin’s Case, Gray argued it made him a citizen and the dissent conceded it if Calvin’s Case applied it made him eligible for the Presidency but that we had rejected Calvin’s Case?
No case has ever interpreted Calvin’s Case the way you have.
No legal scholar in the history of the written word has interpreted Calvin’s Case the way you have.
Either all of humanity has gotten it wrong, or you are incorrect in your interpretation.
(Hint: If all of humanity thinks that the word “chicken” means a bird, can you write a contract saying “chicken” without more and expect to be delivered monkeys?)
They compared Naturalized and Native Born. This is only two types of citizen. If there are only two types, and you would readily admit that naturalized is not natural born. Ergo, with only two types of citizen, Native born and Natural born are the same thing.
You proved another point today. Good job.
Want to read the case as opposed to the syllabus?
From the case:
Any sane person reads that to mean that native born and natural born are the same.
The dissent makes it even clearer:
More on SCOTUS referring to born in the land citizens as ‘native’ BUT NOT ‘NATURAL’
[“The treaty was made to strengthen friendly relations between the two nations. As to the things covered by it, the provision quoted establishes the rule of equality between Japanese subjects while in this country and native citizens.”]
http://supreme.justia.com/us/265/332/case.html
Greg wrote:
“The dissent makes it even clearer:
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.”
——————————————————————-
The Constitution does not say ‘native-born’ it says ‘NATURAL BORN’.
Ergo: – the dissent comment is in error
Wish you could say THERE what you said HERE.
Are you familiar with the word synonym?
If I use one word instead of another, does that mean that the two words have distinct and non-overlapping meanings?
If I write a Supreme Court decision that says “student” and another decision that uses the word “pupil” are you going to argue that “student” and “pupil” have entirely different meanings, on no more evidence than that I used student in one and pupil in the other?
What language do you speak? Because it certainly isn’t legal English!
Ergo the Supreme Court uses “native born” and “natural born” as SYNONYMS!
Ergo your argument is utterly invalid!
The dissent doesn’t QUOTE from the Constitution. It paraphrases the Constitution.
The dissent is only in error if natural born means SOMETHING DIFFERENT than native born.
That is the proposition you are attempting AND FAILING to prove!
Ever hear of the CIRCULAR ARGUMENT FALLACY?
“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,
“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,
You must be unfamiliar with the concept of synonyms. Different words with the same meaning. Native born and natural born are synnymous. They mean the same thing.
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague.”St. George Tucker (View of the Constitution, 1803).
Unlike you St. George Tucker was not an idiot. He was a Revolutionary War hero, wounded at the Battle of Yorktown. He was appointed by President Madison to be a United States District Court judge.
What is your claim to fame? Other then screwing up the Calvin’s Case,
““for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there”
Recording artists come out new records all the time.
But you can’t buy them in vinyl. Only as a CD.
So why do they call still call them a record?
I don’t know. I’m not into music.
I like to watch my Dumont on the Chesterfield.
I’d leave, but my car is parked in front of my automobile…
So let me get this straight.
You are now arguing that Obama is ineligible because he did not have parents? He was perhaps a test tube baby? In 1961?
Right-e-oh!
I think the real problem is that MichaelN is not a real person. That is why it’s so easy for him/it to ignore anything that is going on around him/it. Computer programs just spit out what they are told to spit out.
You might get somewhere if you would engage with the discussion instead of just cutting and pasting irrelevant cherry picked snippits that you don’t understand.
Actually we addressed every single ridiculous premise you proposed, even the one’s you think you made, but which your own quotes didn’t serve.
Our opinions of you as a person are drawn from your pathetic performance here, and your refusal to acknowledge th existence of any rational arguement made against your delusions.
If you don’t wish to be ridiculed… don’t be ridiculous.
synonym
synonym
[sin-uh-nim]
–noun
1.
a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language, as joyful, elated, glad.
2.
a word or expression accepted as another name for something, as Arcadia for pastoral simplicity; metonym.
3.
Biology . one of two or more scientific names applied to a single taxon.
Use synonym in a Sentence
Origin:
1400–50; < Latin synōnymum < Greek syn“nymon, noun use of neuter of syn“nymos synonymous; replacing Middle English sinonyme < Middle French < Latin, as above
—Related forms
synonymic, synonymical, adjective
synonymity [sin-uh-nim-i-tee] Show IPA, noun
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2011.
NO IT DOESN’T.
In “The United States v. Wong Kim Ark” SCOTUS specifically UPHELD the ruling by THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.
That is what SCOTUS does in these cases (appeals from lower court decisions): either agree or disagree with the lower court. In Wong Kim Ark SCOTUS agreed with the lower court 100%.
The District Court specifically held that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen, quoting Look Tin Sing (District Court of California (1884) about the definition of the word “allegiance” in the 14th amendment) and Lynch v Clark (1st Circuit Court of New York (1844) that found that (here’s the kicker – pay attention) children born on U.S. soil to non-citizen parents were absolutely natural born citizens.
There are no weasel words here: the SCOTUS decision in Wong Kim Ark is agreeing 100% with the District and Circuit Court rulings that clearly and unambiguously agree that a child born on U.S. soil under allegiance to the U.S. as a natural born citizen no matter what the citizenship status of the parents are. It fully accepted fully agreed with the arguments presented by the District Court in its ruling in favor of WKA.
Period. Full Stop. End of story. Settled Law for over 100 years.
You really need to get over this stupid misconception that SCOTUS defines words. It doesn’t. It agrees with, or disagrees with, lower courts decisions, which may by implication establish a definition or at least a working agreement of how a term is to be understood in context.
And anyway, the terms “natural born” and “native born” are exactly synonymous in this context.
How convenient.
Let’s pretend the interchangeability exited in SCOTUS.
Then it would be reasonable that in the SCOTUS, when the topic of born citizen was on the table that ‘natural born’ would be used somewhere near the same amount of instances as ‘native born’ to describe those born citizens…. right?
Well take a look for yourself, and you will see that this did and does not happen.
You will find that SCOTUS in almost every case that ‘natural born’ is the topic, it is to do with parentage (except on the odd rare occasion when some revisionist or loose utterance uses the term ‘native’ to describe what he means to be ‘natural’)
But when born citizen is the topic of conversation where the parents are alien, SCOTUS chooses to use the term ‘native born’.
Funny that ………………. don’t you wonder why?
Take a look, here are the links to the searches on ‘native born’ and ‘natural born’
Not even a remote sign that ‘interchangeability’ is practiced as the norm.
For ‘native born’ http://supreme.justia.com/search.py?query=native+born&Search=Search+Cases
For ‘natural born’ http://supreme.justia.com/search.py?query=natural+born&Search=Search+Cases
So SCOTUS does not agree with you, nor do I.
‘native born’ = of the place
‘natural born’ = of the parents
This is supported by common dictionary, legal definition dictionary and SCOTUS and you expect one to believe that they are all wrong and your absurd notion is right? LOL
The framers deliberately and intentionally chose ‘natural’ instead of ‘native’, knowing full well the meaning of ‘native’ and ‘natural’, had they wanted ‘native’ to be the criteria for POTUS eligibility, they simply would have said so.
Your entire argument is politically driven and based on the absurd.
“Bo do tanga trzeba dwojga.”
Translation in Birfer (official languages of Corsi’s Birferstan AND Orly’s Birferobidjan): it always takes two lies to declare Obama ineligible.
Kindly provide a link to the full texts of Lynch v. Clark & Look Tin Sing cases so we are on the same page for starters, then we can discuss.
I have no problem with any kinda ridicule you might wish to hurl.
The problem you have is that you attack, like a pack of rabid dogs, the person as diversion from the point being discussed…………. you have your attack-pack as your cozy comfort blanket to the point that you even speak in the plural as default.
Get some courage and speak for yourself instead of sticking your head out of the lunging mob, snapping and barking as if you own the right to express opinion.
I think you are oblivious to how pathetic your behavior really is.
Grow some manners and get off your pathetic lash-out defensive mode.
MichaelN, your quote above mentions two things:
1.Japanese Subjects
2.Native Citizens
Since no one ever claimed Japanese citizens (subjects) are the same as US Natural (or Native) Born citizens, your quote means nothing and only proves that you paste crap without understanding it.
This will clarify it for you:
“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,”
Indeed.
Funny that Professor Eastman thinks Wong Kim Ark was a wrong decision, because it equated native born and natural born, and failed to see the difference between jurisdiction and allegiance (another one of your favourite bowls of rice). Funny that legislators like Dale and Vitter think new legislation is necessary to thwart the undesirable (in their eyes) effects of Wong Kim Ark.
Funny that.
Shirley, bo do tanga trzeba dwojga = you have no one who wants to do that legal dance with you..
Fine:
1. As your definition above provided, natural born citizens are those who are citizens at birth through a natural process. This includes all those born in the US and those born overseas who acquire citizenship at birth and do not require naturalization. Thus natural born actually includes MORE people than native born.
2. You can talk until you’re blue in the face about SCOTUS (a term I detest,by the way). Unlike you, I don’t read the minds of the dead, so I have no idea what the Court of 1800 or 1900 would have felt about Barack Obama. I will, however, look at the behavior of the court of 2008-2011. Despite the likelihood that a majority of them didn’t vote for him, they swore him in as President and treat him in every respect like they have treated every other President. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest they agree with you.
3. In the end, in a democracy, which this is, the people are the ultimate arbiter of who their leader should be. I’m sorry but imagined thoughts of the framers or founders would be, at best, advisory. No one can force his will onto future generations. Today’s citizens trump those of 1787. That is the way of the world. If you don’t like it, too bad. One day, if you ever have children you will realize that.
There are links to these and other cases of interest under the Bookmarks | Lawsuits menu at the top of every page.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/lawsuits/
This from Look:
So, that seems to what was meant by “Get some courage and speak for yourself instead of sticking your head out of the lunging mob.” Too bad for that “error” as we now consider it as a precedent, definite in defining a “natural-born” citizen. Better find someone really quick to have the Supreme Court of the United States to change that “error.”
This will clarify it for you:
“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,”
This will clarify it for you:
“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,”
“attack-pack”
I think Baby Huey here is pissed and dejected that he’s all so very alone in his pathetic, bigoted delusions with no one to come to his defense.
Boo – frickin’ – hoo. What a pitiful piece of poo.
“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,”
Pardon me. I meant “jurisdiction” both times I said allegiance.
You would have to also listen to “I come from a land down under” by Men at Work at double speed, followed watching “Strictly Ballroom” 10 times back to back, with a few episodesof Skippythe bush Kangaroo for flavour. Then, you might be in a state to understand the Brilliance of MichealN.
Naow that’s ay knyfe.
That refers to the possibility of the younger son of a European ruling family trying to set himself up as a monarch. Every school child knows that. Why don’t you?
Duh, just because a court calls someone a native born citizen doesn’t mean they are not also natural born citizens as I have pointed out the terms have always been used interchangable. Can you one legal authority in history saying they are different. No, you can’t even if you did any actual research. Like it or not, Wong Kim Ark spends about 5 pages telling us that natural born citizen was defined by the English common law and hence meant the same thing as natural born subject. It is really sad that no birther is smart or honest enough to realize that. Wong Kim Ark goes on to define “native born citizen” withthe same English common law definition and hence for those who spead the English language, the terms mean the same thing. So, we are waiting, please show us someone who actually said they mean different things. Here is some research for you to start with:
“No man but a native, or who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen President.” Elliot’s Debates –DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, pg 195-196 (statments of future Supreme Court Justice James Iredell, July 30, 1788).
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…” St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)
“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States….” James Kent John Melville Gould, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Commentaries on American Law, Vol. 1, pg. 333 (1901)
“Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States…..An alien is a person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States. There are some exceptions, however, to this rule, by the ancient English law, as in the case of the children of public ministers abroad, (provided their wives be English women,) for they owe not even a local allegiance to any foreign power. ” James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
“The president must, by law, be a native born citizen; so that none need aspire to that high calling, but those who might emphatically be termed natural sons of America.” Joseph Dennie, John Elihu Hall, The Port Folio, pg. 199, (1822)
“By the provisions of the federal constitution, the President and Vice President of the United States are required to be native-born citizens; and the President is required to cause the laws of the Union to be executed. These high places of power, it was then thought, could not, with safety to the American people, be occupied by any but natural-born citizens” Rep. Russel, Congressional Globe, 24th Cong., 1st Sess. pg 4256 (1836)
“It is not too much to say, that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be intrusted with an office so vital [the presidency] to the safety and liberties of the people. But an exception was, from a deep sense of gratitude, made in favor of those distinguished men, who, though not natives, had, with such exalted patriotism, and such personal sacrifices, united their lives and fortunes with ours during the Revolution….” Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 167 (1840 ed.)
“Citizenship” ….Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution of the United States, except the office of president and vice-president.” Bouvier Law Dictionary pg. 265 (1843)
“No person can be elected president who is less than 35 years of age, who is not a native born citizen of the United States, or was not a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United Stales…” John Ramsay McCulloch, Daniel Haskel, M’Culloch’s Universal Gazetteer: A Dictionary, Geographical, Statistical, and Historical, of the Various Countries, Places, and Principal Natural Objects in the World, pg. 994 (1844)
“Afterwards however, in Convention, the words “natural born citizen” were stricken out, and the word ” native” was substituted, as the original words might have left an uncertainty as to the meaning of the Convention, for ” natural born citizen” might have had some reference to the manner of birth, while the word ” native” would refer more particularly to the place of birth. ” Sherman Croswell, R. Sutton, Debates and Proceedings in the New-York State Convention – New York (State) Pg. 148 (1846)
“No person can be President or Vice-president who is not a native-born citizen, of the age of thirty-five years, ….” Richard Swainson Fisher, The progress of the United States of America: from the earliest periods. Geographical, statistical, and historical, pg. 9 (1854)
“The executive power is vested in a president and vice-president; each chosen for a term four years each to be a native born citizen…..Emma Willard, Abridged history of the United States, or, Republic of America, pg. 254 (1856)
“They declared by that solemn compact, that the President of the United States should be a native born citizen, … Samuel Clagett Busey, Immigration: Its Evils and Consequences pg. 10 (1856)
“Your committee is of opinion that no one can be eligible to discharge, for the time being, the functions of President, unless he be thirty-five years old, and a native born citizen. A Speaker of the House, or a President pro tempore, might not have these qualifications —and if so, he could not act as President in compliance with the Constitution.” Sen. Butler, 8/05/1856, Reports of Committees: 30th Congress, 1st Session – 48th Congress, 2nd Session, pg. 4., By United States Congress. Senate, Congress, Published 1856
“Mr. HOWARD. I have two objections to this amendment. The first is that it proposes to change the existing Constitution in reference to qualifications of President of the United States. If this amendment shall be adopted, then that clause of the Constitution which requires that the President of the United States shall be a native-born citizen of the United States is repealed, and any person who hasbeen naturalized and then become a citizenof the United States will be eligible to the office of President;” The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 1013 (1869)
“The Constitution requires that the President must be a native-born citizen of the United States.” Sen. Sherman, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 1035 (1869)
“The Constitution of the United States provides as a qualification for the offices of President and Vice-President that the person elected must be a native-born citizen.”
ex parte Garland, 71 US 333, 395 (1866)(J. Miller, dissenting).
“One of those principles is that the candidate voted for must be thirty-five years of age; another is that he must have been a citizen of tho United States at the time the Constitution was adopted, or he must be a native-born citizen.” Sen. Davis, 2/2/1865 reported in The presidential counts: a complete official record of the proceedings of Congress at the counting of the electoral votes in all the elections of president and vice-president of the United States; pg. 203 (1877)
“It is a singular fact, however, that to-day, under the Federal Constitution, a negro may be elected President, United States Senator, or a member of the lower branch of Congress. In that instrument no qualification for office is prescribed which rejects the negro. The white man, not native born, may not be President, but the native-born African may be.” Sen. Henderson, William Horatio Barnes, History of the thirty-ninth Congress of the United States, pg. 387 (1868)
“By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House ; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born….I read from Paschal’s Annotated Consitutuion, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons. (2 Kent’s Com. 3d ed. l ; Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 1 ; 1 Black. Com. 366; Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf. Ch. Rep. 139.)” Sen. Trumbull (author or the Civil Rights Act of 1866), April 11, 1871, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)
“What is the qualification for the office of President? He must be a native-born citizen of the United States and thirty-five years of age. Nothing more!” Rep. Boutwell, 1/11/69 cited in Great Debates in American History: Civil rights, part 2 Volume 8 of Great Debates in American History: From the Debates in the British Parliament on the Colonial Stamp Act (1764-1765) to the Debates in Congress at the Close of the Taft Administration (1912-1913), United States. Congress, pg. 113 (1913)
“The Constitution of the United States provides that no person but a native-born citizen of the United States, with other qualifications as to age and residence, shall be president of the United States…. Is the Congress of the United States prepared at this time to adopt a proposition that negroes and Indians and Chinese and all persons of that description shall be eligible to the office of President…” Senator Williams, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 573 (1866).
“One of the qualifications of President of the United States is that he must be a native born citizen, and incontestibly were it not for this provision a naturalized citizen might, if elected, hold that high position.” White v. Clements, Georgia Supreme Court, 1870, Reports of Cases in Law and Equity, Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia, in the Year , pg. 256-57 (1870)
“The qualifications for president and vice-president by this clause are made the same. They must, therefore, be native born citizens of the United States, or citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the federal constitution, and been fourteen years citizens of the United States, and thirty-five years old.” John King, A Commentary on the Law and True Construction of the Federal Constitution, pg. 206, (1871)
“These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 162 (1874).
“The President was required to be thirty-five years of age, and native born, or a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution.” Richard Hildreth, The History of the United States of America, pg. 521 (1880)
“The President and the Vice-President, (and hence their Electors also), are required, however, to be native-born citizens of the United States. Here we have a clear inclusion of all the States as to their native-born, and a clear Delusion of all foreign-born citizens.” Meeds Tuthill, The civil polity of the United States considered in its theory and practice, pg. 83 (1883)
“As the president and vice-president are elected at and for the same time, the right to be chosen to both offices is dependent upon the same conditions (12th amendment). To be eligible, it is necessary to be a native-born citizen of the United States,…Hermann Von Holst, Alfred Bishop Mason, The Constitutional Law of the United States of America” pg. 84 (1887)
“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, s 1.” Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)
“It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” “Native-born citizens are natural born by virtue of the nearly universal principle of jus soli, or citizenship of place of birth.” Jill A.Pryor, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L.J. 881, at 881 and n. 2 (1988)
“Native: A natural-born subject or citizen; a citizen by birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to.” Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Addition (1994).
“It is now generally assumed that the term “natural born” is synonymous with “native born.” “It [therefore] is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible [for the presidency] and that naturalized citizens are not.” There is a general agreement among commentators, whether or not they are advocates of an originalist approach to constitutional interpretation, that “whether someone born of American parents abroad would be considered a natural born citizen” is an open question.” Lawrence Freedman, An Idea Whose Time Has Come–The Curious History, Uncertain Effect, and Need for Amendment of the “Natural Born Citizen” Requirement for the Presidency, 52 St. Louis U. L.J. 137, 143 (2007)
Based on his many posts, I don’t think it’s safe to assume MichaelN has a high enough level of reading comprehension to understand the concept of synonyms.
Great post, Ballantine, (I’m gonna clip it and save it for later use) but too many words for MichaelN.
I’ll simplify it for him:
“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,”
I understand what it’s trying to do, and I mean no offense, but the continual cut and paste of the “enemies should come into…” quote in reply to practically every post is getting a tad annoying to me. It extends the thread while adding no new information of relevance. It makes US seem just like the birthers we’re debunking, just cutting and pasting the same stuff over and over while not addressing the argument that is being replied to. When they do it we call them on it, we shouldn’t do the same.
Tarrant,
the problem is MichaelN and his posts are
a. Full of poo
b. Intellectually incontinent
c. Without a shred of factual or legal basis
He will CONTINUE to post the same debunked cack of his, world without end.
The response is to either not feed the troll or to continue to point out the central tenet of his flawed argument which is his egregious misquote and editing of a direct quote.
To whit, enemy, realm, town, fort, issue etc
Tarrant,
If we stop posting the “enemies should come into…” quote, within 45 minutes MichaelN will post the cropped sentence again, as if it had never been pointed out to him or debunked. He is shameless. I think if Doc’s site had a simple math test or logic test before you could post, it would leave him frustrated and he would go spam Birtherstan instead.
How about a captcha? That should be easy enough to add and should frustrate the ‘H’ out of any of the less literate folks who frequent here.
I’m thinking more along the lines of a logic 101 multiple choice before you can post. Something like:
Little Suzie has a wagon. It has four wheels, and is painted Red. Billy has a blue wagon. It also has four wheels.
What can you conclude from the above statements?
a- Some wagons have wheels.
b- Everything Blue is a wagon.
c- Suzie is a painter.
d- “for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,”.
Not a single damn birther would be allowed to post.
Brilliant! 😀
If you’re expecting a rational, honest response (ever) from MichaelN, then do your best to get through to him.
That’s a challenge from me to you. Perhaps it’s cynical to say but I’ll bet I’ve already read his response to you before you even try.
“while adding no new information of relevance”
Second challenge. Please show me where in the last several hundred (thousands?) of MichaelN’s posts where he has added new information or anything of relevance.
I quadruple dog dare you. 😀
So then peach pits and peach stones aren’t the same thing at all, because they’re not used the exact same number of times?
Wow you’re really reaching for this one.
Oh don’t get me wrong. I don’t for a second think MichaelN is sincere, or engaging in honest debate and argument. Don’t think that at all. He’s a birther – he cuts and pastes small, out of context snippets from larger things and repeats them incessantly. He intentionally doesn’t understand counter-arguments put before him. All that is true.
I was just saying we’re supposed to be the good guys 🙂 It’s just as bad for him to go back to his little echo chamber and say “See? They can’t argue with me, look at how they just pasted the same thing over and over!” Of course the other alternative is feeding him (which he wants) or ignoring him (which he would consider a victory) so I guess the current option is best, it’s just not optimal 🙂
Would it help if we translated it into Australian?
“now if some pommie bastard should go walkabout into gods own earth, and grab hold of a town or fort, and by bingum pop a sprog out of some poor shiela…”
The more I read from Mikey, the more I wonder if he could pass the Turing Test.
You are Winning and you’re doind it with Tiger Blood. You dah man!
Charley Sheen got nothin on you.
Thanks for the honest reply.
We’ve tried earnest pleas in the past with other birthers to “ignore the troll.”
It never works. Civility never works either.
Responding to the fussy Aussie is almost like arguing with a wall but a wall with some really messed up perceptions of reality, some nasty, bigoted world views and more spare time than common sense.
Although being a male alien by birth, such a person visiting England in amity is considered a subject of the sovereign & as such, if he should father a child born in England, then that child is a ‘natural born subject’.
The alien visiting England in enmity is not considered a subject of the sovereign & as such, if he should father a child born in England, then that child is not considered a ‘subject’ at all.
Lord Coke – Calvin’s case.
“There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances: the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita,42 and this originally is due by nature and birthright,…”
Two qualities required to make a ‘natural born subject’.
“that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject,…”
When the parent father is not a subject, then the child is not a subject, even if born in England.
The subject status of the parent father is one essential quality of two essential qualities to make a natural born subject.
“Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized by procreation and birth right….”
Two essential qualities required to make a natural born subject.
native = of the land
natural = of the parent
The framers of the USC chose ‘natural born’ in preference to ‘native born’, given the high degree of education and wisdom of the framers, it is without any reasonable doubt that this choice of ‘natural’ was deliberate and intentional to describe birthright eligibility for the office of president of US.
Had the framers sought to have merely place of birth as the sole quality required for eligibility for the office of president, they most assuredly would have chosen and used ‘native’, but they chose ‘natural’ meaning the status of the parent was essential.
This is consistent with the English common law.
It demonstrates the security precautions for US government members and representatives that were of the highest important to the framers.
See?
You have yet to show any evidence that any framer, or anyone in American or English history, made a distinction between native and natural born, and you cannot. And, of course, you cannot cite anyone in history that agrees with your crazy interpretation of Coke. Do you really think repeating the same assertions over and over is a legal argument?
They are cherry-picked and interwoven with pro ‘native’ for president commentary.
Is there a full text transcript? …………. I can’t find one, even on Justia’s site.
Not according to Chief Justice Cockburn. A real expert on English Common Law. He is a respected jurist, what is your claim to fame?
And because he is so knowledgeable about English Law, he doesn’t need to make things up, like you do. He actually understands the meaning of the the phrase,
“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject,…”
I guess the funniest or saddest aspect of all is that he has absolutely no constructive purpose being here except perhaps for the rare and occasional and sympathetic fellow birther idiot who sort of gets what he’s obtusely babbling about.
Then what is your ‘sane’ interpretation of those statements by Lord Coke?
There are three, now you interpret them and show how the subject status of the parent father was not a consideration.
Hamilton, in the convention, didn’t want any restrictions on eligibility. His personal draft of the Constitution only required the President to be a citizen at birth. In fact, he thought the electoral college would protect against foreign influence. The facts are that a few delegates to the convention were concerned with foreign influence but most of the most important framers were not. The only thing suggested by those weary of foreign influence was a native-birth requirement. There is no evidence any framer ever contemplated any other restriction or cared about parentage and people who say that are just making stuff up. See, there is a difference between facts and rank speculation. The latter is no legal argument, but, of course, you know nothing about US law.
And citizenship, natural born or otherwise, wasn’t mentioned as one of the security precautions, now was it?
Reading comprehension is an issue with you.
The key word in your quote is ligeance not subject.
The US adopted the exact same system. If you are an alien visiting the US, you have a temporary ligeance that is strong enough to make your children natural born citizens. If you visit in enmity (which, by the way, is determined by whether the nation you left is at war with the US, not based on your personal actions) your children, born here, are not natural born citizens.
That’s why the Framers didn’t ever mention they were changing the meaning of the words natural born.
Obama Sr. = NOT an alien in enmity!
Obama Jr = natural born.
Duh!
It has been done a million times and you still can’t cite one person in history to support your lunacy. I can try to type slowly, but it won’t help. Justice Gray, Blackstone, Chitty, Cockburn, Dicey and every other legal authority tells us anyone born in England or the US is natural born other than children of ambassadors or invading enemies. Coke says the same thing as he view everyone except children of ambassadors or invading enemies as a type of subject. There were others in England and America that called alien friends a kind of subject, but no one in history, including Coke, said they had the rights of naturalized subjects. Framer James Wilson said aliens were deemed to be temporary subjects. He then goes on to make clear they didn’t have the rights of naturalized subjects. Of course, this will be over your head and you can go back to your argument that everyone in history is wrong except you.
You’re incapable of looking at the page and following the links to the cases in question?
Lynch v. Clarke.
NBC’s transcribed Lynch v. Clarke
In re Look Ting Sing
In re Look Ting Sing transcribed by NBC
As oppose to your insane interpretation of those statements?
one could argue it says that only the children of foreign royalty should be excluded from the presidency. You could make the case that if we focused only on the expressed intent in actual statements by the founders that ordinary naturalized citiizens should not be excluded. In fact Iredell’s statement was ” a natural born citizen OR 14 years a resident”. The OR implies that non-natural born citizens were fine as long as they had lived in the US for 14 years.
Or course the actual words of the Constitution imply otherwise, pointing out the dangers of attemptiinng to divine “intent”.
Because the critical factor was whether the parent owed ligeance.
An alien in amity doesn’t become a pseudo-subject, but he owes ligeance to the King because he is protected by the King.
That’s the difference between the alien in amity and the alien in enmity.
See, doesn’t say he’s not a subject, just like it doesn’t say the alien in amity is a subject. The alien in enmity doesn’t owe ligeance, the alien in amity does. The former isn’t protected by the King, the latter is.
That’s the way that every English speaker since 1608 has read the case, Michael.
Oh, and by the way, regardless of how you read the case, it is irrelevant to the argument that THE US ADOPTED THE ENGLISH SYSTEM!
You say that the alien in amity became some pseudo-subject? Okay, well, in the US, we adopted the EXACT SAME SYSTEM! The alien doesn’t have to go through any more here than in England for their children to become natural born citizens!
YOU interpret Coke’s statements.
Owe ligeance = subject.
1. Wrong
2. Not different in the US
Yes, there are numerous early authorities stating that persons in the US who were not citizens were subjects. For example, slaves and indians were deemed to be subjects because they owed allegiance. They were subjects because the term “subject” meant one had subjected oneself to the allegiance of the country. Again, one of our framerss said aliens were a type of subject. Duh.
Also, in 1787, all the states had adopted the common law, so Calvin’s Case was the law in all the states. Thus, whatever Calvin’s Case meant in England was the law here as well. Of course, no one anywhere thought it meant what Michael thinks. Gee, who should we believe on English law, Blackstone or MichealN. Really can’t make this stuff up.
From In re Look Ting Sing:
One of the notable things about Look Ting Sing is that it was a decision by Justice Field, who was then Supreme Court Justice (riding circuit). Justice Field sat on the court during the oral arguments of Wong Kim Ark.
And the Irony meter goes OFF THE SCALE!!!
No, but thanks for the links.
I will read through them.
Is there an electronic full text of Lynch V. Clark (i.e.searchable) rather then photocopy?
The problem is that ignoring the troll hardly ever works. He will hist start copy and pasting his gibberish into every single thread thinking he is winning, as somehow The fact that he pasted it for the 1001th time and people are no longer demolishing him like they did 1000 times before means that they no longer have and argument and he is winning, so he will want to flaunt his victory in peoples faces. MichealN is literally insane with loneliness. This is all he has. Or hes just a racist looking for reasons to be a racist, which would not be unknown in Australia, or Ireland for that matter.
He probably regards people quoting the full quote as a distraction from the real truth only he can see inside Coke’s ruling. And the fact that everyone else is doing it proves how stupid and ignorant everyone else is.
That said hes probably going to come up with his “there was no precedent for being a subject without a king” nonsense soon despite me pointing out the Commonwealth of England, which he leaned about in school the same as I did. I guess only he can see the true meaning in history too.
Anyway what you said is the reason I’ve largely stopped replying to him. Watching him twist on his own hooks gets old after a while and he does not have any new material for me to enjoy spending 5 minutes researching and shoving reality in his face. Generally all it takes is reading his own links and proving he never read them himself. Eventually you just feel sorry for him.
You don’t seem to comprehend English. So Coke says alien friends are a type of subject, but as long as they It’s really not that hard. We’ve been over this a dozen times. If Obama’s father went to England and had a son, his son would be a natural born subject whether or not you called his father an alien or temporary subject. At this point, I am really thinking you are just stupid.
I gave you two links to Lynch v. Clarke. Why do you think I did that?
Irony doesn’t quite cover it. What the heck would you need the full text of anything for….other than to decide which bits to leave out?
http://www.pollsb.com/photos/o/27842-beating_dead_horse_what.jpg
Last post got screwed up. Should read:
You don’t seem to comprehend English. So Coke says alien friends are a type of subject, but as long they are not ambassadors, their children are natural born subjects. It’s really not that hard. We’ve been over this a dozen times. If Obama’s father went to England and had a son, his son would be a natural born subject whether or not you called his father an alien or temporary subject. At this point, I am really thinking you are just stupid.
The alien in amity is a subject to the sovereign.
Local ligeance in England is that of the alien born ‘subject’.
“Concerning the local obedience, it is observable, that as there is a local protection on the King’s part, so there is a local ligeance of the subject’s part.”
“whereas if natural ligeance of the subjects of England should be local,”
“which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject”
Think about it, he never heard of Lynch v Clark or Look Ting Sing. Or St. George Tucker or William Rawle or James Madison. Or Chief Justice Cockburn. He is only interested in his misreading of the Calvin’s Case. Stupid doesn’t begin to cover his problems.
Half quoting again?
But, you’re half-quoting in order to make your HALF argument!
Show us how it was DIFFERENT in the United States!
The rest of the paragraph contradicts what you think this snippet says.
It’s saying that the natural ligeance of the subjects is NOT local!
Why don’t you try READING the WHOLE case instead of cutting and pasting!
He hadn’t heard of Calvin’s Case before it was introduced to him on Fogbow!
Why shouldn’t a person who has no legal training and had never heard of the case before a year ago and who has clearly never read the whole thing all the way through NOT trump the entire English-speaking legal world?
Looking back at Fogbow, I see that it has been almost exactly 1 year since MichaelN was introduced to Calvin’s Case, which he mistook for Calvinism.
Perhaps some people are “pre-ordained” to be birthers?
Some of us are….
/looks towards birthers
They had fools back then too…
The parent owed allegiance to the sovereign and because of that, the parent was considered a subject of the sovereign, then because of this, the child of that alien born subject parent would be a natural born subject.
If the parent did not have allegiance to the sovereign, as in the case of an alien enemy, then the child, even if born in England, is not a subject.
The subject status of the parent father to the sovereign, is crucial in determining the subject or non-subject status of the child.
It’s not about what makes the parent a subject or not, it is the fact that the parent is a subject or not that matters.
Michael: In a democracy THE PEOPLE decide (Sorry, dead guys, living ones only)
It’s really that simple…
What are you smokin’?
It speaks of those who only have local ligeance (aka alien born natural subjects) and those that are not confined to local ligeance.
Constitutional amendment is the remedy for your problem.
The simplest solution is not necessarily the best ………… you should know that.
Democratic determination of core moral and natural human-rights principles is a means to decending into anarchy, mob rule & tyranny.
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html
“The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the “excesses of democracy,” were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards–in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)–for the people’s liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy’s form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic. It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that:
“The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period.” (Text per original.)
Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:
“Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current.”
It is correct to say that in any Democracy–either a Direct or a Representative type–as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFXuGIpsdE0
I’d say it’s both. And definitely a lunatic. Sad existence.
Micheal, 10 years after Calvin’s Case there came a period in England where there was NO SOVEREIGN which lasted for 29 whole years. You think for 30 seconds Lord Coke’s ruling stopped working?
And be very very careful how you answer that, because whether you answer yea or nay your previous words can be thrown right back at you.
I guess you missed the part where the Founding Fathers et al formed America because they objected to (among other reasons) the success of a person depending on who their parents were.
You can’t be much of a patriot if you want to return us to the system of entitlement where who your family is is more important than how dedicated you are.
See? We let up for a few hous, and MichaelN comes back with his truncated quote that actually undermines his arguement in full.
He needs a few more of these:
“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,”
“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,”
“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,”
“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,”
“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,”
If you need more MichaelN, just ask. I have plenty.
Apparently you and he both failed to attend your basic civics classes in grade school.
Ahr!- My spell check explodiated!
By what stretch of the imagination is denying the presidency to naturallized citizens a human right? Are you daft, man?
i am by no mean s a majoratarian when it comes to actual human rights, which, in my view includes those in the Bill of Rights, but goes well beyond those. No majority can deny to a minority freedom of speech, assembly, religion (or the freedom to love whom they choose or freedom from abject poverty or many more). I need no lectures or ridiculous youtube videos from you, thank you very much, Bruce. (By the way, what is it with you guys and these videos? i am not going to waste 10 minutes watching some boring fool drone on about something that could be said in a paragraph that I could read in 20 seconds).
But an election is about determining the will of the majority. That too, is a human right.
So what do you make of this?
http://supreme.justia.com/us/274/657/case.html
[“The Act of February 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604, passed presumably because of Mr. Binney’s suggestion, was entitled “An act to secure the right of citizenship to children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits thereof,” and read as follows:
“That persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, however, that the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States.”
“Sec. 2. . . . That any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or who shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen.”
The part of the Act of 1855 we are interested in was embodied in the Revised Statutes as § 1993.
It is very clear that the proviso in § 1993 has the same meaning as that which Congress intended to give it in the Act of 1790, except that it was then retrospective, as it was in the Act of 1802, while, in the Act of 1855, it was intended to be made prospective as well as retrospective. What was the source of the peculiar words of the proviso there seems to be no way of finding out, as the report of the discussion of the subject is not contained in any publication brought to our attention. It is evident, however,
Page 274 U. S. 665
from the discussion in the First Congress, already referred to, that there was a strong feeling in favor of the encouragement of naturalization. There were some congressmen, although they did not prevail, who were in favor of naturalization by the mere application and taking of the oath. The time required for residence to obtain naturalization was finally limited to two years. In the Act of 1795, this was increased to five years, with three years for declaration of intention. Congress must have thought that the questions of naturalization and of the conferring of citizenship on sons of American citizens born abroad were related.
Congress had before it the Act of George III of 1773, which conferred British Nationality not only on the children, but also on the grandchildren of British-born citizens who were born abroad. Congress was not willing to make so liberal a provision. It was natural that it should wish to restrict the English provision, because, at the time that this phrase was adopted, there were doubtless many foreign-born children of persons who were citizens of the seceding colonies, with respect to whose fathers there was a natural doubt whether they intended to claim or enjoy American citizenship, or indeed were entitled to it. The last provision of the Act of 1790 manifested this disposition to exclude from the operation of the act those who were citizens or subjects in the states during the Revolution, and had been proscribed by their legislatures. It is not too much to say, therefore, that Congress at that time attached more importance to actual residence in the United States as indicating a basis for citizenship than it did to descent from those who had been born citizens of the colonies or of the states before the Constitution. As said by Mr. Fish, when Secretary of State, to Minister Washburn, June 28, 1873, in speaking of this very proviso,
“The heritable blood of citizenship
Page 274 U. S. 666
was thus associated unmistakably with residence within the country which was thus recognized as essential to full citizenship.”
Foreign Relations of the United States, pt. 1, 1873, p. 259. It is in such an atmosphere that we are to interpret the meaning of this peculiarly worded proviso.
Only two constructions seem to us possible, and we must adopt one or the other.
The one is that the descent of citizenship shall be regarded as taking place at the birth of the person to whom it is to be transmitted, and that the words “have never been resident in the United States” refer in point of time to the birth of the person of whom the citizenship is to descend.
This is the adoption of the rule of jus sanguinis in respect to citizenship, and that emphasizes the fact and time of birth as the basis of it.
We think the words “the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States” are equivalent to saying that fathers may not have the power of transmitting by descent the right of citizenship until they shall become residents in the United States.
————————————
The other view,/strong> is that the words “have never been resident in the United States” have reference to the whole life of the father until his death, and therefore that grandchildren of native-born citizens, even after they, having been born abroad, have lived abroad to middle age and without residing at all in the United States, will become citizens if their fathers, born abroad and living until old age abroad, shall adopt a residence in the United States just before death.
We are thus to have two generations of citizens who have been born abroad, lived abroad, the first coming to old age, and the second to maturity, and bringing up of a family without any relation to the United States at all until the father shall in his last days adopt a new residence. We do not think that such a construction accords with the probable attitude of Congress at the time of the adoption of this proviso into the statute. Its construction
Page 274 U. S. 667
extends citizenship to a generation whose birth, minority, and majority, whose education, and whose family life have all been out of the United States and naturally within the civilization and environment of an alien country. The beneficiaries would have evaded the duties and responsibilities of American citizenship. They might be persons likely to become public charges or afflicted with disease; yet they would be entitled to enter as citizens of the United States. Van Dyne, Citizenship of the United States, p. 34.
As between the two interpretations, we feel confident that the first one was more in accord with the views of the First Congress. We think that the proviso has been so construed by a subsequent Act of Congress of March 2, 1907, c. 2534, § 6, 34 Stat. 1229, which provides:
“That all children born outside the limits of the United States who are citizens thereof in accordance with the provisions of § 1993 of the Revised Statutes of the United States and who continue to reside outside the United States shall, in order to receive the United of this government, be required upon reaching the age of eighteen years to record at an American consulate their intention to become residents and remain citizens of the United States, and shall be further required to take the oath of allegiance to the United States upon attaining their majority.”
Now if this Congress had construed § 1993 to permit the residence prescribed to occur after the birth of such children, we think that it would have employed appropriate words to express such meaning, as for example, “all children born who are or may become citizens.” The present tense is used, however, indicating that citizenship is determined at the time of birth. Moreover, such foreign-born citizens are required, upon reaching the age of eighteen years, to record their intention to become residents and remain citizens of the United States and take
Page 274 U. S. 668
the oath of allegiance to the United States upon attaining their majority. If the residence prescribed for the parent may occur after the birth of the children, the father may remain abroad and not reside in the United States until long after such children attain their majority. Thus, they could not register or take the oath of allegiance, because the rights of citizenship could not descend to them until their fathers had resided in the United States. This class of foreign-born children of American citizens could not, then, possibly comply with the provisions of the Act of 1907. Nor could such children “remain citizens,” since they are expressly denied the rights of citizenship. We may treat the Act of 1907 as being in pari materia with the original act, and as a legislative declaration of what Congress in 1907 thought was its meaning in 1790. 44 U. S. 564, et seq.; Cope v. Cope,@ 137 U. S. 682, 137 U. S. 688.
Counsel for the respondent insist that the Act of 1907 is not an act that reflects on the construction to be placed on § 1993; that there is a distinction between citizenship and the enjoyment of it in this country, on the one hand, and the rules that should limit the protection of it abroad by our government, on the other. This may well be conceded. It is illustrated in the opinion of Attorney General Hoar, 13 Op. Attys.Gen. 90, in which he advised that, even if applicants were citizens, they were not entitled to the protection of passports under the circumstances of that case. But we do not think that this distinction detracts from the argumentative weight of the Act of 1907 as a Congressional interpretation of the proviso of 1855, 1802, and 1790.
In answer to the reasons which influence us to the conclusion already indicated, counsel for the respondent say, first, that the hypothesis that the foreign-born fathers and sons may all live abroad from birth to middle age and
Page 274 U. S. 669
bring up families without any association with the United States, and that the sons may then become citizens by the ultimate residence of their fathers in the United States, is not a possible one, because such children must have signified their intention to become citizens when they reached eighteen years of age, or at majority, at any rate. But these provisions with respect to election of citizenship by those coming to majority were not in the statute when the proviso was enacted, and we must construe it as of 1790, with reference to the views that Congress may be thought to have have at that time.
Then it is urged that the State Department has held that § 1993 refers only to children, and not to adults. This would be a narrow construction of the proviso as it was intended to operate in 1790, when the act was passed, and, although this was suggested as a possible view by Secretary of State Bayard, it would limit too much the meaning of the word “children” at a time when no provision had been made by law for election of citizenship by those coming of age. Nor does it seem to be in accord with Attorney General Gregory’s opinion already referred to. 30 Op. Attys.Gen. 529.
It is said that it would be illogical and unnatural to provide that the father, having begotten children abroad before he lived in the United States at all, and then having gone to the United States and resided there and returned and had more children abroad, should have a family part aliens and part citizens. As this is entirely within the choice of the father, there would seem to be no reason why such a situation should be anomalous. As the father may exercise his option in accordance with the law, so citizenship will follow that option.
Counsel for the respondent, in their learned and thorough brief, have sought to sustain their conclusion in favor of the latitudinarian view of the proviso by many references, all of which we have examined. They point
Page 274 U. S. 670
to the language of Mr. Justice Gray in delivering the majority opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649. The majority in that case, as already said, held that the fundamental principle of the common law with regard to nationality was birth within the allegiance of the government, and that one born in the United States, although of a race and of a parentage denied naturalization under the law, was nevertheless, under the language of the Fourteenth Amendment, a citizen of the United States by virtue of the jus soli embodied in the amendment. The attitude of Chief Justice Fulley and Mr. Justice Harlan was that, at common law, the children of our citizens born abroad were always natural-born citizens from the standpoint of this government, and that, to that extent, the jus sanguinis obtained here; that the Fourteenth Amendment did not exclude from citizenship by birth children born in the United States of parents permanently located here who might themselves become citizens, nor, on the other hand, did it arbitrarily make citizens of children born in the United States of adults who, according to the will of their native government and of this government, are and must remain aliens. Section 1993 is referred to both in the majority opinion and in the minority opinion. Speaking of the Act of 1855, the majority opinion says (p. 169 U. S. 674):
“It thus clearly appears that, during the half century intervening between 1802 and 1855, there was no legislation whatever for the citizenship of children born abroad, during that period, of American parents who had not become citizens of the United States before the Act of 1802, and that the Act of 1855, like every other act of Congress upon the subject, has, by express proviso, restricted the right of citizenship thereby conferred upon foreign-born children of American citizens to those children themselves, unless they became residents of the United States. Here is nothing to countenance the theory
Page 274 U. S. 671
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.”]
Ergo: ‘natural born Citizen’ means jus sanguinis, but does not negate jus soli as a means birthright ‘citizen’.
That in order for a citizen to pass on his citiizenship to foreign-born children he must have lived in the US for some period of time that Congress considers reasonable. It has no effect whatsoever on children born in the US.
“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 point is according to …………..
U.S. Supreme Court
Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927)
Weedin v. Chin Bow
No. 237
Argued March 16, 1927
Decided June 6, 1927
274 U.S. 657
………….that it is made clear in this case, that jus sanguinis makes a ‘natural born Citizen’ and jus soli makes a ‘citizen’.
The jus sanguinis rule for NBC existed and was acknowledged by the court, but did not displace the principle of jus soli that made a ‘citizen’.
.
Congratulations MichealN. You just spent over 3 screen widths describing issues that might have affected John McCain, not Barack Obama. Well done.
“the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovreighity” is jus soli.
Look here, Bruce, the Supreme Court swore Obama in. There is no possible conclusion but that they consider him eligible. They aren’t suddenly going to change their minds. That’s the fundamental fact you have to face. There is no getting around that. It doesn;y matter if you say 8,753 times that they are wrong. They are the Supreme Court and you aren’t.
Jus soli for children born in the jursidiction of the United States;
Jus sanguine for children of citizens born outside of the jursidiction of the United States.
Again with the selective cutting,
“It thus clearly appears that, during the half century intervening between 1802 and 1855, there was no legislation whatever for the citizenship of children born abroad, during that period, of American parents who had not become citizens of the United States before the Act of 1802, and that the Act of 1855, like every other act of Congress upon the subject, has, by express proviso, restricted the right of citizenship thereby conferred upon foreign-born children of American citizens to those children themselves, unless they became residents of the United States. 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.”
Do you understand the meaning of the word “countenance”?
There is nothing that suggests that jus sangunis has replaced the fundemental rule of citizenship by birth.
According to your theory, appling the Chin Bow decision, only children born overseas to US citizens are natural born.
Pull the other leg.
Roberts ritually swore-in Obama, it was in no way endorsement of any constitutional definition or eligibility by either Roberts or the SCOTUS judicial members.
LOL ………. what a squirm.
Well, if your are trying to convince anyone you are not an idiot, you are not doing a good job. Have you read Binney’s paper? He says US law is based upon English law and both are jus soli. He said without a naturalization statute, chidren of citizens born oversees would not be citizens, just like in England. Congress agreed with him and amended the naturalization laws. I guess they didn’t understand the law.
Binney said “the right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts.” Rather, “it is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute.” Gee, sounds like jus soli. Binney said there were two types of citizens, “those born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States or naturalized by the authority of law.” Binney said “the law of France rejects the principle of the English law, and of our own laws, that birth within the limits and jurisdiction of France, makes a Frenchman, or a natural-born citizen or subject of France, absolutely.” So, England and America had a rule making one born “within the limits and jurisdiction” of the country a natural born citizen or subject.
Why are you citing naturalization laws for the foreign born? They have nothing to do with the status of the native born. Are you drinking?
“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”
You do realize that this is saying that there is nothing to the theory that jus sanguinis has displaced jus soli as the fundamental rule in this country. Duh.
The quote from Weedin v. Chin Bow is merely the dissent from Wong Kim Ark with respect to the foreign born. Says nothing about the native born. If you are trying harder to convince us you are an idiot, you are suceeding.
I think you’re in denial on this point. People don’t get to the Supreme Court without experience, integrity and backbone. There’s no way one of them would do something they believed undermined the Constitution.
And retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said specifically that Obama was eligible.
You’re just a crank.
Gee, it does sound like jus soli, and that is correct for a born in US ‘citizen’ who is born to non-citizen parents.
The overwhelming majority of SCOTUS cases the term used is ‘native born’ when referring to such ‘citizens’, but when they refer to those born of citizen parents, it is ‘natural born’ that is used.
The case I cited shows that SCOTUS acknowledged the distinct difference between jus sanguinis for ‘natural born Citizen’ & jus soli for ‘citizen’.
Justice Antonin Scalia:
“Now, in asserting that originalism used to be orthodoxy, I do not mean to imply that judges did not distort the Constitution now and then, of course they did. We had willful judges then, and we will have willful judges until the end of time. But the difference is that prior to the last 50 years or so, prior to the advent of the “Living Constitution,” judges did their distortions the good old fashioned way, the honest way — they lied about it. They said the Constitution means such and such, when it never meant such and such.”
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/guest_commentary/scalia-constitutional-speech.htm
You mean the fellow who said:
You’re a crank.
Much like you’re lying here.
I think it fairly certain that Chief Justice Taney would not have sworn in Barack Obama had the situation arisen.
“idiot’, “crank’, “insane”, “stupid’, “birther’, blah bloody blah etc, etc………….. bark, bark the dog-pack attacks LOL
Grow-up!
If your arguments were worthy of a better response, you’d get it.
German website, quote mining, misquotes, blah, f**king, blah.
wise up!
MichaelN:
Would you allow a blood transfusion from someone other than your own ethnicity if your life depended on it?
There have been groups that have gone to court to argue that there are more than two types of citizen – tax evaders, white supremacists chief among them.
They lose. Over and over again they lose. The ADL has a list of citations for lawyers dealing with such cranks. They call it their Idiot Legal Argument Casebook. Here are the numerous cases where the more than 2 types of citizen arguments have been shot down:
Fox v. CIR (2/1/93) TC Memo 1993-37 summ.judg. granted (2/26/96) TC Memo 1996-79; ditto R.S. Powers v. CIR (12/12/90) TC Memo 1990-623; ditto Ball v. US (D. Ore unpub 8/24/93) 72 AFTR2d 5958, 93 USTC para 50665 sanctions added (D. Ore unpub 10/5/93) 72 AFTR2d 6442; ditto Wells v. US (ND Okla unpub 7/1/86) 59 AFTR2d 462, 87 USTC para 9189; ditto Huebner v. State (Tex.App unpub 5/8/97); ditto Meuli v. Farm Credit Service, et al (D Kan unpub 8/8/91) aff’d (10th Cir unpub 12/18/92) 982 F2d 529(t)); ditto State v. Folda (Mont 1994) 267 Mont 523, 51 Mont St.Rep 1149, 885 P2d 426 (“asserts that he is not required to abide by any state or federal laws”); ditto J.B. Smith v. US, IRS, et al. (D. Ida unpub 7/30/93); ditto State v. Cooper (Tenn.Crim.App unpub 9/21/88); ditto (denies that he is a “federal citizen” and subject to federal criminal law) US v. Sileven (8th Cir 1992) 985 F2d 962 (this same perp a dozen years earlier insisted he could operate an unlicensed, uninspected, unsafe, and unstaffed elementary school simply because it was sponsored by his church) ; ditto US v. Updegrave (ED Penn unpub 5/28/97) 80 AFTR2d 5290, 97 USTC para 50465 (“The 14th Amendment controls the definition of citizenship. The Amendment states that “all persons born or naturalized in the US … are citizens of the US …’ According this court finds that Updegrave is not a resident of Pennsylvania but a citizen of the US by birth, and as such he is subject to federal income tax.”); ditto US v. Greenstreet (ND Tex 1996) 912 F.Supp 224 (claiming to be “of the White Preamble Citizenship and not one of the 14th Amendment legislated enfranchised de facto colored races”); ditto Spoelman v. Hummel (WD Mich unpub 5/26/89); ditto US v. Kettler (10th Cir unpub 6/3/91) 934 F2d 326(t); ditto (claimed that “By my birth in California of parents not subject to the incapacity of race, I am in law and fact, politically free by birth, libertas. Thus, with respect to 14th amendment citizenship, I am alien and with respect to 14th amendment residency [which does not appear in the 14th Amendment!], I am nonresident and with respect to both I am nonresident alien.” “Petitioner’s arguments are no more than stale tax protester contentions long dismissed summarily by this court and all other courts which have heard such contentions.”) Stallard v. CIR (10/5/92) TC Memo 1992-593; ditto (with several other losing arguments) US v. Dawes (10th Cir 1989) 874 F2d 746 cert.den 493 US 920 error coram nobis granted on other grounds (10th Cir 1990) 895 F2d 1581; ditto (argument that “freeborn, white, preamble, sovereign, natural, individual common law de jure citizens of a state” are not “persons” under IRC is “completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous”) Lonsdale v. US (10th Cir 1990) 919 F2d 1440; ditto (sued for declaration that he is a “de jure citizen” rather than a “de facto citizen” which he supposes brings him under “the internationalist maritime jurisdiction” and subject to income tax laws … “Plaintiff’s pleadings contain rambling, barely coherent discussions of the supposed basis for distinction… The claims are patently meritless.”) Itz v. US Tax Court (WD Tex unpub 5/6/87) 87 USTC para 9497, 60 AFTR2d 5113; ditto (“All citizens of the US are liable for income taxes and every person born in the US is a citizen of the US.”) Cox v. CIR (10th Cir unpub 10/28/96) 99 F3d 1149(t), 78 AFTR2d 7015, 96 USTC para 50598; ditto US v. Lyman (10th Cir unpub 12/24/98) 166 F3d 349(t), 99 USTC para 50199, 83 AFTR2d 354; ditto (disbarred lawyer claimed that tax laws did not apply to him because he is not a 14th Amendment citizen but rather a citizen of the sovereign Republic of Idaho now claiming asylum in the Republic of Colorado) US v. Jagim (8th Cir 1992) 978 F2d 1032 cert.den (Ziebarth v. US) 508 US 952; (tried to deny that the 14th amendment was validly adopted, court held this was a political question which the courts could not consider and which the other branches of govt had settled decisively) US v. R.J. McDonald (9th Cir unpub 10/4/90) 919 F2d 146(t) cert.den 499 US 928; {Note: the US Supreme Ct did mention a category of 14th Amendment citizens, consisting of everyone either born in the US or naturalized according to US laws, and non-14th Amendments citizens, consisting of a smaller number whose citizenship derives from some Act of Congress other than naturalization, and the non-14th Amendment citizenship could validly have special restrictions or requirements that were no applied to the 14th Amendment citizens, such as the requirement that someone born abroad with only one American parent must stay inside the US for several years before the age of 28 or else lose that US citizenship. But the court clearly spoke of native-born Americans as 14th Amendment citizens. Rogers v. Bellei (1970) 401 US 815}; (claim to be “private citizen” to evade licensing law) Burnison v. Macias (D Kan unpub 6/11/97) aff’d (10th Cir unpub 12/8/97) 131 F3d 151(t); similarly State v. Skurdal (1988) 235 Mont 291, 767 P2d 304 (“No persons in Montana may exempt themselves from any law simply by declaring they do not consent to it applying to them.”); ditto State v. Booher (Tenn.Crim.App 1997) 978 SW2d 953; similarly State v. Von Schmidt (1985) 109 Ida 736, 710 P2d 646; ditto State v. D.R. Gibson (1985) 108 Ida. 202, 697 P2d 1216 (traffic laws); (evading criminal law by claim to be an “Absolute natural person”) State v. Matzke (1985) 236 Kan 833, 696 P2d 396; ditto US v. Studley (9th Cir 1985) 783 F2d 934; similarly Lovell v. US (7th Cir 1984) 755 F2d 517; similarly Humphreys v. State (Okla. Crim. App 1987) 738 P2d 188 (evading driver lic law); similarly Terpstra v. State (Ind.App 1988) 529 NE2d 839; (claiming to be a “private Christian” for same effect) Bixler v. CIR (7/23/96) TC Memo 1996-329; similarly M.J. Olson v. US (Fed Claims unpub 8/26/98) 82 AFTR2d 6174; similarly In re Gdowik (Bankr., SD Fla unpub 7/23/96) 78 AFTR2d 6243 aff’d (SD Fla unpub 11/6/97) 228 Bankr.Rptr 481, 80 AFTR2d 8254; similarly Karlin v. Marten (10th Cir unpub 7/16/98) 82 AFTR2d 5318, 98 USTC para 50564; similarly In re Cobb (Bankr. MD Fla 1998) 216 Bankr.Rptr 676; (cannot bring a suit for declaratory judgment that he is a “private state citizen of Texas” and thereby nullify his birth certificate, school records, marriage license, Soc.Sec. account, and drivers license) Barcroft v. State (Tex.App 1995) 900 SW2d 370; (claiming that govt attys or court staff are “alien enemy agents”) US v. S.L. Heard (4th Cir unpub 2/23/98) 135 F3d 771(t), 81 AFTR2d 873; similarly US v. Gamble (ND IL unpub 12/3/96); Bixler v. CIR (7/23/96) TC Memo 1996-329; US v. J.F. Heard (ND WV 1996) 952 F.Supp 329; similarly Greenstreet v. Heiskell (Tex.App 1997) 940 SW2d 831 reh.den 960 SW2d 713; (an unnamed “foreign sovereign state” — the Montana Freemen) Landers v. US (1997) 39 Fed Claims 297; (“preamble citizen”) Huebner v. State (Tex.App unpub 5/8/97); ditto US v. Andra (D Ida 1996) 923 F.Supp 157; ditto US v. Fitch (9th Cir unpub 10/30/92) 978 F2d 716(t); We the People v. IRS (MD Fla unpub 5/29/96) 78 AFTR2d 5458 aff’d 132 F3d 1459; (claimed to have issued his very own declaration of independence) Walker alias Theonaleth v. CIR (3/12/96) TC Memo 1996-124; ditto US v. Frech (10th Cir unpub 6/16/98) 149 F3d 1192(t); ditto Isaacson v. US (9th Cir unpub 9/9/94) 35 F3d 571(t), 74 AFTR2d 6354; (denied being “a person” and therefore not subject to taxation) M.J. Olson v. US (Fed Claims unpub 8/26/98) 82 AFTR2d 6174; similarly (denied being an “individual”) K.L. Anderson v. CIR (7/8/98) TC Memo 1998-253; Richey v. Indiana Dept of State Revenue (Ind. Tax Ct 1994) 634 NE2d 1375 (“Richey … has lived in Indiana since birth. His claim to exemption, though, rests … on the stunning proposition that … he is not a resident of the US and therefore not a resident of Indiana.”)
However the sitting Supreme Court has had twelve different opportunities to rule on Barack Obama’s eligibility by granting cert in appeals of Obama eligibility lawsuits that have reached them for Justices’ cert conferences. In appeals such as Berg v Obama, Kerchner v Obama and Hollister v Soetoro, the two citizen parent in order to be natural born argument was explicitly presented. It only takes four of the nine Justices to agree to hear an appeal before the full Court by granting a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.
Not one of the Obama eligibility appeals has been granted cert.
No squirm, just the facts.
Don’t forget this case:
“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,”
Who’s saying there are more than two types of citizens?
Not me.
There’s only one type of citizen.
There are two ways to be a citizen.
By birth & by naturalization.
Within the birth variety, there are two types of born citizens.
The case I cited shows that SCOTUS recognized and acknowledged the two types of born citizens, one being via soli & the other by sanguinis.
The soli type are acknowledged as & called by the SCOTUS – ‘native citizens’ or ‘citizens’
The sanguinis type are acknowledged by & called by the SCOTUS – ‘natural born citizens’ or ‘citizens.
It depends on the discussion taking place as to whether a generalized term is used, e.g. both the natural born and the native born may be referred to as ‘native’, or all of the different types are called ‘citizens’, etc, etc.
Tiger Blood.
That is the ‘squirm’, the SCOTUS have so far squirmed out of ruling at all on the matter.
So Doc, are you the BIG Cheese of the Fogbow? You tell them, DON’T LOOK AT HER CHANNEL and they listen? NOTTTT! I thought you werent connected to the Fogbow, that’s what you told me!
[No, I am not any kind of cheese of the Fogbow. I just comment there sometimes. Doc.]
If you don’t wish to be ridiculed, don’t be ridiculous.
If everyone thinks you’re nuts, you might consider why….
Aussie Mike doesn’t believe Sandra Day O’Connor is qualified to have an opinion.
And of course that Chief Justice Roberts has no ethics.
And of course that American voters are idiots.
But anonymous Aussie Mike?
He knows the truth.
That’s because they’re at a complete loss without your wisdom to guide them.
Do please make up your mind
Ok, I will re-phrase it.
Dumbing it down, as appropriate.
One type of ‘citizen’ with two methods to birth citizenship, as SCOTUS has acknowledged and expressed in the case I cited, i.e. soli for those soley native and sanguinis for those with citizen parents.
Was that sentence too long for you?
You like to say anyone is ‘nuts’ that opposes your absurdity………… it is your default mantra. LOL
Your hopey-changey bubble has been burst, so how else would one expect cult-followers to behave, it’s par for the course.
sfjeff above refered to you as Aussie Mike; is that correct? I mean, are you in Australia?
fail. Fail. FAIL. And also wrong.
Owe ligeance = subject to the laws thereof = under the jurisdiction of.
Not a prerequisite for citizenship. Friendly foreigners in America are under the jurisdiction of American law, that is they owe ligeance to America while they are in America.
Invading armies and foreign diplomats are not under the jurisdiction of American law. Ask New York city how many parking fines are assessed against and then ignored by UN personnel if you don’t agree.
As an Australian (or someone claiming to live in Australia anyway), you should know the difference and you should understand the idea of liegance to the crown.
Criminal cases are listed as “Crown v Joe Bloggs” aren’t they? I’m an American, living in Australia, I have not taken Australian (or any other) citizenship.
Do I owe “liegance to The Crown”? (A: YES)
Am I a subject of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of Australia? (A: NO).
(Yes, for all you keeping count, the current Queen is really the first Elizabeth to be Queen of Australia, but the Australian’s officially style her title as QEII. They also celebrate her birthday about 2 months late – this coming Monday instead of 21 April. Aussies can be odd that way).
By the way MichaelN, the term “The Crown” is a relatively modern synonym for the name of the current monarch, whoever that may be, and stands as a symbolic reference to the nation and its system of law, not the monarch personally.
Another SCOTUS case where ‘native’ and ‘citizen’ is the descriptive for those born in US (not ‘natural born’) and it is only the single dissenting judge who uses the term ‘natural born’, but it is in relation to a community in a state, not the United States, and certainly not to do with POTUS eligibility.
Then the dissenting judge goes on to describe those born in US as ‘native born citizens’
U.S. Supreme Court
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Nothing about this ‘native’ born being a ‘natural born’. …. “oh well, better pack-attack MichaelN,” LOL
[Thomas Scott, a native of South Carolina, died in 1782 intestate, seized of lands on James Island, having two daughters, Ann and Mary, both born in South Carolina]
Still no ‘natural born’ here either. ………………. pack-attack!
[If Ann Scott was of age before December, 1782, as she remained in South Carolina until that time, her birth and residence must be deemed to constitute her, by election, a citizen of South Carolina while she remained in that state. If she was not of age then, under the circumstances of this case, she might well be deemed to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his natural character as a citizen of that country.]
No ‘natural born’ here either, Thomas was a ‘native’ ………. bark, bark, attack MichaelN
[Thomas Scott the ancestor and first purchaser, was a native of the Colony of South Carolina]
No ‘natural born’ here either, Anne was actually born in US to a ‘native’ and still the court didn’t feel strongly enough to call Anne a ‘natural born; she got ‘American citizen’
[The decision of the state court was against this claim as not within the protection of the treaty because Mrs. Shanks was an American citizen.]
No natural allegiance mentioned here only ‘native’, no ‘natural born citizenr’ either, just plain ol’ ‘citizen’.
Gee the SCOTUS must have really, really meant that ‘native’ meant ‘natural born’, they must have written in between the lines in invisible ink. LOL
[Neither did the marriage with Shanks produce that effect, because marriage with an alien, whether a friend or an enemy, produces no dissolution of the native allegiance of the wife. It may change her civil rights, but it does not effect her political rights or privileges. The general doctrine is that no persons can by any act of their own, without the consent of the government, put off their allegiance and become aliens. If it were otherwise, then a femme alien would by her marriage become, ipso facto, a citizen, and would be dowable of the estate of her husband, which are clearly contrary to law.
Our conclusion therefore is that neither of these acts warrants the Court in saying that Ann Shands had ceased to be a citizen of South Carolina at the death of her father. This is not, indeed, controverted in the allegations of the parties]
No ‘natural born’ here either, just ‘natives’ was used when the SCOTUS referred to those born in US.
[All those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American states were virtually absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown. All those who then adhered to the British Crown were deemed and held subjects of that Crown.]
Then we have ‘native born citizen’ and no ‘natural born citizen’ …… I wonder why?
[MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON, dissenting.
It is of importance here that it should be held in view that we are considering political, not moral, obligations. The latter are universal and immutable, but the former must frequently vary according to political circumstances. It is the doctrine of the American court that the issue of the Revolutionary War settled the point, that the American states were free and independent on 4 July, 1776. On that day, Mrs. Shanks was found under allegiance to the State of South Carolina as a natural born citizen to a community, one of whose fundamental principles was that natural allegiance was unalienable, and this principle was at no time relaxed by that state by any express provision, while it retained the undivided control over the rights and liabilities of its citizens……..
In the year 1782, when this descent was cast, it was the law of the land, and it becomes imperative upon these appellants after admitting that their parent was ,a native born citizen of South Carolina, daughter of a native born citizen of South Carolina, to show on what ground they can escape from the operation of these leading maxims of common law. Nemo potest exuere patriam — and proles sequitur sortem paternam.]
Ok, ATTACK! lol
No, it’s me Barry, from Kenya (set up camp in Whitehouse) ……………… allahu akbar
English common law 101
Lord Coke – Calvin’s case
[it is necessary to be considered, to which capacity ligeance is due. And it was resolved, that it was due to the natural person of the King (which is ever accompanied with the politique capacity, and the politique capacity as it were appropriated to the natural capacity) and it is not due to the politique capacity only, that is, to his crown or kingdom distinct from his natural capacity, and that for divers reasons]
How’s the score going for ‘interchangeability’ of ‘native’ and ‘natural’?
The SCOTUS were really, really into ‘interchangeability’ ………….. weren’t they? lol
They called everyone who was native born a natural born, they just forgot to have it written into the transcripts. lol
ATTACK!
@ Keith.
More from Lord Coke.
[every subject is presumed by Law to be sworn to the King, which is to his natural person]
er, michael, ain´t you forgetting something?
obamas mother was a natural born u.s. citizen.
as a result you have jus soli (LOVED you `soley´ comment LMAO) and jus sanguinis.
you see that hole in your foot? that´s where you just shot yourself.
this IMO is your most revealing post.
And yet another SCOTUS case that refers to a child born to citizen parents is a ‘natural born American citizen’.
U.S. Supreme Court
Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454 (1920)
Kwock Jan Fat v. White
No. 313
Argued April 30, 1920
Decided June 7, 1920
253 U.S. 454
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
If Kwock Jan Fat was telling the truth, he was born second generation American to a ‘native born’ citizen (14th Amendment) and Kwock was said to be a ‘natural born American citizen’.
His father who was born in ‘America’ & is said to be, by Justice Clarke, ‘born in America’ and not ‘natural born Citizen’
[In January, 1915, Kwock Jan Fat, the petitioner, intending to leave the United States on a temporary visit to China, filed with the Commissioner of Immigration for the Port of San Francisco an application, as provided for by law, for a “preinvestigation of his claimed status as an American citizen by birth.”
He claimed that he was 18 years of age, was born at Monterey, California, was the son of Kwock Tuck Lee, then deceased, who was born in America …..]
But it seems Kwock may have lied & may have been born to an alien father.
[It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649.
But, while it is conceded that he is certainly the same person who, upon full investigation, was found, in March, 1915, by the then Commissioner of Immigration, to be a natural born American citizen, the claim is that that Commissioner was deceived, and that petitioner is really Lew Suey Chong, who was admitted to this country in 1909 as a son of a Chinese merchant, Lew Wing Tong, of Oakland, California.]
Testimony of a witness that formed the assertion that Kwock was a ‘natural born American citizen’ was based on Kwock (if that was his true ID) being born to citizen parents, i.e. jus sanguinis.
[Ernest Michaelis, for twenty-six years a justice of the peace and for many years the official collector of fish licenses, testified, making reference, for purpose of identification, to a photograph of the petitioner. He said he had known the parents of the boy since shortly after he himself went to live at Monterey in 1879; that there were two boys and three girls in the family; that he had seen the petitioner frequently as a little fellow when he went to collect fish licenses (the boy’s father was a fisherman), and had known him ever since; and, referring to the photograph, he declared positively that he was sure of his identity and that he was born in Monterey. He added that the father of the boy was native born and was a voter in that community.]
On the basis of the testimony by witnesses, Kwock, because of his being born in US to citizen parents was a ‘natural born citizen’
[It is better that many Chinese immigrants should be improperly admitted than that one natural born citizen of the United States should be permanently excluded from his country. ]
Kwock was admitted to US as a ‘natural born citizen’ due to being born in US to citizen parents…………………. justice had been done.
Wanna see my ‘birth certificate’?
What would you like it to say? …………….. I got friends in Hawaiian places. lol
If I post it on the internet it must be ‘real’ and ‘authentic’ lol
No “squirming”. The US is not Iran. No Guardian Council. American judges read the Constitution. They look to see who selects Presidents. They see the voters. They see the Electoral College. They see Congress. They don’t see any mention of courts. So they butt out. Wise choice.
Says who? …………… an internet image?
How very legal. lol
You don’t know who his mother is.
Yes.
Let’s see it.
By the way I also expect you to prove that you are laughing out loud.
Take any President. Prove who their parents were and show documentation of their citizenship. .
MichaelN:
Would you allow a blood transfusion from someone other than your own ethnicity if your life depended on it?
That’s what the sovereign citizens and tax evaders say. I’ve been born in the SPECIAL way so I’m the RIGHT TYPE of born citizen. The courts don’t give a fog whether you characterize it as three kinds of citizen or two types of born citizen, they’ve rejected any and all notions that you can be born here and become something other than a natural born citizen!
now you´re being silly.
is this a result of going down in flames in a more spectacular fashion than the hindenburg?
i suppose this is the result of running out of (inaccurate) cut-and-paste stuff.
we know who his mother is without question, due to his past being probably the most investigated of any president in u.s. history.
in that respect, you can thank your fellow birfoons for making you look (more) stupid
How do you think the law works? “First, prove that you exist. I know I exist, cogito ergo sum, but you…”
Look up “legal presumption.” Was Stanley Ann held out as Obama’s mother? Then without any counter-evidence, she’s his mother! QED.
i´m not sure how doc will take to you using QED at michael.
although some may consider him Quite Exceptionally Dumb
😀
Of course, you cannot cite one legal authority that suppports any of that and, of couse, Wong Kim Ark, the only case that ever addressed the issue, says you are wrong. Do you really think the fact that a court called someone “native born” rather than “natural born” means there is a difference between the terms? You don’t seem to understand legal argument at all, do you? So keep citing such case law as it proves nothing, like all ytour arguments.
The facts are no court has ever said parentage is relevant to natural born citizens or that there is a difference between native born citizens and natural born. You can stomp your feet all you want and make up your own interpretation of law all you want, it won’t change anything. Like it or mot, Wong Kim Ark is the only time the Supreme Court defined natural born citizen. We know you can’t accept that or actually understand what the court said.
Mikey, why cant you ever quote non edited versions of lord Cokes ruling?
Its really;
Now seeing the King hath but one person, and several capacities, and one politique capacitie for the Realm of England, and another for the Realm of Scotland; it is necessary to be considered, to which capacity ligeance is due. And it was resolved, that it was due to the natural person of the King (which is ever accompanied with the politique capacity, and the politique capacity as it were appropriated to the natural capacity) and it is not due to the politique capacity only, that is, to his crown or kingdom distinct from his natural capacity, and that for divers reasons. First, every subject (as it hath been affirmed by those that argued against the Plaintiff) is presumed by Law to be sworn to the King, which is to his natural person; and likewise the King is sworn to his subjects (as it appeareth in Bracton, lib. 3. de actionibus, cap. 9. fol. 107.) which oath he taketh in his natural |[10 b] person: for the politique capacity is invisible and immortal; nay, the politique body hath no soul, for it is framed by the policy of man.
Now heres a bit from a case you quoted before, Perkins vs Elg
Assuming that Alexander Bohn [the father] never became a citizen of the United States, Jacob Bohn [the son] was born of German parents in the United States. According to the Constitution and laws of the United States as interpreted by the courts, a child born to alien parents in the United States is an American citizen, although such child may also be a citizen of the country of his parents according to the law of that country.
And then perkins vs Elg quoted another case
“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.”
So a native born can become President. Who knew.
Also, Justice Miller writing for four Justices:
“The Constitution of the United States provides as a qualification for the offices of President and Vice-President that the person elected must be a native-born citizen.”
Ex Parte Garland, 71 US 333, 395 (1866)(J. Miller, dissenting).
It is simply a fact that there are more legal authorities in the 19th century that said the President must be a native-born citizen rather than natural born like I pointed out yesterday. At this point, anyone who denies that is simply dishonest or stupid.
Actually, I think it was Michael who used QED first, and I was going to make some kind of a reply about “QED abuse” but then thought it better not to feed the troll.
I suppose it can be fun throwing a ball at a wall and catching it in the bounce, but it would be a mistake to think that the ball will eventually tire of the game and go home.
Can I steal that?
For those who live in the 21st century rather than the 12th as Michael does, this is not so laughable. In fact, electronic documents are legal and becoming more and more so every day. Most people file their taxes on line and those are quite legal. It wouldn’t surprise me to see e-filing become obligatory in the not-so-distant future, as it already is for FDA drug approvals. Send them boxes of paper documents and they will bounce them back to you.
Since birth records are already submitted electronically, I suspect the day wiil come when paper birth certificates will disappear. Need a license? An e-copy will be sent to DMV. Passports, same deal (with iris scan or e-fingerprint ID or e-photo). When you travel you could even be pre-cleared for entry. Stop at the iris scanner and you’re in.
Interestingly, I was reading a few days ago that some courts in Canada and Australia now allow summonses to be served on Facebook. You open your page and there it is, “You are ordered to appear.” It’s certainly a lot more efficient than sending process servers all over kingdom come.
Today many state DMV offices verify vital events electronically, through the EVVE program.
An utterly irrelevant case in terms of supporting your argument. At no time does the Court state that having citizen parents is a requirement for natural born citizenship. They also never say that his father wasn’t a natural born citizen. All they say about his father is that he was native born. Not a native born citizen, nor a natural born citizen. The statement of native born wasn’t a discussion about citizenship, but merely the location of his birth. The whole case was about proving whether he was born on US soil, or immigrated as a young child. There is no discussion in the entire decision about any different grades of citizenship.
Really? Have the birthers won? Has the president been frog-marched out of the Whitehouse? Have the Birthers finally won a court case? Has Congress stared impeachment?
Let me check….
Nooooooooooooo…..
No , none of those events have happened.
My bubble is still intact, and you’re still chasing delusions that no -one of any importance or authority is willing to give any notice too.
It must be very frustrating for you.
You have my sympathies.
And they forgot to write there was a difference. And had no problem saying a native born could be elected President.
You should read the Fuller dissent to Wong Kim Ark. He wondered how in hell a member of the Mongol race born in America could be declared fit to be elected President, while children of US citizens born abroad could not.
So, in your words, that would mean “the native born can be President, but the natural born cannot.”
Only the Constitution says differently, does it not?
Even Fuller does not want to dance with you, “for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,”
No one is born a natural born citiizen. You have to earn the title which you can only do by being elected President or Vice President. That is what the Constiitution says.
So far? Let’s see
Factoring in all the successes you’ve had in court….
Adding in all the authorities that agree with you…
Dividing by the number of years Obama has been the duly elected President….
Multiply that by the number of members of Congress participating in impeachment proceedings…
And iterate by the number of times the SCOTUS and other authorities use “native” and “natural” interchangeably….
Carry the six….
And it comes out to….
Birthers 0 / Sane Americans 100%
Not a bad score, wouldn’t you say?
Really… Is this the version translated from French?
Nope, the Constitution as we know it does not say this…
I think it’s a title you earn in a cage-match. You know that Washington and Jay were big fans of steel-cage wrestling!
And yes, NBC, they originally wrote the Constitution in French. I’ve got a secret copy in my basement.
Well, if you read that in English according to the rules of grammar, it says you must be:
EITHER
a natural born Citizen (of no specific country) at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution
OR
a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution
Either way you had to have been alive in 1788, so no one has been eligible for a long time. In view of the impossibillity of fulfilling the conditions laid out, the requirement became unenforcable around 1830.
This is simple logic and English grammar. Sorry if you have problems wiith that.
Gotta love the vagaries of English grammar
Toby: I read the Constitution… I think I found a typo.
CJ: In the Constitution? Did you call the publisher?
Toby: I think it’s a typo in the original.
CJ: The Constitution?
Toby: Yeah.
CJ: Sounds unlikely.
Toby: I read two versions, because I have time, and there’s an inconsistent comma. So I looked at every English language publication that exists. Half of them have the comma, half of them don’t.
CJ: Really?
Toby: Yeah, so I called the National Archives, and had some woman look at the original. She said she wasn’t sure if it was a comma or a smudge.
CJ: There’s a smudge?
Toby: Yeah, a smudge. Of law.
CJ: Does it change the…
Toby: It changes the meaning of the takings clause.
CJ: Seriously? I’m sure it doesn’t.
Toby: I called Tom Merrill, he thinks it does.
-From ‘The West Wing’, Season Seven
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A28880382
> Either way you had to have been alive in 1788, so no one has been eligible for a long time.
I had a funny exchange with a birther on WND who claimed Senate Resolution 511 said two citizen parents were required to be NBC. I quoted her the line that talks about citizen parents:
“Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: ”
So I told her if this means you need two citizen parents to be an NBC, it also means you must be born on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 to be an NBC. Which would mean hardly anyone except John McCain would be eligible.
That shut her up good, she didn’t even retort with the usual ad hominem. 😉
Problem you have is that the USC says ‘natural born Citizen’, not ‘native-born citizen’.
And Martha Stewart says “peach stone”, not “peach pit”.
Whether a particular items uses one synonym or another does not change the relationships of the synonymous.
And the Supreme Court uses the terms interchangeably.
Your argument seems to be “heads I win, tails you lose.”
You mean just like the “whole case” in Wong Kim Ark case was about “proving whether he was” a 14th Amendment ‘citizen’ and not ‘natural born Citizen?
Funny how people move the goal posts to score, isn’t it?
Problem you have is that the USC doesn’t say ‘native born’, are you suggesting that the people who do say this have authority that over-rules the USC? lol
Keep squirming.
Donald Duck said ‘quack’ ……………. so what?
Exactly….
It says “natural” born, which is a synonym. Just like peach “stone” and “pit” mean the same thing.
We’ve been over this a few times….. do you need us to type slower, or use smaller words perhaps?
And the Irony Meter goes OFF THE SCALE!!!!!
But the founders used both term interchangeable as well as the fact that the children of aliens born in the US are “natural born”.
And no matter how hard you try, those are goalposts you have not been able to move.
It doesn’t say “parents” either. Therefore, making any statement regarding parents is unconstitutional,
Your non-sequitur means you might have a serious mental issue. Is it stress?
No lol.
No. Not in the least. You see in Wong, there was no question he was born. The discussion was over the effects of being born on US soil. If you read the entire rationale, it is an analysis of the origins of “natural born.” WKA is a citizenship case.
Kwock Jan Fat v. White isn’t even about citizenship. It actually concedes that if he was the person he claims to be, under Wonk Kim Ark, he is a citizen. You simply pulled half a sentance that refers to the purported father as native born of the US. It wasn’t even a statement about his citizenship, merely where he was born. You than conflate it to proof of a difference between a native born citizen and a natural born citizen. The case was a habeous petition, and the discussion by the court was about the failure to maintain records of the investigation. Citizen was no even a question before the court.
Keep living up to your MO…..take a couple words out of context and twist them to mean something they don’t. Either that, or you really don’t know how to read a case, or English very well for that matter.
Just remember that someone can become quite a celebrity in Birther circles doing just that.
As I have shown, the incidences of ‘native born’ per your alleged “interchangeability” that you claim to exist in SCOTUS are in the minority & are in most if not all cases either a re-construction, mis-respresenting what the USC actually says, or are in the context of incidents of native birth to alien parents.
Furthermore, as I have shown in the instances where ‘natural born’ is used by SCOTUS, it is in the context of when the parents are already US citizens.
So far your claim that “interchangeability” is the order of the day, is merely a mantra you chant, but without any substance.
Can you show me anywhere in the USC where the term ‘native’ or ‘native born’ exists?
As far as I can see, there is not one incidence of the word ‘native’ or the words ‘native born’ in the USC.
Problem you have is that ‘native born’ doesn’t even exist in USC & ‘natural born’ does.
‘native’ = of the place, but ‘natural’ doesn’t, it means of the parents it the context of USC Article II.
The framers didn’t just use any old word for eligibility for POTUS, if they intended ‘native born’, they quite simply would have said so ……………. but they chose ‘natural born’ with deliberate intention to mean something OTHER THAN ‘native’.
Since the framers and founders used native borns and natural born interchangeably why would you expect them to use both, that makes no sense at all.
Even if you don’t understand the concept of synonyms, the Framers did.
Prove it!!
I can show you respected members of the Founding Generation who said that a President must be “native born”.
Show us where they said that “native born” does not equal “natural born”. You can’t, and because you can’t you will always be a failure.
You mean as you’ve purported.
You made a lot of claims, but you haven’t managed to “show” anything.
You can insist that unicorns exist all you want, but until you can….
Yes that is certainly what you’re claiming.
Now if you could only provide some objective evidence…
You are confusing coincidence with context.
He knows he can’t. Time to bail and start posting on another thread.
\“Run, Forrest, Run”
Look in the dictionary.
Mario Apuzo Headline
“Congress Investigates the Sexual Flings of Rep. Anthony Weiner but Not Obama, the Imposter President Sitting in the Most Powerful Office in the World”
.
watch birthers search for Sexual Flings of Obama, Mario knows how to make headlines
.
Mario has become a big Joke!
Unfortunately for you, the dictionary contradicts your position.
But feel free to try that line on someone who cannot read.
No, Mikey, the mantra I chant is “whatever.” That’s the only response your tripe deserves. In your world, every use that supports you is deliberate and every use that doesn’t is not a synonym but a misrepresentation.
Whatever.
Obama is still President.
Your view is still only shared by, you and Mario and Orly. Even they reject your fluff about Calvin’s Case – you’ve convinced yourself and your shadow and no one elso on that BS.
Whatever.
Well bloglines anyways. It’s highly unlikely that serious journalists will waste their time on Apuzzo’s delusions
Yes, let’s do that.
Johnson’s Dictionary of the English language, in miniature [ed. by Joseph Hamilton]
By Samuel Johnson
1798
Native s, one born in any country, offspring.
Native adj, natural, not artificial, original
Natural, adj, produced by nature; tender, easy.
Natural n a fool, an idiot; native quality.
A dictionary of the English language: compiled for the use of common schools in the United States
By Noah Webster
1817
Native, a. natural, born with one, pertaining to birth
Native, n. one born, in any place
Nat’ural, a. produced by nature, baseborn Nat’ural, re. an idiot, fool, native quality.
Natural n a fool, an idiot; native quality.
This is why they used the terms interchangeably.
Any chance you are going to get us a quote from the Founders that “natural born” and “native born” meant different things?
gee I did…and guess how it defines a natural born citizen?
Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e., in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.
Sorry Mike, I forgot this one,
“DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE: IN WHICH The WORDS are deduced from their ORIGINALS, Explained in their DIFFERENT MEANINGS, AND Authorized by the NAMES of the WRITERS in whose Works they are found.“
Samuel Johnson, 1768
NATIVE a. [nativus, Latin; nation, Fr] 1. Produced by nature; not artificial. Davies. 2. Natural ; such as is according to nature. Swift. 3. Conferred by birth. Denham. 4. Pertaining to the time or place of birth. Shak. 5. Original. Milton.
NATIVE.s 1.One born in any place; original inhabitant Bacon. 2. Offspring.
NA’TURAL. a. [naturel. Fr.] 1. Produced or effected by nature. Wìlkins, 2. Illegitimate. Temple. 3. Bestowed by nature. Swift. 4. Not forced ; not farfetched; dictated by nature. Wetton. 5. Tender; affectionate by nature Shakesp. 6. Unaffected; according to birth and locality. Addison. 7. Opposed to violent: as, a natural death
NA’TURAL. s. |from nature.] 1. An idiot; a fool. Shakesp. Licke. 2. Native; original inhabitant; Raleigh. 3. Gift of nature; nature; quality. Wotten.
See Mike, when native is used as an adjective it means “produced by nature”, and Natural when used as an adjective means ” produced or effected by nature”. They are what we in English speaking countries call synonyms. Different words with the same meaning. The Founders were familar with synonyms.
Gee MichaelN, I guess Gorefan pretty much has you on that one.
After all, It’s kind of hard for you to reasonably argue that the words weren’t synonyms back in the time of the founding fathers, when faced with a dictionary, sorry THE dictionary, from that very time period which shows they actually were.
Somehow I doubt that will change your tune at all though. You have consistently demonstrated considerable talent for ignoring anything which does not agree with your delusions.
Evidently, Mike the birther dork only comprehends Donald Duck cartoons.
You might need to dumb it way down.
This is obviously totally lost on him. lol
It is clear Mike is a Shakespearean “Natural” – “1. An idiot; a fool.”
Yeah, but… MichaelN seems to think that the Framers of the Constitution changed the meaning of the words and didn’t tell anyone about it at the time. Dictionaries take some time to put together, and I don’t think Johnson had enough time to notice the new definition, it was only 10 years or so after all. I think we need to go to the epitome of American English Dictionaries: Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language. He had 30 years to notice the change and verify it with the framers.
These definitions are from the original 1828 edition:
Or perhaps we should try Roget’s Thesaurus, first published in 1852. Unfortunately I can’t find an 1852 edition, so the current online edition will have to do:
And here is another approach, again based on Webster’s 1828 dictionary.
So to be Naturalized is to be made natural (from the structure of the word), which is the same thing as being made native (from the definition).
The distinction in the Constitution is between BORN and MADE NOT between NATURAL and NATIVE.
There is no difference between “natural” and “native” in this context; the difference is between “born” and “made”.
In fact, in the Constitutional context, the very word “natural” is redundant. The terms “natural born citizen”, “native born citizen”, and “born citizen” are exactly equal in every way.
I suppose that last is arguable at least to the extent that some say that there is a class of “born citizen”, born abroad, but never-the-less “born citizen” that cannot be considered “natural born” – I used to be one of them and considered McCain as not a “natural born” (but that it would be a travesty of the framers intent if he were denied because of it), but I have pretty much changed my mind on that.
The word “parent(s)” does not appear.
If they intended to say “child of 2 citizen parents”, then they would have used those EXACT words.
The way I see it is that the framers wanted to make a distinction between a person who intrinsically obtained U.S. citizenship and someone who was granted citizenship by statute. They did not want Congress to grant someone the right to be President, thus blocking European royals. A person who is born with U.S. citizenship has gained this intrinsically. In the case of someone born in the U.S. it is jus soli that does this. The case of people born elsewhere is muddled.
I don’t know if you saw this. But it validates your belief that the NBC clause in the Constitution is well past its use by date.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/10/navy.cross.winners/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Are you ever going to actually read the case? SInce the 14th Amendment was deemed to be simply declaratory of pre-existing law, most of the case focused on the law prior to the Amendment including the definition in the original Constitution. It is a requirement to be allowed on birther threads that one is incapable of interpretating case law? Since Justice Gray is too complicated for you guys, please try reading Fuller’s dissent where he summarizes the majority opinion very well:
“The argument is that although the constitution prior to that amendment nowhere attempted to define the words ‘citizens of the United States’ and ‘natural-born citizen,’ as used therein, yet that it must be interpreted in the light of the English common-law rule which made the place of birth the criterion of nationality; that that rule ‘was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established’; and ‘that, before the enactment of the civil rights act of 1866 and the adoption of the constitutional amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.’
Thus, the fourteenth amendment is held to be merely declaratory, except that it brings all persons, irrespective of color, within the scope of the alleged rule, and puts that rule beyond the control of the legislative power.”
Notice that “natural born” and “native born” are jus soli. Duh.
This is why you guys lose, and will continue to lose, every case you file. This doesn’t even qualify as an argument it is so stupid. My 6 year old know the simply using one term doesn’t mean it has a different meaning than another term. Gee, I guess, if they wanted jus sanguinis, they would have said parents had to be citizens. Do you realy think this is argument?
The bottom line is you cannot cite any evidence that any framer that native meant something different than “natural born” or that “natural born” meant from the parents. Why do people make such claims when they have no evidence to back it up. Rather, as we have pointed out, all evidence points to jus soli including the use of the term “natural born” during such period, the debates of the Convention itself and all early interpretation of the phrase. If you ever went to law school, you would know that is how we interpret the Constitution. Of course, you will just insist that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
More stupidity. Since you cannot find any case or authority that says “native born” means something different that “natural born,” all you can do is try to argue that a court using “native born” somehow means one is not “natural born” and vice versa when the court no where said there is a difference between them. Again, my 6 year old knows such is not a legal argument. Here’s a free legal lesson, since, as we have pointed out, there are multiple Supreme Court cases that address the relationship between “native born” and “natural born” and make clear they meant the same thing, claiming the opposite is true based upon a court choosing one term over another without explanation is a good way to get sanctioned by the court. But we know you are not really interested in actual legal argument.
Ballantine: As I understand it, the intent of the restriction, as discussed in the debates, was the fear of a junior son of a foreign monarch coming to the US and being installed (through an election or some other means) as President and then ruling as a King. So, if we were to truly follow the origiinal intent, is there a sound basis to exclude ordinary common immigrants with no royal ties, such as the heroic Marines referenced by Gorefan above?
So look for MichaelN to take your devestating (to his argument) dictionary quotes and dishonestly edit them to try and prove his point and spam birtherstan with his new find.
I’m sure the Framers would have gone out of their way to “grandfather” in American heros like Capt. Ademola Fabayo and Staff Sgt. Juan Rodriguez-Chavez.
Much as they did for James Wilson and Alexander Hamilton.
“Grandfathering” is a shady practice. In effect it says, “You obey the law, but let me weasel out of it”. If yesterday’s heroes deserve respect, then so do today’s and tomorrow’s.
I’m sorry but the entire clause was poorly written and not well thought out to achieve its supposed aim of guarding agaiinst foreign royalty.
MichaelN-
Why are you pushing WND’s “Obama fraud” birth certificate stories at Orly’s blog?
Do you believe that every bad story about Obama is true? Why do you need both?
You guys should pick one angle and stick to it.
I agree with your point. The NBC clause is a reflection on a different time and a different view of the world. The reasons for it being added, no longer hold true. Much like the congreeional power to grant “Letters of Marque”.
In fact, right after it was written, the Constitution set off debate on the meaning of some of its clause.
Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3 (which was later modified by the 14th amendment):
“direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States.”
From a legal brief written by Alexander Hamilton,
“What is the distinction between direct and indirect taxes? It is a matter of regret that terms so uncertain and vague in so important a point are to be found in the Constitution. We shall seek in vain for any antecedent settled legal meaning to the respective terms—there is none.”
And he was at the Convention.
He’s a desperate and friendless lunatic wallowing in his own filth?
Just a wild guess.
Can you show instances when SCOTUS have referred to those born native to alien parents, as ‘natural born’?
I have shown you instances when they didn’t & they actually made the distinct difference & so far as I have studied, in the majority of cases, if not all cases, it is ‘native born’ that has been used by SCOTUS to describe those born native born to aliens & ‘natural born’ that has been used to describe those born native to citizen parents.
Can you show a SCOTUS ruling that gives ‘natural born Citizen’ status to one who is born native to alien parents?
You have been shown that English common, law per Lord Coke in Calvin’s case, requires the parent father to be a subject to produce a ‘natural born subject’ even though the child may be native born, he is not ‘natural born.
Nowhere in dicta of Calvin’s case is the word ‘native’ used.
The only place where the word ‘native’ is used in Calvin’s case, is in the foot-notes, where it refers to place.
e.g. [a change of native soil, a loss of native laws.]
So much for this alleged ‘common practice’ of ‘interchangeability’.
How come Grotius didn’t practice this ‘interchangeability’?
(1583-1645) was a Dutch scholar and jurist whose legal masterpiece, De Jure Belli ac Pacis (On the law of war and peace) (1625), contributed significantly to the formation of international law as a distinct discipline.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=advanced_search.php
And what about Edward Coke?
Sir Edward Coke (pronounced cook) (1552-1634) was a lawyer, Member of Parliament, and judge of great renown. He is considered one of the premier champions of the common law,
http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=advanced_search.php
Then we have Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) trained as a lawyer and founded the early 19th century school of political thought known as “Benthamism” later called utilitarianism – based on the idea that governments should act so as to promote “the greatest good of the greatest number” of people.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=advanced_search.php
‘Interchangeability’, selected cherry-picked ‘synonyms’ …………. you are clutching at straws.
Let’s see, ‘natural American Indians’ LOL
The operative word in Article II that goes with ‘natural’ is ‘born’.
‘native born’ = born of the place
‘natural born’ = born of the parent and possibly, according to the alleged duality of meaning of this word, this word also encompassed ‘native’
The framers chose ‘natural born’ instead of ‘native born’, which makes it obvious that they avoided the use of the word ‘native’, given their highly educated status, this was no accident or loose use of words.
Had they intended born of the place, they most certainly would have opted for the word that defines clearly of the place & furthermore was the common practice of English jurists of that time are priorly, because natural at best is only remotely synonymous (very low on the list)
In the revolutionary era there were those who were ‘native’ born, yet born of monarchical loyalties. e.g. Tories & to determine who the Tories were, an oath of allegiance was required, in many instances those who were found to be Tories were banished from communities along with their ‘native born’ children.
Your absurd notion is that these children were eligible for the office POTUS, I don’t think so.
Highest on the list from the definitions one of you posted from an 1828 Edition
NATURAL, a. [to be born or produced]
1. Pertaining to nature; produced or effected by nature, or by the laws of growth, formation or motion impressed on bodies or beings by divine power.
Ergo: the ‘natural born’ were produced by nature, of the parents, it is the ‘native born’ that are of the place, this is what the framers understood and there was no reason for them to chose ‘natural born’ if their intention was to make eligibility for POTUS to be solely based on place of birth, given that it was not the practice anywhere else to use ‘natural’ to describe place.
“DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE: IN WHICH The WORDS are deduced from their ORIGINALS, Explained in their DIFFERENT MEANINGS, AND Authorized by the NAMES of the WRITERS in whose Works they are found.“
Samuel Johnson, 1768
NATIVE a. [nativus, Latin; nation, Fr] 1. Produced by nature; not artificial. Davies. 2. Natural ; such as is according to nature. Swift. 3. Conferred by birth. Denham. 4. Pertaining to the time or place of birth. Shak. 5. Original. Milton.
NATIVE.s 1.One born in any place; original inhabitant Bacon. 2. Offspring.
NA’TURAL. a. [naturel. Fr.] 1. Produced or effected by nature. Wìlkins, 2. Illegitimate. Temple. 3. Bestowed by nature. Swift. 4. Not forced ; not farfetched; dictated by nature. Wetton. 5. Tender; affectionate by nature Shakesp. 6. Unaffected; according to birth and locality. Addison. 7. Opposed to violent: as, a natural death
NA’TURAL. s. |from nature.] 1. An idiot; a fool. Shakesp. Licke. 2. Native; original inhabitant; Raleigh. 3. Gift of nature; nature; quality. Wotten.
The problem that you have is that you did not even read what I wrote (which you actually quoted in its entirety, good grief – have a look) or you would have seen that I myself said the Constitution says differently.
Fuller said that it would be unreasonable to make Wong Kim Ark, born in the USA, eligible, whereas people born abroad of citizen parents were not.
You are the one who called Wong Kim Ark native born, and people born abroad of citizen parents natural born.
And yet, Fuller says that declaring Wong Kim Ark a citizen as the majority of the court decided to do, would mean he would be eligible for the Presidency.
In other words, your definition of native born versus natural born leads to an absurdity.
This is not some guys claiming “authority to overrule the constitution”, this is the highest court of the land interpreting the constitution. And their interpretation is the law of the land – until the constitution is changed by voting a new amendment, or dropping or editing an amendment.
And here even the dissent is saying your definition sucks.
Normal people, when confronted with the fact that their theory leads to an obvious absurdity will look where they went wrong. (In your case, you went wrong from the very beginning, when you “hinein” interpreted Calvin’s case). You, however, just add more and more people to your list of liars and traitors who obscure Ye true Meaning of ye Constitution as explained by Master MikeN Esq. So, Fuller is a traitor now?
Still no dance partner and “for if Pauline Hanson should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there”.
LOL!
Well done.
Yes.
When they agreed with the ruling of the District Court of Northern California that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen.
When SCOTUS ruled that the District Court got it right in WKA, they were implicitly saying that WKA, born on US soil to alien parents was a natural born citizen.
And in the dissenting opinion to the SCOTUS ruling, it was said explicitly that that is exactly what the SCOTUS was saying and that therefore WKA, born on American soil to alien parents, was eligible for the Presidency.
Just stop OK? Ignoring facts, history, logic, common sense, and repeating the same word groups over and over and over and over will not make the concepts supposedly expressed by those word groups any more correct, it just makes you look like an extremely poor reincarnation of the computer program ‘Eliza’ from the 1960’s.
As usual, you’ve shown nothing. No case you cite remotely distinguishes between native and natural born. If you really think that calling someone native born means they are not natural born, you are an idiot.
I am not aware that any Supreme Court case ever actually called someone natural born. Justice Waite called Virginia Minor a native born citizen but the context made clear she would also be natural born. Perkin v. Elg cited authority that a native born citizen would be eligible for president as did Justice Miller in Ex Parte Garland, of course indicating the interchangeability of the terms. Perkin v. Elg simply acknowledged the court below found Elg to be natural born and the court below based such conclusion solely on jus soli. Of course, Wong Kim Ark actually defined “native born citizen” by the same English rule that it defined “natural born citizen” but we know such case is beyond your understanding. And yes, Justice Gray made clear that he had natural born status. He said Wong Kim Ark would be a “natural born subject” after spending 5 pages telling us that natural born subject means the same thing as natural born citizen. He also say Wong Kim Ark was a citizen by birth under the 14th Amendment after spending half the opinion saying such Amendment is defined by the same rule as a natural born citizen. Hence, the court is clearly stating he would be natural born. If one states the status of a person and they says any person with such status is natural born, they are saying such person is natural born even if they don’t actually call them that. A child could figure that out. The bottom line is you don’t want to talk about the only case that directly addresses the issue for it devastates your argument. Rather you want to pretend that there is some meaning in cases using one term over another that say nothing about the issue. Hope you never try to practice law.
And if you don’t think native and natural born were used interchangeably in English law, I suggest you actually try using google. You can start with Blackstone.
And why do you keep referring to the word “natural” in the dictionary. The term is “natural born” and there are plenty of legal dictionaries which defined “native” and “natural born” and none have your definition.
“Citizenship” ….Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution of the United States, except the office of president and vice-president.” Bouvier Law Dictionary pg. 265 (1843)
“No person can be elected president who is less than 35 years of age, who is not a native born citizen of the United States, or was not a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United Stales…” John Ramsay McCulloch, Daniel Haskel, McCulloch’s Universal Gazetteer: A Dictionary, Geographical, Statistical, and Historical, of the Various Countries, Places, and Principal Natural Objects in the World, pg. 994 (1844)
“Natural-born Citizens, those that are born within the jurisdiction of a national government; i.e., in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens, temporarily residing abroad.” William Cox Cochran, The student’s law lexicon: a dictionary of legal words and phrases : with appendices, Pg. 185 (1888)
“Native: A natural-born subject or citizen; a citizen by birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to.” Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Addition (1994).
“Citizens may be divided Into two classes : natural born and alien born. Natural-born citizens are of two kinds: native born — those born of either American or alien parents…” S. J. Herrtage, John A. Williams, Robert Hunter, The American encyclop¦dic dictionary: Volume 12 , pg. 867 (1897)
“The Executive power is vested in a President. He must be a native-born citizen, a resident of the United States, and at least thirty-five years of age. He holds his office during a term of four years, and may be re-elected.” The popular American dictionary, on the basis of Webster, … – Pg. 430 (1885)
“Native born citizens are eligible to any office, but naturalized citizens cannot fill the offices of president or vice-president of the United States…” Stewart Rapalje, Robert Linn Lawrence, A dictionary of American and English law, pg. 212 (1883)
“NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN. A person whose citizenship derives from the nation where he or she was born.” Kenneth Robert Redden, Enid Veron, Modern Legal Glossary, pg. 263 (1980)
“Natural Born Citizenship Clause. The clause of the U.S. Constitution barring persons not born in the United States from the presidency.” Black’s Law Dictionary, eight edition (1999)
I know. Everyone is wrong, and you are right.
Next he’ll be trying to argue that the 14th naturalizes people a la El Putzo. Followed by a capitalization argument.
Mike how is it you keep being wrong? Look it up a Law Dictionary
“NATIVE. A natural-boru subject or citizen; a denizen by birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of bis birth within the country referred to. The term may also Include one born abroad, if his parents were then citizens of the country, and not permanently residing in foreign parts. See U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 18 Sup. Ct. 450, 42 L. Ed. 890; New Hartford v. Canaan, 54 Conn. 39, 5 Atl. 360.
A LAW DICTIONARY CONTAINING DEFINITIONS OF THE TERMS AND PHRASES OF AMERICAN AND ENGLISH JURISPRUDENCE, ANCIENT AND MODERN AND INCLUDING THE PRINCIPAL TERMS OF INTERNATIONAL, CONSTITUTIONAL, ECCLESIASTICAL AND COMMERCIAL LAW. AND MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE, WITH A COLLECTION OF LEGAL MAXIMS, NUMEROUS SELECT TITLES FROM THE ROMAN. MODERN CIVIL. SCOTCH. FRENCH, SPANISH, AND MEXICAN LAW, AND OTHER FOREIGN SYSTEMS, AND A TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
BY HENRY CAMPBELL BLACK, M.A.
1910
Black’s Law Dictionary even cites Wong Kim Ark.
Now who should we believe, Henry Campbell Black or a moron?
WOW, even Mario says you are wrong.
“During the founding, “natural born Citizen” meant the same thing as “native born citizen.””
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/01/difference-between-natural-and-native.html
Oh, the magic changing definition theory. Mario, at this point, is just sad. At least Michael has the excuse that he isn’t a lawyer.
I love his argument that all citizens under the 14th Amendment are naturalized when such Amendment by its terms itself distinguishes between citizens by birth and those by naturalization. Of course, pointing out to him that one of the reasons we have a 14th Amendment is that it was pointed out in such Congress that the Supreme Court had said only the foreign born could be naturalized has no effect on him.
My favorite is his argument that the Virginia statute that says “All free persons born in Virginia are citizens” must be read “all persons in being born before this statute are citizens” because he says so. A close second is his argument that “aliens born within the domain of a foreign government” means aliens born in the United States. The claim that “citizens” means only “naturalized citizens” is pretty good as well as the argument that a “natural born citizen” is not a subset of the term “citizen.” Who knows what he will come up with next as if one can define terms anyway one likes, I guess there is no limit on the arguments one could come up with.
My favorite is the Citizen with a capital C means some different from citizen with a small c.
I suspect Mario went to the changing definition in the fact of overwhelming evidence that the Founders used both terms interchangeable. Micheal is either not smart enough or not honest enough to make the change in his argument.
It amazes me how people like Micheal stick to arguments that are clearly false. It says something about his mental competency.
I’m amazed that birthers seem to think that the capitalization of nouns in the Constitution had some kind of magical meaning; it didn’t.
It was simply a common style of writing around the time of the founding. You can see it in contemporaneous letters and other documents from around that time. Around the beginning of the 19th century, it simply fell out fashion, possibly because of the rise of the novel as a popular art form. In a 500-page book, it simply became tiresome to capitalize all the nouns.
Interestingly, Ben Franklin lamented that eliminating the capitalization of nouns made a narrative harder to follow, and continued to do so in his own correspondence.
Things change. Birthers just can’t accept it.
All the nouns in the Constitution are capitalized.
If the framers intended ‘native born’ to be all that was required for eligibility for POTUS, then they would have used the most commonly used word that means of a place.
In every instance where of the place was referred to, the word ‘native’ was the operative word.
(1583-1645) was a Dutch scholar and jurist whose legal masterpiece, De Jure Belli ac Pacis (On the law of war and peace) (1625), contributed significantly to the formation of international law as a distinct discipline.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=advanced_search.php
Sir Edward Coke (pronounced cook) (1552-1634) was a lawyer, Member of Parliament, and judge of great renown. He is considered one of the premier champions of the common law,
http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=advanced_search.php
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) trained as a lawyer and founded the early 19th century school of political thought known as “Benthamism” later called utilitarianism – based on the idea that governments should act so as to promote “the greatest good of the greatest number” of people.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=advanced_search.php
Ergo: the common legal practice was to use ‘native’ when referring to place.
Even Mario says you are wrong.
“During the founding, “natural born Citizen” meant the same thing as “native born citizen.””
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/01/difference-between-natural-and-native.html
That must really suck for a birther to be ridiculed and shunned by fellow birthers. What kind of a special loser do you have to be to earn that kind of treatment and be ignored and ostracized by your own kind? Wow. A new level of pathetic.
Mario is certainly one of the smartest hammers in a box of hammers, so poor Michael….
Well, in most cases the terms are quite equivalent as seen in historical usage of the terms. However under English Common Law, the term natural born was well established, although others used the term native born interchangeably.
At the federal level, the concern for ‘native born’ Indians may have caused the use of the term natural born, which requires one to be born owing allegiance.
Still not much of an issue really.
Since ambassadors and invading soldiers didn’t have natural born subject children, we know that natural born didn’t mean simply place, either!
Natural born didn’t mean two citizen parents at the time of the founding and arguing that it did simply proves the lengths of absurdity and intellectual dishonesty you’ll stoop to, Michael!
By the way, all the links you’ve posted go nowhere. They go to a search page for the Online Library of Liberty.
You’ve given us 2 and a half snippets of biography – Coke, Bentham and someone (Vattel?) and from this we’re supposed to conclude, ergo, the legal practice was to use native?
Anyhoo, irrelevant.
Natural born subject doesn’t mean simply place.
Natural born citizen doesn’t mean simply place.
Natural born subjects don’t include the children of ambassadors or invading soldiers.
Natural born citizens don’t include the children of ambassadors or invading soldiers.
Natural born subjects include those born abroad to citizens
Natural born citizens (can) include those born abroad to citizens.
What you continue to fail to prove is that America instituted any change in the meaning of natural born when they used the phrase natural born citizen instead of natural born subject.
From “The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution” (1985) by W. Cleon Skousen, founder of the right-wing National Center for Constitutional Studies:
To be a candidate for President of the United States, a person must be a natural-born citizen, or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. This provision gave the American people the right to have a President who would always be one of their own native-born fellow citizens. p. 528
Now it’s your turn. Show us a history book, or a civics/social studies textbook, or a book on Constitutional law published prior to 2008 which states that a natural-born citizen must have two citizen parents.
Michael, how dumb do you think the founders were?
There were 2.5 million people in the colonies in 1776. Every single child that was born up until July 3, 1776 was born a natural born SUBJECT.
Then, on July 4, 1776, a new nation was founded.
Eleven years later the new United States Constitution was adopted with a new phrase, natural born CITIZEN.
You want us to believe the founders CHANGED the meaning of natural born without telling ANY of those 2.5 million Americans?
What about the babies born between July 4, 1776 and September 17, 1787? Their parents were never told about the change, so they were operating under the assumption that their children were natural born subjects/citizens of the new nation.
What about the baby born on September 18, 1787, if his parents were not citizens, he wasn’t a natural born citizen, according to you.
How did he know? No founder ever wrote down that he was changing the definition.
The Founder so comprehensively botched this fundamental definitional change that within a few years everyone that wrote about natural born citizens said they were created the same exact way as natural born subjects – be born here to someone who wasn’t an ambassador or invading soldier.
By the time of Lynch v. Clarke, the judge was able to say without fear of contradiction that it was UNIVERSALLY UNDERSTOOD that the child of an alien was eligible for the Presidency!
So, just how completely incompetent do you think the Founders were?
Even though your links went nowhere, it was an interesting website, nonetheless. Let’s take a look at one of the “natural born” examples from that website.
Seems to me that Josiah Tucker, in his “Treatise Concerning Civil Government in Three Parts (1781)” is saying that those born in a country are immediately entitled to the protection of that country and are, “[t]herefore … justly deemed the natural-born Subjects of such a Country.”
So, not only is your argument irrelevant, as it fails to prove a CHANGE from English to US law, it is WRONG in claiming that natural is never used to refer to place!
That going to be impossible for him to do.
From “IMMIGRATION: ITS EVILS AID CONSEQUENCES.”
SAMUEL C. BUSEY, M.D. 1881
“The framers of the Constitution incorporated into that instrument the principle of nativism. They laid down the landmarks by which future generations were to be guided. They declared by that solemn compact, that the President of the United States should be a native born citizen, and, as consequent truths, which necessarily follow from .this principle, they established,
1. That the army of the United States should be in his native born American hands.
2. That the navy of the United States should be under native born American control.
3. That treaties should be be organized and made by native born citizens.
4. That Federal appointments and patronage should come from this native born source.
5. That the militia of the several States, when called into the service of the United States, should be under the President’s native born command.
6. That only a native born citizen should have the Federal veto power.
They provided farther that the Vice President of the United States should be a native, and thus the Senate, which confirms treaties and the Federal appointments, must be presided over by a native born citizen; and in the event of a tie, a native born only can give the casting vote.”
He even writes about the V. P. being native born.
Poor Michael, through the centuries right up until today, no one agrees with him
Tucker, View of the Constitution, 1803
…
Let’s see, 16 years after the ratification of the Constitution, Tucker:
1. Uses natural to refer to place.
2. Uses natural and native born as synonyms
3. Uses native born as the requirement for the Presidency.
Either the Founders wanted the President to be anyone born here other than to an ambassador or invading soldier, or they committed Constitutional Malpractice by using a term, natural born that was so completely inappropriate for their desired uses that within 16 years, their desires were completely gone!
DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE: IN WHICH The WORDS are deduced from their ORIGINALS, Explained in their DIFFERENT MEANINGS, AND Authorized by the NAMES of the WRITERS in whose Works they are found.“
Samuel Johnson, 1768
NATIVE a. [nativus, Latin; nation, Fr] 1. Produced by nature; not artificial. Davies. 2. Natural ; such as is according to nature. Swift. 3. Conferred by birth. Denham. 4. Pertaining to the time or place of birth. Shak. 5. Original. Milton.
NATIVE.s 1.One born in any place; original inhabitant Bacon. 2. Offspring.
NA’TURAL. a. [naturel. Fr.] 1. Produced or effected by nature. Wìlkins, 2. Illegitimate. Temple. 3. Bestowed by nature. Swift. 4. Not forced ; not farfetched; dictated by nature. Wetton. 5. Tender; affectionate by nature Shakesp. 6. Unaffected; according to birth and locality. Addison. 7. Opposed to violent: as, a natural death
NA’TURAL. s. |from nature.] 1. An idiot; a fool. Shakesp. Licke. 2. Native; original inhabitant; Raleigh. 3. Gift of nature; nature; quality. Wotten.
michael, got a hypothetical situation for you.
at a university party at, lets say harvard, a true blooded american girl who can trace her lineage back to the founding fathers gets rather drunk and ends up doing the horizontal tango at 2 a.m. and subsequently ends up pregnant.
at the party there were students from various countries around the world, and unfortunately the girl cannot remember who she bumped uglies with that night. it could have been anyone (damn that absinthe!)
she decides to keep the child, and gives birth on u.s. soil.
the question is, would you consider that child a natural born citizen? and if not, why not?
remember, we have absolutely NO idea who the father is.
BTW, this question is deliberately loaded, so tread carefully!
I would like to note that the title of this book points out why the natural born citiizen clause should be done away with. It isn’t merely a harmless anachronism, but a vestige of a nativism that was wrong as slavery was wrong.
Michael N is, of course, wrong in his understanding of the clause, but the true meaning of the clause (born in the country) is only slightly less objectionable than the false meaning Michael gives it.
Do you really think such assertion is a legal argument? It is not. Claiming you somehow know they would use one term over another is just dumb. The facts are that “natural born” was the technical term used in English and pre-Convention American statutes and “native” was the informal term. Duh.
These citations don’t even make sense in respect to the current argument. What is clear is that you clearly are admitting that you cannot cite any American authority distinguishing between “native born citizen” and “natural born citizen.” Must suck when we cite authority after authority, including nearly every significant early legal scholar, Supreme Court justices, the most well-know legal dictionaries, and you cannot cite anything. What is more surprising is how someone can be confronted with such overwhelming contrary authority and think they are still right. Wonder how such people can function in life.
And if the framers had meant natural born to mean “born of two citizen parents” due to some arbitrary level of loyalty and freedom from foreign influence, they would have said so explicitly rather than leave stupid little legal Easter Eggs in the Constitution. They also wouldn’t have added that grandfather clause.
The English common law required the parent father to be a ‘subject’.
If English common law is to be relied on, as proposed by Justice Horace Gray, then it makes perfect sense that the framers intended NBC to mean that the parent father must be a citizen for his child to be a NBC.
Nothing has changed.
Furthermore in the context of the times around the framing period and with the imperative to protect the office of POTUS from any foreign influence, persuasion and claim, it makes perfect sense and this gives further weight to why the parent’s status was so important, given that a child’s allegiance in formative years is actually to parents.
Sovereign beget sovereigns.
And you may be the only human being on the planet that believes that.
What hasn’t changed is the fact that you have yet to cite a single history book, or a single civics/social studies textbook, or a single book on Constitutional law published prior to 2008 which states that a natural-born citizen must have two citizen parents or must have a citizen father.
I wonder if MichaelN will ever manage to have the guts to take his case to court so he can tell 200 years of legal professionals how wrong they are?
I mean really, if he thinks he’s right about this, and everyone else is wrong, why is he wasting his time blathering on about it in a blog?
Or why would an Aussie even care. Or have any knowledge of American jurisprudence.
“Dynamic irony; it will f*ck you every time.” Professor Jules Hilbert
I dunno MichaelN’s background, whether he’s an ex-pat like me, or a natural born Aussie or whatever.
But Australians are taught that their Constitution was based on the American Constitution. So maybe he is deluded into thinking that there is precedent here or something.
I haven’t been able to convince anyone that that is a load of hogwash, the only similarity is that there is a House of Representatives and a Senate. In all other ways, its the British Westminster system (though heavily modified). Renaming the House of Commons to the House of Representatives and the House of Lords to the Senate is not basing the ideas on the US Constitution.
There are no other similarities. End of Story.
Interesting. Thanks for the info.
MichaelN still hasn’t explained why the founders were so hellbent on protecting the office of President from “any foreign influence, persuasion and claim” but yet allowed a potential President to live most of his life overseas, if he so desired, before seeking office. Why didn’t the founders simply say a President had to live in the U.S. his entire life? Why did they limit it to 14 years?
Could it have something to do with this:?
“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,”
Yet, what does not make sense is that he was not raised or spent any appreciable time with his father in his formative years, or any time after. So, how does the status of an absent father give any useful weight to a child’s own allegiance? Essentially, he was raised by a US citizen mother and 2 US citizen grandparents, with most of that on US soil.
Especially in Obama’s case, the two citizen argument, never made any sense. Even if they had even one iota of law that supported them, this circumstances of the President’s formative years are not a good example. The foreign parent was not present.
If WKA had been born in England, he’d have been a natural born subject. Since he was born in the US, he was a natural born citizen.
You’re right, nothing changed!
Of course, Mikey doesn’t know that the Chinese aliens, who by law couldn’t be naturalized, were often referred to as “subjects” prior to WKA. It was fairly common in the United States in the 19th century to call persons who owed allegiance, but were not citizens, “subjects.” He just can’t understand that because alien friends were sometimes call “subjects” in Endland and the United States doesn’t mean they were considered naturalized. Has Mikey figured out that England had naturalization statutes for 700 years yet. He will simply never understand that simply calling an “alien” a type of “subject” isn’t naturalizing them as “naturalization” gave aliens the rights of “natural born subjects” and without naturalization it is simply historical fact confirmed by centuries of case law and statutes that an alien could not inherit, own property or have any other rights of the natural born. Seems the people wrote the Constitution apparently didn’t understand either.
“Between alien friends, who are temporary subjects, and subjects naturalized or natural born, a species of subject intermediate is known to the law of England. They are distinguished by the appellation of denizens.” James Wilson
Interesting article. …………….. might help you to get it right.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/us-supreme-court-precedent-states-that-obama-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/#wpl-likebox
I have put it to several professors who teach constitutional law, and so far they are dumb-founded.
One got back to me stating that he is confused now, after carefully reading through Calvin’s case ……………… none have refuted what I have noticed in Lord Coke’s report, where it is stated that natural born is dependent on the subject status of a parent father.
Read the article linked in my post, it might help you wake up.
Why don’t you invite them to come over here and discuss it with us?
Donofrio can’t even get the name of the case right in Ankeny v Daniels. He spelled it “Arkeny.” They he says that the Indiana Appeals Court got it wrong. That’s right kiddies, Donofrio thinks he smarter than all of ’em.
Prove it. Talk is cheap especially considering the overwhelming number of times you’ve blatantly lied when you post.
Or perhaps you meant they were dumb-founded by the impudence of the poker player and your ridiculous, specious assertion.
That would make sense.
“none have refuted what I have noticed in Lord Coke’s report”
Because you didn’t ask doesn’t mean they wouldn’t scoff harshly at your stubborn, deliberate and bizarre misinterpretation of historical text.
And you’re still avoiding a simple question:
Would you allow a blood transfusion from someone other than your own ethnicity if your life depended on it?
Actually, the entire discussion of the meaning of natural born citizen is irrelevant as regards presidential eligibility.
First, the 14th Amendment equal protection clause supercedes the original language. Born and naturalized citizens are entitled to equal protection. Equal means equal, and includes equal right to run for President. Only if the 14th Amendment had carved out an exception for presidential eligibility would this not be the case and it did not. When there is a conflict between sections of the Constitution, the later, amended language controls.
Second, whether a President-elect meets the criteria of eligibility is solely in the domain of Congress. They can, if they choose, consider Supreme Court rulings but they are also free to ignore them. They are an equal branch, not subservient to the courts.
I’d love to feed this to the guy who claims “human being” means “monster” because he has seen one dictionary which links the former to the latter. (It was on a German law forum, one of our resident cranks put forth theories of US law because he allegedly is American.)
Or those birthers who claim Obama’s slogan “Made in the USA” means “Artificially produced in the USA” by selecting one of the many meanings of “made”.
So by that dictionary (and using that crank-ish way of thinking), a natural born citizen must be illegitimate. *lol* Then again, that would totally shoot down Micki Booth’s “an NBC must be born out of legal wedlock” theory. 😉
I’m sorry if this violates Dr’s policies, but I’m going to call you a flat out liar…not a stretch considering how often you took the same quote out of context after being called on it several times.
First, I doubt you contacted a single conlaw professor. And if you did, I doubt any of them bothered to answer your silly questions (most conlaw professors I know have better things to do than waste their time arguing the merits of junk law theories with random people who have no legal education what so ever).
But again, I suppose reading your ramblings, it is possible that someone responded that they were confused….I often find myself very confused after reading your posts….much of what you say is very confusing and makes no sense whatsoever. To the extent that you did spam a law professor’s inbox, I’m sure very few tried to refute what you say…..I would think most would just hit the delete button, and move onto something worth their while.
What it comes down to is that your lies convince no one here. They may impress a few on your birther sites, but it won’t work here. There are many, many lawyers who frequent this site, myself included. We know how to read a court opinion. We have a pretty good grasp of the common law. We can spot junk law arguments when we see them. And we’re not even the real scholars on the subject, who have devoted their lives to the subject. If you honestly think that you, a person with no legal training to speak of, picked up a hidden meaning that every legal scholar, every judge, supreme court justice, lawyer, including lawyer that tried to argue against native birth being the only requirement for natural born citizenship, missed for 400 years, I think you need a serious reality check. If you’re the first person to make an argument a 400 year old opinion means exactly the opposite of what it has been interpreted to mean for 400 years, don’t you think the odds are slightly in favor that the interpretation that everyone else (that “else” being mostly people trained in the law) has come to, might actually be correct, and you, the one person, with no legal training, that came to the exact opposite conclusion, is actually wrong?
Did they know that you were dishonestly truncating sentences to make your “points”?
“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,”
Needs repeating…..
Sure. You can’t even get the birther attorneys to consider your nonsense. Try telling these imaginary professors that if Coke meant that alien friends were a type of subject, then he makes clear that everyone in England save a de minimis exception as subjects and hence everyone born in england was natural born, save a de minimis exception. Not really that hard. It is sad you can’t understand that considering aliens friends to be a type of subject doesn’t mean anyone thought ther were naturalized subjects as 400 years of English law provides. Similarly, the fact that the United States sometimes called alien friends like Wong Kim ark’s parents “subjects” didn’t mean they were naturalized. I am not sure why any of us bother responding to you at this point.
I find this article rather sad. He clearly does not understand what dicta is and what is precedent. Miror’s citizenship status was irrelevant to the holding of the case as the court determined citizenship status was irrelevant to the right to vote. Actually the court never called Minor “natural born” or mentioned her parent’s status. The definition of “natural born citizenship” in Wong Kim Ark was necessary to the holding as the 14th Amendment was defined by pre-existing law under the original Constitution. At this point it is sad that people can’t understand this, particularly someone who went to law school.
I would like to see one of these clowns try to cite Minor to an actual judge on the question of children of aliens when such case expressly declines to address such issue. Judges are not amused by such nonsense. And claiming that calling children of aliens “citizens” rather than “natural born citizens” means they are in a different class when the same decision points out that “natural born citizens” were one of two types of citizens under the original Constitution would not go over well. In all birtherdom, the claim that calling someone a “citizen” means that they are not a “natural born citizen” is perhaps the dumbest argument we here.
And I would love one of them trying to argue to a judge that Wong Kim Ark didn’t define who was natural born and see their faces when the judge angerly quotes the relevant sections of the opinion. Too bad, none of these geniuses has figured out standing law so we will never get to see these arguments laughed out of court.
I took a quick look at Leo’s nonsense and in a comment he contends that the President’s actions can be made null and void because of ineligibility. Someone should tell his law school to rescind his “Esq” as he clearly didn’t learn anything and all his actions as a lawyer are null and void.
The birthers don’t realize that if all of Obama’s actions were made null and void, it would mean that the Bush tax cuts have expired.
And, of course, he says that the majority opinion in Dred Scott cited Vattel’s defintiion, not a concurring opinion, and he doesn’t realize that he has to look at the context of such concurring opinion’s quote of Vattel. It was to support Justice Daniel’s contention that citizens had equal rights and privileges, not to define who was a “natural born citizen” and hence is not authority on such subject. His stuff on the 1790 naturalization act is gibberish. I guess New Jersey pays the price for having one of the easiest bar exams.
And bin Laden is alive again.
You know, last night, I just happened to have dinner with all 9 Justices of the Supreme Court and when i told them about you we all had a good laugh.
I heard Justice Alito did a spit-take and Justice Roberts tweeted he woke up still chuckling.
I would not be surprised if some professors responded to his e-mail. They may have thought he was a fifth grader doing some kind of history project. And so they humored him. After all, they would not want to discourge a child, even if his ideas are very juvenile.
I just checked at Scribd and Minor v Happersett was attempted to be used as precedent in Hollister v Soetoro, et. al. in the Appellant’s Joint Amended Brief. The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Certiorari in Hollister, twice.
Well, if a bunch of completely anonymous experts agrees with you, I guess the case is settled. Here we are citing names and case law. What a bunch of losers we are.
Apuzzo cites Minor in his appeal of Kerchner v Obama, but I don’t see the word “precedent”.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25461132/Kerchner-v-Obama-Appeal-Appellant-s-Opening-Brief-FILED-2010-01-19
NB: Michael hasn’t even claimed that these anonymous experts agree with him, just that they haven’t “refuted” his claim yet and were “dumb-founded.”
Personally, I am dumbfounded by his startling lack of reading comprehension when it comes to Calvin’s Case and his hubris at thinking that his interpretation, coming hundreds of years after the case was written and in direct contrast to every single legal scholar who has ever read the case in those hundreds of years, is the true and correct one. I am also dumbfounded at his amorphous argument that the Founders understood HIS reading of the case, despite no evidence existing that anyone has EVER read the case that way and that the Founders wanted to CHANGE the meaning of natural born, without really wanting to change it. (An alien who had a child in Massachusetts before the Constitution was ratified had a natural born subject because his father was a subject by fiat, but after the Constitution, his child was not a natural born citizen, because his father needed to be naturalized, unlike in England, where aliens had to be naturalized…)
Further, Michael simply pretends that any argument that disagrees with him has failed to refute him. We’ve shown, over and over, that the case doesn’t require subjectship in order to produce natural born subject children. He just pretends that none of that has happened. We haven’t refuted him.
We’re dumbfounded and haven’t refuted him.
Great. Whatever. Obama’s still President. No court or even any legal scholar has ever given any weight to Michael’s effed-up interpretation of Calvin’s Case. No court or legal scholar ever will, since he refuses to publish an article about it, and instead, hides his legal brilliance here on an obscure blog.
This blog is NOT obscure. All the Justices told me they read it diligently, especially the comments by this “Scientist” fellow.
I believe he argued it was the holding at some point. His analysis was as silly as Donofrio.
In Hollister v Soetoro, et. al, attorney Hemingway lists Minor v Happersett in his Table of Authorites which means he is listing it as precedent.
Not necessarily. All cited sources must be in the Table of Authorities, whether they are cited as precedent, persuasive authority, or even cases to be distinguished.
In the brief cited, Apuzzo merely cites Minor as a place giving a definition of natural born citizen along with other sources.
So is the citation from Minor that is quoted all the time, dicta?
Ballantine explains it pretty well above. Whether natural born means one born to citizens or not is irrelevant to the decision. The case is about whether the concept of “citizen” necessarily encompasses the right to vote.
Anything you can cross out of the case and not change the meaning is dicta. Would the women here have the vote if they got their citizenship through the 14th Amendment? No.
Compare that to the discussion in Wong Kim Ark of the meaning of natural born citizen. In that case, WKA’s citizenship depended not on the 14th Amendment, which was merely declaratory of what the law already was, but on the unbroken continuity of meaning between natural born subject and natural born citizen.
Cross the natural born citizen stuff out of WKA and we’re left with, “WKA’s citizenship depended not on the 14th Amendment, which was merely declaratory of what the law already was, but on…”
That’s a question that birthers can never answer. What makes WKA a citizen if it’s not that unbroken, unchanged equivalence between NBS and NBC?