That quote is by Christopher-Earl Strunk from oral arguments in his lawsuit in New York State court, Strunk v Board of Elections (and a long list of other defendants from John McCain to George Soros). I haven’t read Strunk’s complaint yet, but I gather that he is suing the various defendants in an effort to force a more rigorous determination of the qualifications of candidates for President in the 2012 election. There seems to be more to it than my simple summary, but that’s the focus. Strunk claims that Barack Obama is ineligible to run for President because his father was not a US Citizen. I want to thank commenter “Natural Born Citizen Party” for the link and for providing something to distract me while the pain drugs kicked in for this kidney stone I’m passing. (I’m feeling much better now.)
The Court questioned Strunk at length and I personally found the exchange between him and Judge Arthur M. Schack both entertaining and informative. If you read it, count all the allusions to movies, including one of my personal favorites, The Manchurian Candidate (the one starring Frank Sinatra and Angela Lansbury), a favorite long before Obama ran for President. The discussion was erudite and I was particularly impressed by Judge Schack’s wide knowledge of history in addition to popular culture.
What interested me most though was the connection between Mr. Strunk’s view of history and that presented in the classical conspiracy theories that I have been studying of late. Mr. Strunk, in true conspiracy theorist style, connects all sorts of disparate information to form a pattern, especially things related to the Catholic Church, the Jesuits, and the fact that various actors in the election were Catholic. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) gets a nod (and apparently more than a nod in the complaint). Strunk believes that the presence of ineligible candidates (he thinks McCain, Obama and Calero are ineligible) was no accident but the workings of a conspiracy involving the CFR to disenfranchise voters from being able to vote for an eligible candidate. What Mr. Strunk says is familiar territory for me these days and it’s illuminating to see New World Order conspiracy theories intersect the birther movement.
One interesting assertion by Strunk is that a New York law from 1909 defines a “natural born citizen” as someone both born in the State and with citizen parents. I want to look into that point further. Another assertion is that the New York state delegation to US Constitutional Convention walked out back in 1787 because it was going to allow persons who were not natural born citizens to serve in Congress. The usual historical view is that they walked out because (among other things) every state would have equal representation in the Senate. Strunk gets another historical fact wrong, asserting that John McCain was born in the Republic of Panama rather then in the Canal Zone.
Mr. Strunk has provided an extensive archive of the documents of his cases on the Scribd web site. Before closing, I note that I found anti-Muslim and anti-Catholic generalizations made by him offensive.
Which former delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 disappeared without a trace?
John Lansing Jr., a former mayor of Albany and former chief justice of the New York State Supreme Court, disappeared after leaving a Manhattan hotel to mail a letter on Dec. 12, 1829. It is believed that he either drowned or was murdered. A cenotaph, or empty tomb, was built at Albany Rural Cemetery. Lansing, along with Robert Yates and Alexander Hamilton, represented New York as delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, which resulted in the adoption of the U.S. Constitution and the formation of the United States of America. Lansing and Yates thought a strong central government would threaten New York’s autonomy, and they walked out of the convention, never signing the Constitution.
In Strunk’s complaint he listed a page from New York property law which indicates that there are two types of citizens – natural born and naturalized.
http://pixelpatriot.blogspot.com/2011/09/statute-in-new-york-state-law-defines.html
More connections?
Is that you, Christopher?
the link
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/publications/benchmarks/issue6/Know.shtml
Judge Crater was a New York judge who also disappeared.
Another connection?
Very interesting.
So a finding that an alien widow of a citizen (whether that citizen was natural born or naturalized) was not entitled to dower under the law before 1838 is a definition of ‘natural born citizenship requiring two citizen parents’?
Or a finding that an foreign individual or company is entitled to work a mine lease in the same way as a natural born citizen would is a definition of ‘natural born citizenship requiring two parents’?
Wow.
Whooda thunk that the key to the biggest conspiracy in history would be found down a mine shaft or under a dowagers veil? Oh, wait… is there something in the myth of the Widow’s Son about King Solomon’s mine? My goodness, the Freemasons are everywhere!
Maybe Strunk is right… it is the connection that counts.
“It is believed . . .”
The mantra and lonely drone of the pathetically paranoid and mentally unstable.
Perhaps a female cleaner had entered his room while he was lying in his tub, and that was a letter to Jonas Strauss explaining why he had left the mobile abacus, used to check whether the price of his shirt was right, at the hotel?
It is, after all, the connection that counts.
And yesterday, my wallet disappeared!! What in H. is going on around here??? Oh, wait a minute . . . found it. But still!
Birthers lost their brains, but I don’t think Obama caused that to happen…
I wonder if there is money to be made in selling a rubber stamp to teachers and editors that says “who believes? Citation?”
Just read this morning:
“Holding a grudge is allowing somebody to live in your head rent-free”
That’s a very long text and I haven’t found anything that defines natural born citizen. However, I do note that one of the citations in the statute is to Lynch v Clarke (NY-1844) that specifically states that the children of aliens born in the United States are natural born citizens and eligible to be President.
And if you want a connection, consider the two most recent articles on this site, this one and the one about the the special motion to dismiss the lawsuit between Joseph Farah and Esquire Magazine. The motion cites Strunk v US Dept. of State.
Well, the fact that it conveniently reappeared only after you started missing it obviously proves the Conspiracy put it back to cover its tracks. 😉
Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, the fact that Obama’s BC did, upon information and belief, not exist until after he was conveniently born proves that… well, would make sense to a birther…
“Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844).
Summary of Case:
“The defendant, Julia Lynch, was born in the City of New York in 1819, of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn in that city. She re-turned with them the same year, to their native country, and always resided there afterwards. It was held that she was a citizen of the United States.” [NYLO at 238.]
Excerpt:
“It is an indispensable proposition, that by the rule of common law of England, if applied to these facts, Julia Lynch was a natural born citizen of the United States.”
And you won’t. It is a pattern of Mr. Strunk to say that this judge or that judge in one of his lawsuits has defined natural born. But it is never the case.
In his complaint, Strunk quotes,
But what about if only one parent has such allegiance? And what about parents who are naturalized Americans but whose native countries still recognize them as citizens?
Paragraph 32 of Strunk’s complaint cites the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 as the controlling legal authority in determining BHO Jr. is not a natural born citizen.
And in paragraphs 33 and 34, Strunk alleges Soebarkah naturalized as a US citizen after he emigrated to the US in 1971. If he’s a naturalized US citizen, then he cannot be a natural born US citizen.
But he was a natural born citizen at birth and only he can give that up. His parents could not legal give it up for him.
It might be helpful to consult with people who were actually alive in 1787.
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”William Rawle, 1826 “A View of the Constitution of the United States
Mr. Rawle in the same paragraph writes,
“Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.”
So “place of birth” creates the quality of being “natural born”.
Before a U.S. Certificate of Naturalization is issued, an applicant for U.S. Citizenship must renounce allegiance countries other than the U.S. and swear or affirm allegiance to the U.S.
Bingham references aliens who maintain allegiance to another country, such as Obama Sr.
Why does anyone think Bingham’s opinion matters? A Congressment 80 years after the drafting of the Constitution. And Bingham himself was all over the place on the issue,
“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)
“Who, sir, are citizens of the United States? First, all free persons born and domiciled within the United States – not all free withe persons, but all free persons….The fact is notorious that, at the formation of the Constitution, but few of the states made color the basis of sufferage; and all of them, by the words or construction of their constitutions, affirmed the fact that all native free persons were citizens.” John Bingham, 35th Congress, Congressional Globe, 2nd Session 1859, pp 984-85
“That article of Amendment is substantially that all persons born in this land, within the jurisdiction of the united State, without regard to complexion or previous condition are citizens of the Republic.” John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 2nd Session, 39th Congress, pg. 500 (1867)
Of course, about 10 members of the same Congress looked to native birth alone. If Bingham is all he has, he is in trouble.
We know from the FOIA request of Mr. Strunk that the President’s mother never gave up her US citizenship. And we know from the Supreme Court ruling in Perkins v. Elg that a parent cannot give up a child’s citizenship. Is he suggesting that a 5 or 6 year old Barack Obama gave up his citizenship on his own?
Obama Sr. a British Protected Person (BPP), was a member of class of certain persons under the British Nationality Act 1942 associated with former protected states, protectorates, mandated and trust territories under British control. The inhabitants of these former states were never automatically entitled to became British subjects or citizens but were given the status of British protected person instead.
BHO Jr.’s mother was too young to automatically confer US citizenship under the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952. An application for U.S. Citizenship would have had to been made and successfully processed for BHO Jr. to become a U.S. Citizen.
Through a bi-lateral treaty with the U.K., BHO Jr. was a BPP at birth.
Just making stuff up. Cite any authority that the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 or British Nationality Act of 1942 had any impact on the Constitutional right to citizenship at birth under the 14th Amendment and NBC clause. No authority exists.
Maybe, if the President was born in out side of the United States. But not if he was born in Hawaii. Which is where all the evidence such as his certified birth certificate, shows he was born.
Here is a test for the geniuses on this blog:
A “Natural Born Citizen” of the United States of America is:
An in esse person born
A. On US Soil of: A test tube, two illegal aliens, one illegal alien, one citizen and one illegal alien, one citizen and a legal alien in marriage, two citizens male/female in marriage, two naturalized citizens in marriage, two natural-born citizen in marriage, one NBC Citizen and one naturalized citizen;
B. On Foreign soil under the jurisdiction of the USA – repeat all of the above for US Soil
US Military / government employee is of a class unto itself over and above a US Citizen;
C. On foreign soil- repeat all of the above for US Soil.
The Republican Party accepts birth on US Soil in a test tube along with A and B.
The Democratic Party only accepts place of birth on US soil in a test tube as NBC.
Right now, there is no State Board of Elections that has a statutory definition for NBC and New York is no different. I am attempting to get something in writing unlike the bloggers herein.
http://www.opm.gov/extra/investigate/is-01.pdf
Try to remember BHO Jr. is a Citizen by Descent BPP and the U.S. has agreed to recognize the UK’s sovereignty by treaty.
Interesting question but the only one relevant to President Obama is the born in the U.S. portion. It is clear for all of us who were born and raised here in the United States that anyone born in the United States, regardless of the circumstances(except children of diplomats) is a natural born citizen.
I don’t know where you get your opinion as to what Republicans and Democrats believe.
As far as I know all Republicans and Democrats agree that anyone born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen.
Democrats also showed that they accepted John McCain’s circumstances of birth when they voted, along witht the Republicans that he was a natural born citizen.
The rest of your circumstances, I don’t really know or care
Form your link:
UNITED STATES
CITIZENSHIP: Citizenship is based upon Title 8 of U.S. Code 1401 – 1409, dated 1986.
BY BIRTH: Child born within the territory of the United States, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.
BY DESCENT:
Child born abroad, both of whose parents are citizens of the United States, and one of
whom resided in the United States before the birth of the child.
Child born abroad, one of whose parents is a citizen of the United States who resided in
the United States for at least five years before the birth of the child.
BY NATURALIZATION: United States citizenship may be acquired upon fulfillment of the
following conditions:
Person must be 18 years old, have resided in the United States for at least five years as a
lawful permanent resident, be able to speak, read, and write English, be of good moral
character, be familiar with the history and culture of the country, be attached to the
principles of the United States Constitution, and have renounced former citizenship.
Foreign citizens who marry citizens of the United States need only reside in the United
States for three years, but must still fulfill the other conditions.
OTHER: Certain provisions for granting citizenship have been extended to persons who have performed specific military service to this country. For more information, contact the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
DUAL CITIZENSHIP: RECOGNIZED
So you are saying that the United Kingdom gets to tell the United States who can or cannot be citizens? Why do you want our country to bow to British law?
Hey Genius,
why do you birthers like to have your pulled pulled off and be spanked by judges in public so much?
Again irrelevant. Barack Obama is a natural born citizen because of his birth within the United States. Any other countries laws regarding their citizenship has no affect within the United States.
Even assuming your opinion that he was a ‘citizen bydescent BPP’ is correct, which is pure speculation.
What we do know for a fact is that the voters agreed that he was eligible, that the Electoral College agreed he was eligible, that Congress agreed he was eligible and that Chief Justice Roberts accepted that he was eligible.
Retired justice Sandra Day O’Conner stated her opinion that he was eligible. John McCain clearly agrees he was eligible, or he would have raised the issue.
What remains is a very, very small group- I suspect in the dozens, not even the hundreds- who argue that their opinion trumps that of everyone else in the United States and that the courts should ursurp the Constitution and remove our legally elected President
For all the post VA II NEW AGE Fr. Pierre Thielard de Chardin SJ and his cousin Rousseau “Social contract” collective crowd who are ecumenical to the root opposed to the American Revolution and in effect the individual’s Social Contract of John Locke.
The allegiance of the parents at birth of a minor remain an important institution in determining NBC.
Congress has no authority to amend the Constitution by treaty. Wonf Kim Ark rejected the claim that a foreign allegiance affected one right to citizen by birth under the Constitution. It simply doesn’t matter if he was considered a British subject.
“I haven’t read Strunk’s complaint yet,”
I skimmed it. My favorite part so far might be Paragraph 139:
139. Defendant George Soros proves his allegiance to Rome by promoting Muslim Brotherhood overt control of Egypt—now a reality. We cannot forget that the Jesuits in Cairo created the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928, the same year the Order created Opus Dei in Spain. Egypt is to be the staging base for an Islamic invasion into Israel from the South—somewhat like the 1973 Yom Kippur War that was intended not to succeed in destroying the Pope’s Revived Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (Israel) as the Third Temple must be built with Jews in Jerusalem acting as a buffer between the Pope’s Masonic Labor Zionist leaders of Israel and resident Arab Muslim “Palestinians,” the invasion will serve as the justification for a US and possible EU military intervention during which time the Temple Mount Mosques will be destroyed, and that destruction will be blamed on the U.S.A. thereby inciting the unity of international Sunni Islam and its future invasion of U.S. soil.
Of course! It’s so simple! …Wait. No it’s not; it’s needlessly complicated.
Again, the Supreme Court expressly rejected such argument in Wong Kim Ark.
Huh? Wah?
It’s sovereign citizen junk law magic words. Tax protesters/soveriegn citizen conspiracy nutters think if they stick magic words here and there, and demand certian fonts or capitalizations for their names, or refuse to use zip codes, or twirl in the streets while chanting the quotes from the Great Kazoo, they are no longer required to pay taxes. Every person born is in esse. “In esse” means in existence. A person inutero is “in posse,” meaning they are still merely have the potential to exist. So saying “in esse person born” is quite redundant, since being a person implies you were born and actually exist, which clearly means you are in esse.
You DO know what, in law and the Constitution “allegiance” means in this context, don’t you?
Plainly not, it means to be under the control of, and be impacted by the laws of the country you are in AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME.
That is why the ONLY two exceptions to the birth on US soil are children of diplomats and children born of invading military.
These are by their very nature not “in allegiance”.
I suggest you drop the Jesuit insanity and go and read Calvins Case which the Founders and the Supreme Court reference/d when they discussed citizenship and NBC status.
And why would you say McCreery’s Lessee v. Somerville distinguishes between native and natural born citizenship? Such case says no such thing. No one will take you seriously if you just make stuff up.
And never go into a courtroom that has gold fringes on the American flag. Otherwise you are subject to maritme law not the US Constitution.
I also want to add, it seems to be the nature of people who don’t really have the first clue about the law to think that sticking whole bunch of latin words in their statements makes them appear to knowledgable or more authoritative (prime example is our paralegal friend from NM).
But if they don’t make stuff up, what do the birther have? And if they’re birthers, isn’t it given that no one will take them seriously?
No, it doesn’t unless they are diplomats or part of an invading army.
“Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so.”
– Judge Clay D. Land, U.S. District Court
Your wishful thinking is irrelevant.
Why do we even have that conspiracy? Someone needs to talk to Soros.
Can’t forget that one. It’s one of the favorites. Before the whole birther thing, my hobby was tax protester theories. My wife keeps telling me I need to get a life, and find better hobbies.
Let me make this real simple for Mr Strunk, so he can stop wasting the money of the taxpayers of New York (of which i am one) who would rather, interestingly enough, see their tax dollars spent on education and roads and flood relief than on nonsensical court cases.
When in doubt as to the use of a word in a legal document, look first to its plain English meaning. What does, “natural born” mean in plain English?:
Natural Born Killer (Bret Easton Ellis) = a killer from birth
Natural Born Fool (James Taylor) = a fool from birth
Natural Born Ball Player (The Natural, Bernard Malamud) = a ball player from birth
Does that mean their parents were killers/fools/ball players? No, not
necessarily
So, Natural Born Citizen = a citizen from birth.
Does that mean their parents were citizens? No, not necessarily
Also, your attempts to have courts decide presidential elections are absurd and against everything that the US is supposed to stand for. It is up to the people and their elected representatives in Congress to decide who the President is, not judges. Keep in mind that the 12th Amendment says “The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be President”. Surely even Mr Strunk can understand that. “Shall,” not “perhaps” or “if some court in Brooklyn approves” or “if Mr Strunk likes him”. Nope.
So Mr Strunk, please stop wasting my money. If you want an opinion, go speak to a law professor. But the courts that your fellow New Yorkers pay for are for real legal matters only.
You can’t lose what you don’t have.
A Hungarian Jew’s allegiance to Rome is proven claiming he is promoting Muslims? Yeah, I can see how that makes sense.
Reminds me of a scene from It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia where Charlie (a janitor at a dive bar) is trying to match wits in a legal argument with a lawyer who graduated from Harvard. As the lawyer begins addressing Charlie with legal arguments, Charlie just starts screaming “FILLIBUSTER!!! FILLIBUSTER!!!”
It is contrary to International Law to usurp the citizenry of countries outside of the United States. BHO Jr. admitted he was native born and subject to the British Nationality Act of 1942, i.e. BPP.
By treaty, the United States could not recognize BHO Jr. as a citizen of the United States before he reached the age of majority without the consent and permission of the country who held the allegiance of his father in 1961.
After BHO Sr. abandoned the family, SAD Obama merely used the fact her son was native born to imply BHO Jr. was an American. In fact, he was not.
If you’ll recall, a Strunk FOIA revealed Immigration and Customs Enforcement sent an investigator to SAD Soetoro to ask what the current Nationality of BHO Jr. was. SAD Soetoro told the investigator he was an American because he had been abandoned by BHO Sr.
Since Indonesia is not a party to the treaty between the US and UK, BHO Jr. was stateless when he moved to Indonesia. He acquired Indonesian citizenship after the adoption by Lolo Soetoro was finalized and his mother removed him from her passport in 1967.
Has the New York State Board of Elections learned that you are illegally registered to vote using a mail drop address?
“Todd Landrum” is starting to sound an awful lot like Sven.
Still making stuff up. Nothing in the link you provided supports your nonsense. No rule of international law controls our citizenship law. The supreme court said citizenship is a matter of municipal law and has rejected any claim that foreign law is relevant. Thereis no treaty that controls thw status of any native born american as such treaty wold not be constitutional. Repeating the same nonsense over and over doesn’t make it true.
Cue the story about the Connecticut refugee society file for his social security number.
Mr Landrum forgot the CLN.
Whatever, Sven. You’re still pushing total B.S. without a shred of proof whatsoever.
Your crap only works on idiot birthers and not people grounded in reality.
dr_taitz@yahoo.com

September 2nd, 2011 @ 6:33 am

that is a complete BS
Obama was never a foster child

by the way, where is his Indonesian citizenship documentation? Where is proof, that he returned to US as an Indonesian citizen in 1971? show me a shred of evidence of what you are claiming
It is amazing how much patience you people have for refuting these addled arguments. Both Langrum and Strunk simply make stuff up, and because it somehow makes sense to them, it must be the Law.
Birthers, please listen. There are thousands of judges and over a million lawyers in the USA. There is a reason that 99.9 percent of them are laughing at you, including the conservative ones, including every one on the Supreme Court. There is a reason that you are filing in pro. per. There is a reason that the only lawyers you can ever get to advance your cases are frootloops like Orly Taitz and Mario Apuzzo. There is a reason you lose, every single time, in embarassing fashion. There is a reason that birther rallies draw 5 or 10 people, total.
It is because your arguments are simply ignorant and wrong, and it takes a special kind of stupid to believe in them.
There is no conspiracy of silence. There is no cover up. You are just too gullible and ignorant to understand basic legal analysis that any First Year law student could master in about 3 minutes of thought.
WorldNetDaily, Dean Haskins and the rest are more than happy to take your money and lead you along the path of stupidity, but don’t expect the rest of America to follow you there.
Excellent points, JoZeppy. Can we add to your condemnation of magical words the abuse of bulky acronyms, e.g., using POTUS when “President” is the less ponderous and more attractive choice.
I will, however, take issue with your reference to “the Great Kazoo.” If you are referring to the green-skinned, diminutive alien who appeared on “The Flintstones,” his name was “the Great Gazoo.” Of course, “g” and “k” are plosive cognates, and the ear can easily confuse them.
Add away…although I have been known to use SCOTUS, so I am not without sin.
I, unlike most birthers, admit my errors. Yes, I stand corrected, the reference was intended to be for the Great Gazoo, the error of my ways only caught after posting my comment. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa (and no, this is not a use of the aforementioned condemned “magical words” anymore than any phrase of relgious origins would)
Latin? Wouldn’t the legal statements make more sense in the original Klingon?
And the reason we can see SAD Soetoro’s 1967 Passport issuance card and not her 1965 passport issuance card is … ?
Why do you keep changing the subject every time your last argument gets exposed? Do you think no one notices?
I hated to even point out the error, but we all know how passionate Dr. C. is about accurately citing “The Flintstones.” I don”t want him to ban you, and God knows, he’s done it for less.
On the subject of acronyms and magical words, the reason I don’t use “POTUS” is that it too closely resembles the word “Portus,” which is an incantation I learned at Hogwarts. “Portus” turns any object into a Portkey, i.e., a device to transport someone from one location to another. You have no idea how many computers I’ve accidentally turned into Portkeys while reading aloud posts from this website–and all because of sloppy diction!
dr_taitz@yahoo.com

September 2nd, 2011 @ 6:33 am

that is a complete BS
Obama was never a foster child

by the way, where is his Indonesian citizenship documentation? Where is proof, that he returned to US as an Indonesian citizen in 1971? show me a shred of evidence of what you are claiming
Well then you need to be careful when reading my posts aloud as well…..
Now I understand – you all are doing SPARTA REDUX!!
In Esse (Latin) – In actual existence. Thus a child living is “in esse,” but before birth is only “in posse.” You’ all are into corporate fiction stuff silly me!!
What the bloggers here are saying re NBC is that a living being is not running for office of POTUS but instead is a corporate fiction that has virtual allegiance to the respective state of birth as if this were Sparta REDUX.
As for allegiance per se that the subscribers herein embrace for The TEST TUBE baby as if NBC without any parents except the respective State, means to me at least that the in esse person born on U.S. Soil in a State of the several States even without an real mother absent the recombinant DNA route the lab technician / midwife must assign within 5 days the BIG LETTER NAME of the in esse PERSON born to the New York State Department of Health as the corporate property of the respective State that then proceeds to securitize the NAME.
Voila! OBAT IN CHIEF!!
Seriously, are you drinking tonight? Do you think this makes any sense. Do you want the state to opine on test tube babies? Our courts have looked to the English common law which clearly deals with Obama’s situation. There is no argument in your complaint that even makes sense. Why not try going to law school before you pretend to understand law. Seriously, how could anyone claim that McCreery’s Lessee v. Somerville distinguished between natural and native born. Do you not know how to read basic English? It is really sad how many people with no understanding of law are pretending to be legal experts on this issue.
I have no idea what the person posting above is trying to say but speaking only for myself, I agree with the “Father of the Constitution:” who said: “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”
James Madison, May 22, 1789
It is obvious that the Roberts Court also agrees with Mr. Madison since they have denied Writs of Certiorari to every appeal that has used the jus sanguinis arguement.
But Strunk excels at wasting taxpayer money and hungrily sucking on the teat of the democratic socialism he despises.
As usual, you are talking nonsense. It is this simple. Any person BORN on US Soil is NBC. The only exceptions are those specifically carved out for children of foreign diplomats, ambassadors and such.
Doesn’t matter how many citizen parents one has. Doesn’t matter what they name themselves. Doesn’t matter if they were born in a hospital, a house or in a field. Doesn’t matter if they were conceived naturally or through artificial medical means.
Sorry, but it really is that simple. IF born on US Soil THEN NBC (unless one of the very specifically carved out exceptions noted in the 1st paragraph above.) End of Story.
Come on Strunkie dear,
Stil waiting on one of your oh so entertaining responses regarding the real meaning of the legal and Constitutional word “Allegiance” and a devastating critique on Calvins Case.
I’m sure they’ll be special.
it too bad “Big Jim McLain” in the cl1952 John Wayne vehicle did not have the internet to fight the left wing commies investing HI government and supporting blog sites.
As opposed to right wing commies?
Paranoid lunatic.
I’m snipping the rest of that run-on sentence, but Chris, you DO understand that test tube babies aren’t actually grown in laboratories, right?
A test tube baby is just where the egg is fertilized with the sperm in a lab environment. With an egg from a real mother and sperm from a real father. And then the perfectly ordinary zygote is implanted into a very real womb inside a very real woman.
So yeah: “without any parents” and “without an real mother” doesn’t make an awful lot of sense.
(Snipping a little more.) Conclusion: Chris Strunk . . . doesn’t make an awful lot of sense.
I think Chris is referring to the ultra secret government project (Project Kamino). The one where they used the DNA from a bounty hunter, added with growth accelerator (otherwise, a mature clone would take a lifetime to grow). So, no mother just a father.
damn joe, you´ve got me thinking about captain lockheed and the starfighters now.
music time!
There’s probably a vast system of underground tunnels connecting CERN to the Vatican.
Crap. Have I said too much?
You just gotta love America. Where else but here can batsh!t crazy people become famous celebrities?
Chris, the flying saucer is over my house again. If you don’t hear from me the rest of the week, please activate Delta Plan 42C, like we discussed. Thanks!
Is there a law against being a left wing commie?
Sure, but that doesn’t explain why you are illegally registered to vote at a mail drop address. You do know that the law requires that you register at your actual residence address?
Sadly, the reference was pulled from my mind from a far more mundane corner (lifelong Catholic with some 20 years of Catholic education under my belt, including my MA and JD).
But at least it had an interesting side effect for you (and me, since I had to look up your reference….like you said….music time!).
The bigger question would be why his local BofE would have allowed him to register at that address. They check these things, you know. At the next election someone could challenge him and he would not be allowed to vote on the machine. His ballot would go in a special envelope which would be checked and counted with the absentee ballots.
And again, you see more of the crack-pot pseudo-legal arguments of tax protesters/sovereign citizens (“TP/SC”). These arguments actually make the birthers seem sane, because at least the birthers can point to a real, albeit irrelevant source (de Vattel) source (which they mis-read anyway) for their arguments. In this little blurb of utter insanity, you see several TP/SC fantasies. You see reference to the looney UCC arguments (I’m just going to bunch these all together, becase there are so many different arguments, because rather than accept that the reason a judge laughed the argument out of court can’t be because they’re nutters, but must be because the last person used a slightly off combination of magic words, punctuation, fonts, etc), that the federal government is no longer the government of a nation, but a corporation, and that most of us aren’t actually citizens, of the counrty, but have some strange relationship to the corporation depending on the argument, and they know the magic words to reaffirm their citizenhip to the actual country (which, depending on the source of the nutter argument, they will claim there is a difference between the United States, the United States of America, UNITED STATES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, USA, U.S.A., U.S. of A., etc). You’ll note Strunks insistance on the meaningless use of the “magic words” “in esse” as if that makes a difference, the use of the big letter name (which stems from their bogus belief that the common legal practice of using all capital letters in the case caption somehow makes them subject to the jurisdiction of a corporation, rather than government, and insisting that they have their name spelled with non-caps robs the courts, and the government of jurisdiction over them, and thus no longer have to pay taxes). Some other nutters have also argued that putting a comma or semicolon before their first and last name has the magic effect, and the list goes on, and then, of course there is a whole new level of 14th Amendment arguments that somehow, the 14th Amendment did create a whole new form of citizenship. Not the Native Born citizen, distinct from Natural born and Naturalized citizens a la Mario, but 14th Amendment Citizens, irrespective of prarentage, who are the folks that actually have to pay taxes, because they have some funky relationship with this new corporate entity that was formed without anyone noticing.
Sorry for the tangent story, but I find it pretty interesting to see an obvious TP/SC nutter wade into the birther arguments, in part because they have an overlap in subject matter, what it means to be a citizen of our nation, but they bring in a whole new scope of crazy into it, because they have been at it for so long that many different theories have evolved over the years to justify their 100% failure rate, building on each new failure, and that like birthers, they have to find some source of justification for their nutter arguments, so they have to pull tiny phrases out of context, no matter how irrelevant the source is, to justify their nuttiness. I expect to see more and more of this in Birfistan, as birthers have to continue to justify their failures, and will try to twist words from various different sources, to build new and nuttier theories (although if Orly is any indication, some will just blame failure on the mass corruption in the entire system).
I suspect that the checking is limited to sending out a postcard to see if it is delivered. Strunk does receive mail there. Maybe I should let the attorney representing the Board of Elections know about this.
No it doesn’t chris/sven/nuttie birther.
http://associationforsovereignhomerulewithin.org/bhrc-initiative—petition.html
Brooklyn has more than enough room for even the most ardent Socialist Utopian
Strunk: “The allegiance of the parents at birth of a minor”
Has anyone in history who has given birth NOT given birth to a minor?
Obsolete – Soylent Green is people!!
Just answer whether or not protoplasm born from a test tube from bio engineering is NBC. even if half reptile like BHO?
NATURAL BORN CITZEN DOES NOT EXIST IN FOUR SIDED TIMECUBE.
Strunk’s posts read a lot like those weird paragraphs I see at the end of spam E-Mails, that the spammers put in to try and foil filters.
It’s a simple matter of hazard. The remote control migraine was manure. So, the waterfall
is a finger.
reading stunks posts, i find myself remembering that none too subtle scene of samuel l jackson enquiring about the ability of someone to speak english.
Does this remind you of anything? Anything at all?
The Castle: The Constitution Vibe
(the first half, not the second half).
Strunk: “Just answer whether or not protoplasm born from a test tube from bio engineering is NBC. even if half reptile like BHO?”
I would vote for a half-reptile before any current Republican candidate.
So I guess the answer is “yes”.
The 14th Amendment uses the phrase “all persons born” to define who is, under the Constitution, a citizen at birth (i.e. natural born citizen). The answer to your question hinges on whether what you describe is a “person born.” Since you use the word “born” in the wording of the question, then I would take it that the protoplasm is born, and what remains is to determine whether it is a “person.” I don’t claim to know what a court would decide on that question.
I would mention, though, that there are many people who assert that some of our presidents, including Bill Clinton, are human-reptoid hybrids. So there is precedent. 😉
Chris, thanks for coming over to comment on this article. Since it’s about you, I think it is valuable to have your comments.
There have been some attempts in Congress to create a statutory definition for NBC although to my knowledge none has made it out of committee.
The main problem with legislation is that it wouldn’t solve the issue. Whoever defined the term would be opposed by others who say that it differs from the original intent of the Constitution and that the Constitution can only be changed by amendment. Professor Charles Gordon, writing in the Maryland Law Review back in 1968 considered the eligibility issue and said: “Possibly Congress might pass a clarifying statute, but the value of such a statute seems dubious.”
It is also inconceivable that the current Congress would pass a bill saying Obama was ineligible, which is what I presume you would want to happen. I think any state law attempting to say who would be eligible to be President of the US would be unconstitutional on its face. Look at U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) for an example of the Supreme Court not allowing states to add requirements for federal office.
I think a Supreme Court decision is the best way to resolve the issue. The problem is finding the right case where the federal courts have jurisdiction.
Professor Gordon suggested that a case brought in state court by a rival candidate in a state presidential primary that was then appealed or removed to federal court was the best route. Suing the Board of Elections of New York is really an excellent approach, but it’s not ripe until a candidate accepted to be on the ballot is challenged.
You’re a loonie.
It would be interesting to see how current birfers would react to a black President who had two citizen parents and was doubtlessly (even for them) born on US soil.
Given their (crazy-)creativity, I’m sure they’d come up with something “interesting” that would make that person ineligible in their bizarro world.
After all, the level of crazy you find in the Sovereign Citizen movement isn’t anything that has a snowball’s chance in hell of catching on with the general public (whereas casting doubts over Obama’s birthplace obviously did during the Trump stunt).
So they would have to come up with something better than “didn’t you know the US is a corporation since eighteen-hundred-barnacle?”.
Maybe Strunk is actually Homsar.
They seem okay with Herman Cain, from what I’ve seen. But then again, he’s the beard candidate for racists who want to appear non-racist.
I’m not sold that the Supreme Court would even take up a birther appeal. The Supreme Court grants cert to a very small percentage of appeals. They certainly don’t waste their time with things they consider decided law. Odds are very high that any birther appeal, even with standing, would be an appeal by birthers, appealing the lower court upholding the definition in Wong. I just don’t see the Justices wasting their time with briefing, hearing arguments, and writing opinions, just to say, “hey idiots, read Wong Kim Ark. Jus soli is the rule.”
My contention from the very start has always been that the birther movement isn’t racist, it’s just an anti-democratic movement that also happens to have racists in it. The birthers are the same people that spent 8 and a half years trying to get Bill Clinton out of office (yes, they started even before he was sworn in). They just refuse to accept that any liberal can legitimately be President, because after all, only conservatives actually love their country (I mean just look at their lapel pins), and liberals really just want to destroy the country. Only conservatives are permitted to govern, and any time a liberal manages to “fool the ignorant ‘useful idiots'” then it is up to those conservatives to “correct” the error by what ever means necessary. They would be doing the same thing if it was Hillary Clinton. They would just be looking for a different angle as to how to remove her from office (re-re-re-visit Whitewater, Vince Foster, the supposed Clinton drug gang, etc.).
I think they’ve thrown him under the bus already, at least from reading the latest WND articles on the issue. Simply because Cain isn’t a birther.
Of course he is. The need of many birthers to claim “I would vote for Cain” is indicative of that, just like people who say “I have many black friends” before/after making a racist statement.
And it isn’t just standing. It’s also the political issue, and whether the courts even have the Constitutional authority to grant the relief requested. Then there is the timing. Would it be possible for such a case to be filed in a state court and make it all the way to SCOTUS before Inauguration Day? Regardless, I agree with you that the Supremes just aren’t interested in visiting this.
The only way to put this to rest forever is to amend the Constitution with a clear and unambiguous definition of natural-born citizen.
i tend to agree with you but you almost make it sound like birfer racism is an accident of statistics.
birfers are part of the racist rump that’s been actively courted and nursed by conservatives since the civil rights era — especially former democrats who suddenly felt themselves without a major party to call home. the anti-democratic movement is by its nature racist and exclusionary. now that they can plainly see the inexorable tide of demographics (ie more brown people) sweeping them into history, conservatives continue to put off the hard work of reversing decades of regression in order to become more inclusive — hard work requiring honest self-analysis — instead choosing to tighten their grip on a shrinking rump by doubling down on racists and other bottom-of-the-barrel nitwits.
“the demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to
men he knows to be idiots.” (hl mencken)
Well said. The ugly undercurrent of racism is definitely there and for many of the reasons you stated.
The decision on the qualification of a President is deliberately given to Congress, rather than the courts under the 12th and 20th Amendments. Not only will the courts not interfere, they should not. An analogous area is impeachment. No court has ever defined “high crimes and misdemeanors” nor will they. It is up to Congress to look at each case, whether it be bugging one’s opponent’s offices or getting a b.j. in the Oval Office and decide.
So, Congress has to look at the term “natural born citizen” and decide whether a given President/Vice President-elect is or is not one. From the examples of Arthur, Agnew, and Obama we can say that people born in the US with 1 citizen parent are. From the Senate resolution on McCain, we can presume that someone born outside the US to 2 citizen parents is one. If Rubio or Jindal get elected we can then learn if someone born in the US with 0 citizen parents is (I have no doubt the answer is yes).
That is the proper way to handle things in a democracy, as opposed to a judicial oligarchy. I understand your point that a prospective candidate should have a clear sense as to whether they are eligible or not before investing the enormous time and money in running. That is what the McCain resolution was designed to accomplish and other candidates in a less than 100% clear situation can seek that remedy.
Agreed. Not that I see any Constitutional Amendment forthcoming or really needed, but that is the proper avenue, if this ever was pursued.
The Pope in cahoots with them eebil Muslins? I think it is based on the once popular image of “the whore of Babylon”. The Waldensians were the first to identify the Pope with it, there was an illustration in Luther’s translation of the Bible and Calvin (not the Lord Coke one) also used the image.
But don’t you guys think that a court ruling would be the proper way to resolve an eligibility issue for a candidate, such as was recently seen with Carl Lewis in New Jersey?
Which then raises the question, since Barack Obama is now both sitting President and presidential candidate, would Republican candidates have the right to challenge his eligibility in court, with the ultimate relief not removal from office but rather removal from the ballot in 2012?
We are talking about the birthers here. They would dismiss any court case just like they have dismissed all the court cases that have ruled against them so far. This is especially true for a ruling by a court below the Supreme Court. They all screamed that all the courts would not rule on the merits. Then, Ankeny ruled on the merits of their argument and, of course, it didn’t count. It is true that a real candidate might have standing based upon the ruling we have had. However, it is not clear that a court wouldn’t decide the issue was a political question and refuse to hear the case. The justicability of this issue is an open question and the Court might very well state that it is an issue for Congress.
That depends what you mean by “resolve.”
If that means getting Birthers to concede, I’m skeptical. I mean, at this point I’d love to see the Supreme Court explicitly define ‘natural born citizenship’ to include Obama (or even to explicitly name Obama in the decision) just to watch the Birther reaction. But my gut tells me that most of them would simply declare that the Supreme Court got it wrong.
Besides, despite my own personal interest, it’s not like the Court has anything to decide with Obama himself. Declaring that a person born on U.S. soil is eligible to be President is like declaring that women are eligible to be President; it’s so universally accepted that I can’t fathom a dispute that would reach the Court. It’s not like there’s going to be a circuit split on the issue.
That said, there are other ways that the Court could end up in the position of ruling on the precise definition of ‘natural born citizenship.’ It will just require a more interesting or borderline set of facts. I could fathom the Court hearing an appeal in Hassan’s case; I doubt that he’d win, but there’s at least an interesting Constitutional argument that he’s making (claiming that the 14th Amendment overturned the NBC clause).
And of course, there are plenty of avenues for lower jurisdictions to hand down rulings on Obama himself. All that requires is for a Birther to file a timely complaint with a state elections board after Obama files to be on the ballot.
But why? Congress has already said he is (by approving the Electoral College vote for him) and they, not the judiciary are the branch that is the authority in this matter. It’s no different than with impeachment-“natural born citiizen” and “high crimes and misdemeanors” are what Congress says they are in a given case. No more and no less.
Ballot access is controlled by the states and the courts do have oversight. IMO, the proper stance is to let candidates (including Hassan) on the ballot, require full disclosure and leave the matter up to the voters and Congress, which is who should make the decision. That may not pplease the lawyers who run things in this country, but that’s too bad.
Even that wouldn’t do it. Don’t you understand? The Birthers would claim that the only reason that the constitution needed to be amended is that so Barack Obama was eligible, when he clearly was not eligible before. They’d then argue that there is no such thing as retro-active eligibility, and therefore, Barack Obama clearly committed election fraud by Presidenting while black, and then tried to amend the Constitution in order to cover up his crimes.
I predicted exactly how the birthers would behave if Obama ever did release his birth certificate. And if there was a Constitutional amendment, this is exactly how the Birthers would try to spin it into their victory.
I don’t think anyone is actually saying or advocating that such an Amendment should go forward at this time in history. I agree – to do so now would be nothing but a political agenda stunt.
As I’ve said, I don’t think such is necessary, period; however I can understand those that just would like one for the mere idea of having clearly defined terms, and I bring up the Constitutional Amendment process merely to point out the most appropriate venue for such matters to be addressed.
If the issue ever came up for Amendment at some future time, it would most likely come up for other existing reasons – such as those that have been proposing for years that birthright citizenship should be restricted to eliminate “achor babies” as NBC. I’m not saying I agree with that stance either – just pointing out a related topic issue that could lead to an official definition for NBC and one which actually had some scholarly discussion long before Obama ran for office.
Personally, I tend to favor Amendments to the Constitution focused on improving the goal of “all created equal” and helping to make this grand experiment of America into a “more perfect union”. I’m very apprehensive about any type of law that actually restricts one’s rights & freedoms. The only time an actual Amendment did that (Prohibition), it was a bad mistake and gave rise to organized crime and an out of control black market and required a further Amendment to remove that failed experiment. I really don’t think as a nation in the 21st century, it would be wise to go down the road of making such restrictive mistakes again.
Dr. ConspiracySeptember 29, 2011 at 9:29 pm (Quote)#
The 14th Amendment uses the phrase “all persons born” to define who is, under the Constitution, a citizen at birth (i.e. natural born citizen).
There is a difference between native born and natural born as defined by the SCOTUS in McCreery v Somerset 1824, Minor and Kim Wong Ark. The defintion requiires the parents’ allegiance to be sorted out before the person born is determined to be either native or natural. As for Lynch v Clark 1844 in NY the loose ruminations of a talkative justice when the matter is not on trial is not germane.
Hey Chris Strunk, did you know that Timothy McVeigh’s parents were both citizens?
So much for the idea that having citizen parents means anything as far as loyalty goes.
One thing I find particularly loathsome about people like Strunk is the way they bastardize what the original Americans fought and died for. One of the things they fought the British for was the idea that who your parents were determined what you could be in life.
Now we have the Strunk’s of the world trying to take us back to feudal England and entitlements of birth,
How much more anti-American can you be?
You are mistaken. There is NO difference between natural born and native born. They are synonymous in US law.
More nonsense, which isn’t surprising since you can’t even cite your cases properly. The 1824 case is McCreery’s Lessee v. Somerville, not McCreery v. Somerset, and it says nothing about there being a difference between native born and natural born. Likewise, Minor does not define natural born citizen. And the third case you cite is not Kim Wong Ark, it is Wong Kim Ark. You should try reading the government’s SCOTUS brief in Wong Kim Ark, as it is quite illuminating. The government conceded that if Wong Kim Ark was found to be a citizen, it meant that he was a natural born citizen and eligible to be President.
By the way, why are you illegally registered to vote at a mail drop address?
No. The courts have nothing to do with deciding who is eligible to be POTUS. The Constitution says so. The propery way to resolve the issue is to pay attention to the Constitution, not give in to those who want to destroy the Constitution while pretending to wrap themselves in its golden glow.
No court has ever said there is a didfference between native born and natural born. Wong Kim Ark defined them the same and and the court has repeating said the President needs to be a native born citizen. Huh. Don’ you people do any research?
“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.” Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, 22 (1913)
“Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native born citizens.” United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 649 (1929)
“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency” Baumgartner v. United States, 322 US 665, 673 (1944)
“The Constitution of the United States provides as a qualification for the offices of President and Vice-President that the person elected must be a native-born citizen.” Ex Parte Garland, 71 US 333, 395 (1866)(Justice Miller Dissenting).
“The alien, when he becomes a naturalized citizen, acquires, with one exception, every right possessed under the Constitution by those citizens who are native born (Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22); but he acquires no more.” United States v. Macintosh, 283 US 605, 624 (1931).
“Citizenship obtained through natuvalization is not a second-class citizenship. It has been said that citizenship carries with it all of the rights and prerogatives of citizenship obtained by birth in this country “save that of eligibility to the Presidency.” Knauer v. United States, 328 US 654, 658 (1946)
But playing Devil’s Advocate, what would happen if Schwarzenegger was on the ballot, got the Electoral College’s votes and Congress approved? It would be a clear violation of the Constitution, would SCOTUS be powerless to intervene if Schwarzenegger’s presidency was challenged?
(I know this would never happen in the real world, just like no President would ever openly say “I am a Satanist, hate America and will make sure you all die a gruesome death” ;-))
Come on Strunk STILL waiting on a response
You DO know what, in law and the Constitution “allegiance” means in this context, don’t you?
Plainly not, it means to be under the control of, and be impacted by the laws of the country you are in AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME.
That is why the ONLY two exceptions to the birth on US soil are children of diplomats and children born of invading military.
These are by their very nature not “in allegiance”.
I suggest you drop the Jesuit insanity and go and read Calvins Case which the Founders and the Supreme Court reference/d when they discussed citizenship and NBC status
Question: Is John McCain a native-born citizen?
Good point, thought I think it is true that no court has ever said McCain would be considered a native or natural born citizen. No court has even addressed the issue at all.
Thanks for the reply. MY UNDERSTANDING of these terms is that natural-born is one born a citizen (jus soli logical or jus sanguinis) and native-born is pure jus soli. In the born-on-soil case they are the same.
One judge in California addressed McCain’s eligibility insofar as to say that he believed McCain was eligible.
Federal judge William Alsup in the case Robinson v Bowen said: “This order finds it highly probable, for the purposes of this motion for provisional relief, that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen.”
Here’s the context and links:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/05/john-mccain-natural-born-citizen
My question was not whether McCain was a a natural-born citizen, but whether he could also be termed a native-born citizen. IOW, since these are two different terms, what distinguishes them, not whether that difference had any relevance to Presidential eligibility.
As one judge said, “probably.”
While we have had one, perhaps more, US Presidents who had alien parents and therefore a precedent for Obama’s case, we have never had a President born outside the United States. The Tribe/Olson report, plus Senate Resolution 511 are strong arguments that McCain is ineligible. There are dissenting voices in the legal community, specifically Gabriel Chin, but most folks in the know say that McCain is a natural born citizen.
You are missing the point. I was not questioning whether McCain was a natural-born citizen and therefore eligible to be President, but whether he is also a native-born citizen. By my definition native-born citizen is a proper subset of natural-born citizen. With this definition McCain would be natural-born, and thus eligible, but not native-born. Obama is both natural-born and native-born.
That’s not exactly true. Generally, the term “United States” has been applied to mean The States of the Union, and the District of Columbia. Otherwise, territories that the United States (such as Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands) would not need their own provisions in 8 USC 1401-1409 to ensure their U.S. Citizenship. I’d submit to you that we have had a Vice President (who is required to be eligible for the Presidency) who was born outside the United States. Charles Curtis was born in the TERRITORY of Kansas, before Kansas was admitted to be a State, and therefore born outside of the United States.
It has been conjectured that hangovers are caused by impurities in swizzle sticks. With the increased importation of practically everything from China everyone should be on their guard.
The McCain situation is complicated for a few reasons. First, one has to reconcile “natural born citizen” being jus sanguinis when the Court has said over and over that there is no jus sanguinis for children born outside the US absent Congressional statute. There is a whole body of law on this subject that doesn’t make much sense if jus sanguinis was built into the Constitution. Second, Professor Chin argued that McCain wasn’t even a citizen at birth as people born in the Canel Zone were not deemed citizens by birth under the 14th Amendment and Chin’s interpretation of the naturalization laws at the time of his birth excluded McCain a well. So, his situation is more complcated than meets the eye.
Agreed.
CERN. The people who gave the world the World Wide Web (by creating the HTML language) and … particles so fast that merely looking at them changes their place in time and space.
And you are saying that they are connected to the Vatican?
Obviously, every particle Strunk ever wrote on the world wide web, has been tampered with on the sly – by the Vatican.
Pope Benedikt is telling Mr Strunk “Seit 5 Uhr 45 wird jetzt zurückgebten. Jeder Widerstand ist zwecklos.”
Obviously, I’ve said too much! 😉
Resistitur vanitati! Sie sind ein Rädchen in der Maschine.*
(*The machine is a NeXT cube used by Sir Tim Berners-Lee to invent the www. The cube was invented by Steve Jobs. Apple bought NeXT and the bite in the Apple takes us back to the Garden of Eden where the circle is complete. Dementia est necesse.)
However, as a Natural Born Citizen of Kansas at the time Kansas adopted the Constitution, Curtis became eligible due to the Article II ‘Grandfather clause’:
Or at least that is another way of looking at it.
He’d be President, Nothing would “happen” because he would probably be no worse than a good number of other Presidents..
The Constitution also says that the candidate who get the majority of electoral votes “shall be President’. The Constitution mentions Congress multiple times when it describes the process of selecting a President. It doesn;t mention any courts (Supreme or otherwise) even once. So, it would violate the Constitution for the courts to interfere at that point.
To give a sports analogy, suppose the referee makes a bad call that changes the outcome of a championship game. We don’t replay the game or award it to the other team. We accept the result and move on.
Er, no. The problem with Curtis is (or is supposed to be, if you believe the Vattellites) that his mother was not a citizen of the United States when he was born. If she had any nationality at all (the Kaw Indians did not consider her Indian enough and forced her and her mother to live on a reservation for half-breeds) it was French.
Of course, the law excluding native Americans from US citizenship was changed later on.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/VP_Charles_Curtis.htm
Being born in a territory was never a problem. Goldwater and, in a sense, Gore prove so. But Curtis may not even have been the first US President born in a territory. Martin Van Buren is claimed by some not to have been born, but only baptized, in Kinderhook/Kinderhoek, but rather inside the part of new York that was then contested by New Hampshire, and called by some “New York Territory” rather than “New York State”.
Both Van Buren and Curtis did NOT speak English as their mother tongue, or first language. Strangely, no point has ever been made about that rather vital cultural trait.
Gosh, I didn’t realize Curtis was an Indian. That does change everything, but I wasn’t considering the deVattel-ist argument, only the born on the soil part.
My comment applies equally to Goldwater in that regard (that is, born NBC of Arizona in what is then Arizona Territory). When Arizona is admitted to the union (that is to say: when Arizona ‘adopted’ the constitution) he became eligible to be President due to the grandfather clause. I accept that this is undoubtedly a novel interpretation of the sequence of events.
There are some who would claim that Gore, having been born in Washington D.C. is the ONLY President or Vice President that was born on U.S. soil. Or is that ‘AMERICAN’ soil, or ‘UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’ soil – I get the distinctions about how to style the name properly to distinguish between the corporate and the conceptual all mixed up all the time. I’d make a lousy sovereign citizen I think.
Anyway, thanks for the history lesson, its good to learn something new every day.
The Kansa-Kaw tribe was a conquered people and did not decide who lived among them and who did not after the The Kansa-Kaw Treaty of 1825. In this treaty, a reservation was set aside west of Topeka for the tribe after the tribe ceded all of their land to the United States.
The United States owned and controlled the all of the land in what is known as Missouri and Kansas. Curtis was born in North Topeka in 1860 on land owned and controlled by the United States for more than 35 years.
Blood quantum is a selection process devised by white overseers of a conquered nation. No tribal member ever recognized another tribal member as half-blood or quarter-blood, etc. A person was in the tribe or they were not. Over the years, tribal nations have acquiesced to the blood quantum selection process and incorporated it into their by-laws.
Curtis was called “the Indian Vice President.” He described himself saying “I’m one-eighth Caw Indian and 100%s Republican.” He was raised on the Caw reservation.
No one is disputing that Curtis was born under the jurisdiction of the United States. If he was born in town, with his paternal grandparents, he was born a citizen. But even if he were born on that granted land that had the word “reservation” in its name, but probably was not a real reservation, he probably was a US citizen too, since his parents ran a profitable ferry business, suggesting they were taxed. Although, of course, it is possible that the only evidence for a birth in town is now to be found in the baptismal record.
Strunk may not like the idea that Curtis was a baptized Roman Catholic – but we know that Curtis made no secret of his Indian beginnings, so he must have been sure no one would challenge his eligibility on THAT account
Whether the Indian tribe was conquered or allied, does not come into it, but whether her parents were taxed when she was born. Here, the odds seem to be that they were not.
I grant you that the senate source does not actually say the Indians kept the half -breeds away. It uses the passive: “a series of fee-simple land grants were set aside for half-breeds”. the culprits could actually have been the US government, but since the sentence started with what the “full-blooded” Indians got in return for what they gave up elsewhere, I naturally assumed that the Indian tribe(s) had not wanted the half-breeds to participate in that.
The fact that Curtis made no secret whatsoever of his blood-line, is a strong argument against the belief that ius sanguinis makes a natural born citizen.
Curtis as an Indian was a natural born subject of the USA that is a special case in that the reservations are under the jurisdiction of the USA not the territory
Wow…you just can’t get anything right, can you? First off, “subjects” of the USA? What exactly is a US “subject”? I suppose one can claim anyone in our borders is a subject of the US to the extent they are subject to our laws (you know, subject to our jurisdiciton), but we generally don’t use the term “subject” to refer to people in the US. Secondly, just the opposite was true. Being native american, born on a reservation prior to the 1920s would mean that you were not a citizen or any kind. The jurisdiction of the US even today is merely concurrent with the tribes, and may have been even less so in the 19th century, technically controlled by treaty (the tribes supposedly being separate nations within the borders of the US). It wasn’t until the 1920s that Native Americans born on the reservation were entitled to US citizenship.
Can we at least all agree that he was “native-born”?
When Ireland changed it’s citizenship laws in 2004, the new law contained a clause that stated flatly that everyone born in the Republic prior to Jan 1st 2004 was a natural born citizen. There is no such thing as retroactive eligibility, at least in a sane universe.
Oops, I spoke too soon. Someone at least is doubting he was eligible. Have you seen this?
http://www.vpcharlescurtis.net/ksstudies/ccfamily.html
Since it is rather difficult to find, I will quote the relevant passage:
“Son Charles Curtis (1/8 Kansa Indian, 1/8 Osage Indian, 1/8 Potawatomie Indian, 1/8 French; 1/2 American-English) (b. U.S. Ks Territory, Jan. 25, 1860-d. Feb. 8, 1936) was baptized as Charolus (Charles) Curtis, the child of Gullielmus (William) Curtis (error – should be Orren Arms Curtis) and Elena (should be Ellen) Papin on April 15, 1860 by Father L. Dumortier S.J.; sponsors were Henry and Susanna Papin at Immaculate Conception Church, St. Marys, Ks; ”
Hm, seems like the baptism certificate claims William Curtis, who is believed to be the grandfather was really the father. And the mother, whom we all believed to be French and Indian, has a Russian name [note to non-birthers: it is probably a clumsy attempt at Latinizing the Christian name Ellen].
Of course, it is all null and void, because of the two letters “SJ” after Dumortier, right?
You do realize that for most of US history, presidents only had a baptism record or even a priest’s inscription in the family bible to prove they were Americans?
Interesting to non-birthers in that genealogy bit, is the short phrase “his only wife to die, the others he deserted or divorced”. So, the father of Curtis was a bigamist; like the father of you know whom.
Forgetting about bigamy and whether Charles’ alleged father got his first divorce in time, the fact remains that according to the rules of the Roman Catholic Church at the time, Father Maes should never have performed that marriage.
Does that mean the marriage was invalid and Charles Curtis was illegitimate, without any ius sanguinis claim to US citizenship? Unless he really was the son of then 60-year old William Curtis, of course
I think the analogy is wrong on two counts.
First, most sports explicitly state in their rules that (or where specificially) the referee’s decision stands “as is”. It’s not a loophole where the authorities simply say “we ignore that”.
Second, there are cases when a game is replayed b/c of a wrong referee decision. (At least in European soccer I’ve heard of a couple.)
A more proper sports analogy would be “if a player is found to be ineligible afterwards, his team loses by default”, but then again this has no analogy in US law either (if the President is found to be ineligible, the VP becomes President, not the runner-up in the elections).
Still I wonder if SCOTUS wouldn’t at least try to interfere if the fictional birther scenario of “an obviously ineligible candidate becomes Prez and Congress does nothing” actually occurred.
(There are other hypothetical scenarios where I sometimes wonder “what would happen if”, say, for example, the Electoral College had voted for McCain or even somebody totally different, despite having a clear Obama majority pledge. Basically, there’s no recourse for that, right?)
I would like to think that the answer is no. When a federal court looks at a case, it assumes that the allegations in it are true when deciding to dismiss on the issue of standing. I would hope that they are even-handed in the application of the law no matter whether the plaintiff is a crank or not.
The Supreme Court removing a sitting president is a scenario like Mr. Moran, a private citizen, arresting the President. It’s not their responsibility. Someone else is charged with that responsibility, here the Congress.
A better sports analogy would be if we are playing American football and someone tries to use soccer rules.
There have been cases of “faithless Electors” who voted for someone other than whom they pledged their vote for (though not, so far, in an election where it affected the outcome). Their votes stood. That seems to me as it should be. Presumably, the purpose of having the Electoral College is to have an additional scrutiny of the candidate chosen by the people. If you only count Electoral College votes that correspond with the popular vote in that state, then there is no purpose whatsoever to having an Electoral College and it should be done away with (I have no problem with that). But as long as you have the Electoral College it has to be allowed to play some role.
i can’t say for certain what they would do, but they should mix out. The courts have no role in the selection of a President. It seems to me that some people (mostly lawyers) want to argue that everything in the Universe should be subject to litiigation. That doesn’t strike me as a good way to run the world. The selection of leaders should be an area where the people are the last word, even if they choose unwisely some times. Once those leaders are in office and exercise power in a way that a contravenes essential human rights, then the courts should intervene. But people have a right to select their leaders free of court meddling.
American Indians don’t recognize bigamy. It’s a matrilineal society where the child is legitimate when recognized by the tribe of the mother as a member. Curtis was an enrolled member of his mother’s tribe, the Kansa tribe; therefore legitimate.
Sorry to get a little off topic by concentrating on the sports analogy aspect but I’m intrigued as to what incidents you are thinking of re the replaying of soccer matches.
I can’t remember any professional UEFA soccer match ever being replayed because of an incorrect refereeing decision during the match. If the referee makes a mistake, it is just tough luck on the side against whom the bad decision went. There is no provision for replays due to wrong decisions during the match.
In European football and even wider within FIFA members there has actually been a big ongoing debate in recent years about the possibility and the desirability of using available video replay technology etc to avoid what has always happened up to now….ie that if a referee makes serious error in one of his decisions during the match there is no way to redress it even if the match result has swung on that incorrect decision.
As you quite rightly state, things which do not concern refereeing decisions during the match such as playing an ineligible player is a different matter and can result in either disqualification of the team or in a replay being ordered.
The above comment should of course be for Magic….daaaayyum, I’ll get the hang of this site’s quote function sometime.
“(At least in European soccer I’ve heard of a couple.)”
http://www.spiegel.de/sport/fussball/0,1518,662281-5,00.html
=> 1993/94 Bayern Munich – Nuremberg 2:1
Was replayed because of the referee awarding a goal to Munich where the ball clearly hit the *outside* of the net. Munich won the rematch 5:0.
I suppose the reasoning was that this was not an “as is” decision (as in “did the ball cross the line or not”) but one completely unwarranted by the facts (as in “the kickoff was just made and the ball is nowhere near the goal, but I’ll call it 1:0 for the home team”).
That’s interesting. To the best of my knowledge there has never been a “do-over” in North American sports. Even in the case a few years ago of the NBA referee who was working with bookmakers and shading his calls to help them, the results stood.
To bring this back to eligibility, every human activity has to have some body that makes final decisions and then everyone has to move on. In the case of presidential eligibility the Constiitution is quite clear that body is Congress. If they say somebody is elligible, then they are. Simple as that. And that means they are a natural born citiizen, whatever the facts of their birth.
If someone thinks Congress made the wrong decision, then they are perfectly free to vote against any member who displeases them. That is the ultimate check in a democracy on Congress acting improperly. What those malcontents are NOT free to do is to spend the next 4 years tying up courts with their nonsense.
Thanks, interesting. It does seem that there have been a couple of replays due to refereeing mistakes in Germany, despite lots of teeth gnashing by FIFA who are absolutely against the practice.
Here’s an interesting spiel about your German football history (your English is a lot better than my German!) and it includes a bit about the Bayer/Nuremberg match in question. Enjoy!
…….and here’s the missing link referred to, duhhh!
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=289153&root=europe&cc=5739
http://www.scribd.com/doc/67542472/NY-State-BOE-Way-Back-Machine
One way or another I get discovery.
One way or another I get discovery.
chris,
discovery? of what?
Non compos mentis?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
How many times is it now that we’ve heard a birther say that? Must be hundreds….
How many times have birthers gotten this magical discovery they pin their delusional hopes on? ZERO!!!
I’ll bet you’re not really sensing the trend, are you Strunky-me-lad.
A website is not an official exposition of the law. IANAL and even I understand that. It doesn’t matter whether the website is precise in every punctuation mark, the website is NOT the official text.
I would think you birther’s would understand that by now, having tried to make some magical complaint about how the image of a birth certificate transmitted over the internet is not the ‘actual’ birth certificate and is therefore invalid for over two years now.
If the State of New York has taken down part of their web site in order to clean it up or to remodel it, that is a good thing. Improving the State’s communication with its citizenry should be a prime goal of every Government. If they get something wrong or word it up confusingly, they should fix that. If the correction helps prevent someone from wasting their and the States time and money by tilting at a windmill that doesn’t even exist, that is a good thing.
I appreciate that everything in your world that happens around you is part of a tragic conspiracy, but consider for a moment that if that is actually true, EVERYTHING is a conspiracy, then in actual fact NOTHING is a conspiracy.
Chris, remember that a Political Party is nothing more that a conspiracy to put ‘their’ candidates into power.
Remember also that your actions are a conspiracy to replace the currently well understood definition of “Natural Born Citizen”, a definition that has been understood and settled law for over 100 years; with a completely foreign, un-American, totally repudiated definition.
Under no circumstances do you get discovery of anything for any reason in any case about this topic.
Does anyone have Mr Strunk’s address? As a New York taxpayer I am going to bill him for my share of the money that the state has to spend on his junk lawsuits. No one cares about your crap, Strunk. But I do care about your wasting the time of judges and state officials who have better things to do.
You can find his address on any of his legal filings, many of which are available on Scribd.
Of course, it isn’t his real address. He is registered to vote at a mail drop address in Brooklyn. There is a high likelihood that he isn’t legally registered to vote. Since his claims essentially boil down to an argument that his right to vote has been compromised, his lawsuits may come crashing down when the Board of Elections becomes aware of his apparent voter fraud.
Thanks, interesting read. Then again, matches being replayed due to outside interference (fans throwing objects) have occurred on higher levels as well. An early 70’s game of Milan vs. Mönchengladbach in the European Champion’s Cup comes to mind (the German team won 7-1 but the game was replayed because a Milan player was hit by a lighter or a paper cup or dunno what).
We had a scandal about a soccer referee working with the mafia as well (a guy named Hoyzer). Of course in many such cases the results must stay for organizatorial reasons (“fait accompli”), e.g. if the championship has already reached the playoff phase.
Sorry for the long sports off-topic , I’ll keep myself shut now. 🙂
Yep, lots and lots of games in many leagues and cup competitions have been replayed due to outside interference such as dart/coin throwing etc by fans. I remember one high profile Glasgow Celtic European Cup game being replayed due to beer can throwing by their fans. They lost the replay.The fans of their great rivals Glasgow Rangers taunted them mercilessly for months singing songs by Chakka Khan (chuck a can).
That kind of replay is of course quite different from matches being replayed due to a refereeing error which I think we’re all agreed are very very rare indeed….mainly because the main football governing authorities, especially the world body FIFA, are dead against the principle of having replays due to refereeing mistakes during the game.
I’ll join you in apologizing for the off topic and will also shut up now.
The BHO electors included Cuomo NYS AG), Paterson (NYS Gov.), Quinn (NYC Council Speaker), Silver (NYS Assembly Speaker) Jefferies (NYSAs 57th AD) and other state officers holding elected office. When the BOE Dem Co Chair is also the Jesuit’s Provincial Lawyer decided to put both McCain, Calero, and BHO on the ballot 2008, despite the NY EL 6-122 that mandates any candidate to be consitituionally qualified to hold office also goes to the NBC requirements shown on its 2008 Website for POTUS qualifications.
Clearly at the Executive session of the BOE, which are secret, discussed the ballot access facts because no one challenged within the 72 hr window leaving access to BOE discretion; and after I duly served the electors in 29641-08 mandamus the 2008 BOE Website becomes a material fact of wrong doing now in 2012. The 2008 website is missing from the archive replaced by “Born a citizen”.
The State officer electors’ emails are prima facia evidence of the conspiracy to violate EL 6-122 as each has a conflict of interest that defeats any claim of client attorney privilege especially now that the “2008 POTUS WEbpage” is now being blocked from view in the archive and an effort is a foot to prevent access.
There is a very difficult set of criteria to get such discovery – I believe that I have met the criteria both to defeat the expected MTD by the State due Oct 12 and enough to convince the Justice of at least in camera review.
An in camera review of what? The e-mails?
You certainly have a propensity for giving convoluted answers to simple questions.
If your case is predicated on New York Election Law § 6-122, then you’ve got bigger problems than discovery. That statute provides:
“A person shall not be designated or nominated for a public office or party position who (1) is not a citizen of the state of New York; (2) is ineligible to be elected to such office or position; or (3) who, if elected will not at the time of commencement of the term of such office or position, meet the constitutional or statutory qualifications thereof or, with respect to judicial office, who will not meet such qualifications within thirty days of the commencement of the term of such office.”
Unless you are claiming that a fourth constitutional requirement exists for President, namely, that he/she be (1) a natural born citizen, (2) age 35 or older, (3) fourteen years a resident in the United States, and (4) a citizen of the state of New York, then methinks this provision merely sets forth the requirements for state office seekers. No state can impose such an additional eligibility requirement.
Better log on to Westlaw for more research, Chris.
There 50 sovereign countries from which the respective legislature of each selects the POTUS representative from the State as a State officer to a Federal government. The Federal government cannot exist separate from the states even under the 14th Amendment. There are no US Gov.elections per se except that held in Congress and at the SCOTUS. All elections for Federal office of POTUS are exclusively held under the plenary control of the respective state legislature.
The term “constitutionally” as applies in NYS EL 6-122 also applies in all state elections for Federal representation from the respective State, including the POTUS as is related exclusively to that election with state law. All elelctions in NY are subject to original jurisdiction of a State Justice, and. the term “constitutionally” is a legal matter of interpretation left to that Justice – not a Federal Court unless by appeal to SCOTUS after the NYS CA. If the Justice decides that the State legislature in the law EL 6-122 for ballot access does not have to apply the US Consitituion also is sticking his neck way out for a reversal above. The Federal Courts are a component of the Vatican under control of the Jesuit General.
As for you Jesuit cyborg types, the 14th Amendment did not amend Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 as to NBC; and does not imply that state action to ban a native born citizen from the State ballot in re POTUS applies, unless that citizen is NBC still appllies and is the controlling question of law in my case. Wednesday will be an interesting day in that I have proven BOE malice with the cover-up of the 2008 page as shown at http://pixelpatriot.blogspot.com/2011/10/new-york-state-boe-website-cover-up.html. I sent the NYS AG a proposed stipulation as attached.
“Jesuit cyborg types”
*facepalm*
Are there any state laws to prevent vexatious or blatantly mentally disturbed litigants from wasting taxpayer funds?
Word salad gibberish. Why does someone with obviously no legal training pretend they are somehow experts on any legal matter. The Supreme Court has said that the 14th Amendment did not amend Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5. It said the 14th Amendment reaffirmed and was declaratory of the same ancient common law rule. For those who seem a little slow, that means they mean the same thing. And yes, the same court said “native born” meant the same thing as “natural born.” In case you are a little slow, the court as repeated this over and over:
“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.” Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, 22 (1913)
“Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native born citizens.” United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 649 (1929)
“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency” Baumgartner v. United States, 322 US 665, 673 (1944)(quoting Luria v. United States”).
“The Constitution of the United States provides as a qualification for the offices of President and Vice-President that the person elected must be a native-born citizen.” Ex Parte Garland, 71 US 333, 395 (1866)(Justice Miller Dissenting).
“The alien, when he becomes a naturalized citizen, acquires, with one exception, every right possessed under the Constitution by those citizens who are native born (Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22); but he acquires no more.” United States v. Macintosh, 283 US 605, 624 (1931).
“Citizenship obtained through natuvalization is not a second-class citizenship. It has been said that citizenship carries with it all of the rights and prerogatives of citizenship obtained by birth in this country “save that of eligibility to the Presidency.” Knauer v. United States, 328 US 654, 658 (1946)
EXACTLY.
The NYS BOE now takes the position that “Native” born is the same as “Natural” born which as referenced by the cases you cite is not the case. Native born is anyone born on US Soil, but not necessarily of two citizen parents – so we are in agreement. Have you heard of the annual “Red Mass” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Mass) to celebrate Thomas More’s Inquisition against non-believers like myself. When More got his head handed to him in 1535 the Jesuits were put in charge of the Inquisition supression of speech as they still are using the same guideliens defined at the Council of Trent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_trent.
Is English your first language? Are you drinking? Those cases clearly state that one needs to be a native born citizen to be President. Thus, native and natural born mean the same thing just like Justice Gray said in Wong Kim Ark and pretty much every legal authority of any significance in our history has said. I am starting to think you clowns are just stupid. And the rest of your word salad is not worth responding to. If you think such makes you appear smart, you are mistaken.
WHAT DO YOU nOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT YOUR CITE?
“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.” Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, 22 (1913)
save that of eligibility to the Presidency
save that of eligibility to the Presidency
Dr. Conspiracy your bloggers are worn out?
It is clear yuo can’t read English. Are you a high school graduate? The court said that naturalized citizen were the same as native born except that only native born were eligible to be president. You are either doishonest of stupid to not know that.
Ballantine:
Maybe it isn’t a “either or” thingy. It could be “and.” Oh, I am going to watch and see how you Obots handle a Vattle Birther.
The head Researcher
It is really astounding that any sober person could argue these quotes mean that a native born citizen is not eligible to be President rather than “naturalized” citizens do not have the privileges of the native born to be President:
“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.”
“Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native born citizens.”
“Citizenship obtained through naturalization is not a second-class citizenship. It has been said that citizenship carries with it all of the rights and prerogatives of citizenship obtained by birth in this country “save that of eligibility to the Presidency.”
Maybe sign language may help you? Where do your read your implied meaning into what was stated? You are a black box my friend.
Well, there is actually more legal authority claiming one needs to be “native born” than there is that one needs to be “natural born” to be President. The Wong Kim Ark court said a “native born citizen” means the same thing as “natural born citizen” as they were both defined by the English common law. No court in history has said they mean different things and I challenge anyone to cite any authority to the contrary. This is a partial list of authority as I could cite a hundred more that says the same thing. Notice this list include most of the greatest legal authorities of the 19th century:
“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.” Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, 22 (1913)
“Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native born citizens.” United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 649 (1929)
“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency” Baumgartner v. United States, 322 US 665, 673 (1944)(quoting Luria v. United States”).
“The Constitution of the United States provides as a qualification for the offices of President and Vice-President that the person elected must be a native-born citizen.” Ex Parte Garland, 71 US 333, 395 (1866)(Justice Miller Dissenting).
“The alien, when he becomes a naturalized citizen, acquires, with one exception, every right possessed under the Constitution by those citizens who are native born (Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22); but he acquires no more.” United States v. Macintosh, 283 US 605, 624 (1931).
“Citizenship obtained through naturalization is not a second-class citizenship. It has been said that citizenship carries with it all of the rights and prerogatives of citizenship obtained by birth in this country “save that of eligibility to the Presidency.” Knauer v. United States, 328 US 654, 658 (1946)
“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
“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)
“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)
“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)
“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)
A non response when you have no response. Please explain how these citations do not say that the only difference between native and naturalized citizens is presidential eligibility. If you can’t understand that means native born citizens are eligilbe, I really can’t help you. Clear you cannot respond with any substance.
OMG, I am going to cut and paste all that stuff in case I need it. But I have found the more legal stuff you say to a Vattle Birther, the more stuff they can mess up. I actually found my first “all by myself” case in a secret book that I am not going to tell anybody about because it would be like a place for all kinds of Vattle Birther misquotes, but the case is called Chin King, and there is where it says something about incorporating the common law stuff into the fundamental law of the land, which is the Constitution. I am going to do a Internet Article on this pretty soon.
The Head Researcher
I take it you mean “Vattel” not Vattle?
I am sooo glad that the State Justice uis going to determine whether or not the founders made a mistake by not stating “Native” rather than “Natural”. It is a New York legal matter pre dating 1788 and goes in part to New York use of Dutch law from 1609 until the Pope’s Jesuits took over in 1668.
New York law and citiation makes the distinction between native and natural, and since the Federal government and various states seceded from New York on January 20, 2009 , ONLY a State Justice is going to straignthen this out.
Native is not dependent upon the allegiance status of at least one parent, whereas Natural requires two citizen parents, which is in conformance with New York law.
Where, exactly, in NYS law is this definition of natural-born citizen?
To give any pale face a headsup in New York Law:
In New York Law “Native” is used only in regards to “INDIANS”
There were 57 documents returned of 57 relevant to your search NATIVE
——————————————————————————–
Consolidated Law
Executive Law § 310
Definitions.
Tax Law § 1210
Taxes of cities and counties administered by state
Tax Law § 1612
Disposition of revenues.
Arts and Cultural Affairs Law § 3.07
State financial assistance for improvement, expansion or rehabilitation of existing buildings.
Economic Development Law § 210
Definitions.
Economic Development Law § 215
Come home to New York program.
Environmental Conservation Law § 9-1503
Removal of protected plants.
Environmental Conservation Law § 9-1701
Legislative findings.
Environmental Conservation Law § 9-1703
Definitions.
Environmental Conservation Law § 9-1705
New York invasive species council.
Environmental Conservation Law § 9-1709
General powers and duties of the department.
Environmental Conservation Law § 11-0103
Definitions.
Environmental Conservation Law § 11-0325
Control of dangerous diseases.
Environmental Conservation Law § 11-0511
Possession and transportation of wildlife.
Environmental Conservation Law § 11-0917
Possession, transportation and sale of wild game and other wildlife.
Environmental Conservation Law § 11-0925
Special dog training areas.
Environmental Conservation Law § 11-1705
Importation, possession and sale of wildlife and game other than domestic and foreign game.
Environmental Conservation Law § 11-1717
Foreign game.
Environmental Conservation Law § 11-2001
New York state bird conservation area program.
Environmental Conservation Law § 14-0105
Definitions.
Environmental Conservation Law § 21-1001
The Great Lakes – St.Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact.
Environmental Conservation Law § 23-1303
Authority to acquire property.
Environmental Conservation Law § 23-1307
Ownership of storage gas and storage rights.
Environmental Conservation Law § 27-1415
Remedial program requirements.
Public Authorities Law § 1020-V
Equal employment opportunity and minority and wome
Public Authorities Law § 2879
Procurement contracts.
Public Health Law § 2544
Screening and evaluations.
Public Health Law § 2549
Due process.
Public Health Law § 4403-F
Managed long term care plans.
Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law § 35.03
State designated heritage areas; boundaries.
Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law § 37.05
Mohawk Valley heritage corridor commission.
General Municipal Law § 6-S
Community preservation funds.
Town Law § 64-E
Peconic Bay region community preservation funds.
Town Law § 64-F
Town of Brookhaven community preservation fund.
Town Law § 64-G
Town of Warwick preservation funds.
Town Law § 64-H
Town of Red Hook preservation funds.
Town Law § 64-I
Town of Chatham preservation funds.
Town Law § 64-I*2
Town of Fishkill preservation funds.
Town Law § 64-J
Town of Northeast preservation funds.
Domestic Relations Law § 75-A
Definitions.
Education Law § 305
General powers and duties.
Education Law § 3204
Instruction required.
Education Law § 3602
Apportionment of public moneys to school districts
Education Law Article 83
INDIAN SCHOOLS
Education Law § 4118
Attendance at post-secondary institutions by Nativ
Education Law § 4308
Admission.
Education Law § 4355
Admission.
Education Law § 4402
Duties of school districts.
Education Law § 4410
Special education services and programs for presch
Retirement and Social Security Law § 176
Definitions.
Social Services Law § 118-C
Family court cases; state charges.
Social Services Law § 141
Burial of the dead.
Social Services Law § 364-J
Managed care programs.
General Business Law § 184-A
Recruitment of domestic or household employees fro
Insurance Law § 214
Report on insurance agent licensing examinations.
Insurance Law § 2103
Insurance agents; licensing.
Unconsolidated Law
Urban Development Corporation Act § 3
Chris Drunk:
No, I meant “Vattle.” its a mnemonic thingy cause it rhymes with “prattle”, which is to talk at length, foolishly. Which I associate with Vattle Birthers.
I am really truly interested in your Dutch law thingy stuff. But you might be “in Dutch” if you do this in Dutch. Maybe you should get ENGLISH down pat, first. Because like The Pope said, “A little learning is a dangerous thing. . .”
The Head Researcher
Now THIS is entertaining. I’m making popcorn.
Under both NY Tax /Trust and rela property law “natural” refers to persons other than “Native” indians. Case law involving Native Indian ownership of real property go further into the difference between native use of by inheritance and ownership of real property.
As for real property to be owned or leased only by Natural born citizens see:
RPL § 18. Mines in Saint Lawrence county. The proprietors of any mines or
veins of lead or copper in the county of Saint Lawrence, may demise,
lease, or rent the same for a period not to exceed twenty-one years from
the date of any such lease, to any foreign individual or company, and
such lessee may take, hold, work, use or convey the same during the said
term, in the same manner and subject to the same liabilities as if such
lessee were a natural born citizen.
A human being or natural person is not livestock or game or an Indian not taxed.
How do you extrapolate that RPL §18 defines natural born citizen to be someone born to 2 citizen parents?
“Head researcher” do you shrink heads and or just feel for bumps?
Phrenology has an unsavory history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
Bouts, a Roman Catholic priest, became the main promoter of renewed 20th-century interest in phrenology and psychognomy in Belgium. He was also active in Brazil and Canada, where he founded institutes for characterology. His works Psychognomie and Les Grandioses Destinées individuelle et humaine dans la lumière de la Caractérologie et de l’Evolution cérébro-cranienne are considered standard works in the field. In the latter work, which examines the subject of paleoanthropology, Bouts developed a teleological and orthogenetical view on a perfecting evolution, from the paleo-encephalical skull shapes of prehistoric man, which he considered still prevalent in criminals and savages, towards a higher form of mankind, thus perpetuating phrenology’s problematic racializing of the human frame. Bouts died on March 7, 1999, after which his work has been continued by the Dutch foundation PPP (Per Pulchritudinem in Pulchritudine), operated by Anette Müller, one of Bouts’ students.
During the 1930s, Belgian colonial authorities in Rwanda used phrenology to explain the so-called superiority of Tutsis over Hutus
Belgium, man, Belgium!
Not sure what your point is. In 1777, New York adopted the English common law and all legal opinions after that were based on English law. In 1844 and 1863 their courts rejected the theory that New York could define who was a US citizen instead saying the English common law was incorporated in the US Constitution. Do you really not know this ? Why do you think anyone you cite contradicts this?
Chris Strunk:
AHA!!! Now I know where all the QUOTE MINING is coming from!!! St. Lawrence County, New York!!!
Well, the way I read this, and I am NOT a lawyer, is that the mines don’t have to be leased to just people born in New York. While this is fascinating, it does not see to be connected to any thing to do with presidents. So it isn’t precedents. I was hoping you would say something about the Invasive Species, because I already wrote a poem:
The Invasive Species
Consider the Invasive Specie
Oft upon six legs.
Answers cause it but to scurry
Questions bring but begs.
The Head Researcher.
I do not have to the law has a basis in inheritance and allegiance that clarifies the difference from natives who want to own and or lease such property. The case law defines use of natural born. The intent of the founders of New York was to prevent the ownership and or control by ANY foreign allegiance over minerals especially COPPER that is the basis for much of our ability to produce a living standard in New York.
New York does not want and foreign allegiance to cloud a title3 in that regard and thata goes to the relationship of a human being to his parents’ allegiance and or corporate relationship. .
I LOVE NEW YORK!
Chris Strunk:
That was fascinating about the bumpy stuff. I always wondered who “Bouts, of Depressions” was. But, I am The Head Researcher of a Think Tank.
The Head Researcher
Well! That TOTALLY explains it!
Oh! You do the inside bumps not the outside?
Shameless fund raising promotion
http://www.trails-end.com/estore/home_alt.jsp?_requestid=291937
Maybe Waffles instead…
Methinks you are not alone.
😯
So did RD Laing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._D._Laing and his buddy Chumpsky. Bumps are like knots too.
Chris Strunk:
Bumps??? No, I do “grinds”.
I was also looking forward to some “Burial of The Dead” law, from your list above. I am guessing, based on past experience with Vattle Birthers, something like:
“All corpses, transported from any licensed Funeral Home, to any Hearse, shall be “naturally borne” by pallbearers, and no shopping cart, dolly, fork lift, or catapult device may be utilized.
Tee Hee! Tee Hee!
The Head Researcher
At one time a Catholic could not be buried near a Christian / Protestant and or Jew and none may be buried with the family dog.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p53kJX64ieQ
NICE ! ! !
Sorry Mr. Strunk, but:
1. Our 50 States are NOT separate sovereign countries. We only have 1 country – The United States of America – with 50 distinct divisions therein. They are not soverign at all and are subject to the federal government. No state can chose to leave the Union. We fought a war about that, remember? It seems you confuse the failed attempts of the Articles of Confederacy with the stricter role of centralized government that our Constitution has. Your sovereign citizen stuff is nothing but claptrap and always has been.
2. There is no Vatican control of our courts or our government. Sorry.
It is hard to take any of your posts seriously when you throw in such nuggets of nonsense.
What exactly is a Jesuit Cyborg anyways? That term at least made me laugh…but still…WTF?
In the matter of allegiance here is one for the Head Researcher-
Mustafa had the bodies of the knights decapitated and their bodies floated across the bay on mock crucifixes. In response, de Valette decapitated all his Turkish prisoners and fired their heads into the Turkish camp with cannon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Malta_(1565)
Take that all up with Justice Schack, he disagrees with your analysis.
Mr. Strunk – Um, you do realize that Catholics are Chistians, don’t you? Protestantism is merely a splintered off faction of Christianity that splintered off FROM Roman Catholicism and then has just endlessly splintered further into varied sects over the past few centuries.
All Christianity has its root and origins itself being nothing but a splinter faith, breaking off from its Jewish roots.
Never were!
In other words, you don’t have any valid answer yourself and can only thow off a glib dodge statement that means nothing in your cowardly response.
Spoken like a true bigot, in denial.
Chris Strunk:
Well, if people make up facts and law and stuff when they go to court, then they will probably lose. Sooo, here is a Irish poem about what I suspect will happen:
There once was a fellow named Strunk
Who legal claims all went KERPLUNK!!!
In the Out House of Law,
With a hearty guffaw,
As the Court washed its hands of the bunk.
The Head Researcher
LOL! I really enjoyed that poem. Of course Strunk has a long history of failed frivolous attempts in the courts, so your poem has already come true on a number of occasions. He’s a broken record of bunk that never learns.
Thar ya go agin wit that thar book larnin.
The difference between presumptive and conclusive presumption is what we are speaking of here especially the difference of defacto and dejure when Dejure = De jure (in Classical Latin de iure) is an expression that means “concerning law”, as contrasted with de facto, which means “concerning fact”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_jure
“born a citizen” is defacto presumptive fact requiring additional evidence of proof while “natural born citizen” is a conclusive presumption as a dejure matter of law.
Chris Strunk:
Thanks for the terminology. It is a de facto, that your de jure is de ficient.
The Head Researcher
I’m enjoying the squeeks today!
What4:
Well, the Vattle Birthers who visit here are pretty easy to beat WITH LOGIC. Kind of. Because sooo far, there hasn’t been any arguing and nothing really to clobber. Just listing of something from New York with who knows what on it. I was just going to watch you Obots clobber him and take notes.
The Head Researcher
You are simply making this up. You never cite any authority to support any of this nonsense. Why do you think anyone will take you seriously?
None of this law cites any difference betwen native and natural born and no one cites that one needs citizen parents. You are just making stuff up.
Show any authority that supports your definition of ‘natural born.” Such does not exist. I pointed out that New York courts looked to the common law in 1844 and 1863. You cannot any authority to the contrary.
BOOM! That was awesome… You are really on a roll today, kudos!
G:
Thank you!!! This Vattle Birther seems different than the others, almost like a Gonzo Vattle Birther, which refers to a style of writing that often has stream of consciousness stuff going on in it among other stuff. This Strunk person, however, is like a Un-fringed Gentian on a very cloudy day.
The Head Researcher
Explain to me how your “theories” could not be used to exclude people born in the US from Irish, Italian, Greek or even simply Jewish parents?
Hey Chris…. won any court cases lately on this subject…. or ever, actually?
No?
None?
Not even one?
Allllllllllrighty then.
However, you obviously hate New York taxpayers, whom you are saddling with the bill for your junk “lawsuits”. I have sent you a bill for my portion. I take cash, check or Visa/MC.
He never could win a case with his gibberish. Funny how people with no knowledge of law, who can cite no authority to back anything they say, actually delude themselves into thinking they can win a case. Typical of pro se litigants who are too ignorant to know how stupid their word salad looks to everyone else. For example:
“born a citizen” is defacto presumptive fact requiring additional evidence of proof while “natural born citizen” is a conclusive presumption as a dejure matter of law.”
It is really sad that he thinks that makes any sense to anyone.
Whilst Squeekers and I have, from time to time had our……differences….. I have to say I am thoroughly enjoying the banter upon this occassion.
As for Mr Strunk’s obsession with Jesuits and the Catholic Church in general, am I the only one for whom there does appear to be the smell of a lover jilted to his bizarre rants?
Possibly too close to or rebuffed from wanting to be overly close to the padre..?
As an Italian-American, I’ve informed the Vatican World Control Police on Strunk and in retaliation they will make sure his subscribed magazines get delivered late and soggy and his cell phone drops one out of every five calls.
For those keeping score, Strunk has filed at least 13 lawsuits in New York State Supreme Court since 1999. Two of them appear to active, although nothing has happened on the one filed in 2008 since March of this year. It looks like he filed pro se in each of his cases, so perhaps he believes that representing himself over and over again has gained him some expertise. On the other hand, we are all familiar with the definition of insanity.
And I’m still waiting for Strunk to explain why he is illegally registered to vote at a mail drop address.
You mean there is such a thing as “presumptive presumption” and “conclusive presumption”? Whooda thunk it?
Is it anything like “the confirmation of the confirmation of the confirmation of the of the…” that the birth certificate denier birthers have been calling for?
Gee, this discussion is almost like deja-vu all over again.
Oh, I thought of another Irish Poem because I figured out maybe where the “Burial of the Dead” stuff in Mr. Strunk’s list was headed. . .
A Presumptive Conclusion
The Judge asked, “You wanna exhume”
Whatever’s in Washington’s tomb???
So that you can look
For an overdue book. . .
You know that you’re NUTZ, I presume!!!
The Head Researcher