Charles Tisdale has appealed his loss in Virginia Federal District Court, to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia.
Tisdale was rebuffed by District Judge John A. Gibney, who said that it was well settled that those born in the country are considered natural born citizens. The case was dismissed for failure to state a claim.
While I’m not one to advocate the filing of frivolous lawsuits or frivolous appeals, still I can look forward to the Circuit Court giving Judge Gibney a well-deserved pat on the back before affirming his decision.
Tisdale thinks that Judge Gibney misunderstood what he was saying and misstated his claim. That’s always a danger when filing a fringe theory, but I think the Judge understood based on the case he cited, US v. Wong.
Mr. Tisdale in his appeal paints a picture of American citizenship, channeling the Framers, but not supporting it with citation. Tisdale says (#71) “The framers never intended for aliens and foreigners owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty to have children in America eligible for the presidency, that right is reserved for naturalized citizens.” [oops, emphasis added]
Of course he cites Minor v. Happersett as his precedent, a misreading of the case. I think that Mr. Tisdale agrees that Barack Obama was born a citizen under the jurisdiction of the United States and qualifies as a citizen under the language of the Fourteenth Amendment; however, Tisdale claims that the citizenship conferred by the Fourteenth Amendment is like the citizenship held by the Framers of the Republic (who were to his way of thinking not natural born citizens because they were not born of citizen fathers), and as such of a class inferior to the natural born citizens envisioned by the original Constitution for future Americans that would have citizen fathers.
Tisdale runs totally off the rails, though, when he ironically and truthfully identifies Ark [sic] “binding precedent.” (#34) I puzzled over that until I reached paragraph #41 that says: “In Minor there was [sic] citizen parents, In Ark there were citizen parents.” Of course, Wong Kim Ark’s parents were Chinese subjects, not US citizens. Tisdale also cites the Slaughterhouse Cases, although to no good effect.
Finally Tisdale claims that neither Republican candidate Santorum nor Romney are eligible to run for President. His objection to Romney is that Romney’s father was not born in the United States, but in Mexico to US citizen parents. Since Romney’s father was born a citizen by statute, and not a naturalized citizen, this bizarre theory matches the quote from #71 above saying that only the children of naturalized citizens can run for President. [I’m sure this is not what Tisdale intended.]
Tisdale says (#93) “…the District Court is in error. There is no basis in law or fact to support the court’s finding ‘It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens’ under Wong Kim Ark.”
I hope the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals considers that carefully, and addresses it definitively.
[Update: the Tisdale dismissal was affirmed without discussion.]
Courts have never recognized “14th Amendment citizen” as a distinct third type of citizenship. On the contrary, the courts have always recognized two types of citizenships, native/natural born citizens and naturalized citizens. “There are only two types of citizens: those who are native born and those who are naturalized.” Schaufus v. Attorney General of United States 45 F.Supp. 61,66 (D. MD 1942); “There are only two classes of citizens of the United States, native-born citizens and naturalized citizens; and a citizen who did not acquire that status by birth in the United States is a naturalized citizen.” Zimmer v. Acheson, 191 F. 2d 209, 211 (10th Cir. 1951)
Moreover, courts prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868 had recognized that there is no legal distinction between those persons born in the United States to those born to citizen parents and non-citizen parents.
In 1844, a judge in New York noted that a child born in New York of aliens parents during their temporary sojourn in that city, returned with them the same year to their native country, and always resided there afterwards. He held that she was a citizen of the United States by noting:
“The term citizen, was used in the Constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the Constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. ” No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. SUPPOSE A PERSON SHOULD BE ELECTED PRESIDENT WHO WAS NATIVE BORN, BUT OF ALIEN PARENTS, COULD THERE BE ANY REASONABLE DOUBT THAT HE WAS ELIGIBLE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION? I THINK NOT. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen. Court of Chancery, State of New York, Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand. Ch. 583, 656 (1844) (emphasis added)
Justice Curtis in his dissent in the Dred Scott decision observed: “The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, “a natural-born citizen.” It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.” Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393 576 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting)
In 1858, a court in New York reaffirmed the citizenship status of those born of non-citizen parents “It is further contended, on the part of the defendant, that the plaintiff himself is an alien. He was born in Ballston Spa, in this state, while his father was a resident of Canada, and returned to his father’s domicil, with his mother, within a year after his birth. . . . In Lynch v. Clarke, (1 Sand. Ch. R. 583,) the question was precisely as here, whether a child born in the city of New York of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn there, was a native born citizen or an alien; and the conclusion was, that being born within the dominion and allegiance of the United States, he was a NATIVE BORN CITIZEN, whatever was the situation of the parents at the time of the birth. That case, if law, would seem to be decisive of the present question.” Munro v. Merchant, 26 Barb. (N.Y.) 383. 400-401, (1858)
In the debates to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Senators noted that children born in the United States to non-naturalized parents (i.e. foreign nationals) were citizens of the United States.
Senator Trumbull observed: “I understand that under naturalization laws children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. That is the law, as I understand it at the present time.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 498 (January 30, 1866)
Senator Trumbull further added “There has been no time since the foundation of the government when an American Congress could by possibly have enacted such a law, or with propriety have made such a declaration. What is this declaration? All persons born in this country are citizens.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 570 (February 1, 1866)
Noted legal scholar, William Rawle, wrote in 1829:
“The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths, accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. William Rawle, A view of the Constitution of the United States (2nd ed. 1829) page 86
As such, the 14th Amendment did not create a new type of citizenship that but rather codified the existing common law principle of Jus Soli that a person born in the United States regardless as to the status of his or her parents is natural born citizen.
In other words, there is no “14th Amendment” citizen who is not either a naturalized citizen or natural born citizen.
Judge Gibney is a fine judge and takes a strong hand in controlling his docket. He reviews all new cases early on and does not hesitate to point out flaws in new filings to the parties or their attorneys. He dismissed this one sua sponte days after it was filed.
Unfortunately, the overworked Fourth Circuit (due in part to well-qualified nominees being held up in the Senate for political reasons) is likely only to issue a terse affirmance in an unpublished (and therefore non-precedential).
Give it a few weeks and I predict we’ll be reading something like: “We have reviewed the record and find no reversable error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.”
Of course the birthers will holler about biased/threatened/bribed judges and may even come up with something semi-creative (“they knew this wouldn’t stand to scrutiny so they didn’t write an opinion.” or “they made this non-precedential as a signal that they were being forced to affirm but they know it’s wrong,”)
By way of clarification, Tisdale doesn’t assert that the 14th Amendment created a third type of citizen; he believes that the original Constitution created three types of citizen: One type is natural born, the second is naturalized and the third type is “citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.” This third class of citizen is not naturalized under the authority of Congress, nor are they natural born for lack of two citizen parents. This, Tisdale believes, is why the exception is added to Article II, because none of the Framers (lacking citizen parents) weren’t natural born citizens (nor were they naturalized).
It has a bit of internal consistency, but no relationship to the common law meaning of natural born citizen used by the Framers.
I do not recall seeing Tisdale’s approach to defining three types of citizen under the Constitution before. Van Irion did try to create a new 14th Amendment citizen in the Welden case in Georgia.
Article 7 in his appeal is inaccurate. Under English Law an alien who becomes a subject cannot be a member of Parliment. Thus his conclusion in Article 8 is also incorrect. He also says after much debate the Framers came up with the “natural born Citizen’ clause.
I deleted that from my article because it was getting long.
I’m not sure that such a disability ever existed… Are you sure?
Suppose for a moment that a 5th generation Muslim couple from Indonesia somehow makes it to one of the shores of our country, not completely but just on the beach. She gives birth to a son and they all go back to indonesia. In your twisted logic the son will be a natural born citizen of the USA???
Well – according to the laws of the US and the interpretations of the State Department for the past 100 years, yes.
They wouldn’t even need to be on the beach. Being born in the “internal waters” is sufficient. Even illegally entering the US isn’t an issue with the State Dept when adjudicating whether or not a child is born a US citizen.
However, it would be exceedingly difficult to prove it without at least staying around long enough to have a birth certificate filed.
but of course
BTW, what relevence does the religion of the couple have?
What a pathetic error ridden work that appeal brief is. I’d guess that no one proof-read it for him. I expect it will be dismissed, or can be dismissed for the errors alone without ever addressing the substance. He still has much to learn about natural citizenship. Today a new slant on it occurred to me, inspired by the fake product called textured vegetable protein, which I liken to the foreign citizenship of one’s parents. It’s not the real deal like natural 100% American citizenship. Read it and learn the truth about the nature of citizenship and its varying degrees of quality.
OBAMA: THE SOY-PROTEIN PRESIDENT/ WHERE’S The BEEF?
http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/a-soy-protein-president/
Well, by the same “twisted logic”, two Muslim US citizen parents could have their child on the beach, move to Indonesia the same day, raise the child a Muslim extremist, have that child return to the US by the age of 30, have him live there another 14 years and then he can become President.
The birfer logic that citizen parents are somehow a protection against the child being “un-American” has more holes than Swiss cheese. See Charles Manson or Timothy McVeigh.
And it’s funny that birferism has obviously left the legal shores of “subject to the jurisdiction” or “owing allegiance” and moved into the muddy waters of “how can we know our President really is the ‘good guy’?”. Not far from claiming “only WASPs need apply”.
They do like to ignore the fact that the President has to be NBC and be elected. Many of them, in these types of statements insinuate that they do not have faith in the American people or the system the founders set up. I have seen some birthers outright state they do not trust the American people to select the correct President. Living in a democracy requires trust in the voters, or it would not work. The founders had faith in the people yet the birthers would rather live in a totalitarian state.
Some patriots they are.
In the case of Blunt-Mountjoy, later historians would contend that the fact that he was an MP proved that being born in Tournai meant he must have been a natural born subject.
However, I have been able to find a passage in Blackstone. I am quoting it in full, so as not be accused by the birfers of Donofridonia that I am hiding something:
”
Naturalization cannot be performed but by act of parliament: for by this an alien is put in exactly the same state as if he had been born in the king’s ligeance; except only that he is incapable, as well as a denizen, of being a member of the privy council, or parliament, &c. No bill for naturalization can be received in either house of parliament, without such disabling clause in it. Neither can any person be naturalized or restored in blood, unless he hath received the sacrament of the Lord’s supper within one month before the bringing in of the bill; and unless he also takes the oaths of allegiance and supremacy in the presence of the parliament.
”
Funny reading these old texts which do not use the capital letter with the word “Parliament”.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships1.html
One can always come up with hypotheticals the framers would have never thought of. To think the framers were trying to come up with an airtight system is silly. The most important framers Like Madison and Hamilton were not concerned about foreigners being elected and thought it improper to say anything in the constitution. Madison said he didn’t think it would happen to any dangerous degree and thought we could regulate the foreign born through naturalization laws. Others feared that foreign born persons would have attachments to their native lands. No one expressed any fear of the native born. I guess we should have picked better founders. What they did do is choose a well-known legal term of art in England that was not in any other body of law at such time.
Under the 1701 Act of Settlement only natural born subjects could serve in the House of Commons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Commons_of_the_United_Kingdom
Today, one doesn’t even have to be a citizen of the UK: Any citizen of a Commonwealth nation or the Republic of Ireland who lives in the UK can sit in Parliament and even be Prime Minister. This includes countries like Canada, Australia, India and yes Kenya.
One Prime Minister was born outside Britain-Andrew Bonar Law was born in New Brunswick, Canada, though he was born a British subject since Canadians were British subjects until 1947 and Law was born in 1858.
The point is that this is not my twisted logic. It is the law of the United States. You may think that it’s twisted and you may not like it at all, but don’t blame me. Blame the Framers and the Federal courts.
In another thread the example was presented of Canadians who live near the US border where the nearest hospital in in US. By the thousands they come to the US just to deliver their children and return to Canada with their US citizen babies — not because they want them to be US citizens, but because that is just the way it is.
To expose the biases of the commenter, of course.
Well, according to the birthers, they weren’t natural born citizens after all. What do you expect?
To add to this example, said US citizen parents could have said child in the US, move to Indonesia, renounce their US citizenship the very next day, and then raise their child as an extremist, and said child could move back at age 30, live for 14 years in the uS, and run for President. Who cares? Said candidate wouldn’t get elected. There are lots of eligible people who you wouldn’t want as President – most felons, for example.
As others have pointed out, nothing works if you don’t trust the voters to not elect said candidate. The notion that the voters can’t be “trusted” to elected the “right” (or should I say “white”?) and therefore only the “right” candidates should be presented to them wouldn’t be out of place in Iran, where their Imperial Council “vets” candidates and removes any that are deemed unsuitable – usually those that don’t show sufficient ideological purity to the current ruling class.
“Suppose for a moment that a 5th generation Muslim couple from Indonesia somehow makes it to one of the shores of our country, not completely but just on the beach. She gives birth to a son and they all go back to indonesia. In your twisted logic the son will be a natural born citizen of the USA???”
Yes. The but twisted logic is “5th generation Muslim couple” bit – so are you saying that if a “5th generation Lutheran Couple from Norway” came ashore and did the same thing that the answer would be different? The answer would be the same at either high tide or low tide as well. Is there a 5th Generation Rule in vattel we should know about?
Why do you think Birthers have LOST 90+ cases in a row and still not learned a thing? You cases fail because they are based in ignorance, wishful thinking, and plain stupidity.
Already making excuses for your side losing? Typical.
By your logic, the fact that the birthers lose all their cases must mean that they are all incompetent. Hmmm, that would be right.
If you look at history, the NBC clause has actually been quite useless as a practical matter. I don’t think there has ever been a naturalized citizen who stood a good chance of winning a presidential race but for the NBC clause. Schwarzenegger was popular in 2004, but he wasn’t going to challenge an incumbent of his party and by 2008 he was pretty unpopular. So who has the clause ever stopped? I suppose Granholm could be a possible contender in 2016 if she were an NBC. So this great clause that the birthers are prepared to fight to the death for has, in its entire history, perhaps prevented someone who came from Canada as a young child from maybe, possibly being President. The Earth trembles at the awful threat a Granholm presidency would represent.
A new front in the birther quest. The Constitution apparently forbids vegetarians from becoming President.
First, what is the relevance of the hypothetical couple’s religion, their country of origin, or the fact that they only make it to the beach?
Second, under the laws of the US, it’s not twisted logic, it is clear that that child is a natural born citizen of the United States by very straightforward, declarative logic.
How about the same child, if his parents were instead Jewish and from New Jersey, and took a boat to that very same beach and gave birth? That child is a natural born citizen for the same reason as your hypothetical baby.
There goes Cory Booker.
I think the point is that people who are not natural born citizens were never considered as presidential candidates in the first place. There are plenty of relatively-obscure people who became President or a party nominee for President. Lincoln was just a one-term congressman. If he had been born in Canada, no one today would be talking about what a wonderful President he would have been but for his ineligibility.
I think that there are any number of naturalized citizens who are at least as well-regarded in the public eye as some historical major-party candidates for President.
Folks like Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger come to mind.
How do we know he wasn’t?
That’s the way our Constitution is written. Don’t like it? Write to your Congressman and both Senators.
US Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 3: “…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Look into it.
Just as a side consideration, naturalization may be a self-selecting disqualification, such that we never hear of various potential candidates because they early on realize they would not be eligible and divert their ambitions elsewhere. It could be many viable presidents have been lost to this requirement.
That aside, your deeper point, Scientist, is very telling: all this “sturm und drang” is not about “earth trembling” matters. The most traction it ever had was when busy people, going about their lives without time to give it full attention, thought it might be a matter of fairness and fishiness: that’s the rule, why not just release the long form, etc. And then oh, okay, he did that, on with life.
I personally know some birthers (thus explaining my own making a small hobby of the topic). One such dropped the matter after the long form (though still rails against the president). Another is totally classic birther who will never let it go and considers it a matter of Defcon 1 (though as of yet no signs of two-citizen-parent derangement).
I find the difference between the two has more to do with their ideas of conspiracy than anything else. To the birther, the b.c. is one layer of the strudel that is the conspiracy of the New World Order, that *they* hold this lie over the president so that he will do their bidding. The one who let the birth certificate issue go just thinks the president is a socialist (he was born here but he “palled around” with socialists).
Both tremble the earth with their fears and hatreds, and consider themselves right to do so, and the rest of us blind, but one thinks we are foolish if we re-elect the President after he is proven himself a socialist (e.g., healthcare), the other thinks we are fools for not seeing how we are being set up for the slaughter.
I beg your pardon, but TVP is a very real product, and some, such as myself, prefer it to meat and don’t just consider it a “fake” substitute. I consider meat a poor substitute for TVP and soy protein.
But if it makes you feel better to make fun of it, by all means proceed… 😉
Well, birtherism originated (long before any wild conspiracy theories about “everyone’s in on it” were spun) with the “Obama fooled the authorities by hiding his Kenyan birth” meme. So their concern is that people might elect someone “un-American” (as the child from my example) who was simply clever enough to hide said “un-Americanism”.
Still, the gist of my example was that “citizen parents” are as weak a “protection” against that as can be. After all, the parents of many lunatic serial killers were likely quite nice people and true blue Americans.
In fact that is what many birthers claim should happen – some instance that “vets” a candidate in such a way as to say “you may have voted for the guy, but we’re not giving him the nuclear codes, ever”.
(And I didn’t even say a word about those birfers who claim people who vote for the “wrong” candidate should have their voting rights removed. *sigh*)
Courts have never recognized “natural born citizen” as being classified as an ubercitizen or super-citizen in that the natural born citizen has special endowed legal powers far superior to those of mere mortal native born citizens.
Courts have never distinguished native born citizens from natural born citizens.
“There are only two classes of citizens of the United States, native-born citizens and naturalized citizens; and a citizen who did not acquire that status by birth in the United States is a naturalized citizen. Zimmer v. Acheson, 191 F. 2d 209, 211 (10th Cir. 1951)
“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)
In Luria v. United States, 231 US 9(1913), the court observed: Several contentions questioning the constitutional validity of 15 [Naturalization Act of 1906] are advanced, but all, save the one next to be mentioned, are sufficiently answered by observing that the section makes no discrimination between the rights of naturalized and native citizens.” Id at 24.
The Luria court further noted that a native citizen is the same as a natural born citizen: “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.(internal citations omitted)(emphasis added) Id at 22
Similarly, the court in United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 649 (1929) observed: “Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do NATIVE BORN CITIZENS.” (emphasis added)
As such, the drafters of the Constitution never intended to create a “SUPER CITIZEN” who was different from a native born citizen. If they had the courts would have recognized three classes of citizens: natural born, native born and naturalized.
And your “theories” are 100% nonsense.
That situation just made me think about a current article dealing with our Southern border:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-radio-and-tv-17098719
True story, the parents of Jeffrey Dahmer once had a house just a few blocks from a place I used to work at. A coworker bought that house from them. By all accounts from them and the locals, they were nice people. I had been in that house (when the coworker owned it) several times.
I believe it’s pretty straightforward. By that scenario we have a brand spanking new natural born citizen of the US. But also by that scenario, the only real benefit of being a natural born citizen (as opposed to a naturalized citizen) of the US is the ability to run for President or Vice President. There would be a 14 year required residency as well as convincing a skeptical electorate.
However, the problem with this scenario is how one would prove birth in US territory. If it were a commercial vessel, then there would likely be witnesses who could attest to the circumstances (who and where) of birth. If there happened to be a medical professional among them, it might also be different. I just would find it difficult to imagine that if (let’s say) someone beached a boat in Half Moon Bay, California, proceeded to give birth, and took off without at least going to the competent authorities to register the birth. I think that anyone who returned back to the country of original without registering the birth is going to have a difficult time coming back and getting a court order on the basis of witness statements.
By the way, I got curious as to how they register births in San Mateo County – where Jon Huntsman, Jr. was born. Apparently either the County Clerk-Recorder or the county Dept of Public Health can issue birth certificates, although the health dept doesn’t issue any for births prior to 1966. The health dept charges $2 more for birth and death certificates.
http://www.smchealth.org/sites/default/files/docs/PHS/Form%20-%20BC_DC%20Public%20English%20Application%20020912.pdf
http://www.smcare.org/care/documents/VR-3%20Application%20for%20Certified%20Copy%20of%20Vital%20Record.pdf
There was an interesting case last year of a woman from the Phillipines who deliberately flew to the US so that her child would have US citizenship. She didn’t make it to the US before she gave birth, so I don’t know if Customs would have turned her away (it’s happened before with clearly pregnant women). She gave birth during the flight and there is some controversy over whether or not she can claim US citizenship for her child. The difficulty is in determining where they were at the time of birth. Clearly if they were over international waters, the child would not be considered a US citizen at birth.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/09/20/woman-gives-birth-on-philippines-to-sfo-flight/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/21/baby-born-on-plane-nation_n_973437.html
Re: “Suppose for a moment that a 5th generation Muslim couple from Indonesia somehow makes it to one of the shores of our country, not completely but just on the beach. She gives birth to a son and they all go back to indonesia. In your twisted logic the son will be a natural born citizen of the USA???”
Dr Conspiracy has answered this very well.
But let me add that the Constitution does not bar criminals from becoming president, so long as they are Natural Born Citizens. So, Jeffrey Dahmer is eligible to be president. What is surprising is that someone would think that the Constitution would or should protect us against Jeffrey Dahmer becoming president or a sixth generation Muslim from becoming president. Why should it? If you don’t want someone to be president, vote for the other candidate.
In any case, the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and includes ALL who are born in the country except for the children of foreign diplomats, etc. And that is the meaning, and a desire to bar a sixth generation Muslim from becoming president does not change it.
Bush has a misdemeanor conviction for DUI. It did not preclude him from being president, unfortunately:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/celebrity/george-w-bush-dui-arrest-record
Remember during Shrub’s first term, he had bruises on his face. He said he choked on a pretzel. Nonsense – he was drunk. And his wife killed a classmate, when she ran a stop sign: http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/laura.asp
Posts like “the muslims coming to the beach” exemplify how many people are ignorant of their own country’s laws and foundations. Their long-held status quo has been challenged and they don’t understand how or why.
It’s SO hard for them to understand that they don’t even believe the Constitution when they read it with their own eyes.
It’s also the basis for all the “Take our country back” talk, but they don’t even realize they’re fighting laws long in place.
It’s a bit like the reverse of a person hearing a cover of a song or seeing a remake of a movie and thinking it is an original work. ie: “You mean this is nothing new? I had no idea!”
Birthers seemed shocked to learn grade school level civics when they’re adults.