Sam Sewell, who has so far refused to let anyone look at his original Mensa pin, reports over at The Steady Drip blog that another ballot challenge has been filed in Florida, this time by the author of the “Do It Yourself Ballot Challenge Kit,” Jerry Collette.
Collette’s theory is that if enough ballot challenges are filed, some judge somewhere will be sympathetic (“honest” to use his words) and then the following strategy could be completed:
- File a complaint,
- Obtain discovery of relevant evidence,
- Move for summary judgment, and
- Win.
Up until now, over 100 cases challenging Obama’s eligibility have gotten stuck at the first step. I guess to Mr. Collette that means a fairly large number of dishonest judges. Still, there are lots more judges out there. After all, Obama challengers found one county sheriff…
Collette’s case is filed in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pasco County, Florida. The complaint is what I call the “full birther” complaint: alleging that Obama was foreign born, that he lost his citizenship if he ever had it, and that it doesn’t matter anyway because his father wasn’t a US Citizen.
Collette makes the factually false statement related to his first claim:
At the time of defendant Obama’s birth, Hawaii birth certificates could be obtained for people who were not actually born in Hawaii.
He makes the factually false statement related to his second claim:
dual citizenship is not allowed for citizens of the United States
Just for good measure, Collette throws in the Connecticut social-security stuff and the selective service registration.
Collette correctly says in support of his third claim:
Accordingly, under the British Nationality Act of 1948, defendant Obama was born a British subject, a status which, plaintiff is informed and believes, defendant Obama has never officially disavowed.
However, Collette fails to take into account that the section of the BNA 1948 that made Obama a Commonwealth Citizen was repealed 31 years ago. Beyond this, Collette doesn’t develop any rationale why someone in Obama’s situation is not a natural born citizen.
Collette sues under a contention that his rights have been violated, specifically, he is deprived “of his right to not be governed by office holders who do not meet the Eligibility Requirements.” However, he cites no precedents that such a right exists. In his second cause of action is that “[t]he defendants owed a duty to the plaintiff to ascertain that defendant Obama meets the Eligibility Requirements” and again no legal precedent is given as to why such a duty exists, or why it is owed the plaintiff.
After reading the complaint, I am at a loss to understand how this lawsuit will not meet the same summary dismissal that has met the other eligibility challenges.
Update:
In an email exchange with Mr. Collette, he concedes that the US does indeed allow dual citizenship. He also notes that it was not his intention to fully argue the case in the complaint, but rather in a future motion in opposition to an anticipated motion to dismiss from the defendants. A sample motion exists, and will be the subject of an upcoming article.
Read more:
Well, considering both the vast history of BIrther ineptitude and the laughably poor litmus tests Birthers continually apply to folks they consider their “leaders” and “experts” and “lawyers”, I am not at all surprised that they would come forth with a flimsy pile of steaming cr@p.
That is, after all, the quality of work we see from people that Birthers hold up and portray with such designations as “noted legal strategist.
This whole latest desperate Birther strategy is nothing more than a different flavor of their standard “throw anything against the wall and hope something sticks” approach.
…Which has worked out “so well” for them over the past three and a half years…*rolls eyes*
In other words, Epic Failers keep failing, epically.
Does Plaintiff stipulate he actually employed the Do It Yourself Ballot Challenge Kit in the construction of his claim? I hope so. If this were a blatant two-fer (challenge + commercial), it would do wonders for its credibility. And the impending double fail would make me smile twice as wide!
Full text of Florida Ballot Challenge – IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PASCO COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA
[The following link has been edited by request of Mr. Collette to point to the right page. Doc]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-9Lko47L9qE6x5CxB_B8YEzBJQaTnZug8seTTdWflDU/edit?pli=1#heading=h.l2k2zx5qgsm4
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2012/03/obamas-agents-false-spin-on-ins-and.html
Obama’s Agents False Spin on INS and Citizenship – Native born and Natural Born Have Different Status and Definitions
As their lies continue to be exposed, Obama’s agents are getting desperate to prove their messiah is eligible to be President. Recently they have begun spreading the lie that Native Born and Natural Born are the same thing. The INS documents below prove otherwise.
Sewell writes “their messiah ”
to most people that have a Messiah that Messiah is Jesus
the only people referring to Obama as messiah are RWNJ’s
now why do you believe Obama is the Messiah, why do you worship him
or is it that you are just using a worn out and discredited RWNJ talking point
Thank you for visiting and sharing!
Sam, you are simply confused.
Unlike the Birthers, we simply have not been spreading any lies, nor have any interest in doing so. So there is nothing to “expose” here. Nor is there any desperation, as we simply don’t have to do anything. Every day we wake up, Obama is still President. Perhaps that might change next January…but more than likely, that will remain reality until 2017. And we don’t have to lift a finger do make that happen. Well, maybe bother to vote in November, if we chose to keep the current structure in place, but that is the extent of it.
We don’t have any elected “messiah”, simply very human and real options to vote for in an election to lead this country. The only folks that ever use such an inappropriate term as “messiah”, in reference to the very human President Obama, happen to be the sad bizarre Cults of ODS sufferers, such as you BIrthers.
One can only conclude that none of you are actual Christians, as you wouldn’t be so eager to blaspheme your own faith with such a clearly derogatory intent, if you actually were people of faith.
Again Sam, you are simply confused. By “they” I guess you mean the courts, as they are the ones reminding you how NBC operates in our laws…. But I take it you didn’t like what GA, VA, IN and AZ have told you.
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/recent-rulings-definition-natural-born-citizen/
Too bad. If you are lucky, you’ll get to hear that again in FL, but I suspect your flimsy case might not even make it far enough to be worth their time in wasting enough ink to spell that all out for you. I hope for your sake that they do, but I realize they might simply dismiss your latest flight of utter frivolity with a few sentences.
But yeah, in general, the legal and historical record of the US are full of dozens upon dozens of references where the terms Native Born and Natural Born have been used interchangeably and also where the intended meaning of Natural Born was discussed:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/natural-born-quotes/
Again, poor Sam, you are terminally confused. For one thing, the “INS documents” have ZERO practical connection to the definition of the term NBC.
However, the do an excellent job of completely DEBUNKING all of your silly Birther fantasy “born in Kenya” scenarios:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/corsi-cold-case-posse-ins-search-looking-pretty-stupid-about-now/
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/born-in-africa-myth-crushed-under-weight-of-complexity/
So yeah, I get that it is a hard and painful time for you Birthers out there. The only thing you folks have ever succeeded in is uncovering new evidence that further debunks your myths and creating even stronger case law in support of Obama’s NBC status.
So yeah, thanks for visiting and providing an easy laugh! Good luck with your latest legal pursuit. I’d tell you out the outcome in advance, as there are now over 199 rulings that consistently tell us how this will all end… but I realize you prefer to remain terminally confused in the dark and be “surprised” in those rare moments where you get to interact with reality. Set aside some room in your legal fund budget for a box of Kleenex for yourself…just sayin…
Oh, one further helpful hint, since I feel so sorry for you:
There is no need for anyone to go through a “repatriation process” if they never lost their citizenship via marraige in the first place.
As we’ve seen the FOIA passport records for his mother and even his step-father, those records clearly show Ann Dunham as an American citizen and ZERO evidence of her having ever lost it.
Not that such a fantasy scenario about Ann’s marraige would help you at all anyways, as it would still have no impact or ability to strip Obama’s American NBC rights away from him…
So, again, you’ve simply wasted time going down a path of utter irrrelevance…and with nothing to show for it. But hey, keep flailing away and tilting at windmills! It might have zero connection to reality, but at least it keeps you occupied.
This has all the earmarks of the Underpants Gnomes strategy:
Step 1. File challenge.
Step 2. ?????
Step 3. Obama dragged in chains from the White House
In fact I feel the Gnomes’ strategy makes more sense than the Birthers’.
Thanks to the invention of Velcro you can now dress yourself and go outside.
Agreed! Sadly, so much of RW thinking seems to be nothing more than an Underpants Gnome strategy these days…
I keep seeing these articles and comments that say things like “The Immigration and Naturalization Service has published policy on such issues…” followed by some citation of Interpretation 324.2. The Parakeet did it, I’ve seen it pop up in all sorts of comments, and now I see this Dripster’s doing it. Haven’t they figured out that the Immigration and Naturalization Service doesn’t even exist any more? Besides which, the questionable language of the interpretation doesn’t appear in the statute being interpreted. The statute only refers to “native-born or naturalized citizen of the United States” and “citizen of the United States by birth”. The phrase “natural born citizen” doesn’t appear at all in the statute being interpreted. I also have to wonder why he’d say “This citation was scrubbed.” It’s right here:
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html
And here’s the statute:
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-11261/0-0-0-31866/0-0-0-31877.html
Whether a DIY doghouse or lawsuit, this one fails for the same common reasons:
Poor plans and poor construction.
IT won’t stand, yet HE wants standing.
Pity him because he’s obviously functioning at a very low level.
The poor guy is shopping both the craziest theories and the ones most easily debunked.
100% angst with no legal fillers.
I’d also suggest his “noted legal strategist” is his own mental composite of Donofrio (B.S.) and Taitz (B.S.C.)
If US citizens are not allowed to hold dual citizenship, then why was I at college with a chap who held a US passport and a British passport?
I cannot imagine any court will look kindly on a challenge that in essence says “I know there’s some reason why he isn’t eligible, I don’t really know what, but here are half a dozen mutually exclusive possible ideas with no real evidence to back any of them up.” That seems to be a really bad sort of a plan if you want to be taken seriously. By anyone at all.
Not a single denial of the possibility that he was born across the river from Detroit in Canada. Easy access by both a bridge and a tunnel. No passport required back then (not until 2009). Crossings weren’t even tracked. Where is Mitt’s Michigan b.c.? Or his Ontario one? His family still own that house in Canada, which is where Mitt was going with the dog on the roof. Come on, Sam, defend your guy!!
Let us look at some simple errors:
1. Spelled the name of the defendant incorrectly (corrected later): Is it hard to find the President’s name somewhere to check the spelling?
2. Non-redacted SSN: Taitz must be the legal strategist. And, BTW, the court did notice the un-redacted SSN (there is a Docket in the docket).
3. Demanding Obama and the State Executive Committee of the Democratic Party not print Obama’s name on a ballot (or prevent count or use on a write-in). Neither Obama or the Democratic Party have control printing ballots collecting write-ins. Failure to state a claim on which relief may be provided. (note, he is not the nominee so, the issue is not yet ripe…. though the birthers are).
I love the way so many birthers think that President Obama might still have British citizenship since, in their interpretation, you can’t lose it unless you tell the British government you don’t want it any more. Of course, they ignore the Kenyan Independence Act of 1963, which states that those who are entitled to Kenyan citizenship and take it (Such as the president’s father), are no longer British citizens. Thus, President Obama lost his British citizenship when kenya gained independence, and he lost his Kenyan citizenship two years after he didn’t affirm it by age 21. He is now only a US citizen, and a natural-born citizen to boot.
Isn’t there a legal term for “making contradictory claims bars the plaintiff from relief”? As in “first I claim it was a private sale and when the court tells me that doesn’t entitle me to the relief I seek, I switch to claiming it was a commercial sale”?
In conspiracythink, I would have to assume somebody wants anyone who dares challenge Obama to expose himself to sanctions. 😉
I had noy realized that the founders were Obama’s agents. Learn something new every day.
On closer examination, I believe he intended to say “Noted legal tragedist”. Just a little dyslexia got the better of him. Or perhaps “toned eagle trapezist”. Now yes, I know neither trageidst or trapezist are not word, but perhaps Mr. Sewell does not?
Or perhaps he is indeed a noted legal strategist – but the notes taken of him all revolve around how poor he is at the whole legal thing, strategy not withstanding. The possibilities are endless!
Simple fail, Sam Sewell. IF a trial court were to rule against Obama’s elegibility to run for re-election, an appeals court would almost immediately put that ruling on hold and then soon afterward, reverse it. The birthers then might try to appeal up chain, but no higher court would rule in their favor.
It is the height of foolishness to expect that if one lone court were to rule in the birthers’ favor, that would outweigh the myriad of others that have ruled against them.
“If US citizens are not allowed to hold dual citizenship”?
have we checked out saint-orum’s ITALIAN citizenship?
Love it … how would the US control whether or not another country considers a US citizen a citizen of their country as well?
Not recognizing /= “not allowing”
Is “not allowing” a euphemism for criminalizing?
Oy, the grade-school logic and language.
“Oooooooooh, Jeffefrson went and got hisself a Fraunch citizenship. He gonna be in truhhhhh-bullllll ….!”
A section on dual-citizenship has been in every US passport book for years.
http://www.chinasmack.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/difference-between-china-us-passports-07.jpg
The “desperation” of which Sam Sewell speaks actually is the desperation of the birthers. With the election just seven months away, they are terrified at the prospect of Obama being re-elected, hence this frenzy to file ballot challenges. And they have good reason to be frenzied. Obama’s approval rating exceeds his disapproval rating in every major poll but one, and a poll released by Suffolk University yesterday has him beating Romney by ten points.
In a new Washington Post/ABC News poll, Obama’s favorability rating is 53% favorable, 43% unfavorable. http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_fav.htm In the same Poll, Romney’s favorability rating is 34% favorable, 50% unfavorable. http://www.pollingreport.com/r.htm#Romney
I do admire the simplicity of Mr. Sewell’s plan, but a good singer with the same plan can’t get past number#2 ( i.e; be discovered as relevant) on American Idol.
What chance does an error filled DIYpetition really have?
And Mr. Sewell; would you explain the difference between native and natural born citizen. If you get converts here, then maybe you have a chance in court.
The vitriol coming the Birthers has a lot to do with their frustration with the Republican Party candidates completely ignoring Obama’s eligibility (non-)issue and getting ready to nominate a non-Conservative, non-Christian.
Oh sewell. This fantasy, indulging in the easy comfort that any candidate you don’t like is simply “ineligible”. *POOF* That’s not the unacceptable candidate disappearring …. it’s your head inserting itself into the sand.
If you don’t like Romney, Santorum, Obama, or Gingrich, or Paul, or whoever, then go out and do something constructive about it!
This frivolous litigation in Florida is counter-productive, not constructive.
Do you mean “scattershot” instead of “shotgun?” Or maybe I don’t get the reference.
The Supreme Court has held in numerous cases that a native born citizen is a person who is born in the United States and is eligible to be President and is therefore a natural born citizen.
“A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an act of Congress, but the act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native.” Osborn v. Bank of United States, 22 US 738,827 (1830)
“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) (Miller, J., dissenting)
“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)(internal citations omitted)
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.”“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” United States v. Macintosh, 283 US 605, 623-624 (1931)(emphasis added)
“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, 1. Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163, 165 (1964)
In another Supreme Court case, Baumgartner v. United States, 322 US 665 (1944) Justice Frankfurter equated native citizen with natural born citizen when he wrote:
“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” Id. at 673
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)
As such, the Supreme Court has recognized that native citizens are eligible to be President and therefore native citizens are natural born citizens.
One thing I have noticed over the years is that anybody who claims to be a “strategist” or is introduced with a title of “strategist”, be it in business, politics etc. is invariably a bloviating bullshitter.
Real strategists are too busy strategizing (and getting paid for it) to run around proclaiming their status as strategists.
It seems to me that “natural born citizen” is a superset of “native born citizen”, at least currently. There are 2 types of natural born citizens: those born on U.S. soil under jurisdiction (no Congressional action required) and those persons who have citizenship at birth without action of Congress (naturalization) who are not born on U.S. soil. An argument could be made that McCain is one of these. It is also possible that some court in the future will find that this difference set is the null set.
The important point is that President Obama is both a native born citizen (by virtue of his birth on U.S. soil) and a natural born citizen (by virtue of his citizenship at birth w/o Congressional action).
so WAIT, now YOU CAN hold dual citizenship?
“In an email exchange with Mr. Collette, he concedes that the US does indeed allow dual citizenship. ”
what happened to the “allegiance” thingy?
did they change their (mindless) minds BEFORE or AFTER the (dual citizenship) issues of saint-orum and “mitthers” arose?
You have step 2 discovery followed by step 3 summary judgement. If this came from Colette, it seems to show a lack of understanding of what summary judgement is. Summary judgement is only granted as a matter of law based on undisputed facts. So it can’t depend on evidence. So why have discovery first?
Disclaimer: IANAL.
A Naturalized citizen is one who was not born a citizen but gained his citizenship later. There are only 2 types of citizens in this country. Either you’re born or naturalized.
So what else is new?
You are wrong. There are also senior citiizens. You can”t be born a senior citizen, but many get to become one with time.
The Law of the Land codified in the US Code clearly spells out who is a “Citizen of the United States at Birth” which is synonymous with the 18th Century term of art, “natural born citizen.”
Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part 1, 1401: “Nationals and Citizens of the United States at Birth:” http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
You are a piece of work. It’s the old “If you throw enough excrement at the wall, some is bound to stick”. Good luck with that.
Here is another story from AZ regarding their “Birther Bill”.
http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/2012/03/26/20120326gop-lawmakers-looking-revive-birther-measure.html
GOP Lawmakers Pass ‘Birther’ Bill
Missouri Birther Bill Gets Preliminary Approval From Lawmakers
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/28/missouri-birther-bill-lawmakers-preliminary-passage_n_1385575.html
a “noted legal strategist.”
Well, he doesn’t say that he’s noted a as good one, Maybe he’s noted as a very, very bad one…
As anyone who’s been hanging around this blog for a while knows, President Obama signed what is in effect an “affidavit” to get on the ballot in Arizona in December of 2007.
He signed a notarized statement of the state of Arizona attesting to the fact that he is “a natural born citizen of the United States.”
I’m sure that he would sign such a statement again in 2012.
Here’s a link to a scanned copy of what he signed:
http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/arizona-election-nomination-papers-barack-obama-signed-statement-he-is-a-natural-born-citizen2.pdf
Not sure what you are talking about Donna….there’s never been any contention (from birthers or anyone else) that US citizens cannot hold dual citizenship. Birthers who base their argument on dual citizenship aspects (albeit a duff argument) are simply arguing that being born with an entitlement to citizenship of another country brings an American citizen’s allegiance to USA into question enough to disqualify them from being considered a natural born citizen.
You might be confusing this with the birther argument (another duff one) that Indonesia forbids Indonesians to hold dual citizenship which birthers think means that Obama, when he became an Indonesian citizen, would have first been required by Indonesia to renounce his US citizenship (something of course which could not possibly have happened either with or without his agreement while a minor).
One thing I have discovered is that the Birthers move the goalposts every time one of their reasons for Obama’s ineligibility is debunked.
“He’s not a Natural Born Citizen because…Minor v. Happersett says so!”
“His birth certificate is a forgery!”
“He was born outside the USA”
“But…He has DIVIDED LOYALTIES!”
At this point, they usually give up by trying combinations of the following:
“You have been hoodwinked”
OR
“The evidence that we need to show he is an imposter has been destroyed by ”
OR
“The entire system is rigged by Obama and The Fix Is In”
Happens every time. I can almost set my watch by how this progresses when arguing with Birthers.
FIFY
That’s so strange, because Barak Obama IS actually President of the United States. If there were anything that proved he was not eligible, well, he WOULDN’T be President, but alas, he IS and will continue to be until 2016 if re-elected this November, which it appears likely that he will.
……..soooooooooo, the bottom line is you’re a dumb ass birther who is annoyed that the scary black man and his family come and go from the White House and not from the servant’s entrance.
G wrote: “One can only conclude that none of you are actual Christians, as you wouldn’t be so eager to blaspheme your own faith with such a clearly derogatory intent, if you actually were people of faith.”
The last thing involved in these folks lives is God. There is no way that they are actually sincere about being Christians from the things that I read over websites like free republic.
I was not a George Bush supporter, but I didn’t hate the man. I just voted for the other guy when the time came. When my guy lost, I was disappointed, no doubt, but being a Christian and believing in God as I do, there was no way that I could wish harm on the man. That woudl have been decidedly NOT Christian.
But you can’t tell this to a birther. You should see what these folks pray to God to happen to President Obama…….they actually pray to God to remove him from THEIR White, and they don’t mean by voting him out.
So no, G, Christianity is not front and center with these folks.
And of course that are many, many U.S. citizens who are entitled to the citizenship of another country but who nevertheless are natural-born citizens. As I have mentioned several times to Vattelists, I was born in the United States to two citizen parents. However, my grandmother on my father’s side was born in Ireland. That makes me eligible for Irish citizenship.
I have often asked birthers this question – if I obtain Irish citizenship and become a dual citizen, am I no longer eligible to be President? So far, the only birther who has responded is one of the “natural law” birthers who said that I would still be a natural-born citizen, but of course he could not reconcile his answer with the allegiance argument.
He was correct that I would still be a natural-born citizen, but it is highly unlikely that voters would elect a candidate who has actual dual citizenship.
I meant to say that it is highly unlikely that voter would elect a candidate who chose to acquire dual citizenship as an adult.
Actually, in that likely scenario, he would continue to be President until late January, 2017…
😉
Yes, you’re right, but I decided not to bother correcting it because I know folks on this blog know that I just goofed…oops!!
Like Monsieur Jefferson?
There seems to be some dispute about that. Several sources indicate that Jefferson was made an honorary citizen of France, as opposed to someone who applies for and is granted full citizenship of another country.
I have a set of Dumas Malone’s multi-volume biography of Jefferson. When I get time later I’ll look through and see what I can find about this.
I agree – but you and I would both agree that the people should have the option of voting for that person if they so choose.
In the end, that’s what this is all about. Birthers are pissed off that in their opinion America made the wrong decision in 2008. And rather than turn around and work hard to elect a candidate of their choice, they want to make it so America can’t make the “wrong choice” – defined as essentially anybody that doesn’t meet their continually-shifting requirements – again. They are sore losers of the highest degree, who want to e sure they win te race not by being the fastest runner but by making sure nobody except those they know they cam beat can take the starting blocks.
While it is no means settled, I agree completely that “native born” and “natural born” have a distinct meaning. Native born citizens are those who are born citizens within the United States. Natural born citizens are those born citizens anywhere. That is, natural born citizens are the larger class that contains the special case of citizens born inside the United States like Barack Obama.
Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg, speaking of her grandson born in Paris of US citizen parents says that is is a natural born citizen. However, he certainly isn’t native born.
Sam, that rhetoric might fly at Pravda.ru, but it sounds melodramatic to the point silliness here. Barack Obama is already President. Every lawsuit and challenge has been thrown out by the courts. There is nothing threatening the status quo, and no one supporting that position has the slightest concern about Obama’s eligibility.
I will add that the INS document is what convinced me of what I said preceding because no other interpretation makes sense.
Regarding the “U.S. doesn’t allow dual citizenship” claim: if there isn’t a law against knowingly making false claims of law in a court filing, there oughta be, to cut back the frivolity at least a little bit.
From my conversations with Mr. Collette, it was just a mistake. I have exchanged a number of emails with him of considerable length. He’s misinformed on a number of issues, but I don’t have any suspicions that he’s intentionally saying something that’s not true.
While the Obots don’t have a messiah, I daresay the birthers have an antichrist.
Most of the items specified in the complaint are true. As in “Plaintiff is informed and believes that” … It is true that the plaintiff has been informed about those things and that the plaintiff believes them. I’m not saying that what the plaintiff has been informed and believes is correct. I’m saying the plaintiff really believes those things.
I want to talk about that in detail. First let me offer three statements that I think everyone will agree with:
— Among those citizens born or naturalized in the United States, theonly difference in law is that some may run for President or Vice-President and some mayn’t.
— A native-born citizen is a citizen born in the United States.
— Persons born citizens outside of the United States (not born in the United States and not naturalized in the United States) are not entitled to the protections of the 14th Amendment Rogers v. Bellei – 401 U.S. 815 (1971). Congress may make and has made laws placing additional requirements on their retention of citizenship.
Let’s look at the INS interpretation: “Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.”
One presumes that the dual phrases “native- and natural-born citizen” are reasonably there for some purpose beyond providing convenient dicta for the birthers. What do the birthers think they mean:
Birther definition:
native born citizen – citizen born in the United States
natural born citizen – citizen born in the United States to citizen parents
We have already agreed that there is no difference at law between these two groups except running for President. Since they are the same under law, then it makes no sense for the INS interpretation to distinguish between them.
On the other hand, consider what I will call the majority opinion of legal scholars and judges:
Majority definition:
native born citizen – citizen born in the United States
natural born citizen – citizen at birth (anywhere)
In this case, the INS interpretation describes two classes of persons who are distinct under law and it makes perfect for the INS to state that the condition applies to both groups.
So is this correct?
The phrase “a category of expatriate not covered by the earlier 1936 legislation” implies in context that this category is covered in the Nationality Act of 1940 or by its immediate successor. We already know that the phrase “natural born citizen” is not in that Act, nor any in any legislation in the US Code; however let’s see what the 1940 Act says about repatriation of women who lost their citizenship upon marrying an alien who was ineligible for citizenship.
The section is lengthy and I won’t paste it here. It’s on pages 11 of the PDF (link above). There is nothing in the section about the woman’s parents, and therefore nothing to support the phrase “natural born citizen” by the birther’s definition. However, the Act does say “(b) (1) From and after the effective date of this Act, a woman, who was a citizen of the United States at birth…” Since this includes both women born citizens in the US and those born out of the US, the birther interpretation of native and natural would exclude those born outside of the United States, which contradicts the Act. The concensus definition which uses native and natural to cover all cases of citizenship at birth is in full accord with the act.
I think I’ll turn this into an article.
Good idea.
Doc,
In reference to these statements:
“– Persons born citizens outside of the United States (not born in the United States and not naturalized in the United States) are not entitled to the protections of the 14th Amendment Rogers v. Bellei – 401 U.S. 815 (1971). Congress may make and has made laws placing additional requirements on their retention of citizenship”
and
“On the other hand, consider what I will call the majority opinion of legal scholars and judges:
Majority definition:
native born citizen – citizen born in the United States
natural born citizen – citizen at birth (anywhere)”
_________________________
I agree with the Majority definition of citizenship, and not the birther definition, but I have a question about the Rogers v. Bellei case. As you pointed out, the Court ruled that 14th amendment protections do not apply persons born outside the US.
Consider two children born in Austria in 1947. Child A is born to two Austrian parents, later becomes naturalized in the US (and goes on to careers in acting and politics 🙂 )
Child B is born to two U.S. citizen parents and is a citizen at birth per 8 USC 1401(c).
Child A cannot ever be elected President, but is entitled to 14th amendment protections.
Child B is a “natural-born” citizen according the majority definition of legal scholars and judges, but isn’t protected by the 14th amendment? Perhaps can even have his citizenship stripped by an act of Congress?
This makes no sense to me. The only I can think of is that the Rogers court got it wrong and that the 14th amendment should be read as:
1. If you were born or naturalized in the US, and subject to the jurisdiction there of, you are a citizen. (But this not the only way to become a citizen).
2. If you are a citizen (regardless of how you became one) , you are entitled to due process, equal position, etc.
oops some typos there at the end, it’s supposed to be equal protection, not equal position.
This sounds like something that might be said at an adult film convention speech. 😉