The Great Debate–kibitzer’s edition, Part 3

Posted on February 16, 2013 by Dr. Conspiracy

Continuation thread to The Great Debate–kibitzer’s edition and The Great Debate—kibitzer’s edition, Part 2 comments on The Great Debate.

image

About Dr. Conspiracy

I'm not a real doctor, but I have a master's degree.
This entry was posted in Books, Citizenship and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

500 Responses to The Great Debate–kibitzer’s edition, Part 3

  1. Dave B. says:
    February 16, 2013 at 4:32 pm  (Quote)

    Doc, I see all the trouble I went to to copy that passage from Mr. McElwee, and you’d already cited it yourself. And here I was just about to go on about how he said
    “The language used in the Constitution must be construed with reference to the English Common Law” [citing 1 Kent’s Commentaries, par. 336]”, and I see you’ve already covered that one, too. I may not be winning any prizes for paying attention, but you’re making me feel like I’m at least on the right track.
    Does 00Bob have a particular point he’s trying to make any more?

  2. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 16, 2013 at 9:05 pm  (Quote)

    Yes. I think he’s trying to show that the only two people in the world qualified to interpret the US Constitution are Emerich de Vattel and Sir Walter William Scott.

    Dave B.: Does 00Bob have a particular point he’s trying to make any more?

  3. Slartibartfast says:
    February 16, 2013 at 9:05 pm  (Quote)

    I just can’t turn away from this car wreck. Bob seems to have great facility for making arguments which support his opponent’s case and claiming the exact opposite. It’s a very unusual (not to mention completely ineffective) rhetorical style.

    Bob,

    If you have any intention of engaging in this debate in good faith (and I very much doubt that you do), you really need to address this quote by James Madison:

    “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.”

    Why is it that no birther will so much as acknowledge that this quote exists?

  4. Paper says:
    February 16, 2013 at 9:38 pm  (Quote)

    I’ve been pointing him at that quote for a good while now. His response? As we say in the official language of the United States: nada.

    Slartibartfast:
    …you really need to address this quote by James Madison…

  5. Publius says:
    February 16, 2013 at 11:19 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: Yes. I think he’s trying to show that the only two people in the world qualified to interpret the US Constitution are Emerich de Vattel and Sir Walter Scott.

    Doncha mean Sir William Scott?

  6. aesthetocyst says:
    February 17, 2013 at 12:31 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Yes. I think he’s trying to show that the only two people in the world qualified to interpret the US Constitution are Emerich de Vattel and Sir Walter Scott.

    Silly me, I thought the game was exploring the world according to Gard, in which Bob attributes his dispensations to various historical figures. All of history is a puppet stage, and Bob’s pulling the strings … but he’s far too faux humble to assign the Prime Agency to himself. 😉

  7. Publius says:
    February 17, 2013 at 12:39 am  (Quote)

    You want to know what I think is the astonishing thing?

    We are now beyond 1,800 comments of discussion, and I can’t think of one single point that Bob has made that provides any real evidence whatsoever to support his claim.

    Not one.

    In fact, I would say that this has become a flat-out farce. In his most recent reply, Bob quotes an essay by Pinckney McElwee that was entered into the Congressional record in 1967 as part of Rep. Dowdy’s comments.

    First of all, Bob studiously avoids so many other authorities, well known in American history, and steers us to that leading luminary of American politics and thought, Pinckney G. McElwee.

    A public figure whose astonishing influence on America was so profound that not only does he not merit a wikipedia article, I wasn’t able to immediately turn up a biography of any kind, or any biographical details at all. Except that he appears to have been a retired Colonel in the US Army, and a lawyer in DC.

    Unless the lawyer was a similarly-named son of the Colonel. I’m not even sure.

    But far worse than that, Bob is quoting a source that (like so many others) refutes him again and again.

    As Dr C has already pointed out, McElwee’s article says:

    To summarize: a natural-born citizen of the United States, as that term is used in the Constitution of the United States, means a citizen born within the territorial limits of the United States and subject to the laws of the United States a the time of such birth. This… does include children born to alien parents who are present within the territorial limits of the United States “in amity” i.e. with the consent of the United States, and subject to its laws at the time of birth.

    I think the debate is over.

  8. Lupin says:
    February 17, 2013 at 2:51 am  (Quote)

    The problem with Bob is that he doesn’t know how to debate. He thinks that REPEATING THE SAME NONSENSE LOUDER is a proper response. It never is.

    If I were to play Devil’s Advocate using Vattel, I’d focus on the single “père” line, not the Two Citizen Parents which is clear nonsense.

    In effect you’d want to argue that Obama would be an indigene only if his father was American, and claim the nationality of the mother is irrelevant.

    Now I know I could demolish that argument, but truthfully, the rebuttal would be a lot less airtight (because it would involve pointing out contradictions and arguing about the precise meaning of words) than rebutting the Two Citizens Parents which, as I said, is pure nonsense.

    That might be a debate worth reading. (I’m limiting myself to Vattel as i know very little about the other matters raised downstream from there, so to speak.)

    I said that Bob Gard is a fraud, and I stand by that; but I think he is also an idiot, because I could debate his position better than he can.

  9. Dave B. says:
    February 17, 2013 at 3:03 am  (Quote)

    00Bob debates against his own positions more convincingly than he debates for them.

    Lupin: I said that Bob Gard is a fraud, and I stand by that; but I think he is also an idiot, because I could debate his position better than he can.

  10. Scientist says:
    February 17, 2013 at 6:30 am  (Quote)

    Dave B.: 00Bob debates against his own positions more convincingly than he debates for them.

    The most devastating, fatal argument against Bob’s position is that the ratifiers were, in effect, duped by John Jay and his cabal hatched in taverns and dining halls and were unaware of the true meaning of natural born citizen. Because if that were really true, the implicit contract between the people and the government that is the Constitution would have been signed under fraud and would be null and void.

    That argument was made by none other than Bob, the self-described “Constitutionalist”. At that point, his terminally ill thesis died a deserved death.

  11. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 17, 2013 at 8:14 am  (Quote)

    Ah, yes. But Sir Walter Scott summed up birtherism well, when he said:

    “But, alas. . . . fiction itself can hardly reach the dark reality of the horrors of the period.”

    Publius: Doncha mean Sir William Scott?

  12. Paper says:
    February 17, 2013 at 10:16 am  (Quote)

    Worse, his project has been presented as an idealistic venture to recover the honest meaning of the Constitution, to restore the American enterprise to its purity. So, what he wants to restore is a deception? His idealistic venture comes down to promoting corruption as purity?

    He doesn’t only argue that it is the truth, and that is that. He even wants it to be considered better. He wants people to choose his version, he wants people to choose to be bound by a lie. He wants to restore America, or his faith in America, through the recovery of a faithless act.

    Scientist: Because if that were really true, the implicit contract between the people and the government that is the Constitution would have been signed under fraud and would be null and void.

  13. Jim says:
    February 17, 2013 at 10:44 am  (Quote)

    I haven’t seen him get around the fact that there are only 2 types of citizens recognized by the Constitution. Did I miss it?

  14. Reality Check says:
    February 17, 2013 at 11:27 am  (Quote)

    No, he didn’t address that “small problem”. Maybe he did in his book. That is usually where Birthers start tap dancing like Bojangles Robinson. Just look at how Apuzzo tries to address this problem.

    Jim:
    I haven’t seen him get around the fact that there are only 2 types of citizens recognized by the Constitution.Did I miss it?

  15. Publius says:
    February 17, 2013 at 12:08 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Ah, yes. But Sir Walter Scott summed up birtherism well, when he said:

    “But, alas. . . . fiction itself can hardly reach the dark reality of the horrors of the period.”

    😆

  16. Publius says:
    February 17, 2013 at 12:16 pm  (Quote)

    Paper: He doesn’t only argue that it is the truth, and that is that. He even wants it to be considered better. He wants people to choose his version, he wants people to choose to be bound by a lie. He wants to restore America, or his faith in America, through the recovery of a faithless act.

    A fictional faithless act.

    Let us not forget that he has shown no credible evidence whatsoever to establish that John Jay actually believed Bob’s definition, that he ever spoke to any other individual about it, or that there was even ONE single person among the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention or the 39 signers of the Constitution who had ever even heard of Bob’s definition in regard to “natural born citizen,” let alone believed in or accepted it.

    Never mind “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Never mind a preponderance of evidence, the evidence on one side weighing against the evidence on the other side.

    Bob hasn’t shown a single thing that’s actually real and credible, that genuinely supports his claim.

    That being the case, the entire thing can only be considered every bit as fictional as the proposition that George Washington was secretly a time traveler who went back from the year 2247 to fix the problem that the American Revolution had originally failed for lack of military leadership.

  17. Paper says:
    February 17, 2013 at 1:36 pm  (Quote)

    Agreed. I was going to add something about even if his version of events were true, but breakfast beckoned and I couldn’t craft the sentence the way I wanted before eating. Thanks for the perfect addition.

    Something to the effect of: even if Mr. Gard’s version of events were true, such a circumstance would not return us to the light, if that were one’s goal. The result would be anything but the return to such a corrupt *usurpation* (supposedly by the framers themselves) of the Constitution’s stated purpose (see the preamble, Mr. Gard).

    The idea proposed by Mr. Gard was that politicians, in general, lie, or at least in his view President Obama lies, and therefore, he asks, why do we have any trouble with the framers lying?

    We should embrace the lie because it is true?

    I just wanted to notice the failure in the nominal *purpose* of this quest, even if or especially if it were true. That this failure is beyond facts or contractual realities. Mr. Gard has stated his disapproval of lawyers. Well, his failure is more basic than even the law.

    To my perspective, it seems to be an example of destroying the whole of what you say you love to *attempt* to say you were right (as an eighth grader) about one piece. A case of confirmation bias at all costs.

    Publius: A fictional faithless act.

  18. JRC says:
    February 17, 2013 at 2:37 pm  (Quote)

    I read this quote on another site dealing with a different topic, but felt it was fitting for some of the birthers.

    “A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.” ― Saul Bellow

  19. Rickey says:
    February 17, 2013 at 2:59 pm  (Quote)

    Lupin:

    I said that Bob Gard is a fraud, and I stand by that; but I think he is also an idiot, because I could debate his position better than he can.

    I agree with you on both counts.

    Bob has admitted here that his claim that he lost out on a Princeton scholarship to a black female with a 1.8 GPA is false. Six days ago he said that he was going to delete that claim from his website, yet as of ten minutes ago it is still there. He still seems to be clinging to his story that he was a victim of affirmative action at other universities, but I have been unable to find evidence that affirmative action was a factor in gaining admission to any college or university in the U.S. in 1965.

    Each failure in Bob’s life is the fault of someone else. He didn’t get into the universities of his choice because of affirmative action. His enormous manuscript on Equatorial Guinea was brilliant but was reduced to an excerpt published in an obscure journal. His 800-page novel was not suitable for publication because it was too long for an unpublished author. Now he puts out 1200 pages of nonsense about the definition of natural-born citizen and not even WND will pay any attention to it.

  20. Publius says:
    February 17, 2013 at 3:04 pm  (Quote)

    Paper: To my perspective, it seems to be an example of destroying the whole of what you say you love to *attempt* to say you were right (as an eighth grader) about one piece. A case of confirmation bias at all costs.

    The birthers have always been all about destroying the truth in order to promote the fictional “Truth,” and destroying our real Constitution and laws in order to promote their personal fantasies about what our Constitution and laws “ought’ to mean.

    Solely according to their personal opinions.

    And if anyone actually defends the real Constitution and the real truth, for many of these people, that person is guilty of “treason,” a “traitor” who should either be thrown in prison or (according to at least a few) taken out and shot.

    But they (according to their self-description) are the “patriots,” the “constitutionalists.”

    We can all be thankful that these people have no real power.

  21. Paper says:
    February 17, 2013 at 8:14 pm  (Quote)

    Indeed. But here the “truth” we are supposed to embrace is also the lie. Usually, this is the point where the revealed lie is part of the conspiracy that needs to be overcome. Here the lie itself is supposed to be the noble truth that we should be following. The birthers, however misguided or wrong, are supposed to be against the Illuminati-type conspiracies, supposed to reveal “truths” to defeat the conspiracy, not disciples trying to bring back the old “religion,” not supporters of the conspiracy. Gard’s whole project is doomed on the most basic level, before we even get to what is real or what is the law. Even within his own construct of reality, it fails.

    Publius: The birthers have always been all about destroying the truth in order to promote the fictional “Truth,” and destroying our real Constitution and laws in order to promote their personal fantasies about what our Constitution and laws “ought’ to mean.

  22. Scientist says:
    February 17, 2013 at 9:37 pm  (Quote)

    Bob is up with his latest piece of verbal diarrhea. I really am not going to bother wasting time reading it or responding to its ludicrous assertions. However, in skimming it I noticed he repeated his ridiculous calumny against Chester Arthur. As a resident of Albany, NY I feel compelled to stick up for a hometown boy. Bob cites the cases of Teddy Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman and LBJ as Vice Presidents who completed their predecessors’ term and won re-election. He then says that since Arthur didn’t win re-election it must be because people had doubts about him being a natural born citizen. However, as is typical for him, Bob neglects to mention several other Vice Presidents who completed the term, but then failed to win a term on their own. These are Tyler, Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, and Ford. The first 3 of these, like Arthur, failed to even get their party’s nomination. So, rather than being anomalous, Arthur is actually part of a 5-4 majority.

    To those who have said Bob is honest, if misguided, I submit that this is but one of many arguments that he puts forward based on a deliberate and deceptive omission of relevant facts. That is not what an honest person does, at least not in my book.

  23. Publius says:
    February 17, 2013 at 9:45 pm  (Quote)

    Paper: ndeed. But here the “truth” we are supposed to embrace is also the lie. Usually, this is the point where the revealed lie is part of the conspiracy that needs to be overcome. Here the lie itself is supposed to be the noble truth that we should be following. The birthers, however misguided or wrong, are supposed to be against the Illuminati-type conspiracies, supposed to reveal “truths” to defeat the conspiracy, not disciples trying to bring back the old “religion,” not supporters of the conspiracy.

    Yes. It does make ones head spin, doesn’t it?

  24. aesthetocyst says:
    February 17, 2013 at 9:53 pm  (Quote)

    Only 5800 words this time. He’s slippin’, falling short of his last mark of 5900.

    As usual, I can’t get past his opening, as it’s just too stupid. “How can a court that did something I don’t agree with possibly be capable* of interpreting the constitution?”

    If his writing had quality to match its quantity, just imagine what he’d be capable of! As it is …. nothing special about crazy rambling, even when taken to an extreme.

    ________________

    * Interesting choice of words, Bob! Since when does authority have any connection to capability? Since when does either imply, or rely on, the other?

  25. Paper says:
    February 17, 2013 at 10:46 pm  (Quote)

    No. One Congressman dropped this into the record with a noncommittal attitude, “to shed whatever light it merits.” It may very well not have been read by many or any Congressmen. The “House” did not introduce this essay into the record, nor did the “House” acknowledge anything by the very commonplace circumstance of taking no notice, much less failing to contradict it. Particularly as it was merely placed in the record without any real substantial comment upon its contents.

    In addition, merely failing to contradict something is not an affirmation of that thing, nor any reflection on whether or not it has value for consideration.

    Bob Gard: Perhaps I’ll redact it to; “The House, by introducing this evidence into the record without contradiction, acknowledged that it should be considered.” Does that eliminate your objection?

  26. Publius says:
    February 17, 2013 at 10:59 pm  (Quote)

    Paper: Bob Gard: Perhaps I’ll redact it to; “The House, by introducing this evidence into the record without contradiction, acknowledged that it should be considered.” Does that eliminate your objection?

    No. There is no indication that the House considered it. It was entered into the record as a supplement to Rep. Dowdy’s verbal remarks. There’s not even really any record that anybody actually read it except for Dowdy. Although some probably did.

    But I’m kind of mystified as to why you want to introduce it into the debate in the first place, since it directly and absolutely contradicts your claim.

  27. Welsh Dragon says:
    February 17, 2013 at 10:59 pm  (Quote)

    “Washington was a strong advocate of linking native-born to loyalty.

    “You are not to enlist any person who is not American born, unless such person has a wife and family, and is a settled resident of this country.”

    “. . . [Cambridge, July 10, 1775 to Horatio Gates, Adj. Gen., George Washington] therefore, [Washington] orders for the future no man shall be appointed to these [sentry] stations who is not a native of this country . . .”

    “. . . [March 17, 1778, Washington ordered that one hundred men were to form a guard for the commander-in-chief] “They must be Americans born.”

    In a letter from Gen. Washington to Col. Spotswood, dated in 1777, and to be found in a recent publication entitled “Maxims of Washington,” p. 192, the following passage occurs:—

    “You will therefore send me none but natives, and men of some property, if you have them. I must insist that in making this choice you give no intimation of my preference for natives, as I do not want to create any invidious distinction between them and foreigners.” ”

    I haven’t seen those quotes for a while. I wonder if Bob will tell us if he got them direct from “The Political Textbook Encyclopedia” 1858, or from the birfer site “The Undead Revolution” or from some equally dubious source.

    I’ll have to double check because I’ve lost a note I did on them a few years ago but I seem to recall that none of the passages quoted appear in the George Washington Papers. Although the first one has a degree of truth in it – it’s from an order issued by Horatio Gates at Cambridge July 10 1775 that’s better known as the order prohibiting the recruiting of blacks.

    The “Maxims of Washington” if it ever existed was recent in 1858 not in 2013 .

    Bob – if you’re going to going to quote any more from that source don’t bother – they’re mostly mid 19th Century Nativist propaganda.

  28. J.D. Sue says:
    February 17, 2013 at 11:00 pm  (Quote)

    In the Great Debate with Doc, Bob Gard states: “I ask Dr. Conspiracy to address my comment concerning John Roberts’ use of a British-style explanatory act to let ObamaCare pass as constitutional. Are British-style explanatory acts constitutional? Does it not demonstrate how far the Supreme Court has strayed from its authority under (not in) the Constitution? Dr. Conspiracy, do you accept this kind of reasoning by the Supreme Court? If you don’t, how can you claim the Supreme Court is capable of interpreting the Constitution? Roberts reasoning is one of the most distorted in constitutional history.”

    My question to Bob is: What is it about Justice Robert’s opinion that makes you characterize it as a British-style explanatory act? You offer no reasons for your characterization/conclusion. I did not find Justice Robert’s opinion particularly unusual, and I had predicted that the Court could uphold the ACA mandate under Congress’s taxing authority. (Maybe you haven’t read a lot of S.Ct. opinions.) This decision was not about the Court “stray[ing] from its authority”. Instead, it was about the Court not overriding Congress’s authority.

    As an aside, what I thought was ridiculous was all the concern over the hypothetical threat of having to buy broccoli. Indeed, maybe they can’t force us to buy it in the store, but they sure can force us to pay taxes so as to pay farmers not to grow it….I’d rather have the broccoli I paid for, than pay for broccoli never grown….

  29. Publius says:
    February 17, 2013 at 11:01 pm  (Quote)

    I have a question for Lupin, Dr. Conspiracy, and whoever else.

    Do we have actual, real documentation of what the policy and law of Switzerland was, circa 1800, regarding those born citizens? Did Swiss law at that time specify that one had to have one citizen parent in order to be born a citizen? Is it possible to find that somewhere?

  30. J.D. Sue says:
    February 17, 2013 at 11:15 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: what the policy and law of Switzerland was, circa 1800, regarding those born citizens?

    —

    I don’t know, but I know–according to Blackstone–someone born in France of alien parents did not have the rights of French citizenship. “The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.” Blackstone Commentaries, Book 1, Chapter 10 (1765)

  31. Paper says:
    February 17, 2013 at 11:29 pm  (Quote)

    Mr. Gard, in your latest response you talk of secrecy again, adding that politics is not an honest profession. Let’s say, fine. So?

    In your example, secrecy and dishonesty are counter-productive, and indeed something we are not obligated to follow or care about. If they lied, that is their problem. We are not bound by their lies.

  32. Welsh Dragon says:
    February 17, 2013 at 11:35 pm  (Quote)

    “Dr. Conspiracy said, “All of the material on ‘Natural Born Citizen’ on pages 15875-15880 is the essay included under the name of that single House member. “ Hold on. Are you saying the following Representatives did not give oral input? Mr. Vigorito (Joseph Phillip Vigorito, [November 10, 1918–February 5, 2003] was a Democratic member of the U.S. House); Mr. Bingham of Ohio (who also at another time “during a debate [see pg. 2791] regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen.)”; and Mr. King of California (The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. King] for five minutes) were not vocal contributors to the discussion, which actually was a discussion in contrast to your belief that strictly written evidence was entered into the Record?”

    Now that is really stupid Bob. Mr Bingham’s contribution is prior to the section on “Natural Born Citizen” Mr King’s after it. That’s what the bold lines mean. Mr Vigorito is merely moving procedural motions on behalf of the Majority Party.

  33. donna says:
    February 17, 2013 at 11:37 pm  (Quote)

    Publius:

    from the review of “How to Be French: Nationality in the Making since 1789”

    Prior to 1789, there was no explicit definition of a French person. Jus soli dominated, as the foreign-born child of French parents needed to request a lettre de nationalità from the king to ensure their inheritance rights, but the French-born child of foreigners did not need to do so. The French revolutionaries associated jus soli with feudalism, and revolutionary legislation moved to reinforce parentage and residency. Laws passed in the spring of 1790 made explicit for the first time the process through which foreigners could become French. These rules changed repeatedly until the Civil Code of 1803 created a system that would last several decades. While Napoleon Bonaparte argued for jus soli, other contributors to the code opposed jus soli, and in the end they won as the code instituted jus sanguinis “as the exclusive criterion for attributing the quality of being French at birth” (p. 29). As Weil explains, “this break with jus soli, the reinterpretation of Roman law in the form of jus sanguinis in the name of the nation as the political extension of the family, marked the beginning of a lasting revolution. It inaugurated the era of modern nationality law in France and throughout Europe”

    http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_world_history/summary/v021/21.4.davidson.html

  34. Welsh Dragon says:
    February 17, 2013 at 11:45 pm  (Quote)

    J.D. Sue: I don’t know, but I know–according to Blackstone–someone born in France of alien parents did not have the rights of French citizenship. “The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.” Blackstone Commentaries, Book 1, Chapter 10 (1765)

    Just out of interest I wonder if Lupin could give us an opinion on whether Blackstone was correct. I’ve seen references to his near contemporary the French jurist Pothier that seem to contradict this but my French is very limited and I’m reluctant to attempt a translation.

  35. ballantine says:
    February 17, 2013 at 11:50 pm  (Quote)

    It is a complete waste of time trying to convince Bob of anything. He has shown himself to be dishonest and he will never understand that his rank conjecture is not legal argument.

    Astoundingly, he has hatched onto a private attorney no one has ever heard of 200 years after the founding and claims such is evidence. Uh, how about the hundreds of other scholars in the past 220 years? Seriously, does he really give this any thought? And, even more astounding, the entire point of McElwee’s paper is that “natural born citizen” should be defined by the English common law and meant the same thing as “natural born subject.” Duh! Seriously, he takes a paper whose entire point is that Bob is wrong and tries to cherry-pick out provisions and dishonestly say it supports him. McElwee was arguing that the framers would have understood the lex non scripta as the true English common law as opposed to all the common and statutory law’s use of the term in all its ramifications and hence said they would limit the term to the native born and not nature born subjects by statute. Seriously, it is hard to imagine he would try to twist such to support his lame arguments.

    And this no-name, private attorney saying Madison had anything to do with the 1795 change in the naturalization act when this writer cites no authority to support such claim is no evidence that such claim is true. Duh! Someone in 1967 made a claim they didn’t support with any evidence and he thinks that is evidence. He really seem to have some reasoning issues.

    Finally, Bob doesn’t just doesn’t get it that his rank conjecture about why the 1795 act changed language is conjecture not evidence. He doesn’t understand that he is just being dishonest convincing himself that his conjecture is actually what happened. One can come up with lots of difference reasons, but no honest persons would claim such is the actual reason without evidence. Fo example, since there was no debate on the issue, the change could have be inadverdant. Or, since statutory natural born subjects in England were not eligible to hold office, they might have wanted to clarify that similar persons in the US would not be eligible for the Presidency. One can go on and on, but it isn’t worth the effort as it isn’t evidence. The facts are, Bob cannot produce any actual evidence that anyone in the foudning period agreed with him and his arguments are getting more and more pathetic now relying on writers no one has ever heard of that actually say he is wrong.

    And it is sad that he really thinks Vattel was the primary influence on our founders no matter how much authority to the contrary is cited. He will simply never understand that the Law of Nations is irrelvant to 98% of our law and had nothing to do with our Constitution while, of course, much if not most of our Constitution is taken from English law. Is it really possible that someone doesn’t know most of our bill of rights was taken from English Law or that it is full of terms that didn’t exist outside of English law. Bob, like all the other birthers, are too committed in the beliefs to ever admit they are wrong and really is a waste of time.

  36. ballantine says:
    February 17, 2013 at 11:52 pm  (Quote)

    Welsh Dragon: Just out of interest I wonder if Lupin could give us an opinion onwhether Blackstone was correct. I’ve seen references to his near contemporary the French jurist Pothier that seem to contradict this but my French is very limited and I’m reluctant to attempt a translation.

    I believe Blackstone was wrong. I think France changed their law in 1791, but before that followed jus soli as well.

  37. gorefan says:
    February 18, 2013 at 12:04 am  (Quote)

    ballantine: since statutory natural born subjects in England were not eligible to hold office, they might have wanted to clarify that similar persons in the US would not be eligible for the Presidency.

    IIRC, the Congressional debate over the act of 1795 revolved around the upheavals in Europe and the fear that those radical ideas might come to the US. Thus they made naturalization much more difficult. So the removal of the phrase natural born may well have been to prevent someone born in a foreign country (with the natural alliegance that created) fr being eligible to the Presidency. Afterall Madison himself said that place of birth was the most certain criteria of allegiance.

  38. J.D. Sue says:
    February 18, 2013 at 12:27 am  (Quote)

    Welsh Dragon: Just out of interest I wonder if Lupin could give us an opinion on whether Blackstone was correct.

    —

    Good idea, I should leave French law to the French lawyers…!

  39. Publius says:
    February 18, 2013 at 1:01 am  (Quote)

    ballantine: Astoundingly, he has hatched onto a private attorney no one has ever heard of 200 years after the founding and claims such is evidence. Uh, how about the hundreds of other scholars in the past 220 years? Seriously, does he really give this any thought?

    Yeah. I thought the point of his “research” was to go back and shed light on the subject from the days of the Founders.

    It turns out he’s ignored all of the real evidence from that era (because he doesn’t like it) and now he’s attempting to make an argument from an obscure 1967 lawyer who actually emphatically refutes him.

    Seriously, he takes a paper whose entire point is that Bob is wrong and tries to cherry-pick out provisions and dishonestly say it supports him.

    As I said, the whole thing has degenerated into a plain farce.

  40. Lupin says:
    February 18, 2013 at 3:46 am  (Quote)

    Publius: Do we have actual, real documentation of what the policy and law of Switzerland was, circa 1800, regarding those born citizens? Did Swiss law at that time specify that one had to have one citizen parent in order to be born a citizen? Is it possible to find that somewhere?

    I can’t speak about Switzerland, but I can speak at some length about France. I apologize in advance if I sound boring.

    Under the Kings of France, the notion of citizenship did not exist, since you were either a subject of the King (even by right of conquest), or not. The King could pretty much arbitrarily decide if you were his subject or not, and make you his subject by royal fiat. If my memory serves, think King Francois I made Leonardo da Vinci French, for example.

    Under the French Revolution (which modified and refined its definitions six times) the rules to be, or become, French included both jus sanguinis AND jus soli (in the latter case, 5-year residence + oath). Note that they talked then about “nationalité,” not “citoyenneté,” a finer point I won’t get into here. They made James Madison French just by a vote of the Assembly. I would argue that Madison accepting it would have sealed that deal as far as both parties were concerned.

    In 1804, Napoleon overhauled the entire system. That’s when the notion of “citizenship” as we understand it today was truly established. (As an aside, Napoleon himself thought everyone who spoke French should be able to become French, a novel idea which was not implemented.) Our system then became mostly a jus sanguinis system.

    This is where the line by Vattel about “pères” I mentioned earlier comes into play, because, then, citizenship was transmitted ONLY through the father. A French woman marrying a foreigner lost her French citizenship and (presumably? since it was not up the France to decide) acquired that of her husband’s. Still, a child born on French soil from foreign parents could apply for French citizenship when he became an adult.

    The best-known case / victim of this was Emile Zola, born in Paris in 1840 from an Italian father and a French mother. Emile actually had to apply to become French in 1862; otherwise, he’d have remained Italian.

    Paradoxically, if Zola’s parents had not been married, and the only parent of record as far as French Law was concerned, was his French mother, Emile wouldn’t have had to go through this.

    Amazingly, that sexist mechanism remained in force until 1927! The laws regarding French citizenship were further amended in 1851, 1889 and 1927, which is pretty much the current system.

    For argument’s sake, had our pre-1927 system applied to Obama, he’d have been born a Kenyan (or a Brit), but even under the more stringent Napoleonic system of 1804, if he’d been born on French soil, and/or because of his French mother, he could have applied to become French at age 21 (majority age adopted in 1792), taken an oath, etc., and that would have been automatically granted.

    I can’t think of any public office in France where the distinction between being a “(natural)-born citizen” and a “naturalized citizen” would have applied or would apply today. If we had had such distinction, then someone like Zola, born in Paris from only a French mother, would have been considered “naturalized” as opposed to “natural-born”.

    The “two citizen parents” is and has always been rubbish; but as I said both in the past here and above, the “father only” clause combined with the exclusion of naturalized citizen would be a stumbling block in a pre-1927 French Obama-type scenario.

    This, of course, has no relevance at all in terms of US history, we all agree on that.

  41. Lupin says:
    February 18, 2013 at 3:53 am  (Quote)

    J.D. Sue: according to Blackstone–someone born in France of alien parents did not have the rights of French citizenship.

    On this specific issue, Blackstone was incorrect.

    Under the Decree of 1790 foreigners seront réputés Français et admis, en prêtant le serment civique, l’exercice des droits de citoyen actif après cinq ans de domicile continu dans le royaume, s’ils ont, en outre, ou acquis des immeubles ou épousé une Française, ou formé un établissement de commerce ou reçu dans quelque ville des lettres de bourgeoisie .

    My translation: “…will be be deemed French and granted, if they take a civic oath, the exercise of the rights of active citizenship after five years of continuous residence in the kingdom, if they have also acquired buildings or married a French woman or formed a commercial establishment or received letters of trades in any French city.”

    I’ve already explained that under Napoleon’s 1804 Code any child born of French soil even from two foreign parents can apply for French citizenship at age 21.

  42. Lupin says:
    February 18, 2013 at 3:57 am  (Quote)

    ballantine: It is a complete waste of time trying to convince Bob of anything. He has shown himself to be dishonest and he will never understand that his rank conjecture is not legal argument.

    I couldn’t agree more.

    What I find both funny and irritating is their reliance on the completely bogus “two parents citizens” argument, when a “better” argument could be made using the father-only line of attack. By “better” I mean simply more accurate. It is of course a stupid argument, one that I suspect would be found totally unconstitutional by your Courts today.

  43. Lupin says:
    February 18, 2013 at 4:10 am  (Quote)

    ballantine: And it is sad that he really thinks Vattel was the primary influence on our founders no matter how much authority to the contrary is cited. He will simply never understand that the Law of Nations is irrelevant to 98% of our law and had nothing to do with our Constitution

    I just read his latest screed in the GREAT DEBATE thread, and it seems to me that he still claims that Vattel made up that “two parents citizens” rule.

    Bob: read my lips: there. is. no. two. citizen. parents. rule. in. Vattel.

    It’s no wonder he appears to have failed at pretty much everything he’s tackled in life.

  44. The Magic M says:
    February 18, 2013 at 4:31 am  (Quote)

    ballantine: Someone in 1967 made a claim they didn’t support with any evidence and he thinks that is evidence.

    Welcome to the Bizarro World of conspiracy believers.

    It has about the same quality as the claims that someone met some Russian secret service guy in the early 90’s who allegedly said “you’ll have a Trojan horse President controlled by us in 20 years and he will be black”. Prophecies are only interesting if provably made *before* the fact. It’s the same MO that the common scam artist uses – to claim “I predicted the economic downfall in … and the rise of the copper price in …, so I am nigh-infallible, so give me all your money”.

  45. Paul Pieniezny says:
    February 18, 2013 at 5:06 am  (Quote)

    Lupin: Under the Kings of France, the notion of citizenship did not exist, since you were either a subject of the King (even by right of conquest), or not. The King could pretty much arbitrarily decide if you were his subject or not, and make you his subject by royal fiat. If my memory serves, think King Francois I made Leonardo da Vinci French, for example.

    http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalit%C3%A9_fran%C3%A7aise#L.27Ancien_R.C3.A9gime

    Whether someone was a French subject or not, usually came up at the death of their parents, to determine whether they could inherit. The King usually left it to local courts to decide the issue, and those would apply local customs. So, in one part of France, the native born could inherit the French property of their foreign parents, in other parts they could not. Foreigners would usually be careful NOT to put their earned income into land property that their children could not inherit, so most of them would own only businesses – very often in Paris. So the decision of the Parlement de Paris to go for ius soli in 1515 was very important and encouraged foreigners to invest in France, or rather in a part of France where the decisions of the Parlement de Paris were applied. Later the Parlement would amend its 1515 decision to provide for birth abroad of the children of two French parents.

    I know by the way that in Lille, however, the courts continued to use Germanic law after the annexation by France. The Edict of Nantes was never applied in Lille either, Spanish laws continued to be in effect and the punishment for protestantism was still death, but there was no real actual persecution of protestants until the Renunciation of the Edict.

    Lille was no exception, ius sanguinis was also the rule outside areas that had never been part of the Holy Roman Empire.

    I agree with Lupin that Blackstone got it wrong. It would be interesting to know when he wrote that exactly, because the French Revolution made the view of the Paris Parlement universal through France, only to be repealed by Vatellite Napoleon. If Blackstone wrote that between 1790 and 1804, he was very much mistaken.

  46. Paul Pieniezny says:
    February 18, 2013 at 5:15 am  (Quote)

    Lupin: just read his latest screed in the GREAT DEBATE thread, and it seems to me that he still claims that Vattel made up that “two parents citizens” rule.

    Bob: read my lips: there. is. no. two. citizen. parents. rule. in. Vattel.

    It’s no wonder he appears to have failed at pretty much everything he’s tackled in life.

    If you read that part of Vattel carefully, you notice that he tends to start his important paragraphs with an argument taken from natural law, rules that all humans will understand, even avage tribes in New Guinea.

    Vattel is saying that it is natural for people to be considered a citizen of the country where they were born, provided they have relatives established there. You cannot really argue much about that.

    Later he refines his story, and gives his own personal interpretation – you inherit citizenship from the father. To understand how he gets there, you need to know that Vattel was a citizen of the Holy Roman Empire through birth and descendancy in Neuchatel, that he worked almost exclusively for German princes, and that he lived in an age where women had no rights.

    Of course, he later states there are exceptions. Countries where they do things differently, and where another law obtains and must be followed. England.

  47. Lupin says:
    February 18, 2013 at 6:41 am  (Quote)

    Paul Pieniezny: Vattel is saying that it is natural for people to be considered a citizen of the country where they were born, provided they have relatives established there. You cannot really argue much about that.

    Later he refines his story, and gives his own personal interpretation – you inherit citizenship from the father. To understand how he gets there, you need to know that Vattel was a citizen of the Holy Roman Empire through birth and descendancy in Neuchatel, that he worked almost exclusively for German princes, and that he lived in an age where women had no rights.

    True, but no matter how you cut it, there is still no “TWOFER” rule. That’s purely a product of birther lawyers’ twisted minds.

  48. Lupin says:
    February 18, 2013 at 6:47 am  (Quote)

    Let’s sum up:

    1) Bob Gard’s entire wedding cake of a theory relies entirely on a rubbishy, inaccurate point.

    2) There would be an alternative, equally irrelevant, but at least historically accurate, way of making his case, but Bob Gard is too stupid to have realized it.

    This is pretty much what I get out of this debate thingy.

  49. Northland10 says:
    February 18, 2013 at 7:34 am  (Quote)

    ballantine: It is a complete waste of time trying to convince Bob of anything. He has shown himself to be dishonest and he will never understand that his rank conjecture is not legal argument.

    I turn off on his argument when he states:

    I concluded that the secrecy code disallowed them the freedom to make the problematic usage of natural-born citizen known to the 1790 Congress.

    His entire argument is dependent upon his made up “secrecy code.” This is Bob’s way of getting the conclusion he’s already chosen despite the lack of any evidence whatsoever.

  50. Northland10 says:
    February 18, 2013 at 7:37 am  (Quote)

    Paul Pieniezny: If you read that part of Vattel carefully, you notice that he tends to start his important paragraphs with an argument taken from natural law,

    That’s the thing about writing that Birthers do not want to understand. Cherry picking what you want misses then entire context of the passage. Even Vattel’s statement does not say what they want, when used in context (or even out of context since it never requires 2 parents).

  51. Scientist says:
    February 18, 2013 at 7:48 am  (Quote)

    As long as Bob lays off Chester Arthur, he can blather on with his irrelevant musings all he wishes. Obama, Rubio, Jindal and the rest are quite capable of taking care of themselves. They appear quite untroubled, as they should be, by Bob’s pointless opinions on their eligibility. Old Chester is dead and can’t speak for himself though. I will not allow Bob to tarnish his good name.

  52. Reality Check says:
    February 18, 2013 at 9:14 am  (Quote)

    If Bob Gard wants respect then I would humbly suggest a good way to start to earn respect is to quit being dishonest. That brings up the question though as to whether one can be a Birther and be honest. I believe the answer is no.

  53. Lupin says:
    February 18, 2013 at 9:18 am  (Quote)

    Reality Check: If Bob Gard wants respect…

    It’s a bit late for that, isn’t it? 🙂

  54. Arthur says:
    February 18, 2013 at 9:53 am  (Quote)

    Scientist: Old Chester is dead and can’t speak for himself though. I will not allow Bob to tarnish his good name.

    The Band agrees:

    Crazy Chester followed me, and he caught me in the fog.
    He said, “I will fix your rack, if you’ll take Jack, my dog.”
    I said, “Wait a minute, Chester, you know I’m a peaceful man.”
    He said, “That’s okay, boy, won’t you feed him when you can.”

  55. Scientist says:
    February 18, 2013 at 10:23 am  (Quote)

    Reality Check: That brings up the question though as to whether one can be a Birther and be honest. I believe the answer is no.

    There is an honest birther position. It would be to admit that the law does not now and never did require 2 citizen parents, but to argue that the Constitution should be amended so that will in the future. While I think such a proposal is foolish, it would be honest.

    As far as I know, not a single birther has ever taken such a position, preferring to dishonestly try to twist the law into a pretzel rather than take on the difficult task required.

  56. Paper says:
    February 18, 2013 at 10:32 am  (Quote)

    Mr. Gard, your argument about secrecy is irrelevant. Just ask my wife.

    Let’s in fact look at that more normal situation, as described by my Axiom 54: “It is a well known historical fact that husbands and wives keep secrets from each other.”

    Indeed, I have a secret from my wife. I didn’t want to alienate her when we got married by telling her that the definition of “marriage” includes, even requires, the husband to have multiple affairs.

    I know what you are going to say. It’s a meaningless secret. I mean, if I told her now that this is the true meaning of “marriage,” she would have no choice but to be bound by it. Now that she is married to me, she must obey.

    I should just tell her, I know. But I must confess to you another little secret. I like being married to her. I didn’t want to alienate her then; I don’t want to alienate her now.

    I’ll confess to you that I am beginning to doubt the wisdom of our forefathers. I’m not sure they actually understood the point of a secret back then, when they passed on all these secrets to us at the frat parties.

    What good is a secret that has no force, no effect in the world as long as it remains a secret? If I were stupid enough to have an affair, keeping that secret would at least make sense. Because as long as it remained secret, I wouldn’t have to explain to my wife that I only had the affair because I was required to do so by the secret code of *idiots.* Her word and emphasis (I am sure), not mine.

    Let me share with you a secret I have managed to steal from the secret code of wives. They don’t care about our secret definitions. They care about what we do.

    I imagine that the American people care about what our government does. We care about actual secrets with actual consequences. War secrets make sense. Political secrets make sense. Getting upset and even doing something about some or many of those secrets makes sense, too.

    But secret definitions that we never agreed to in the first place?

    Try it on your wife, first. See how that goes. If, however, you decide to keep the secret code of “marriage” secret, or even reject it as misconceived, perhaps realizing that it is a meaningless farce of a secret without your wife’s knowledge and ratification, I understand.

    Instead of an argument you cannot win, you will have chosen a more perfect union.

    Bob Gard (excerpts on secrecy):

    I concluded that the secrecy code disallowed them the freedom to make the problematic usage of natural-born citizen known to the 1790 Congress.

    Madison had known the true meaning all along but bringing it into sunlight at this later date would violate the secrecy code.

    Dr. Conspiracy rejects my references to secrecy at every level. He seems not to believe in my Axiom 3. Political secrecy causes blurred gaps in the histories of all countries.

    Do we agree that history happens only in one way, whether it is known or not? Do we agree that secrecy makes it difficult to know which way for sure?

    How can you be so certain that men like Washington, who favored native-born for positions of trust, would not go one step further and endorse citizens of two American citizen parents at the same time keeping it secret so as not to alienate one single potential ratifier of the Constitution?

    You seem to think that politics is a relatively honest profession. I beg your pardon . . . not then, not now.

  57. Dave B. says:
    February 18, 2013 at 10:49 am  (Quote)

    00Bob February 17, 2013 at 9:00 pm
    “I ask Dr. Conspiracy to address my comment concerning John Roberts’ use of a British-style explanatory act to let ObamaCare pass as constitutional. Are British-style explanatory acts constitutional?”
    00Bob, remind me, what is it you’re supposed to be debating? Why should Doc indulge your irrelevancies when you won’t answer the relevant questions you’ve been asked time and again– like this one: if the Constitutional Convention was so fixated on your Double Naught Supersecret Vattel-to-Jay-to-Scott triple play definition of natural born citizen, and on preventing foreign influence, why did they make foreign-born citizens who first came to the United States as adults as eligible for the Presidency as George Washington?

  58. JPotter says:
    February 18, 2013 at 11:32 am  (Quote)

    Paper: Bob Gard (excerpts on secrecy): …. [Doc] seems not to believe in my Axiom 3. Political secrecy causes blurred gaps in the histories of all countries.

    If the apparent purpose of an ‘Axiom” (Gard has pet ‘axioms’? Whoa, Nellie!) is to write a blank check, to tear a hole in the space-time continuum large enough to throw an imaginary universe through, then how is the axiom of any objective utility …. beyond derailing attempt at reality-based discussion?

    Seriously, this is a joker card, a “What, Me Worry?” Don’t like a generally accepted, well-referenced fact? Just say that any entity somewhat connected to the topic was “Keeping a secret”. Or, hell, say the connection itself was the secret, and all of history is wide open!

  59. Welsh Dragon says:
    February 18, 2013 at 11:36 am  (Quote)

    Apart from it’s irrelevance to the subject at hand I’m baffled by Bob claim that explanatory acts are unconstitutional. They’re rare certainly but there’s at least one in the early decades of the republic (“acts to explain and amend” are much more common) but until Bob came along I’d never come across a claim that they are unconstitutional. I suppose a particular act could be an ex post facto law but that would depend on the exact content.

  60. JPotter says:
    February 18, 2013 at 11:39 am  (Quote)

    Have been baffled by that myself. How he determined the equivalence of a SCOTUS opinion to a “British explanatory act”, and, if spotted that determination, on what grounds such are, in his mind, disallowed. Is he referring to ‘explanatory notes’? How is SCOTUS to perform its duties without ever explaining anything?

    Just imagine how Gard feels about executive orders and signing statements.

  61. Dave B. says:
    February 18, 2013 at 12:03 pm  (Quote)

    00Bob says:
    “You haven’t given me your explanation for the removal of “natural-born citizens” in the 1790 Naturalization Act? Please do so. I read your article covering the 1790 and 1795 acts.” What the heck does that have to do with anybody born in the United States?

    “The House introduced into the Record: “Manifestly, Mr. Burke had given the wrong reference to the Act of Parliament of the 12th year of William III which was an inheritance law.” No, “The House” didn’t introduce that into the record. Representative Dowdy introduced an article containing that sentence into the Record, so “that it may be easily available for consideration with other dissertations on the subject.”

    “Perhaps I’ll redact it to; “The House, by introducing this evidence into the record without contradiction, acknowledged that it should be considered.”” No, 00Bob, “The House” didn’t do that.

    “Do we admit that the explanation of natural-born citizen cannot be my way and Dr. Conspiracy’s way concurrently? One must be more probable than the other or a third or fourth option may be better.” Yes. Duh. Guess which one we think is more probable.

    “Do you not understand that my eBook offers extensive circumstantial, corroborative and correlational evidence which link many unexplainable events using my reasoning, among which is why natural-born citizens was struck or replaced from the 1790 act and replaced by citizens in the 1795 act?” That’s the problem here, 00Bob, your reasoning is really, really screwed up. Nobody else would use your reasoning. And the Naturalization Acts are not one bit relevant to persons born in the United States.

    “You stated, “McElwee does not help Bob’s ‘two citizen parent’ theory one wit.” Did not McElwee cast doubt on the reason that natural-born subject was compared to natural-born citizen, whether the doubt came in the form of the term or the legislation? Casting doubt does not infer a difference? Does such doubt infer that natural-born subject and natural-born citizen are simply native-born subjects and citizens with little difference or rather that there is a substantive difference?” 00Bob, you’ve really slipped a cog here. McElwee said
    “The language used in the Constitution must be construed with reference to the English Common Law…It has been frequently held by the U.S. Supreme Court that the language of the Constitution cannot be properly understood without reference to the common law.” What’s your point again?
    And speaking of your point, McElwee further said, as Doc has so capably pointed out,
    “To summarize: a natural-born citizen of the United States, as that term is used in the Constitution of the United States, means a citizen born within the territorial limits of the United States and subject to the laws of the United States a the time of such birth. This does not include children born within the territorial limits of the United States to parents who, although present with the consent of the United States, enjoy diplomatic immunity from the laws of the United States, and, as a consequence are not subject to the laws of the United States. Nor would this include children born within the territorial limits of the United States to alien enemy parents in time of War as a part of a hostile military force, and, as a consequence not present with the consent of the United States, and not subject to the laws of the United States. But this does include children born to alien parents who are present within the territorial limits of the United States “in amity” i.e. with the consent of the United States, and subject to its laws at the time of birth.” You want to fixate on an irrelevant point about the Naturalization Acts. How about that very relevant passage?

    “I will grant you that they confirm the belief that natural-born citizens were simply native-born citizens, but they do not explain why natural-born citizens showed up in Vattel” Who, besides you, gives a Constitutional hoot “why natural-born citizens showed up in Vattel” when even you grant that “the belief that natural-born citizens were simply native-born citizens” is confirmed?

    “Vattel shows up 1470 times in my eBook without counting the personal pronoun.” In your eBook? So what?

    “Think of me as a member of the jury.” I’d rather not think of being stuck on a jury with an irrational person, 00Bob. You’re an irrational person.

    “Will you concede that the term came from Jay? Will you concede that it had to mean something other than native or native-born?” Why should anybody concede such things? You’ve flat-out failed to present anything approaching a convincing argument. You only think your arguments are convincing because you’re an irrational person.

    Here’s one of my favorite 00Bobisms so far:
    “given his outspoken, yet secret, need…” That one really cracks me up.

    “Obviously, George Washington was not in the 1790 Congress. Dr. Conspiracy states Washington signed the act, obviously in his capacity as President though Dr. Conspiracy neglected to make the distinction.” Yes, 00Bob, that bad ol’ Dr. Conspiracy forgot to remind us that George Washington was President. That was downright sneaky of him. Why, I may never be able to trust him again.

    Here’s another real gem:
    “Dr. Conspiracy said, “All of the material on ‘Natural Born Citizen’ on pages 15875-15880 is the essay included under the name of that single House member. “ Hold on. Are you saying the following Representatives did not give oral input? Mr. Vigorito (Joseph Phillip Vigorito, [November 10, 1918–February 5, 2003] was a Democratic member of the U.S. House); Mr. Bingham of Ohio (who also at another time “during a debate [see pg. 2791] regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen.)”; and Mr. King of California (The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. King] for five minutes) were not vocal contributors to the discussion, which actually was a discussion in contrast to your belief that strictly written evidence was entered into the Record?” Why wouldn’t we say they did not “give oral input” to a discussion of natural born citizen? Not one of them did so, as the record clearly demonstrates.

    “You always accuse me of not being academic. Go back and see what happened at the Academy Awards to motion pictures that expressed support for unpopular American wars.” Pure comedy gold, 00Bob. Pure comedy gold.

    “Would Obama have received the Nobel Peace Prize had he endorsed the Iraq war and not snuggled up to Islam?” Never mind the irrelevancy of your digression, and the bias of your characterization– does one generally win a Nobel Peace Prize by endorsing war?

    You say “History is the best means of determining the meaning.” Your problem, 00Bob, is that the history isn’t on your side. You say “The history I have brought to light shows why “natural-born citizens” found its way into Vattel.” No, it doesn’t. Again, you only think it does because you, 00Bob, are an irrational person.

    “None of you will agree, but Arthur in my view was stopped by his own party from being “nominated for the Presidency” for the first time (he gained office by the fact that his president was assassinated.) The party doubted his natural-born status.” Bingo. None of us will agree with that. You ask “Why did the following Vice-Presidents serve out part of their predecessor’s term and win subsequent re-election in their own right: Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry S. Truman, and Lyndon Baines Johnson?” Because they got elected in their own right. That trend began with Roosevelt. Why did John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, and Andrew Johnson serve out part of their predecessor’s term and NOT win subsequent re-election in their own right?

    You ask “Why does Obama deny us access to his original birth certificate?” He doesn’t. Not at all. 00Bob, if you can’t get a basic fact like that one straight, why would anybody take your 1700-and-some-odd page eBook seriously?

  62. Scientist says:
    February 18, 2013 at 12:26 pm  (Quote)

    JPotter: Just imagine how Gard feels about executive orders and signing statements.

    Many people question whether signing statements have any legal force, since the Constitution only gives the President the power to sign or veto not the power to amend.

    Dave B.: Why did John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, and Andrew Johnson serve out part of their predecessor’s term and NOT win subsequent re-election in their own right?

    And Ford, though, unlike them, he got his party’s nomination (barely). The score is 5-4 with Arthur being among the 5. Pretending he was anomalous or that his not winning a full term had anything to do with his fathers citizenship is yet another of Bob’s lies, since the other 4 had citizen fathers (in Ford’s case, both biological and adoptive).

  63. Publius says:
    February 18, 2013 at 12:54 pm  (Quote)

    Paul Pieniezny: I agree with Lupin that Blackstone got it wrong. It would be interesting to know when he wrote that exactly, because the French Revolution made the view of the Paris Parlement universal through France, only to be repealed by Vatellite Napoleon. If Blackstone wrote that between 1790 and 1804, he was very much mistaken.

    Around 1765. Maybe it reflected France in earlier times.

  64. Publius says:
    February 18, 2013 at 1:56 pm  (Quote)

    Okay, I’ve worked my way, more or less, through Bob’s latest post. It is just getting too tiresome to read, but I’m making the effort.

    The big reason it’s getting too tiresome to read is that Bob just brushes off so much genuine evidence in favor of nutty stuff that just doesn’t wash. And he characterizes stuff that beats the tar out of his thesis as being in favor of it. It’s sad, really.

    He introduces a bunch of dubious quotes where Washington supposedly favored the native-born for positions of critical trust during the Revolutionary War. Well, first of all, the quotes are of dubious authenticity. Secondly, if they’re real, they would make a lot of sense, since the people were dividing up into those who were pro-Revolutionary and anti-Revolutionary. Third, if true they all would give trust to a person simply BORN on American soil without any reference whatsoever as to parentage. So there’s nothing to help Bob here.

    He asks, “Will you concede that [the term ‘natural born citizen’] had to mean something other than native or native-born?”

    IT DOES, BOB. IT DOES. NOBODY IS ARGUING THE TWO TERMS ARE 100% IDENTICAL. ALTHOUGH THE TWO TERMS WERE OFTEN USED AS IF THEY WERE SYNONYMOUS DURING THE EARLY DAYS OF THE UNITED STATES, THERE IS IN FACT A DISTINCTION. “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” IS ANYBODY WHO IS A CITIZEN AT OR BY BIRTH. THAT INCLUDES ALL NATIVE-BORN PERSONS EXCEPT FOR THE FEW HISTORICAL EXCEPTIONS. IT ALSO INCLUDES THOSE BORN US CITIZENS ABROAD BECAUSE THEY HAVE US CITIZEN PARENTS.

    He also claims McElwee “helps” him, even though McElwee (who is only minutely of significance in the first place) clearly and decisively trashes his claims.

    Bob seems to think two little bits of history are critically important and have to be “explained.”

    1) Congress changed “natural born citizens” in the 1790 act to “citizens” in the 1795 one.

    2) The anonymous London translator of a fairly obscure Swiss philosopher translated his word “indigenes” as “natural born citizens” in a 1797 London translation of his book.

    This is the insane methodology of the conspiracy theorist: Ignore centuries of good data, and find a couple of minor points that you can use to claim “proof” of your theory.

    Or, to put it another way, ignore that in nearly 400 years of recorded history, we have no credible sightings or photographs of Bigfoot in the Central Park area of New York City. Go to Central Park, find what appears to be a large and indistinct footprint, and find a large broken branch. Claim that the footprint can be nothing other than a Bigfoot footprint, and the branch is too large to have been broken by any human being or by the wind. Voila. We have “proof” that Bigfoot inhabits Central Park, roaming only at night and when people are not looking.

    In reality, there is no need to “explain” the “indistinct footprint” or the large broken branch. They are insignificant bits of data, “meaningful” only to the conspiracy theorist.

    But even so, they are easily explained, in any event. The “indistinct footprint” is a combination of multiple footprints in the same place. The broken branch, contrary to the conspiracy theorist’s assertion, could easily have been broken by a gust of wind.

    In the present case, there are two possible explanations for the change in the 1795 act. Perhaps at least some of the legislators really did feel they could make such persons ineligible to the Presidency by leaving out the words “natural born.” That’s a possible explanation. Or, perhaps they had no such intention but felt that including the words was simply unnecessary. Or, perhaps some felt one way, and others felt the other way!

    We don’t know which it was. The historical record doesn’t tell us. Any claim to the contrary is just speculation.

    Far more important: IT DOESN’T MATTER. It doesn’t matter one damn bit. Because neither law had anything at all to say about the status of those born on US soil.

    Likewise, the presence of “natural born citizens” in the anonymous 1797 London translation of Vattel has a simple and straightforward explanation, which has already been given. It is an explanation that fits the facts and situation better than Bob’s theory, but Bob will never accept it. Why not? Because he doesn’t like it.

    That explanation is that we have a record of past ENGLISH translators using the exact same phrase (“natural born citizen” or “natural born citizens”) when translating works from other languages in which the word “CITIZEN” was used. In other words, the natural English phrase to use would have been “natural born subject,” but they looked at the foreign language work they were translating and it didn’t say “subject,” it said “citizen” – just as Vattel’s original repeatedly used the word “citoyen” in that passage.

    So for that reason, instead of using the phrase “natural born subject,” the translator used “natural born citizen.” We have several examples of this exact thing dating from before the US Constitution. It’s not hard to understand.

    So once again, Bob’s conspiracy theory (and that is quite literally what it is at this point, a theory that John Jay secretly conspired with others to “put one over” on the American people) fails not just to pass the “beyond a reasonable doubt” test, and not just on a “preponderance of the evidence” test.

    It doesn’t even get to first base. It fails on every single count.

  65. sfjeff says:
    February 18, 2013 at 1:57 pm  (Quote)

    Bob:
    “I concluded that the secrecy code disallowed them the freedom to make the problematic usage of natural-born citizen known to the 1790 Congress.”

    ‘The secrecy code’?

    Sorry, once I saw that I stopped reading.

  66. Dave B. says:
    February 18, 2013 at 2:36 pm  (Quote)

    They’ve given 00Bob a number and taken ‘way his name.

    sfjeff:
    Bob:
    “I concluded that the secrecy code disallowed them the freedom to make the problematic usage of natural-born citizen known to the 1790 Congress.”

    ‘The secrecy code’?

    Sorry, once I saw that I stopped reading.

  67. Publius says:
    February 18, 2013 at 2:36 pm  (Quote)

    One more comment:

    My words have been skewed. I believe that “instinct” in the American electorate has been the reason why only two non-natural-born citizens by Jay’s definition have been elected to the presidency. It can’t be knowledge beyond a shadow of doubt because the term natural-born citizen was not defined in the Constitution as Dr. Conspiracy well knows.

    First, it’s simply stupid to say, with no evidence, that Jay had such-and-such a “definition” of “natural born citizen.” Unless Bob can produce some real evidence that John Jay believed a “natural born citizen” had to have two citizen parents, he needs to stop characterizing BOB’S “definition,” or the BIRTHER “definition,” as John Jay’s.

    In other words, unless he has some real evidence to the contrary, then Bob needs to accept that John Jay’s definition of “natural born citizen” was the same as everybody else’s definition. And all credible evidence is that that definition was the same as “natural born subject,” except substituting the word “citizen” for “subject.”

    Second, might it actually be that roughly the same small percentage of citizens with a non-citizen parent as exists in the population have actually RUN for President? Dr. Conspiracy has already introduced evidence that that is the case. About 5% of people born in America, historically, have had one or more non-citizen parents. About 5% of elected Presidents have had one or more non-citizen parents. Bob has done nothing to refute that.

    I’m not sure why I’m even still following this. It’s gone on for two weeks now, and Bob clearly has no evidence of any substance to present, and has no response to all the evidence that’s out there that destroys his theory.

  68. JPotter says:
    February 18, 2013 at 2:36 pm  (Quote)

    sfjeff: ‘The secrecy code’?

    Title of the reel playing in Gard’s brain cinema?

  69. Paper says:
    February 18, 2013 at 2:40 pm  (Quote)

    I remain amused that not only does Mr. Gard want us to accept his (conspiracy) theory, he thinks we should accept, and restore, the (theoretical) conspiracy!

    Publius: So once again, Bob’s conspiracy theory (and that is quite literally what it is at this point, a theory that John Jay secretly conspired with others to “put one over” on the American people) fails not just to pass the “beyond a reasonable doubt” test, and not just on a “preponderance of the evidence” test.

  70. JPotter says:
    February 18, 2013 at 2:45 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: Many people question whether signing statements have any legal force, since the Constitution only gives the President the power to sign or veto not the power to amend.

    Absolutely, Scientist; I wasn’t trying to open up a can of worms there, but rather contrasting the absolutely routine judicial prose Gard is in a tizzy over with some items that actually have worrisome diabolical / dictatorial potential.

    He’s made it pretty clear that he considers judicial review to be an overreach, as do many loony originalists. It’s an essential part of SCOTUS function, keeps the Constitution relevant and alive. The country must have an apolitical entity that advocates for its guiding principles and ideals. Not an idol in an archive, but a living truth. Clearly, Gard and his ilk would rather have a dead piece of paper. The material rather than the spirit.

  71. Reality Check says:
    February 18, 2013 at 2:52 pm  (Quote)

    I have not responded to this claim by 00Bob but it is a nonsensical use of statistical data. As has been pointed out the fraction of the presidents with either no or one citizen parent is not significantly different than the population as a whole. Also, there is the matter that presidents have tended to come from politically entrenched families for reasons of the advantages of name recognition, financing, and a political structure in place to make the run. You can probably name four or five off the top of your head; John Quincey Adams and George W. Bush were the sons of Presidents. Taft, Kennedy, and FDR were from powerful American political families.

    Publius: Second, might it actually be that roughly the same small percentage of citizens with a non-citizen parent as exists in the population have actually RUN for President? Dr. Conspiracy has already introduced evidence that that is the case. About 5% of people born in America, historically, have had one or more non-citizen parents. About 5% of elected Presidents have had one or more non-citizen parents. Bob has done nothing to refute that.

    I’m not sure why I’m even still following this. It’s gone on for two weeks now, and Bob clearly has no evidence of any substance to present, and has no response to all the evidence that’s out there that destroys his theory.

  72. Scientist says:
    February 18, 2013 at 3:45 pm  (Quote)

    JPotter: Absolutely, Scientist; I wasn’t trying to open up a can of worms there, but rather contrasting the absolutely routine judicial prose Gard is in a tizzy over with some items that actually have worrisome diabolical / dictatorial potential.

    I think concerns about US presidents being dictators are enormously overblown. The US presidency is really a fairly weak office-the French President, for example, can dissolve the National Assembly and call new elections (imagine if Obama could do that with Congress) and call a referendum on any important issue. Yet, he is not a dictator. Prime Ministers in parliamentary systems like Britain and Canada can call elections whenever they wish within their 5 year mandate, whenever things look most advantageous for them. If their party has a majority of seats, they can do more or less what they want. Yet they are not dictators.

    JPotter: He’s made it pretty clear that he considers judicial review to be an overreach, as do many loony originalists. It’s an essential part of SCOTUS function, keeps the Constitution relevant and alive. The country must have an apolitical entity that advocates for its guiding principles and ideals. Not an idol in an archive, but a living truth. Clearly, Gard and his ilk would rather have a dead piece of paper. The material rather than the spirit.

    Yet, none of them have an answer for how disputes would get resolved, if not by some body. Who says if a law is constitutional or not? Looking at the writings of the founders is certainly interesting, but there are countless situations they never could have imagined: you would look in vain for what they thought of the disposition of IVF embryos or whether recombinant bacteria are patentable or any of thousands of issues that arise today. Nor could you find it in Vattel. So, I ask Bob, who decides in BobWorld? I’m sure his answer is “Bob”, but I am sure that the jury here would not accept that. So, who?

  73. Dave B. says:
    February 18, 2013 at 4:16 pm  (Quote)

    It’s kind of like this one right here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz65AOjabtM
    The 00Bob disaster-in-progress just goes on and on. What boulder is he going to drop on his own head next?

    Publius: I’m not sure why I’m even still following this.

  74. Northland10 says:
    February 18, 2013 at 6:23 pm  (Quote)

    sfjeff:
    Bob:
    “I concluded that the secrecy code disallowed them the freedom to make the problematic usage of natural-born citizen known to the 1790 Congress.”

    ‘The secrecy code’?

    Sorry, once I saw that I stopped reading.

    That is where I stop as well. Does he have evidence there was a secrecy code regarding any terms in the Constitution? I doubt it.

  75. JPotter says:
    February 18, 2013 at 6:39 pm  (Quote)

    Gard [quoted by Publius]: I believe that “instinct” in the American electorate has been the reason why only two non-natural-born citizens by Jay’s definition have been elected to the presidency.

    “instinct”?

    Instinct? LOL!

    Wisdom of crowds? Guidance of the divine hand?

    Hmm … what else may have guided the masses of a predominantly caucasian population with long traditions of nativism and chauvinism to affect a preference for old white dudes from the block?

  76. JPotter says:
    February 18, 2013 at 6:41 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: I’m not sure why I’m even still following this.

    It’s a brain wreck, and one of the few remaining games in town. How does a person go so wrong? And what will he say next??? Stay tuned to find out!

  77. Keith says:
    February 18, 2013 at 6:47 pm  (Quote)

    sfjeff:
    Bob:
    “I concluded that the secrecy code disallowed them the freedom to make the problematic usage of natural-born citizen known to the 1790 Congress.”

    ‘The secrecy code’?

    Sorry, once I saw that I stopped reading.

    The convention did have a secrecy ‘code’. But it was to keep distractions to a minimum, not to perpetrate a fraud on the people. Which is what Bob is trying to convince us of.

    If the Constitutional Convention perpetrated a fraud, are we really still operating under the Articles of Confederation?

  78. Publius says:
    February 18, 2013 at 7:32 pm  (Quote)

    JPotter: “instinct”?

    Instinct? LOL!

    Wisdom of crowds? Guidance of the divine hand?

    I thought about commenting on this earlier.

    For sake of discussion, let’s grant the premise: That only selecting Presidents with two citizen parents is a Good Thing, and that the electorate instinctively tends to prefer such candidates.

    And their voting for such candidates is also a Good Thing, because it protects us from that hint of foreign influence that (God forbid) might be introduced by having a father or mother from Kenya. Or Japan. Or Germany.

    That still doesn’t imply that candidates with non-citizen parents are Constitutionally ineligible.

    Just because a thing is Less Good (or even Bad) doesn’t mean it’s contrary to the law, or to qualifications.

    I think we can all agree that electing a President with a prior conviction for bank robbery would be a Bad Thing. And I think we can probably agree that electing a President who was born of two US citizen parents in Louisville, Kentucky, but who was then sent at age 17 for 10 years of education at a communist indoctrination center in China would be a Bad Thing.

    But there is no Constitutional qualification that says bank robbers or people educated abroad in unfriendly countries can’t be elected President.

    Beyond the simple “natural born citizen” and age qualifications, the Founding Fathers didn’t intend to micromanage who we selected as President. They relied on the People to have a modicum of sense.

  79. Publius says:
    February 18, 2013 at 7:35 pm  (Quote)

    JPotter: It’s a brain wreck, and one of the few remaining games in town.

    Yes, it is a brain wreck.

    Reminds me of the story about the guy who was called in for an interview with the railroad.

    “You have a train heading from Philadelphia to New York, and one heading from New York to Philadelphia, and you suddenly realize they are on the exact same track. What do you do?”

    “Well, I’d call my brother Bob.”

    “And why would you call your brother Bob?”

    “‘Cause Bob, he ain’t never seen a train wreck before.”

  80. Kiwiwriter says:
    February 18, 2013 at 9:01 pm  (Quote)

    Hi, Doc:

    I’ve been reading this page with near-religious fanaticism for some months now, and haven’t felt a need to comment, because your supporters are doing a pretty good job of it, but I finally saw something I had to weigh in on…

    This guy Bob Gard…in his story about his trip to Russia and his encounters with the cops, I noticed something that didn’t ring right.

    I’m not a constitutional scholar, I’m a historian, journalist, and writer, with an MFA in Creative Writing, so I ping on writing, story arcs, and stuff like that.

    What I saw that I pinged on was Bob’s account of how he got in trouble with Russian police. After his first two encounters with them, he went with his pals and got drunk at some tourist spot. Then he and his pals drove back from the tourist spot…drunk.

    And got nailed by the Soviet police.

    Now, the reason that didn’t ring right with me was the behavior. One would think that after two unpleasant encounters with the NKVD or their brethren, a visitor to the Soviet Union would have learned his lesson, and not behaved in a manner that would be guaranteed to attract the attention of the “greenskins.” But, nope, Bob had to go and get uproariously drunk, and then drive back to the hotel while soused.

    In America, that’s pretty serious and dangerous in business. In the Soviet Union, that’s pretty serious and dangerous business…especially by a foreign tourist. It’s like walking around wearing a neon sign that says, “Arrest me.”

    For that reason alone, I had trouble believing Bob’s highly-colored stories. I think he’s developed excuses for his failures, like other paranoiacs, and is blaming all these folks for his botch-ups.

    So those questionable personal credentials make me question his professional work.

    I think this web page is a tremendous site, and it’s absolutely fascinating. If these jokers like Orly Taitz weren’t making our judicial system, judges, and federal attorneys waste valuable amounts of time and energy responding to these idiocies, it would be hilarious. Instead, it’s just sad and depressing. I do wonder why Orly Taitz hasn’t been disbarred yet.

    The worst things about these train wrecks is that people believe them. I try to remind myself that there are also a lot of people who think that Elvis is alive, the Holocaust didn’t happen, and that UFOs are abducting American citizens. Would they would take Orly.

  81. Majority Will says:
    February 18, 2013 at 9:09 pm  (Quote)

    Welcome Kiwiwriter.

  82. Jim says:
    February 18, 2013 at 9:15 pm  (Quote)

    Kiwiwriter:

    I’m not a constitutional scholar, I’m a historian, journalist, and writer, with an MFA in Creative Writing, so I ping on writing, story arcs, and stuff like that.

    So Kiki…what do you think about Bob’s work of fiction? Does he need to work on his writing skills? 😀

  83. Publius says:
    February 18, 2013 at 9:26 pm  (Quote)

    Kiwiwriter: I try to remind myself that there are also a lot of people who think that Elvis is alive, the Holocaust didn’t happen, and that UFOs are abducting American citizens.

    Wait. Are you saying that Elvis is really dead?

  84. MN-Skeptic says:
    February 18, 2013 at 10:42 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: Wait. Are you saying that Elvis is really dead?

    Of course not. The aliens still have him.

  85. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 18, 2013 at 11:37 pm  (Quote)

    More entries in the Great Debate. I don’t recommend that you read either of them.

  86. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 18, 2013 at 11:43 pm  (Quote)

    Thanks for your kind remark.

    One of the differences between us and them (conspiracy theorists) is that we are more comfortable with uncertainty than they are. Orly Taitz’ continued practice of law in California is one of the mysteries of the age (along with how she passed the bar in the first case).

    Kiwiwriter: I think this web page is a tremendous site, and it’s absolutely fascinating. If these jokers like Orly Taitz weren’t making our judicial system, judges, and federal attorneys waste valuable amounts of time and energy responding to these idiocies, it would be hilarious. Instead, it’s just sad and depressing. I do wonder why Orly Taitz hasn’t been disbarred yet.

  87. misha marinsky says:
    February 19, 2013 at 4:02 am  (Quote)

    Kiwiwriter: I try to remind myself that there are also a lot of people who think that Elvis is alive

    Wait, that WASN’T Elvis in the frozen food isle?! I gave him my car keys so he could get to the concert on time. Oh, man…now what?!

    Kiwiwriter: UFOs are abducting American citizens.

    Don’t laugh. I was kidnapped by aliens. Their leader said, “We know you speak a rare language – Yiddish. Teach us how to buy wholesale, and we’ll let you leave the spaceship.” Then they threw in a limo ride home.

    Such a deal, you wouldn’t believe it.

  88. The Magic M says:
    February 19, 2013 at 4:25 am  (Quote)

    Kiwiwriter: I try to remind myself that there are also a lot of people who think that Elvis is alive, the Holocaust didn’t happen, and that UFOs are abducting American citizens.

    Once difference is that the Elvis and UFO memes don’t require massive conspiracies. It’s not that far-fetched to believe that a celebrity could fake his own death by bribing one or two officials, or that UFO’s have simply gone undetected by the authorities so far.

    Denying the Holocaust or being a birther (or believing in the Moon Landing Hoax), OTOH, only works if you count tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people hell-bent on protecting a fake story (that isn’t even worth all these efforts in the first place*) and being able to keep it air-tight for decades without anything ever bleeding through (while at the same time leaving such “obvious holes” in the narrative and evidence that the “enlightened ones” can see it immediately, aka “hiding in plain sight”).

    __
    (*) By that I mean that in faking such historical facts, the efforts invested would far outweigh the benefits. E.g. what difference would it make if somebody said today “yeah sorry, we didn’t really go to the moon back then”? It would be less serious on the “OMG the government lied to us?” scale than the fake WMD excuse used to invade Iraq.
    Or the Holocaust, which right-wing extremists over here claim was “invented to bleed Germany dry”? Hey, if some conspiracy had wanted that, “they” could have found a more efficient way, e.g. by never allowing Germany to become powerful and prospering again.

  89. American Mzungu says:
    February 19, 2013 at 6:05 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: More entries in the Great Debate. I don’t recommend that you read either of them.

    Is there a strategy for exiting from the Great Debate?

  90. Welsh Dragon says:
    February 19, 2013 at 8:07 am  (Quote)

    OMG
    I didn’t notice this before, I think Bob thinks he’s quoting James Madison!

    “Madison continued to stress what some people would describe as Washington’s xenophobia, but which I’d rather call reasonable caution toward foreigners. Please remember that his best political and personal friend, John Jay, shared his feelings in full measure.

    “The correspondence of Gen. Washington, from the commencement of the Revolution almost to the date of his death, abounds in similar sentiments [mistrust of foreigners]. I [Madison] refer to a few of his letters:—

    ‘Morristown, May 7th 1777.”

    What Bob is quoting from is a series of 11 letters written in the 1850s under the pen name “Madison”. The letters are a defense of “Americanism” and include the dubious Washington quotes that Bob has used (the May 7th 1777 date belongs to another that he hasn’t yet used), statistics up to and including 1855, plus references to Millard Fillmore so they seem to have been written in the context of the 1856 Presidential election. They are reproduced in the “Political Textbook or Encyclopedia” of 1859 (I think I said 1858 in an earlier post – a typo) and came into birferism in 2009 via the “Undead Revolution”.

  91. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 19, 2013 at 8:26 am  (Quote)

    I was considering throwing up my hands in disgust.

    American Mzungu: Is there a strategy for exiting from the Great Debate?

  92. Welsh Dragon says:
    February 19, 2013 at 8:47 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I was considering throwing up my hands in disgust.

    I was considering:

    “I make no remarks on this ridiculous doctrine—its absurdity is obvious” – John Jay May 22 1793.

  93. Scientist says:
    February 19, 2013 at 9:27 am  (Quote)

    Welsh Dragon: I didn’t notice this before, I think Bob thinks he’s quoting James Madison!

    Since Bob has accused Madison, Washington and the rest of being part of a conspiracy to dupe the ratifiers and the rest of the public, I don’t see why he would try to use their words (real or fake) to support his arguments.

  94. Publius says:
    February 19, 2013 at 11:22 am  (Quote)

    The Magic M: It would be less serious on the “OMG the government lied to us?” scale than the fake WMD excuse used to invade Iraq.

    There was no “fake WMD excuse” by the government in that instance. There may have been a massive failure of intelligence, but that’s the federal government for you. Both Republicans and Democrats believed in Saddam’s WMDs prior to the invasion. It is also a known fact that he had possessed and used such weapons in the past. And whether he had such weapons at the time of invasion or not, he certainly spared no effort in conveying that impression to the United States and everybody else as well.

    And the theory that Saddam’s WMDs may have been transferred to Syria is supported by some evidence. Among other things, this includes reports, published in The Atlantic and The New York Times, of an “unusual build-up of traffic out of Iraq” in the days just before the war. This traffic included “closed convoys of unmarked trucks, which other drivers were forbidden from approaching or overtaking.”

    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/07/did-syria-receive-its-chemical-weapons-saddam/55142/

    If we accept that this convoy to Syria existed, as reported in major media, then what was in it? We don’t seem to have an answer to that question.

    Iraq is also a large and sandy place. There are reports of known sites that weren’t searched, and there could very well be other, undiscovered sites as well.

    The main evidence against Saddam sending his WMDs to Syria seems to me to have been, “That would have been a stupid thing for him to do.” Well, given the fact that he goaded the United States into destroying his regime and putting a few dozen bullet holes in both of his sons and heirs, and ended up with a rope around his own neck, I’m not sure Saddam was the best decision maker.

    Aside from which, there are other possible scenarios, including (for example) a deal made by a Saddam subordinate who knew Saddam’s regime was certainly going to collapse, and who feathered his own nest across the border.

    In any event, intelligence failure? That’s government. But I regard the idea that the Bush administration “lied” as a conspiracy theory of the left, just as birtherism is a conspiracy theory of the right.

  95. Publius says:
    February 19, 2013 at 11:37 am  (Quote)

    I swear, Bob’s writing reminds me of this:

    http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/

  96. The Magic M says:
    February 19, 2013 at 11:48 am  (Quote)

    Publius: There are reports of known sites that weren’t searched, and there could very well be other, undiscovered sites as well.

    And not one former Iraqi regime member has given up that information? Not one document was found documenting the assembly and storage of such materials? Was the Saddam regime as perfect in covering up its secret WMD operations as the conspiracy believers think the Almighty Conspiracy is?

    Sorry, this reasoning sounds to me like the loons in Germany who claim the Third Reich owned flying saucers and death rays and moved them to Antarctica before the Reich fell. After all, there could still be some undiscovered place near the South Pole where all those “Wunderwaffen” have been hidden, right?

    Publius: I’m not sure Saddam was the best decision maker.

    Saddam thought if others believed he had WMD, that would deter them from attacking him. The opposite was true. Maybe bad judgment, maybe just a gamble that could’ve worked.

  97. Scientist says:
    February 19, 2013 at 12:15 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: In any event, intelligence failure? That’s government. But I regard the idea that the Bush administration “lied” as a conspiracy theory of the left, just as birtherism is a conspiracy theory of the right.

    I regard starting a war on faulty intelligence to be very little, if at all, better than lying. The obligation lay with Bush to get it right. They couldn’t even be bothered sending anyone from the CIA, FBI or any other agency to Germany to interview “Curveball” to verify his story (which was made-up). Negligence is pretty serious in such matters. IMO Bush didn’t want to know, as the decision was already taken in the month or 2 after 9/11.

    Anyway, given the number of WMDs the US, Russia, the UK, China, France, Israel, Pakistan, India and other countries have, I am not sold that mere possession of them by some tinpot tyrant justifies war. This goes for Iran too. Pass the word that any use or threat of use will lead to incineration and that should suffice. It worked with Stalin and Mao, 2 of history’s great mass murderers. It would work with Saddam and the Mullahs. They may seek martyrdom for others, but for themselves, not so much.

  98. Publius says:
    February 19, 2013 at 12:44 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: I regard starting a war on faulty intelligence to be very little, if at all, better than lying. The obligation lay with Bush to get it right.

    Certainly they had an obligation to get it right. But you presume competence and effectiveness in our government agencies.

    And I’m not going to look it up (I frankly don’t care at this point) but I don’t think it was just our intelligence agencies, either. I think there were other Western intelligence agencies who believed the same thing. Again, Saddam was doing everything possible to give that impression. He was blocking international inspections at every turn and playing hocus-pocus with whatever inspection teams were allowed into the country. He made Iraq as much of a closed box as he could. In those circumstances, there is an inherent lack of data, and one must draw conclusions with the data available.

    There’s also such a thing as risk assessment. If you have a known homicidal nutjob next door who is reportedly stockpiling weapons in his basement with a plan to burn down the neighborhood and murder you, your wife and your daughters, then you have a choice: Threaten him with destruction, knowing that some of these types either don’t care or don’t think you’re going to be able to follow through. Or… take the SOB out. Saddam was assessed, in the days before the second Gulf War, to have a megalomaniac idea that he was going to “humble” the United States. And such a view was not entirely unreasonable on his part, given the fact that we had failed to take him out during the first war. We also had former Soviet nuclear materials going missing on a dangerous scale during that era.

    I for one am glad we took that SOB down. Aside from the fact that we’re rid of him, we sent a clear message to others like him: Don’t screw around with us. We might be very slow and reluctant to get riled up, but we are not pussycats that you can just screw around with and walk over.

  99. Scientist says:
    February 19, 2013 at 1:02 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: And I’m not going to look it up (I frankly don’t care at this point) but I don’t think it was just our intelligence agencies, either. I think there were other Western intelligence agencies who believed the same thing

    So you would cede decisions for the US to go to war go to other countries’ intelligence services? And at least 2 of those countries, France and Germany, didn’t think that intelligence justified war.

    As for “taking out”, it isn’t the business of Americans who runs other countries. The cost in lives and treasure in Iraq was simply not justifiable. The Iraqis would have risen up the way the Syrians, Egyptians, Tunisians and others have. If they didn’t then that would be their call. How would you like it if some country out there decided that they had a right to pick the US President?

  100. ballantine says:
    February 19, 2013 at 1:16 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I was considering throwing up my hands in disgust.

    Once you cross into “secret code” and crazy framer conspiracy theories territory, the crazy horse has pretty much left the barn. Bob has gone beyond the crazy of butterzillion or any of her freeper friends. Sure, the framers wanted to protect us from foreign influence so much they drafted a provision to do so, but kept it secret so no one would know about it and it would provide no protection.

  101. Publius says:
    February 19, 2013 at 1:28 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: So you would cede decisions for the US to go to war go to other countries’ intelligence services?

    No. I note that other countries’ assessments concurred with our own.

    As for “taking out”, it isn’t the business of Americans who runs other countries. The cost in lives and treasure in Iraq was simply not justifiable.

    It’s our business if there is reason to believe that person may be plotting things like putting suitcase nukes in the harbors of our major coastal cities, or flying crop dusters with a few hundred pounds of anthrax over our major cities. You’d better believe it’s our business.

    Unlike the vast majority of Americans, I was actively following what was publicly known of Saddam’s mindset, capabilities and intentions towards America in the months prior to 9/11. Unlike the vast majority of Americans, I was versed in what he might well be able to do to us with relatively small quantities of renegade nukes, anthrax, or weaponized smallpox.

    It was frankly a relief to me when the American bombs started falling on Iraq, and when US boots hit the ground.

    If your neighbor is a known homicidal nutjob who is confirmed to have slaughtered people by the thousands in the past, using weapons of mass destruction, and all the available information suggests that he has, or at least very well may have, plans to blow your house up, you don’t wait for the explosion to rip your family’s limbs from their bodies. You eliminate the threat.

    The Iraqis would have risen up the way the Syrians, Egyptians, Tunisians and others have. If they didn’t then that would be their call. How would you like it if some country out there decided that they had a right to pick the US President?

    If the current US President ruled the United States as a dictator, and if he and his sons roamed the streets picking up women to rape at will, and randomly fed people into the plastic shredding machines for their own amusement, and oppressed the entire nation and caused us all to live in fear for our lives, and did things like saying, “I’m having a bad day,” and then lined up captured members of those who opposed him, and went through and personally took a pistol and slaughtered them by the dozens, and then said, “I feel better now,” you can bet that I would welcome whatever power came in and overthrew such a son of a b*tch.

    As did the Iraqi people, by the millions.

  102. Publius says:
    February 19, 2013 at 1:32 pm  (Quote)

    ballantine: Sure, the framers wanted to protect us from foreign influence so much they drafted a provision to do so, but kept it secret so no one would know about it and it would provide no protection.

    😆

  103. Welsh Dragon says:
    February 19, 2013 at 1:34 pm  (Quote)

    Just for completeness – the “Madison Letters” that I referred to earlier were published as a set in 1956 as:

    ” Twelve Letters Over the Signature of “Madison”, on the American Question”

    By former Secretary of the Interior Alexander Hughes Holmes Stuart of Virginia. Whether he wrote them himself or just edited and published them I do not yet know.

  104. Scientist says:
    February 19, 2013 at 5:28 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: As did the Iraqi people, by the millions.

    For about a month before they started putting out IEDs.

    Look, this is way off topic, so I will just say that North Korea makes Saddam’s Iraq look like a paradise and they HAVE nukes (no guessing necessary). The slaughter in Congo and Sudan are far worse in death toll than anything that Saddam ever dreamed of and are ongoing. The focus on Iraq was highly selective to say the least.

    THE END

  105. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 19, 2013 at 6:21 pm  (Quote)

    I am pleased to report that Bob and I have arrived at a consensus regarding the context of the remarks from attorney McElwee inserted into the Congressional Record in 1967. Bob says that he was working from a printed copy that shuffled things around so as to make it appear that several speakers were involved.

  106. Keith says:
    February 19, 2013 at 6:34 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I was considering throwing up my hands in disgust.

    The problem is that they then declare victory. I tried to warn you were in a no win situation. Stephen Jay Gould was a smart man.

  107. JPotter says:
    February 19, 2013 at 7:56 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: Bob says that he was working from a printed copy that shuffled things around so as to make it appear that several speakers were involved.

    Did he provide a citation to the printed copy he says he was using? A ‘shuffled around’ version of the Congressional Record…?

    Sounds like possible reading comprehension trouble a/o willing self-deception.

  108. Publius says:
    February 19, 2013 at 8:00 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: Bob says that he was working from a printed copy that shuffled things around so as to make it appear that several speakers were involved.

    It’s nice that Bob has admitted to his error. But the error is just another brick in the wall of evidence that the quality of Bob’s research does not meet the appropriate standards.

    Speaking of which, he takes another big hit (among about a zillion) for trying to use a source that clearly and decisively contradicts his claim as if it is somehow in favor of his arguments.

  109. Publius says:
    February 19, 2013 at 8:02 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: The slaughter in Congo and Sudan are far worse in death toll than anything that Saddam ever dreamed of and are ongoing. The focus on Iraq was highly selective to say the least.

    Yes, it is way off topic. That said, I never felt threatened or concerned by what Congo, Sudan or even North Korea might do to us here in America. I can’t say the same for Saddam’s Iraq.

  110. Crustacean says:
    February 19, 2013 at 8:08 pm  (Quote)

    Keith: The problem is that they then declare victory. I tried to warn you were in a no win situation. Stephen Jay Gould was a smart man.

    Stephen Jay Gould was indeed a smart man. I must’ve missed an earlier reference in this thread, but are you bringing him up to compare the NBC debate to Gould’s debate with Creationists (or, rather his lack of interest in debating them)? Interesting parallel, but I’m not sure it’s totally applicable. In the case of Creationists v. Evolution, the debate is practically a non-starter, for the simple reason that fundamental religious beliefs exist in a domain completely separate from science. At least in the case of Mr. Gard v. Dr. Conspiracy, they are operating in the same arena, discussing the same texts – albeit with radically different interpretations. OTOH, I can’t deny that there seems to be a kind of unshakeable, religious-like BELIEF at the core of birtherdom that is impervious to rational thinking.

    And as far as their declaring victory: who cares? Hell, anyone can do that. Just watch me: I declare that I was the MVP of the Super Bowl!!

    Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to pack for Disney World…

  111. Crustacean says:
    February 19, 2013 at 8:14 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: I don’t recommend that you read either of them.

    Sure, Doc. Lemony Snicket tries that same warning at the start of his “Series of Unfortunate Events” books. I ignored his advice, too! 🙂

  112. American Mzungu says:
    February 19, 2013 at 8:17 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: I am pleased to report that Bob and I have arrived at a consensus regarding the context of the remarks from attorney McElwee inserted into the Congressional Record in 1967.

    I hope you will draft the consensus wording.

  113. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 19, 2013 at 8:26 pm  (Quote)

    I was sincere.

    Crustacean: Sure, Doc. Lemony Snicket tries that same warning at the start of his “Series of Unfortunate Events” books.

  114. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 19, 2013 at 8:31 pm  (Quote)

    The consensus is that McElwee was a private attorney whose essay on natural born citizenship was inserted into the Congressional Record by Congressman Dowdy (D-TX), and that it was not so inserted in the midst of a floor debate on George Romney’s eligibility.

    At least I think Bob would agree to that.

    American Mzungu: I hope you will draft the consensus wording.

  115. Scientist says:
    February 19, 2013 at 9:12 pm  (Quote)

    Crustacean: At least in the case of Mr. Gard v. Dr. Conspiracy, they are operating in the same arena, discussing the same texts – albeit with radically different interpretations.

    I don’t agree. Bob regards the actual written Constitution as a mere front for the secret, unwritten one. Dr C seems to take it to mean what it says, without artifice. So they really have in mind 2 very different texts.

  116. Dave B. says:
    February 19, 2013 at 10:00 pm  (Quote)

    That’s a bit ironic, isn’t it?

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Bob says that he was working from a printed copy that shuffled things around so as to make it appear that several speakers were involved.

  117. Thomas Brown says:
    February 19, 2013 at 11:43 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: I don’t agree.Bob regards the actual written Constitution as a mere front for the secret, unwritten one.Dr C seems to take it to mean what it says, without artifice.So they really have in mind 2 very different texts.

    Speaking of which, what is especially galling to me about Gard, Strunk, Sibley, Apuzzo et. al., is this:

    There have now been 112 Supreme Court Justices. What the Constitution says, what it means, what it implies, how it is to be applied, now, in the present day, is a result of the careers of 112 dedicated American Jurists, the best legal minds of their times, spent in contemplation, debate, and writing commentary, and all of it on specifically Constitutional issues.

    And these jokers have discerned some true meaning of the Constitution all those Justices in the roughly 2000 man-years they spent on the bench never understood?

    Well spank my tail and call me Shirley.

  118. Keith says:
    February 20, 2013 at 3:18 am  (Quote)

    Crustacean: Stephen Jay Gould was indeed a smart man. I must’ve missed an earlier reference in this thread, but are you bringing him up to compare the NBC debate to Gould’s debate with Creationists (or, rather his lack of interest in debating them)?

    Yes. I think I mentioned it in Kibitzers edition part 1

  119. Publius says:
    February 20, 2013 at 11:24 am  (Quote)

    Well, the Great Debacle has lasted for two weeks now. As far as I can tell, Bob has still failed to bring forth any credible evidence that might establish even one of the points that are key to his thesis. Far from proving his case “beyond a reasonable doubt,” Bob has yet to present credible enough evidence, in my judgment, to justify issuing a search warrant.

    I have now received a complimentary copy of Bob’s book (thank you, Bob). There is certainly a lot to 1700 pages. I intend to eventually make my way through it and look to see if there I can find anything of real substance there that I have missed in two weeks worth of debate. I can’t say that I am hugely optimistic of finding anything, but I do intend to look. I can’t say exactly when that will happen, though.

    Just looking at some of the initial pages, Bob says our Founders and Framers believed in freedom. This is one of the things that has always mystified me about birthers like Bob. If he believes this, then why would he believe that those same Framers intended to forever restrict the People of the United States from ever electing anyone as President who was born here, but who had had a non-citizen mother or father – without clearly and explicitly saying so? It is obvious to just about anyone that people born in America of citizen parents generally love our country just as much, and often more, than those whose parents were both born here as well.

    The position just doesn’t make any sense.

    But that’s birthers for you.

  120. Publius says:
    February 20, 2013 at 11:27 am  (Quote)

    Bob summarizes the 9 main points of his book both in the book, and at http://the-constitutionist.com/Page_3.html. And every single point is going to fail when weighed against the other evidence that is out there.

    Points 1 and 2 do have some truth to them, but the overriding and ultimately invalidating dynamic is that we have plenty of good evidence that we should look to the English common law in order to understand the terms used in the Constitution. Point 4 is arguable but irrelevant due to imprecision of Vattel’s idea and lack of any evidence linking it to our term “natural born citizen.” Points 3, 5, 8 and 9 are speculation; neither Mr. Gard nor anyone else has any real evidence to support them. Point 6 is inaccurate. The remaining point, 7, may well be true, but it is irrelevant due to the failure of points 8 and 9.

  121. Paper says:
    February 20, 2013 at 11:37 am  (Quote)

    A very good point, Shirley, with one slight modification, in that not all Supreme Court justices were career jurists. Currently, they all are, but not always. That doesn’t take away from your point, but does add a few curls. 😉

    If the birthers have taught me anything, it is a renewed appreciation for professionalism.

    Thomas Brown: Speaking of which, what is especially galling to me about Gard, Strunk, Sibley, Apuzzo et. al., is this:

    There have now been 112 Supreme Court Justices.What the Constitution says, what it means, what it implies, how it is to be applied, now, in the present day, is a result of the careers of 112 dedicated American Jurists, the best legal minds of their times, spent in contemplation, debate, and writing commentary, and all of it on specifically Constitutional issues.

    And these jokers have discerned some true meaning of the Constitution all those Justices in the roughly 2000 man-years they spent on the bench never understood?

    Well spank my tail and call me Shirley.

  122. Publius says:
    February 20, 2013 at 11:56 am  (Quote)

    Wow. I think Bob is so committed to this idea that Obama must be ineligible, that he is simply delusional.

    He quotes an 1813 quote from a House debate on the regulation of seamen:

    Mr SEYBERT. . . Your constitution only recognizes the highest grade of citizenship that can be conferred—the alien is thus made a native, as it were, and is fully vested with every right and privilege attached to the native, with the exception impressed on the constitution—your statutes cannot deprive any particular species of citizens of the right of personal liberty, or the locomotive faculty, because the constitution does not characterize the citizens of the United States as native and naturalized—our great family is composed of a class of men forming a single genus, who, to all intents and purposes, are equal, except in the instance specified, that of not being eligible to the Presidency of the United States. [Seybert did not attend the Constitutional Convention but he knew there were two forms of citizenship, first, native and naturalized, lumped into one, denominated “citizen,” and second, a higher form denominated “natural born Citizen,” of which both were established in the Constitution.] The only exception to the rule is expressed in the constitution; [Only “natural-born Citizen” was the special exception to the general category of “citizens.”] if other exceptions had been contemplated by the framers of that instrument, they would also have been expressed; none other having been expressed, he said, it followed that your legislative acts could not make individual exceptions touching the occupation of a citizen—all freemen—citizens of the United States may pursue their happiness in any manner and in any situation they please, provided they do not violate the rights of others—you cannot deny to any portion of your citizens, who desire to plough the deep [an expression for manning ships that plough a furrow in the water as they sail the seas], the right to do so, whilst you permit another portion of them the enjoyment of that right. [Remember, Seybert made clear the one exception of running for the Presidency.]
    . . .
    I am of the opinion that this find (which I later found had been addressed by other birthers) pushes my level of proof into the “beyond a shadow of doubt.” I won’t go back and change all my references to “beyond a reasonable doubt” to the higher level of proof. That would delay the publication of my electronic book on a CD. I know the liberals will employ a liberal distortion to claim that Seybert was only talking about native and naturalized citizens, wherein natural-born citizen belonged to the category of native citizen. That will be their thought, having no relation to reason, logic or common sense. Seybert clearly spoke of native and naturalized as being the two forms of citizens included in the constitutional category of “citizens” and that a higher form of citizenship, the exception he refers to twice, was required for the presidency. He did not mention “natural born Citizen” by name, but the exception he referred to could only be “natural born Citizen.” He could have easily said natural born Citizen and defined it. I imagine he neglected to define natural born Citizen on purpose. I believe only two reasons can exist: (1) nobody from the Constitutional Convention had told him exactly what it meant such that he worried about contradictions from other congressmen who hadn’t attended the convention, and (2) someone had told him and he did not want to define it for fear of exposing the person who had violated the secrecy oath.

    Of course he first ignores many far clearer quotes by far greater authorities than Seybert, whom I had never heard of. But it’s clear what Seybert is saying: under our Constitution, we don’t have two classes of citizens with inequal rights. Naturalizied citizens have every right belonging to natives, except for one: That of serving as President.

    The fact that natives plus naturalized citizens don’t together equal some class OUTSIDE of those who are eligible to be President is abundantly clear from Seybert’s quote:

    …the constitution does not characterize the citizens of the United States as native and naturalized—our great family is composed of a class of men forming a single genus, who, to all intents and purposes, are equal, except in the instance specified, that of not being eligible to the Presidency of the United States.

    So from a plain reading of Seybert’s words, there are clearly SOME in that “single genus” who are NOT equal to OTHERS in that “single genus.” Well, which ones? He only gives us two options.

    It is simply inescapable that Seybert is saying “these two classes of citizens are equal, except in ONE thing.” And what is that thing? Presidential eligibility.

    So which class is eligible? Naturalized citizens aren’t equal by anyone’s definition. So it is crystal clear that Seybert is saying NATIVE CITIZENS ARE ELIGIBLE TO BECOME PRESIDENT, AND NATURALIZED CITIZENS AREN’T.

    So far from moving Bob’s “proof” to “beyond a shadow of a doubt,” Seybert’s quote is yet ONE MORE NAIL IN HIS COFFIN.

  123. Publius says:
    February 20, 2013 at 12:00 pm  (Quote)

    Oh, and anyone who can understand the plain and obvious meaning of Seybert’s words is a “liberal,” who is applying “a liberal distortion” with “no relation to reason, logic or common sense.”

    Sheesh.

    Wow. It is just amazing how Bob distorts Seybert’s words, and then claims anyone who reads them straight is “distorting” them.

  124. Publius says:
    February 20, 2013 at 12:07 pm  (Quote)

    Thomas Brown: Well spank my tail and call me Shirley.

    Surely you can’t be serious.

  125. Paper says:
    February 20, 2013 at 12:26 pm  (Quote)

    You know, I think Mr. Gard has definitively proven one thing, that we as a country need someone, or a group, a body of people, with the power to adjudicate such disagreements whenever they become relevant, say in some circumstance requiring legal action.

    Hmmm, who, who, and I mean who, specifically what actual group of people, should be given such power? Let me think. Who should adjudicate? What group of people most naturally are involved in adjudication? What group could be given this power to balance out the powers in the government?

    Who could judge between competing interpretations?

    I’ll think of it. Don’t tell me.

    Publius:
    Oh, and anyone who can understand the plain and obvious meaning of Seybert’s words is a “liberal,” who is applying “a liberal distortion” with “no relation to reason, logic or common sense.”

    Sheesh.

  126. gorefan says:
    February 20, 2013 at 12:43 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: It is just amazing how Bob distorts Seybert’s words, and then claims anyone who reads them straight is “distorting” them.

    This was all explained to Bob during the “The Great Debate–kibitzer’s edition, Part 2”.

    ====================================================================
    obobma February 10, 2013 at 3:15 pm #

    gorefan: Did you include Tucker?, Kent? Rawle?

    Can you tell us people what Constitutional rights native citizens have that naturalized citizens do not? See Seybert – “the alien is thus made a native, as it were, and is fully vested with every right and privilege attached to the native, with the exception impressed on the constitution”

    The right to run for the presidency. You did read the entire text of Seybert?

    ====================================================================

    gorefan February 10, 2013 at 4:05 pm #

    obobma: The right to run for the presidency. You did read the entire text of Seybert?

    Yes, I did but did you and more importantly did you understand it?

    What does he say next?

    “your statutes cannot deprive any particular species of citizens of the right of personal liberty, or the locomotive faculty’Congress can not take away citizens’ Constitutional rights.

    “because the constitution does not characterize the citizens of the United States as native and naturalized—our great family is composed of a class of men forming a single genus, who, to all intents and purposes, are equal, except in the instance specified, that of not being eligible to the Presidency of the United States.” Only one single genus of citizens (native and naturalized) equal except that native can be President as specified in his previous sentence.

    “The only exception to the rule is expressed in the constitution” Native citizens can be President, naturalized cannot.

    BTW, in response to Mr. Seybert, Mr. Archer says, “The term naturalization was borrowed from England. It must be understood here in the sense and meaning which was there attached to it.”

    Naturalization as used in the Constitution came from English law not Law of Nations.
    ====================================================================

    What Bob doesn’t understand is that anyone who reads his analysis is going to a) think Bob is an idiot, b) think he is intellectually dishonest or c) all of the above.

    I picked “c” sometime ago.

  127. Welsh Dragon says:
    February 20, 2013 at 1:07 pm  (Quote)

    Publius:
    Bob summarizes the 9 main points of his book both in the book, and at http://the-constitutionist.com/Page_3.html. And every single point is going to fail when weighed against the other evidence that is out there.

    Points 1 and 2 do have some truth to them, but the overriding and ultimately invalidating dynamic is that we have plenty of good evidence that we should look to the English common law in order to understand the terms used in the Constitution. Point 4 is arguable but irrelevant due to imprecision of Vattel’s idea and lack of any evidence linking it to our term “natural born citizen.” Points 3, 5, 8 and 9 are speculation; neither Mr. Gard nor anyone else has any real evidence to support them. Point 6 is inaccurate. The remaining point, 7, may well be true, but it is irrelevant due to the failure of points 8 and 9.

    You’re being a little too kind to Bob.

    Point 3 is wrong – Coke did not invent the term “Natural Born Subject” nor did Jay invent the term “Natural Born Citizen.
    Point 4 is wrong – Vattel is not unique in this, his scheme is broadly similar to Wolff’s earlier analysis.
    Point 5 is a mixture of speculation (what Jay meant) and inaccuracy ( Jay refers to commander in chief not president)
    Point 6 is wrong rather than inaccurate, apart from earlier translations of Latin works which Bob acknowledges, and the naturalization acts we’ve pointed him to there’s also Maryland’s granting of Natural Born Citizenship to Lafayette and his heirs in 1784.

    On the other hand point 7 is correct – there’s ample evidence Jay and Scott met.

  128. Thomas Brown says:
    February 20, 2013 at 1:10 pm  (Quote)

    It doesn’t help that Seybert’s writing style is not exactly a paragon of clarity.

  129. sfjeff says:
    February 20, 2013 at 3:51 pm  (Quote)

    I was thinking about Bob on my drive to work today.

    We know that he says that he first decided that NBC required both birth in the U.S. and two citizen parents in middle school- where he argued with his teacher and concluded that the teacher was wrong.

    40 years later he is still convinced the teacher was wrong. He spent two years researching to proof that he was right and that that teacher was wrong.

    And now, he is convinced he is right and his teacher was wrong. Like he was 40 years ago.

    I don’t know that Bob can ever be convinced by anyone that anything he has decided can possibly be wrong.

    I am wrong fairly often. I am open to the possibility that I could be wrong and even the possibility that someone else knows more than I do about something or anything. But I do try to learn from when I am wrong.

    How does someone who goes through life believing he can’t be wrong ever learn anything?

  130. Scientist says:
    February 20, 2013 at 4:56 pm  (Quote)

    sfjeff: I was thinking about Bob on my drive to work today.

    I’m not sure that’s a good idea. You might get the idea that theTraffic Code is a secret text in which red actually means “Go” and green actually means “Stop”.

  131. Paper says:
    February 20, 2013 at 5:08 pm  (Quote)

    While I totally appreciate Stephen Jay Gould’s position (there are some birthers here, who shall remain nameless, who I mostly ignore for this reason), and while birthers at large and in my family have certainly, viscerally taught me the need to not give birthers oxygen or publicity, I do find there is another side, which I think Dr. C exemplifies with his blog and with such debates/challenges as this one with Mr. Gard.

    By way of demonstrating what I mean, here is a link to a subway encounter where a hater is challenged in public.

    ************

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/19/gay-man-homophobic-preacher-subway-video_n_2715813.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

    (the top video is a short excerpt with a bunch of discussion, the video lower on the page is the full unedited version)

    ************

    The content is off-topic, and I’m not equating that, but the format of public challenge demonstrates how it can work healthfully and productively, and I think that example of form fits the sub-topic here of the value of debate.

    You will notice that the hater on the train is not going to change his mind. But also notice the people clapping and vocally expressing approval of the challenger.

    Sometimes there is great value in standing up to garbage. The value in these conversations, debates and challenges is not to be found in convincing someone to change their mind. The value is in standing up. The value is in providing time and space for sanity and reason and good faith.

    Keith: The problem is that they then declare victory. I tried to warn you were in a no win situation. Stephen Jay Gould was a smart man.

    Crustacean: Stephen Jay Gould was indeed a smart man.I must’ve missed an earlier reference in this thread, but are you bringing him up to compare the NBC debate to Gould’s debate with Creationists (or, rather his lack of interest in debating them)?Interesting parallel, but I’m not sure it’s totally applicable.In the case of Creationists v. Evolution, the debate is practically a non-starter, for the simple reason that fundamental religious beliefs exist in a domain completely separate from science.At least in the case of Mr. Gard v. Dr. Conspiracy, they are operating in the same arena, discussing the same texts – albeit with radically different interpretations.OTOH, I can’t deny that there seems to be a kind of unshakeable, religious-like BELIEF at the core of birtherdom that is impervious to rational thinking.

  132. donna says:
    February 20, 2013 at 5:26 pm  (Quote)

    Paper:

    another conversation – this one between Cliff Kincaid of the ultra-conservative Accuracy in Media and Rick Wiles of TruNews:

    Kincaid: We’ve got a President who couldn’t pass a background check, you know it’s not too surprising when we got a President like this putting into place people like Brennan, Hagel, we can go down the list, Van Jones, tick them off. It’s just that he gets away with it and the Republicans, I remember at our conference in Washington before the election, we had Congressman Lamar Smith there saying ‘well we’re not going to pursue impeachment because we hope the American people vote this guy out on November 6.’ Well, that didn’t work out so well, did it?

    Wiles: No it didn’t. You know Barack Obama, if he wasn’t president, if he just worked into a government agency and said he wanted to apply for a job and he filled out an application, I think while he was sitting there and they were doing a background check on him I think agents would come out and handcuff him.

    Kincaid: Yeah, yeah, you’re right. I mean, this is the guy—we don’t have to go through the whole history—this is the guy who Sarah Palin put it, ‘palled around with terrorists.’

    http://www.politicususa.com/conservatives-convince-obama-jail-president.html

  133. justlw says:
    February 20, 2013 at 5:32 pm  (Quote)

    donna: Kincaid: Yeah, yeah, you’re right. I mean, this is the guy—we don’t have to go through the whole history—this is the guy who Sarah Palin put it, ‘palled around with terrorists.’

    *cough* AIP *cough*

  134. J.D. Sue says:
    February 20, 2013 at 11:08 pm  (Quote)

    I see that Bob Gard has added a comment to the Great Debate. Seems to me he now is simply asking Doc to admit to what is a false equivalency–that Bob is willing to admit to mistakes and admit he has no “smoking gun”, so Doc should admit to the same…. What nonsense.

    I am particularly amused at Bob’s comparison of his own argument to that of a hypothetical prosecutor’s argument. “You completely dismiss such evidence because I have no smoking-gun proof. Have you ever heard a prosecuting attorney of an accused murderer in a case with very little concrete evidence say in his closing statement or argument, “This is the point where the enraged defendant took his thirty-eight out of his nightstand drawer—the murder weapon is missing but we know it was a thirty-eight because a thirty-eight slug was recovered from a steel stud behind the bedroom wall, unfortunately so distorted that ballistic identification could not be certified, but that is of no concern because we know the defendant owned a Smith and Wesson 38 snub nose. . . etc.?” You get the gist. I claim the right of a prosecuting attorney…”

    I’m glad that he admits “very little concrete evidence”. Indeed, that prosecutor should lose that case–certainly there is more than a reasonable doubt that the accused shot that bullet. Lots of people have owned or handled a 38, and there is no evidence of who–or what weapon–shot that bullet. Anyhow, clearly that prosecutor has an agenda–to sway the jury to convict the accused without proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So, Bob, what is your agenda?

  135. Publius says:
    February 20, 2013 at 11:19 pm  (Quote)

    The fact is, the evidence already presented is far, far stronger as to native-born citizens meeting the natural-born citizen qualification than anything Bob has produced.

    And far from all the evidence in favor of the standard understanding of the term has been presented.

    I would say, based on what I’ve read, that the evidence for the standard understanding of “natural born citizen” is probably a thousand times stronger than anything Bob’s presented.

    Aside from that, there IS a standard understanding of the term, reinforced by centuries of legal rulings. That being the case, if Bob wants to overturn that, then HE needs to present some smoking-gun evidence. Smoking-gun evidence is not really required (although I would say that some has in fact been presented) to maintain the status quo.

    I would feel comfortable with all your defenses against my conclusions if you would at least acknowledge that have you not presented any smoking-gun proofs. On several occasions, I have admitted that I was either partially wrong or had selected the wrong words. In my eBook I called myself a fool twice. I looked forward to your attacks on my facts because I wanted to improve my eBook. I didn’t want your ridicule. You have not admitted your fallibility on any of your arguments. If you have and I have forgotten, please forgive me. No one can be right 100% of the time.

    This sounds to me sort of like, “I admit that my arguments suck. Therefore, you ought to admit that your arguments must suck, too.”

    The problem is, so far, I can’t identify any of Dr. C’s arguments that actually do suck. There might be some, but if there are, I haven’t been able to see what they are.

  136. Welsh Dragon says:
    February 20, 2013 at 11:24 pm  (Quote)

    If Bob should happen to drop by I’d be interested to know in his scheme of things:

    1)When and how Jay told Washington or any of the other members of the constitutional convention that were there in the August – September 1787 period what his definition of Natural Born Citizen was.?

    2)How they were able to tell Jay that they agreed with him without breaching their oath of secrecy?

  137. Dave B. says:
    February 20, 2013 at 11:36 pm  (Quote)

    So what was the name of 00Bob’s book again?

  138. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 21, 2013 at 12:15 am  (Quote)

    New debate material is up. It might be worth reading my citation of Bob’s “axioms.” Even if you ignore my commentary, it should be easy for the reader to see how they lead to speculation taking the place of evidence.

  139. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 21, 2013 at 12:21 am  (Quote)

    Some have asked Bob to explain James Madison’s famous speech before the First Congress on the seating of Mr. Smith, where he says:

    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 examine any other.

    Bob addresses this in his book. I’ll paraphrase his answer: Madison says parentage sometimes matters. Where? Obviously in presidential qualifications.

  140. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 21, 2013 at 12:27 am  (Quote)

    I cannot see Bob gaining any support from his participation here.

    Paper: and while birthers at large and in my family have certainly, viscerally taught me the need to not give birthers oxygen or publicity, I do find there is another side, which I think Dr. C exemplifies with his blog and with such debates/challenges as this one with Mr. Gard.

  141. Paper says:
    February 21, 2013 at 1:09 am  (Quote)

    I was working on a series of Antidotes, but fell aleep. More tomorrow on that, perhaps.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    New debate material is up. It might be worth reading my citation of Bob’s “axioms.” Even if you ignore my commentary, it should be easy for the reader to see how they lead to speculation taking the place of evidence.

  142. Dave B. says:
    February 21, 2013 at 1:11 am  (Quote)

    I can’t see him putting your review up alongside Stephen Tonchen’s on his website either.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I cannot see Bob gaining any support from his participation here.

  143. Paper says:
    February 21, 2013 at 1:45 am  (Quote)

    I most definitely was not suggesting that possibility. Indeed, I think he torpedoes his arguments spectacularly, and that this debate, and related kibitzing, does a great service in laying his arguments out to rest. I started this particular debate intending to lay low, but contrary to Keith’s conception of a no-win scenario, I have found it remarkably edifying. I think you have been successful in your aim to use this format, as you say, not to prove who is the better debater but to examine the arguments.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I cannot see Bob gaining any support from his participation here.

  144. Paper says:
    February 21, 2013 at 1:46 am  (Quote)

    But Google, Bing, and the future of search, preserves all.

    Dave B.:
    I can’t see him putting your review up alongside Stephen Tonchen’s on his website either.

  145. Paper says:
    February 21, 2013 at 2:00 am  (Quote)

    I have come to imagine it as having a shorter main title, something to my mind like:

    How Not to Think

    Dave B.:
    So what was the name of 00Bob’s book again?

  146. Keith says:
    February 21, 2013 at 2:21 am  (Quote)

    Paper: I started this particular debate intending to lay low, but contrary to Keith’s conception of a no-win scenario, I have found it remarkably edifying.

    Just to be clear. I have no problem engaging birthers and correcting them when they are wrong and ridiculing them when they are ridiculous. That is what I love about the Doc’s site.

    I do, however, disagree with the idea of a ‘formal’ debate. Especially one as open ended as this one. Doc has already ‘won’ the contest of ideas; all that is left is to see who gives up first. In contrariarian land it is the one who gives up first that loses. Doc has already mentioned that he doesn’t see the point, and has recommended that his readers not bother to read the debate. Once he gets tired and decides to end the ‘debate’ Bob only has to put up one more answer to relitigate some other weird-ass ball of feces and if Doc doesn’t reply, Bob, in his mind can declare victory “see there! the Doc has no answer for my latest bit of drivel”.

    One reason Gould wouldn’t debate Creationists (or their psuedo-scientific auxiliary, the I.D.ers) because even though they claimed to be talking about science they adamantly refused to use common scientific terminology. There is no way to discuss ‘speciation’ with somebody when they want to talk about ‘kinds’.

    Likewise, there is no way to discuss the meaning of the Constitution when one party says the real meaning is and always has been ‘secret’ and only he, among all living men knows that secret.

    The fact is that Bob is ridiculous and should be ridiculed, not debated. As Gould said, it just gives him air and the veneer of respectibility that he does not deserve.

    (and sorry if I wrote that missive like you weren’t here Doc, I didn’t mean it that way. You are more than entitled to do as you please, I’m just voicing my misgivings and explaining myself to Paper.)

  147. Dave B. says:
    February 21, 2013 at 2:44 am  (Quote)

    It’s starting to look like a little air’s been let out of 00Bob’s “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” balloon.

    Paper:
    I have come to imagine it as having a shorter main title, something to my mind like:

    How Not to Think

  148. Scientist says:
    February 21, 2013 at 7:11 am  (Quote)

    Concerning Bob’s axioms, it is certainly possible that the authors of any piece of legislation might have a secret agenda. However, that secret agenda is not binding on anyone; only the words enacted into law are. If the drafters of a piece of legislation wish to use words to mean otherwise than their common meaning, they need to do so explicitly. When they do not, then the plain meaning is what will hold weight.

  149. The Magic M says:
    February 21, 2013 at 8:11 am  (Quote)

    Exactly. I wonder how Bob would react if he was indicted for shoplifting and a court gave him a lenghty argument how the lawmakers secretly intended to punish that crime by death, so therefore, “off to the chair!”.

  150. Paper says:
    February 21, 2013 at 8:58 am  (Quote)

    I get it and understand. I think that is why Dr. C explicitly said at the top that this isn’t a debate about who is the better debater, not a formal debate in other words, but a way to examine the arguments.

    For myself, I have found there is something worthwhile to this exchange, and I do not think it matters one bit what Mr. Gard concludes.

    I was the first here, I believe, to post a response to Mr. Gard’s ludicrous notion of an *impotent* secret conspiracy. Even if such a conspiracy existed, it would have been a farce, because it was a secret from the people that mattered! I might as well tell my wife the real, secret definition of marriage is that I get to have affairs, sorry I didn’t tell her before or during the wedding.

    It doesn’t matter if this man declares victory. I guess that is the point I’m trying to get at.

    I got into this “business” because I put aside my own lifetime practice of not engaging nonsense and agreed to a similar “debate” with a birther I know. I grew up with conspiracy theorists. Mr. Gard likes to claim his uniqueness, but he is actually commonplace in my experience. At any rate, of course this birther I know declared victory, and even has threatened my life. So?

    There is something important in letting go of worrying about that. People almost never admit error about anything. Something that puzzled me for a long time as a kid.

    Mr. Gard’s folly stands revealed in a way it would not have been otherwise. That is value added.

    I am not making some argument about how to treat birthers at large, mind you. There is one particular person who haunts here who gets withering ridicule and outright contempt, who I mostly avoid giving attention. I just follow the Colbert school of comedy which modulates its practice based on who is the brunt.

    Foolishness reveals itself. I personally find that this “debate” has been well worth it’s revelations.

    On the other hand, I understand your concerns, and mostly in my life I have been a big adherent of Gould’s approach. I am most curious to myself why this time has been different for me, why I even give two minutes to birtherism, never mind Mr. Gard, given how many conspiracies I have been inundated with, and ignored, since I was a kid.

    In the end, I think I blame Dr. C’s quality “programming,” such as, for me, this exchange with Mr. Gard and our adjunct kibitzing.

    Keith: Just to be clear. I have no problem engaging birthers and correcting them when they are wrong and ridiculing them when they are ridiculous. That is what I love about the Doc’s site.

    I do, however, disagree with the idea of a ‘formal’ debate. Especially one as open ended as this one. Doc has already ‘won’ the contest of ideas; all that is left is to see who gives up first. In contrariarian land it is the one who gives up first that loses. Doc has already mentioned that he doesn’t see the point, and has recommended that his readers not bother to read the debate. Once he gets tired and decides to end the ‘debate’ Bob only has to put up one more answer to relitigate some other weird-ass ball of feces and if Doc doesn’t reply, Bob, in his mind can declare victory “see there! the Doc has no answer for my latest bit of drivel”.

    One reason Gould wouldn’t debate Creationists (or their psuedo-scientific auxiliary, the I.D.ers) because even though they claimed to be talking about science they adamantly refused to use common scientific terminology. There is no way to discuss ‘speciation’ with somebody when they want to talk about ‘kinds’.

    Likewise, there is no way to discuss the meaning of the Constitution when one party says the real meaning is and always has been ‘secret’ and only he, among all living men knows that secret.

    The fact is that Bob is ridiculous and should be ridiculed, not debated. As Gould said, it just gives him air and the veneer of respectibility that he does not deserve.

    (and sorry if I wrote that missive like you weren’t here Doc, I didn’t mean it that way. You are more than entitled to do as you please, I’m just voicing my misgivings and explaining myself to Paper.)

  151. Paper says:
    February 21, 2013 at 9:03 am  (Quote)

    Especially when it doesn’t mean anything until the rest of the country’s representatives agree. Not being privy to the secret, they couldn’t and didn’t agree.

    Scientist:
    Concerning Bob’s axioms, it is certainly possible that the authors of any piece of legislation might have a secret agenda.However, that secret agenda is not binding on anyone; only the words enacted into law are.If the drafters of a piece of legislation wish to use words to mean otherwise than their common meaning, they need to do so explicitly.When they do not, then the plain meaning is what will hold weight.

  152. Reality Check says:
    February 21, 2013 at 9:06 am  (Quote)

    Doc C

    I enjoyed your last reply and I am glad you pulled some material from the book to analyze.

    I have a question for Bob but if he addresses it in the book please let us know: What does he call the third type of citizen he necessarily invents who is not naturalized yet is not natural born. Why has the existence of this third type of citizen been so secret for 233 years?

  153. Northland10 says:
    February 21, 2013 at 9:21 am  (Quote)

    Dave B.:
    It’s starting to look like a little air’s been let out of 00Bob’s “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” balloon.

    In general, beyond a reasonable doubt dies when you have to surmise.

  154. Publius says:
    February 21, 2013 at 9:39 am  (Quote)

    Keith: Likewise, there is no way to discuss the meaning of the Constitution when one party says the real meaning is and always has been ‘secret’ and only he, among all living men knows that secret.

    And this does indeed seem to be what Bob is claiming.

    Except it’s not just he alone among all living men. It’s more like he alone among virtually all men since about 1800 or so.

    I for one don’t find the debate unhealthy. I find it illuminating. It has confirmed to me that Bob has discovered nothing new (though he thinks he has) and has no real argument.

    And I don’t think it matters whether Bob “declares victory” in his own mind or not. Any rational person only has to come here and do a bit of reading to see that he has failed again and again to produce any credible evidence at all to back up his claims, and has failed again and again to answer any of the evidence that shoots those claims down.

    Which won’t include most birthers. They’ll keep on believing whatever the hell they like, without regard to any facts. But we didn’t expect anything different there, did we?

    I don’t think the debate lends one ounce of credibility to Bob’s claims, whether he “claims victory” on the basis of Dr C getting fed up with him, or not. Bob has simply lost the debate. More than lost the debate. He’s been flattened. And I think that’s obvious to anyone with one eye and half sense.

    As for anyone without one eye, or half sense, who cares? They were never going to see reality anyway.

  155. Publius says:
    February 21, 2013 at 9:54 am  (Quote)

    Reality Check: I have a question for Bob but if he addresses it in the book please let us know: What does he call the third type of citizen he necessarily invents who is not naturalized yet is not natural born. Why has the existence of this third type of citizen been so secret for 233 years?

    I think I can address this, having gone through 300 pages of Bob’s book yesterday.

    He calls it “native-born.”

    It’s a semantic trick. He will take a quote that says that citizens are either native-born or naturalized (like Seybert’s, which has has clearly twisted even from its internal context).

    He then assumes that “native-born” cannot possibly mean or be a member of “natural born” – even though we have dozens and dozens of examples of people using the two terms synonymously.

    By the way, this is a good example of assuming the thing to be proved. You can “prove” literally anything by this method. (Here. Let’s assume that you owe me $10,000… blah, blah, blah. Therefore… you owe me $10,000!)

    Gard then claims that there are two kinds of citizens: “citizens” (which includes both native-born and naturalized) and “natural born citizens” (which, according to Bob, requires both birth on US soil and two citizen parents).

    So by this twisted birther logic, “natural born citizens” would appear not to be “citizens.” They would appear to be members of a completely different group!

    Yeah, right.

  156. Welsh Dragon says:
    February 21, 2013 at 9:57 am  (Quote)

    Reality Check: I have a question for Bob but if he addresses it in the book please let us know: What does he call the third type of citizen he necessarily invents who is not naturalized yet is not natural born. Why has the existence of this third type of citizen been so secret for 233 years?

    A related question would be what rights did this mythical 3rd type of citizen have? In the early years of the Republic several states passed legislation referencing both natural born and naturalized citizens but not mentioning this third type.

    Did PA in 1799 mean to exclude men born to aliens in the state from voting while granting it to natural born and naturalized citizens as well as , when you work through the wording, men born to aliens in the other states?

    Did MD in 1798 mean to exclude this third type of citizen from being executors?

    Of course not – such views would be absurd, but they are the logical consequence of Bob’s position.

  157. Paper says:
    February 21, 2013 at 10:03 am  (Quote)

    I always think of Jesus with Pontius Pilate, myself.

    Keith:
    One reason Gould wouldn’t debate Creationists (or their psuedo-scientific auxiliary, the I.D.ers) because even though they claimed to be talking about science they adamantly refused to use common scientific terminology. There is no way to discuss ‘speciation’ with somebody when they want to talk about ‘kinds’.

  158. Paper says:
    February 21, 2013 at 10:14 am  (Quote)

    What does Mr. Gard do with those born American but born on foreign soil? Does he address the issue that they are not naturalized? Certainly he does not consider them native born? Are they a fourth type of citizen for him?

    Having seen this #fail before, I’m not holding my breath. I mean, if only I had $10,000 for every time a birther refused to pay me the $10,000 they owe me!

    Publius:
    Gard then claims that there are two kinds of citizens: “citizens” (which includes both native-born and naturalized) and “natural born citizens” (which, according to Bob, requires both birth on US soil and two citizen parents).

    So by this twisted birther logic, “natural born citizens” would appear not to be “citizens.” They would appear to be members of a completely different group!

    Publius:
    By the way, this is a good example of assuming the thing to be proved. You can “prove” literally anything by this method. (Here. Let’s assume that you owe me $10,000… blah, blah, blah. Therefore… you owe me $10,000!)

  159. The Magic M says:
    February 21, 2013 at 10:34 am  (Quote)

    Publius: Gard then claims that there are two kinds of citizens: “citizens” (which includes both native-born and naturalized) and “natural born citizens” (which, according to Bob, requires both birth on US soil and two citizen parents).

    The same “logic” that Apuzzo and “Jedi Pauly” Guthrie apply (the latter with the additional twist that he claims “Citizen” with a capital “c” means something other than “citizen”).

    The only “proof” they have for this is that the Constitution joins these two terms with an “or”.

    The two problems with that:

    1. There is no indication it was meant as an “exclusive or” (XOR in logic). The birther claim is therefore akin to claiming a definition “people aged 75+ or women” means that no woman can be 75 or older.

    2. The Constitution does not say “natural born citizen or citizen” but “natural born citizen or citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution”. The birther claim is therefore akin to claiming a definition “cats or animals with wings” means cats are not animals.

    And that was actually the point where I realized birthers are insane. To maintain their claim, they have to argue against the most basic rules of expressions of logic. And when I found that even when I explained their error using such easy examples, they would still cling to their belief (usually followed by an insult as they realized they had reached their intellectual limits in discussing the issue), I knew it was pretty pointless to try and talk sense into them.
    From then on, I only debated birthers to show others how foolish they are.

  160. JPotter says:
    February 21, 2013 at 10:48 am  (Quote)

    Publius: Wow. I think Bob is so committed to this idea that Obama must be ineligible, that he is simply delusional.

    But, but, but! Publius, as he pointed out in his latest comment, Gard cited tons of sources. That demonstrates his objectivitiy, right? …. right?

    No, Bob, not at all. Objectivity is not a goal to be reached, but a condition, and guiding principle, a working mindset, an approach. It has nothing to do with the basic work of gathering material. It has everything to do with how you evaluate, interpret, and present that material.

    Starting with a conslusion in mind, cherrypicking material to support it, and bending anything and everything you can to support your thesis is not “objectivity”. This is like the FAUX news idea of “fair and balanced”.

    That Gard cited the same source has anyone else is coincidence, and a by product of working from a limited pool of material. For instance, see the way birfers misrepresent Minor v. Happersett. Not much ‘objectivity’ there!

  161. Publius says:
    February 21, 2013 at 10:58 am  (Quote)

    JPotter: Objectivity is not a goal to be reached, but a condition, and guiding principle, a working mindset, an approach. It has nothing to do with the basic work of gathering material. It has everything to do with how you evaluate, interpret, and present that material.

    Starting with a conslusion in mind, cherrypicking material to support it, and bending anything and everything you can to support your thesis is not “objectivity”.

    This part was great. Right up to the point where you showed your own lack of objectivity by going off into a wild-eyed side tirade about Fox News (which you obviously don’t like).

    The fact is, there is not a single news outlet out there that is perfectly objective. Neither Fox nor any of the more liberal news outlets.

  162. Scientist says:
    February 21, 2013 at 11:10 am  (Quote)

    Publius: And I don’t think it matters whether Bob “declares victory” in his own mind or not.

    It needs to be mentioned that Bob came here uninvited to plug his book, which was not ever mentioned on this site, to my knowledge, before he showed up. I, for one, had never heard of it.

    To use his analogy, he cooked up an indictment of the President and came asking for a conviction from the jury of the commenters here. The case has been heard and I think the jury should now render its verdict. I vote “Not Guilty”. Bob can go elsewhere and claim he would have won, but the jury was biased. That’s what losing birther attorneys usually do. The truth is, he had a terrible case and argued it badly; in fact, almost every statement Bob made hurt his already mortally wounded case.

  163. Reality Check says:
    February 21, 2013 at 11:30 am  (Quote)

    Thanks for the reply! That is the same nonsense argument that Apuzzo makes in effect. Mario knows if he admits that his two citizen parent theory creates a third class of citizenship that his arguments are doomed. He gets around this by claiming that there are only two classes of citizens, namely “Citizens of the US” and natural born citizens (the pristine and pure two citizen parent type). He claims the 14th amendment only makes persons “Citizens of the US” and not natural born.

    Of course there is nothing in the Constitution or case law to support this idiotic theory but Apuzzo can take idiocy and write thousands of words on it. Sounds familiar doesn’t it?

    Publius: Gard then claims that there are two kinds of citizens: “citizens” (which includes both native-born and naturalized) and “natural born citizens” (which, according to Bob, requires both birth on US soil and two citizen parents).

  164. Majority Will says:
    February 21, 2013 at 11:32 am  (Quote)

    Publius: This part was great. Right up to the point where you showed your own lack of objectivity by going off into a wild-eyed side tirade about Fox News (which you obviously don’t like).

    The fact is, there is not a single news outlet out there that is perfectly objective. Neither Fox nor any of the more liberal news outlets.

    I think we can all admit our political biases but the more troubling issue is the effect of media consolidation.

    The Walt Disney Company is the largest media conglomerate in the U.S., with News Corporation, Time Warner and Viacom falling close behind in second, third and fourth.

    Worldwide? Not much better: Viacom, CBS Corporation, Time Warner, News Corp, Bertelsmann AG, Sony Corporation of America, NBCUniversal, Vivendi, Televisa, The Walt Disney Company, Hearst Corporation, Organizações Globo and Lagardère Group.

    The diversity of information and the allowance of diverse viewpoints is routinely and effectively diminished by consolidation and driven solely by a corporation’s agenda.

    Oligopolistic control serves boards and major shareholders exclusively.

  165. Lupin says:
    February 21, 2013 at 12:01 pm  (Quote)

    Reality Check: Thanks for the reply! That is the same nonsense argument that Apuzzo makes in effect. Mario knows if he admits that his two citizen parent theory creates a third class of citizenship that his arguments are doomed. He gets around this by claiming that there are only two classes of citizens, namely “Citizens of the US” and natural born citizens (the pristine and pure two citizen parent type). He claims the 14th amendment only makes persons “Citizens of the US” and not natural born.

    Of course there is nothing in the Constitution or case law to support this idiotic theory but Apuzzo can take idiocy and write thousands of words on it. Sounds familiar doesn’t it?

    Out of curiosity, do they quote any other source than Vattel for their “two citizen parents” garbage?

    Because it’s certainly NOT in Vattel’s — and if they lack any other sources for it, then as I’ve written repeatedly here, their entire pyramid is built on quicksand.

  166. Reality Check says:
    February 21, 2013 at 12:20 pm  (Quote)

    I see Magic M addressed Apuzzo’s and Paul Guthrie’s even more twisted logic also. The need for a third class of citizens is really the death knell for the two parent citizen theory. Grad, Apuzzo, Guthrie, Donofrio, and the rest just cannot get around it.

  167. Publius says:
    February 21, 2013 at 12:25 pm  (Quote)

    Lupin: Out of curiosity, do they quote any other source than Vattel for their “two citizen parents” garbage?

    I don’t think I’ve ever heard a birther quote any other source.

    So 1) they’re relying on something that doesn’t say what they say it does, in the first place.

    2) They have literally absolutely nothing to connect it to our phrase “natural born citizen.” Not anything linguistic, not anything historical, not any document, not any quote, not anything legal.

    3) They have no sane way of disconnecting “natural born citizen” from “natural born subject.” Not anything linguistic, not anything historical, not any document, not any quote, not anything legal.

    4) They have no sane way of claiming that native born persons, without regard to parentage, historically fail to meet the “natural born” definition.

    And yet they insist on all of the above.

    For some, birtherism is a mental disorder. Or at least symptomatic of delusion. For some others, I think it’s a scam to be milked.

  168. Scientist says:
    February 21, 2013 at 12:29 pm  (Quote)

    Lupin: Out of curiosity, do they quote any other source than Vattel for their “two citizen parents” garbage?

    I have seen some quote the Old Testament. Of course, Jewish law says that the child of Jewish mother is Jewish even if the father is not.

  169. Publius says:
    February 21, 2013 at 12:32 pm  (Quote)

    I think for most, though, birtherism is just a combination of ignorance and the simple, stubborn will to believe whatever they want to believe (“Barack Obama is ineligible to be President”), and the willingness to justify that belief by whatever means it takes.

    In other words, they don’t care about any real truth. They just want to believe what they want to believe. Facts be damned.

  170. Dave B. says:
    February 21, 2013 at 1:18 pm  (Quote)

    Now over on the real Great Debate, 00Bob said “one cannot totally dismiss arguments in McElwee because he might have been biased as well as the man that introduced his essay.” When all McElwee does for 00Bob is provide some support for an irrelevant point about the Naturalization Act of 1790, and he flat-out contradicts the whole point of 00Bob’s argument, who’s the one who’s trying to “totally dismiss arguments in McElwee”?

  171. Publius says:
    February 21, 2013 at 1:28 pm  (Quote)

    Bob indeed totally dismisses McElwee’s strongest points.

    And picks weaker points to trumpet.

    Same old birther story. Pick and choose. Ignore mountains of solid evidence against you, while trumpeting half a wheelbarrow’s worth of dubious, misinterpreted, misrepresented garbage you audaciously call “proof.”

    The audacity of bunk.

  172. Northland10 says:
    February 21, 2013 at 1:30 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: I think I can address this, having gone through 300 pages of Bob’s book yesterday.

    He calls it “native-born.”

    But doesn’t most translations of Vattel refer to the Natives or Indigenous. Wouldn’t that mean Native born would fall under their incorrect 2 parent theory?

  173. ballantine says:
    February 21, 2013 at 1:39 pm  (Quote)

    It is really hard to fathom how the birther mind works. Is it really possible that they read people like McElwee or Seybert and their mind simply can’t process statements against their pre-determined beliefs. And, is it possible they really think the opinion of a couple people no one has ever heard of is relevant when there are literally hundreds and hundreds of opinions to the contrary. I think it is sad that Bob still thinks he has proven something at this point when all he has presented is conjecture supported by more conjecture supported by false assertions. He was doomed from the start as he didn’t first stop and think how the Constitution needs to be interpreted and that secret codes or meanings can never be the basis of interpretation in a government based upon the consent of the people. No court would ever think that and, indeed, no rationale person who actually thought about it would either. Until he understands how the Constitution needs to be interpreted, he is just wasting his time.

  174. Publius says:
    February 21, 2013 at 1:42 pm  (Quote)

    Northland10: But doesn’t most translations of Vattel refer to the Natives or Indigenous. Wouldn’t that mean Native born would fall under their incorrect 2 parent theory?

    No. Even the birthers can’t disguise the plain fact that in America, “native-born” NEVER meant Vattel’s definition of “native.” EVER.

    In fact, 00Bob lists a bunch of dictionary definitions over decades for the word “native.” Again and again they say that a native is someone who was born in a place.

    So it’s abundantly clear clear that we NEVER adopted Vattel’s definition of “native” for our word “native.”

    But Bob and the other birthers claim that we DID adopt Vattel’s definition of “native” or “indigene” for our term “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.”

    On the basis of what decent evidence? None. Nothing except the claim that Bob, who has here already admitted to various mistakes, is smarter than anyone else in all of American history.

  175. Publius says:
    February 21, 2013 at 11:01 pm  (Quote)

    Well, I have found one thing, at least, in Bob’s book that is interesting:

    Under his reign as William II, large numbers of Dutch immigrants settled
    in England, scaring the parliament, which passed the Act of Settlement in 1701 that declared:

    no person born out of the dominions of the kingdoms of England, Scotland, and
    Ireland or of the dominions thereunto belonging (although he be naturalized or made a
    denizen) except such as are born of English parents shall be capable to be of the Privy Council, or a Member of either House of Parliament, or to enjoy any office or place of trust, either civil or military, or to have any grant of land, tenements or hereditaments from the Crown to himself or to any others in trust for him.

  176. Publius says:
    February 21, 2013 at 11:29 pm  (Quote)

    Amazingly, Bob also says:

    “First of all, the minute a researcher puts words into someone’s mouth, he stops being an
    objective researcher.”

  177. Keith says:
    February 21, 2013 at 11:36 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: no person born out of the dominions of the kingdoms of England, Scotland, and
    Ireland or of the dominions thereunto belonging (although he be naturalized or made a
    denizen) except such as are born of English parents shall be capable to be of the Privy Council, or a Member of either House of Parliament, or to enjoy any office or place of trust, either civil or military, or to have any grant of land, tenements or hereditaments from the Crown to himself or to any others in trust for him.

    Interesting in truth. So even the UK had a natural born citizenship requirement for some offices (a lot of offices actually), as a precedent for the U.S. Presidential qualification. And it is clearly jus soli and added to by jus sanguinis.

    Just like America would adopt almost 90 years later.

    Hmmm. why didn’t the Brits adopt the Vattel line back then? I know he hadn’t written the book yet, but even he wasn’t pretending to invent the concept was he? He was just reporting on long established Swiss procedures.

  178. aesthetocyst says:
    February 22, 2013 at 3:43 am  (Quote)

    Publius:
    Amazingly, Bob also says:

    “First of all, the minute a researcher puts words into someone’s mouth, he stops being an
    objective researcher.”

    Sorry I missed that when describing the Gardian idea of objectivity. I can only read his opening and closing, the middle is always a blur.

  179. Publius says:
    February 22, 2013 at 3:58 am  (Quote)

    It’s in his book.

    Now I wonder. Is there anyone who has had words put into his mouth, on the basis of no known evidence at all, by Bob.

    Hmm.

  180. Welsh Dragon says:
    February 22, 2013 at 9:16 am  (Quote)

    Publius: Well, I have found one thing, at least, in Bob’s book that is interesting:
    Under his reign as William II, large numbers of Dutch immigrants settled
    in England, scaring the parliament, which passed the Act of Settlement in 1701 that declared

    If that’s what Bob thinks than he’s rather inaccurate. It wasn’t “large numbers” that were the issue but small numbers (50 would be a high estimate) of foreign favourites and advisors being naturalized and rewarded with titles, land, offices and patronage. This happened on the accessions of James I & William III and the Whig elite was trying to avoid it happening again under a future Hanoverian succession.

  181. Publius says:
    February 22, 2013 at 9:38 am  (Quote)

    Publius: Now I wonder. Is there anyone who has had words put into his mouth, on the basis of no known evidence at all, by Bob.

    I’m going to more or less answer my own queston.

    If I change that, for sake of fairness, to “extremely scanty evidence, at best,” then I can think of at least about 43 people.

  182. JPotter says:
    February 22, 2013 at 10:20 am  (Quote)

    I have put words in Bob’s mouth, as a part of critiquing his claims, and to describe my reaction to and understanding of his claims, He’s available (note, I did not say ‘able’!) to defend himself, certain dead authors are not.

  183. ballantine says:
    February 22, 2013 at 10:30 am  (Quote)

    Publius:
    Well, I have found one thing, at least, in Bob’s book that is interesting:

    Under his reign as William II, large numbers of Dutch immigrants settled
    in England, scaring the parliament, which passed the Act of Settlement in 1701 that declared: no person born out of the dominions of the kingdoms of England, Scotland, and
    Ireland or of the dominions thereunto belonging (although he be naturalized or made a
    denizen) except such as are born of English parents shall be capable to be of the Privy Council, or a Member of either House of Parliament, or to enjoy any office or place of trust, either civil or military, or to have any grant of land, tenements or hereditaments from the Crown to himself or to any others in trust for him.

    The confusing part about this Act is whether if prevented children of subjects born overseas who were made “natural born subjects” for all intents and purposes ineligible for holding office. According to the Royal Commission on Naturalization and Aliengage, it did:

    “The persons naturalized by these statutes were not placed on the same footing with English subjects to all intents and purposes. They were all, by the statutes that conferred the privilege, as well as by the Statute of 12 and 13 Wm. III., c. 2, prohibited from being members of the Privy Council or of either House of Parliament, and from enjoying any office or place civil or military, or any grant from the king of lands within the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. In general, therefore, a person naturalized was not even eligible to the office of constable.”

    Reading the statutes themselves, it is difficult to figure this out but I assume the Royal Commissioners, some of the leading English scholars of the itme, understood English law. Another interesting fact about jus sanguinis statutory subjects from the Commissioners:

    “It is competent to any country to confer by general or special legislation the privileges of nationality upon those who are born out of its on territory; but it cannot confer such privileges upon such persons as against the country of their birth, when they voluntarily return to and reside therein. Those born in the territory of a nation are (as a general principle) liable when actually therein to the obligations incident to their status by birth. Great Britain considers and treats such persons as natural-born subjects, and cannot therefore deny the right of other nations to do the same. But Great Britain cannot permit the nationality of the children of foreign parents born within her territory to be questioned.”

    Again, this is why McElwee said these statutory subjects were not real “natural born subjects” as such status took a back seat to the claims of the nation of their birth. In other words, persons born in the US to English parents were technically British subjects by statute but were not treated as British subjects when in the United States. This is another way of saying that for purposes of public law, England thought jus soli trumpted jus sanguinis. Secretary of State Marcy and Attorney General Hoar took the same approach to children of Americans born overseas in refusing to treat them as American citizens when in the country of their birth. Thus, in England and the United States, native born citizens or subjects were treated as citizens or subjects anywhere in the world. Foreign born citizens or subjects were not.

  184. The Magic M says:
    February 22, 2013 at 11:16 am  (Quote)

    Keith: Hmmm. why didn’t the Brits adopt the Vattel line back then?

    RWNJ answer: Brits were evil; if they had adopted Vattel, the Framers wouldn’t have. 😉

  185. Welsh Dragon says:
    February 22, 2013 at 11:33 am  (Quote)

    ballantine: The confusing part about this Act is whether if prevented children of subjects born overseas who were made “natural born subjects” for all intents and purposes ineligible for holding office. According to the Royal Commission on Naturalization and Aliengage, it did:
    “The persons naturalized by these statutes were not placed on the same footing with English subjects to all intents and purposes. They were all, by the statutes that conferred the privilege, as well as by the Statute of 12 and 13 Wm. III., c. 2, prohibited from being members of the Privy Council or of either House of Parliament, and from enjoying any office or place civil or military, or any grant from the king of lands within the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. In general, therefore, a person naturalized was not even eligible to the office of constable.”

    I don’t think that the commission was actually saying that children of subjects born overseas were ineligible. Two pages later they say:

    “It must be remembered that under 13 Geo. III., c. 21, the grandchildren of British subjects are British subjects; no naturalization is therefore required in the case of persons bom abroad who are descended in the third generation from British subjects.

    Such a case occurred recently when Mr. Bernhard Samuelson was returned for Banbury in 1859 and 1865. Mr. Samuelson was born in Hamburgh, and maintained his right to sit in Parliament in virtue of his grandfather having been bom in the City of London.”

  186. ballantine says:
    February 22, 2013 at 11:37 am  (Quote)

    Welsh Dragon: I don’t think that the commission was actually saying that children of subjects born overseas were ineligible. Two pages later they say:

    “It must be remembered that under 13 Geo. III., c. 21, the grandchildren of British subjects are British subjects; no naturalization is therefore required in the case of persons bom abroad who are descended in the third generation from British subjects.

    Such a case occurred recently when Mr. Bernhard Samuelson was returned for Banbury in 1859 and 1865. Mr. Samuelson was born in Hamburgh, and maintained his right to sit in Parliament in virtue of his grandfather having been bom in the City of London.”

    I was looking at Cockburn’s Nationality and he doesn’t treat them as naturalized subjects either so I think you are right.

  187. JD Reed says:
    February 22, 2013 at 12:34 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: o

    Great brief explantion of the common-sense approach to interpeting law!

  188. sfjeff says:
    February 22, 2013 at 1:04 pm  (Quote)

    Bob’s argument:

    What say you thirteen-year olds, is the presidency open to foreign-born [sic] children [children born of foreign parents] made into regular citizens at birth or to anchor babies? You’re right! It isn’t.

    Having a lot of experience with 13 year olds fairly recently- and actually having this discussion with 13 year old- every 13 year old I spoke with easily understood the distinction that Bob cannot:

    Anyone born within the United States can aspire to grow up and be elected to be President- who is parents are is irrelevant.

    Anyone who becomes a citizen by Naturalization cannot be elected President.

    Kids get this Bob- why can’t you?

  189. Majority Will says:
    February 22, 2013 at 1:39 pm  (Quote)

    Poor, little bob got his feelings hurt.

    Call the waaaaahmbulance.

  190. American Mzungu says:
    February 22, 2013 at 2:02 pm  (Quote)

    It seems that Doc C has won the Great Debate. Instead of responding to Doc, Bob has decided to go back to the second kibitzers thread to find something posted by JD Reed to respond to.

  191. obobma says:
    February 22, 2013 at 2:56 pm  (Quote)

    Slartibartfast:
    I just can’t turn away from this car wreck.Bob seems to have great facility for making arguments which support his opponent’s case and claiming the exact opposite.It’s a very unusual (not to mention completely ineffective) rhetorical style.

    Bob,

    If you have any intention of engaging in this debate in good faith (and I very much doubt that you do), you really need to address this quote by James Madison:

    Why is it that no birther will so much as acknowledge that this quote exists?

    You need to look at all my responses in the Great Debate. Why is it that no anti-birther will debate in good faith? The meaning of Madison’s quote is not what the anti-birthers make it out to be.

  192. MattR says:
    February 22, 2013 at 3:00 pm  (Quote)

    American Mzungu:
    It seems that Doc C has won the Great Debate.Instead of responding to Doc, Bob has decided to go back to the second kibitzers thread to find something posted byJD Reed to respond to.

    It is kinda funny that Bob follows Doc C’s comment about 12 axioms with something that can effectively be shortened to

    Axiom 13. Madison used the word ‘generally’ when talking about birth as a criterion of allegiance in the United States
    Bob knows that by ‘generally’ Madison meant ‘everything except the presidency’

  193. Jim says:
    February 22, 2013 at 3:05 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: You need to look at all my responses in the Great Debate. Why is it that no anti-birther will debate in good faith? The meaning of Madison’s quote is not what the anti-birthers make it out to be.

    Actually, it’s exactly what we make it out to be…in clear, easily understandable language. No secret meanings there…as here:

    Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Connor: “All of our Presidents have, to date, been born in the 50 states. Notably, President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, and so is clearly a natural born citizen.”

    Now, who is more likely to be correct. Someone who has studied the Constitution, it’s history and has made decisions applying it…or someone who just makes up things out of thin air and hopes nobody notices? I think a Supreme Court Justice is much better versed than you can ever hope to be Bob.

  194. gorefan says:
    February 22, 2013 at 3:33 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: The meaning of Madison’s quote is not what the anti-birthers make it out to be.

    The Seybert quote is not what you make it out to be.

  195. Scientist says:
    February 22, 2013 at 3:33 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: The meaning of Madison’s quote is not what the anti-birthers make it out to be.

    Yes, you have asserted that. However, you should be ashamed to presume to speak for the dead and claim to read their minds, especially since you don’t strike me as clairvoyant in the least. Prove me wrong-I’m thinking of a number from 1 to 100-try to guess it.

    You can wriggle like an eel, but you can’t get around the plain meaning of the adjective natural born = from birth, whether applied to ballplayers, musicians or citizens. No statement implied regarding parents.

    By the way, most of us do not say native born and natural born are precisely identical. Natural born is a larger set that includes those born abroad to citizen parents (one or two as detailed in the statutes) as well as the native born. Remember, natural born = from birth.

  196. American Mzungu says:
    February 22, 2013 at 3:42 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: Why is it that no anti-birther will debate in good faith?

    Why are you accusing Doc C of not debating in good faith?

    Why are you suddenly Obobma again instead of Bob Gard?

  197. ballantine says:
    February 22, 2013 at 3:42 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: You need to look at all my responses in the Great Debate. Why is it that no anti-birther will debate in good faith? The meaning of Madison’s quote is not what the anti-birthers make it out to be.

    Actually, your reply is quite dishonest. You again cite an author that says you are wrong and, of course, try to cherry-pick out things you think support you.

    According to Smith:

    But in keeping with the nativistic tone of debate over these clauses, and not with the Constitution’s predominant liberal republicanism, it was almost certainly the common-law criterion of place of birth that the delegates meant to install in Article II, as Madison later asserted.

    Quite clear. And trying to twist it to claim he mean some other “common law” when he talked of the “common law criteria of place of birth” is pretty pathetic. Smith’s work is very controversial and not accepted by mainstream scholarship because he is wrong on much of what he writes. However, here, even he is saying you are wrong. And why look at Smith rather than the hundreds of legal works that plainly state you are wrong? Is that honest scholarship?

    On Madison, your twisting of his words is not fooling anyone. He didn’t say jus sanguinis was relevant here, though it obviosly is elsewhere. He plainly stated that jus soli is what applies in the United States and suggesting that he meant jus sanguinis did as well is making things up. He said Smith’s primary allegiance was to South Carolina and his secondary allegiance to the sovereign of such state, the King. He said upon the revolution, the secondary allegiance to the King was transferred to the new sovereign of such state, presumable the US government. This was perfectly consistent with the English common law as one could owe allegiance both to one’s local government as well as the sovereign. Spin all you want, but there is nothing in there to support you.

    And Ramsey was a sore loser who wrote an essary to sent to members of Congress to disqualify the man who beat him in an election. Congress rejected his arguments overwhelmingly and I am not sure a single person expressed support for Ramsey’s analysis though some though Madison view would make citizens of people loyal to England. I am not aware of a single legal authority that has ever cited Ramsey as his paper was overviously self serving.

    Madison knew that the Constitution did not provide for dual citizenship in any way. He must be rolling in his grave now because Congress distorted that fundamental tenet—though not expressly banned in the Constitution.

    LOL. More of the secret code. No one in such period ever said such a thing. In fact, our naturalization laws acknowedged dual citizenship as they made citizens of children of citizens born overseas, such as England, that obviously would be natural born subjects of England. Our state department had to deal constantly with dual citizenship issues throughout the early republic. In 1868, a Congressional report showed that as many as 3/5ths of our citizens were dual citizens. Such was simply a fact of life.

    Ask yourself the same question as always—if native-born, jus soli, is the established maxim for allegiance and the most important factor in running for the Senate and the House is birthplace allegiance, accepting that naturalization, the lesser form of allegiance is also allowed, then what is “natural born Citizen” if it isn’t a higher form of citizenship?

    Again, you are making things up as no one ever talked about a higher or lesser form of allegiance. Madison didn’t say that Smith wouldn’t also owe allegiance sufficient to sit in Congress if he was naturalized as obviously he would. “Allegiance” simply meant a duty of “obediance” to the sovereign which all citizens, natural born and naturalized, obviously had. Your trouble is that you don’t have a background in any of this and simply don’t understand the terms and legal concepts involved.

  198. obobma says:
    February 22, 2013 at 3:45 pm  (Quote)

    Publius:
    You want to know what I think is the astonishing thing?

    We are now beyond 1,800 comments of discussion, and I can’t think of one single point that Bob has made that provides any real evidence whatsoever to support his claim.

    Not one.

    In fact, I would say that this has become a flat-out farce. In his most recent reply, Bob quotes an essay by Pinckney McElwee that was entered into the Congressional record in 1967 as part of Rep. Dowdy’s comments.

    First of all, Bob studiously avoids so many other authorities, well known in American history, and steers us to that leading luminary of American politics and thought, Pinckney G. McElwee.

    A public figure whose astonishing influence on America was so profound that not only does he not merit a wikipedia article, I wasn’t able to immediately turn up a biography of any kind, or any biographical details at all. Except that he appears to have been a retired Colonel in the US Army, and a lawyer in DC.

    Unless the lawyer was a similarly-named son of the Colonel. I’m not even sure.

    But far worse than that, Bob is quoting a source that (like so many others) refutes him again and again.

    As Dr C has already pointed out, McElwee’s article says:

    I think the debate is over.

    We are now beyond 1,800 comments of discussion, and I can’t think of one single point that any of you has made that provides any real [meaning not circumstantial] evidence whatsoever to support your claim. My statement is as valid as yours except when you define my evidence as uncertain circumstantial and you define your evidence as smoking-gun spite of the fact that it is uncertain circumstantial. And you don’t have over a thousand pages of your kind of evidence.

    The debate will be over when you recognize the influence of Vattel during the period and when you can explain all the questions concerning how the term natural-born citizens ended up in the 1797 edition without using my arguments. You have no smoking-gun evidence to support your belief that natural-born citizen has its roots in natural-born subject. You have circumstantial evidence and you limit it to the evidence that you think supports you. There have been only a few that have discussed Vattel beyond section 212. Except for evidence intentioned for Part II, all your evidence has been in my eBook including the now famous Madison quote everyone accused me of avoiding. You should best avoid it because ity does not support your side.

    “A public figure whose astonishing influence on America was so profound that not only does he not merit a wikipedia article.” This is a vacuous statement. “My Encyclopӕdia Britannica has no entry for Pierce Butler.” He was important.

    You can also find this entry in my eBook: “The term antibirther hasn’t found its way into Wikipedia yet (The page “Antibirther” does not exist.) nor has anti-birther (The page “Anti-birther” does not exist.) but without a shadow of a doubt it describes people who oppose birther arguments.” So why the heck am I arguing with you. You don’t exist, even as of today: “The page “Anti-birther” does not exist. You can ask for it to be created, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.
    For search help, please visit Help:Searching..”

    This debate is not a farce but you want it to be. The farcical side is that Dr. Conspiracy used to run a web site that invited replies by anti-birthers and birthers. Your reliance on ridicule as your endless argument against birthers has run them all away. People get tired of ridicule but you don’t get tired of dishing it out. You have proven a few things so far in this debate. I did not get the full picture of the 1967 House Record and I did not know about two naturalization acts using natural-born citizens. You have also proven that none of you can admit to any mistakes. Your are undoubtedly all perfect.

  199. Welsh Dragon says:
    February 22, 2013 at 3:47 pm  (Quote)

    Bob sez:

    “[Madison knew that the Constitution did not provide for dual citizenship in any way. He must be rolling in his grave now because Congress distorted that fundamental tenet—though not expressly banned in the Constitution. I shall discuss dual citizenship at length in Part II.]”

    And yet, and yet he accepted French Citizenship.

    And for good measure:

    “…and a man may, at the same time, enjoy the rights of citizenship under two governments”

    Opinion of CJ John Rutledge (a signer of the constitution) Talbot v Janson 1795

  200. SluggoJD says:
    February 22, 2013 at 3:55 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: You need to look at all my responses in the Great Debate. Why is it that no anti-birther will debate in good faith? The meaning of Madison’s quote is not what the anti-birthers make it out to be.

    I won’t read a damn word, and you know why? Because you’re full of poop.

    Barack Obama is President of the United States.

    GET A LIFE!

  201. ballantine says:
    February 22, 2013 at 3:59 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: We are now beyond 1,800 comments of discussion, and I can’t think of one single point that any of you has made that provides any real [meaning not circumstantial] evidence whatsoever to support your claim. My statement is as valid as yours except when you define my evidence as uncertain circumstantial and you define your evidence as smoking-gun spite of the fact that it is uncertain circumstantial.

    Uh, one side shows that every legal authority of the period and all uses of the term in such period agrees with us. You cannot show any legal authority agreed with you and have to reply on a secret code you can’t provide any evidence of except your delusion that you know the contents of a dinner conversation 200 years ago. Great job.

    The debate will be over when you recognize the influence of Vattel during the period and when you can explain all the questions concerning how the term natural-born citizens ended up in the 1797 edition without using my arguments.

    Actually, we know the influence of Vattel and it wasn’t that great. The problem is you are passing yourself off as an expert on things you are not an expert on. I don’t even think you know what the Law of Nations was. And, again, you simly don’t understand that conjecture is not evidence. One could think of numerous reasons why such language might be changed but such conjecture is meaningless. One thing is pretty obvious is that about the last place someone translating a Swiss volume for and England edition of a work for an English audiance would look for a defintion would be an Americna definition. Even your conjecture doesn’t make sense. It is sad you keep insisting that you have proven anything. And, we notice, you never answer how any framer was informed of Jay’s secret definition since he wasn’t at the convention. Have you thought this out at all?

  202. MattR says:
    February 22, 2013 at 4:09 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: The debate will be over when you recognize the influence of Vattel during the period and when you can explain all the questions concerning how the term natural-born citizens ended up in the 1797 edition without using my arguments.

    So basically you are stating that the debate will not be over until we recognize that you have won because you have already demonstrated that you won’t accept any explanations for your questions that don’t fit your narrative. This is the reason why people thought it was a mistake for Doc C to get involved in the debate in the first place and why Obama was not stupid enough to fall for Trump’s $5 million “offer”.

  203. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 22, 2013 at 4:12 pm  (Quote)

    The debate was over when you admitted that the people who ratified the Constitution didn’t share your quaint views on Citizenship.

    As for explaining “natural born citizen” in the the 1797 edition of The Law of Nations, I don’t see how you explained it beyond conjecture.

    If you need an explanation, it may be because of the French Royal Decree of December 1790 seems to use “naturels francais” in the meaning “native born”.

    obobma: The debate will be over when you recognize the influence of Vattel during the period and when you can explain all the questions concerning how the term natural-born citizens ended up in the 1797 edition without using my arguments.

  204. Scientist says:
    February 22, 2013 at 4:26 pm  (Quote)

    natural born = from birth
    source:The English language as used in literature, cinema, everyday speech and the Constitution

    Debate over.

  205. ballantine says:
    February 22, 2013 at 4:30 pm  (Quote)

    So let me get Bob’s theory straight. There is no way someone would translate the original Vattel into “natural born citizen” as such translation is so far off, so the suggestion must have come from John Jay even though citing an American definition would make no sense in translating a Swiss work. Of course, this means that no one in 1787 in American would connect the term “natural born citizen” to Vattel by Bob’s own omission. Hence, Jay had to secretly come up with this meaning (even though the term was already being conflated with “natural born subject). So, Jay then secretly got his secret definition to the Convention and all the framers took oaths never to disclose its meaning to anyone as obviously they wouldn’t want anyone to interpret the Constitution in the future as they intended. Yes, framers always keep their intent secret so no one will ever follow it.

    Your biggest problem is you whole understanding of Constitutional interpretation doesn’t make sense, something you don’t even try to argue. Do you really think we should be bound by some secret intent never approved by the people when we are supposed to have a government based upon the consent of the governed? Seriously. Such is clearly un-American and, of course, would never be supported by any court.

    The reason you think we haven’t provided more evidence than you is that you don’t understand what type of evidence needs to be presented. The courts will rule on the evidence of what the term was understood to mean at the time by the people who ratified the document as evidenced by contemporary legal sources. Case closed. They will never be interested in conjecture about secret meanings or other nonsense. If you can’t accept this, I suggest you do some reading on Constitutional interpretation and you might understand that there can be no other method, at least if you want to claim to be an originalist.

  206. obobma says:
    February 22, 2013 at 4:33 pm  (Quote)

    Lupin:
    The problem with Bob is that he doesn’t know how to debate. He thinks that REPEATING THE SAME NONSENSE LOUDER is a proper response. It never is.

    If I were to play Devil’s Advocate using Vattel, I’d focus on the single “père” line, not the Two Citizen Parents which is clear nonsense.

    In effect you’d want to argue that Obama would be an indigene only if his father was American, and claim the nationality of the mother is irrelevant.

    Now I know I could demolish that argument, but truthfully, the rebuttal would be a lot less airtight (because it would involve pointing out contradictions and arguing about the precise meaning of words) than rebutting the Two Citizens Parents which, as I said, is pure nonsense.

    That might be a debate worth reading. (I’m limiting myself to Vattel as i know very little about the other matters raised downstream from there, so to speak.)

    I said that Bob Gard is a fraud, and I stand by that; but I think he is also an idiot, because I could debate his position better than he can.

    How many editions of Vattel do you own? How many have you read?

    You have no experience debating or you have forgotten that incivilities are not recommended. Tell me how many points would you gain accusing your opponent of being an idiot and a fraud? I suspect that you couldn’t debate my position better than I can because the judges would show you the door before you had your chance.

    You know virtually nothing of Vattel because you claim that in effect, I’d “want to argue that Obama would be an indigene only if his father was American, and claim the nationality of the mother is irrelevant.” Indigene to Vattel meant both parents were citizens. Your incapability of understanding this at the same time you claim knowledge about Vattel is self-contradictory. The single “père” line has nothing to do with a higher form of citizenship. It has to do with partus sequitur patrem (the offspring follows the condition of the father), nothing else.

  207. Scientist says:
    February 22, 2013 at 4:37 pm  (Quote)

    ballantine: Do you really think we should be bound by some secret intent never approved by the people when we are supposed to have a government based upon the consent of the governed?

    I really, really really want Bob to answer that.

  208. Jim says:
    February 22, 2013 at 4:40 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: How many editions of Vattel do you own?How many have you read?

    How many editions has Bob understood…ZERO!

    The library of Congress has over 35 million books and other printed materials…librarians are not expert on all of it. Just because you own a book, doesn’t mean you understand it. In fact, you’ve shown not to understand the significance of de Vattel’s in history much at all.

  209. Scientist says:
    February 22, 2013 at 4:40 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: Indigene to Vattel meant both parents were citizens

    Proof?

  210. Slartibartfast says:
    February 22, 2013 at 4:41 pm  (Quote)

    Me too. What say you Bob?

    Scientist: I really, really really want Bob to answer that.

  211. Rennie says:
    February 22, 2013 at 4:44 pm  (Quote)

    obobma:

    Indigene to Vattel meant both parents were citizens.

    Les Naturels, ou Indigènes sont ceux qui sont nés dans le pays, de Parens Citoyens. La Société ne pouvant se soutenir & se perpétuer que par les enfans des Citoyens; ces enfans y suivent naturellement la conditionn de leurs Pères, & entrent dans tous leurs droits.

    FATHERS, Bob. FATHERS.

    Maybe you shouldn’t have spent all that time looking at dictionaries; a simple book of grammar rules would perhaps have been more enlightening.

  212. Majority Will says:
    February 22, 2013 at 4:47 pm  (Quote)

    American Mzungu:

    Why are you suddenly Obobma again instead of Bob Gard?

    Split personality?

  213. Rennie says:
    February 22, 2013 at 4:52 pm  (Quote)

    I guess the filter doesn’t like French 🙁

  214. Majority Will says:
    February 22, 2013 at 4:55 pm  (Quote)

    I learned something new. Owning multiple editions of a book makes me an expert. I could have skipped college.

    *SMH*

  215. donna says:
    February 22, 2013 at 5:02 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: Indigene to Vattel meant both parents were citizens. Your incapability of understanding this at the same time you claim knowledge about Vattel is self-contradictory. The single “père” line has nothing to do with a higher form of citizenship. It has to do with partus sequitur patrem (the offspring follows the condition of the father), nothing else.

    you contradict Lupin who is french, an attorney and a “student” of vattel?

    HOW obombo of you –

    “partus sequitur patrem”?- in jewish law, you are only sure of the mother – would you say the same of ted cruz, born in canada to a cuban father and american mother?

    he and constitutional scholars say HE is eligiible

  216. obobma says:
    February 22, 2013 at 5:06 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: No. There is no indication that the House considered it. It was entered into the record as a supplement to Rep. Dowdy’s verbal remarks. There’s not even really any record that anybody actually read it except for Dowdy. Although some probably did.

    But I’m kind of mystified as to why you want to introduce it into the debate in the first place, since it directly and absolutely contradicts your claim.

    Tell me; are you certain it wasn’t read into the record? According to Dr. Conspiracy, he does not know how to verify how many Representatives were present at the time? Does that kind of lack of information spill over into reading into the record? I’d like to know your answer.

    The essay does not contradict my views. It bolsters them although it does not claim that natural-born citizen is what you claim or what I claim. It indicates plainly that a presidential candidate has to be a native citizen but makes no indication that is the only requirement. Remember Seybert: “Your constitution only recognizes the highest grade of citizenship that can be conferred—the alien is thus made a native, as it were, and is fully vested with every right and privilege attached to the native, with the exception impressed on the constitution . . .” By implication, Seybert is saying that the Constitution can only recognize the highest grade of citizenship that can be conferred, which is native. If native-born can be conferred, what cannot be conferred? He told us, “except in the instance specified, that of not being eligible to the Presidency of the United States.” Natural-born citizenship cannot be conferred. That doesn’t in itself unravel the enigma.

    In the House Record: “Mr. Romney appears probably to be a citizen of the United States. But, the question under consideration is not one of simple citizenship but rather, whether he is a ‘natural born citizen’ as prescribed in the Constitution of the United States for the Presidency.” The Representatives considered Osborn v. Bank of the United States, (9 Wheat) 738, 1.c. 827, in which Chief Justice Marshall said:

    “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. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the Courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue. He is [Page 22 U. S. 828] distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the Constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.” The Constitution uses citizen, which includes native-born and naturalized, and natural-born citizen, without a definition. How can you read “distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the Constitution makes the distinction” as support only for your side? Where is native-citizen used in the Constitution?The sentence can be used with equal validity to support my side. If the presidential eligibility clause had read a “native-born citizen born in the United States,” to distinguish it from a naturalized native-born citizen, I wouldn’t stand before you.

  217. Scientist says:
    February 22, 2013 at 5:13 pm  (Quote)

    Bob: I demand you answer the question as to how a Constitution ratified under false pretenses as a result of a secret conspiracy could possibly be binding? Unless you can get around this, all your other arguments are meaningless and simply a feeble attempt to distract.

    Please, everyone might I ask that we discuss no further until Bob satisfies on this point?

  218. obobma says:
    February 22, 2013 at 5:18 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.:
    00Bob February 17, 2013 at 9:00 pm
    “I ask Dr. Conspiracy to address my comment concerning John Roberts’ use of a British-style explanatory act to let ObamaCare pass as constitutional. Are British-style explanatory acts constitutional?”
    00Bob, remind me, what is it you’re supposed to be debating?Why should Doc indulge your irrelevancies when you won’t answer the relevant questions you’ve been asked time and again– like this one:if the Constitutional Convention was so fixated on your Double Naught Supersecret Vattel-to-Jay-to-Scott triple play definition of natural born citizen, and on preventing foreign influence, why did they make foreign-born citizens who first came to the United States as adults as eligible for the Presidency as George Washington?

    It is entirely relevant to the notion of whether or not a Supreme Court willing to make blatantly unconstitutional decisions about constitutionality should have a right to interpret what’s in the Constitution.

    “. . . why did they make foreign-born citizens who first came to the United States as adults as eligible for the Presidency as George Washington?” Is that clause still in effect today?

  219. JoZeppy says:
    February 22, 2013 at 5:21 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: How many editions of Vattel do you own? How many have you read?

    Why would he need more than one edition, since he is relying on the original French?

    Good God…your arguments get more silly by the moment (as if having multipled editions of something means you understood any of it).

  220. ballantine says:
    February 22, 2013 at 5:24 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: Tell me; are you certain it wasn’t read into the record? According to Dr. Conspiracy, he does not know how to verify how many Representatives were present at the time? Does that kind of lack of information spill over into reading into the record?I’d like to know your answer.

    The essay does not contradict my views. It bolsters them although it does not claim that natural-born citizen is what you claim or what I claim. It indicates plainly that a presidential candidate has to be a native citizen but makes no indication that is the only requirement. Remember Seybert:“Your constitution only recognizes the highest grade of citizenship that can be conferred—the alien is thus made a native, as it were, and is fully vested with every right and privilege attached to the native, with the exception impressed on the constitution . . .” By implication, Seybert is saying that the Constitution can only recognize the highest grade of citizenship that can be conferred, which is native. If native-born can be conferred, what cannot be conferred? He told us, “except in the instance specified, that of not being eligible to the Presidency of the United States.” Natural-born citizenship cannot be conferred. That doesn’t in itself unravel the enigma.

    In the House Record: “Mr. Romney appears probably to be a citizen of the United States. But, the question under consideration is not one of simple citizenship but rather, whether he is a ‘natural born citizen’ as prescribed in the Constitution of the United States for the Presidency.” The Representatives considered Osborn v. Bank of the United States, (9 Wheat) 738, 1.c. 827, in which Chief Justice Marshall said:

    “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. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the Courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue. He is [Page 22 U. S. 828] distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the Constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.”The Constitution uses citizen, which includes native-born and naturalized, and natural-born citizen, without a definition. How can you read “distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the Constitution makes the distinction” as support only for your side? Where is native-citizen used in the Constitution?The sentence can be used with equal validity to support my side. If the presidential eligibility clause had read a “native-born citizen born in the United States,” to distinguish it from a naturalized native-born citizen, I wouldn’t stand before you.

    Seriously, can’t you read? McElwee concluded:

    “to summarize: a natural-born citizen of the United States, as that term is used in the Constitution of the United States, means a citizen born within the territorial limits of the United States and subject to the laws of the United States a the time of such birth. This does not include children born within the territorial limits of the United States to parents who, although present with the consent of the United States, enjoy diplomatic immunity from the laws of the United States, and, as a consequence are not subject to the laws of the United States. Nor would this include children born within the territorial limits of the United States to alien enemy parents in time of War as a part of a hostile military force, and, as a consequence not present with the consent of the United States, and not subject to the laws of the United States. But this does include children born to alien parents who are present within the territorial limits of the United States “in amity” i.e. with the consent of the United States, and subject to its laws at the time of birth. U.S. v. Wonk Kim Ark 169 US 649, Luria v. U.S., 231 US 9, Minor v. Happersett 88 US 162.”

    A clear and complete definition re-stating the Englsih common law. You are looking more dishonest with each post.

  221. Scientist says:
    February 22, 2013 at 5:28 pm  (Quote)

    Again, I ask how a secret interpretation a possibly be binding? Since Bob has no response, I will answer: it cannot. Therefore, if Bob is right, the natural born citizen clause is INVALID and UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

  222. Slartibartfast says:
    February 22, 2013 at 5:28 pm  (Quote)

    I think this is a good idea—there really isn’t any point to addressing any of Bob’s other failings if he cannot address this issue satisfactorily. I might also suggest that until he does people could help Bob out by explaining to him how he has demonstrated a nearly complete lack of good faith in his arguments 😉

    Scientist:
    Bob: I demand you answer the question as to how a Constitution ratified under false pretenses as a result of a secret conspiracy could possibly be binding? Unless you can get around this, all your other arguments are meaningless and simply a feeble attempt to distract.

    Please, everyone might I ask that we discuss no further until Bob satisfies on this point?

  223. Majority Will says:
    February 22, 2013 at 5:36 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist:
    Bob: I demand you answer the question as to how a Constitution ratified under false pretenses as a result of a secret conspiracy could possibly be binding? Unless you can get around this, all your other arguments are meaningless and simply a feeble attempt to distract.

    Please, everyone might I ask that we discuss no further until Bob satisfies on this point?

    Hear, hear.

  224. misha marinsky says:
    February 22, 2013 at 5:37 pm  (Quote)

    SluggoJD: I won’t read a damn word, and you know why? Because you’re full of poop.

    Barack Obama is President of the United States. GET A LIFE!

    Every time someone tells me that Obama is not a legitimate president because of his father, I respond “I hope that makes you miserable.” I also point out that Obama got ~70-78% of the Jewish vote.

    To Bob Gard and his multiple personalities: Eat your heart out.

  225. obobma says:
    February 22, 2013 at 5:38 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: The most devastating, fatal argument against Bob’s position is that the ratifiers were, in effect, duped by John Jay and his cabal hatched in taverns and dining halls and were unaware of the true meaning of natural born citizen.Because if that were really true, the implicit contract between the people and the government that is the Constitution would have been signed under fraud and would be null and void.

    That argument was made by none other than Bob, the self-described “Constitutionalist”.At that point, his terminally ill thesis died a deserved death.

    By that kind of reasoning, the contract between Obama and America concerning hope and change would nullify his presidency because he didn’t admit that socialism was his major change. The backroom deals to get his ObamaCare passed remained mostly secret. Thank you. I am glad to hear that ObamaCare is fraudulent. You mean we conservatives don’t have to continue to fight it? It’s null and void by your reasoning. Axiom 6.

    Because natural-born citizen was never openly discussed makes the act a cabal? Then most of the things Obama does are cabals. The fact that most of the politicians used pseudonyms so as not to be initially connected to their arguments pro and con is the same thing you do. You hide; they hid. Why aren’t you comfortable with your replies? Divulge who you are. People call me every bad name under the sun but I am one of a few that has the guts to identify myself. I could have written the eBook with a pen name.

  226. misha marinsky says:
    February 22, 2013 at 5:42 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: Divulge who you are. People call me every bad name under the sun but I am one of a few that has the guts to identify myself.

    You are a crank. So there.

  227. JRC says:
    February 22, 2013 at 5:43 pm  (Quote)

    Mr. Gard, I can’t believe you don’t understand what Seybert is saying in the quote…“Your constitution only recognizes the highest grade of citizenship that can be conferred—the alien is thus made a native, as it were, and is fully vested with every right and privilege attached to the native, with the exception impressed on the constitution . . .”

    He is saying that our constitution makes a naturalized citizen as that of a native (natural born) citizen. There are no levels of citizenship. Once you become naturalized, you receive the highest grade of citizenship with all the rights and privilege attached any native born citizen with the exception of becoming President. Once you become a citizen whether at birth or naturalized, you have the highest grade of citizenship because we don’t differentiate between the two (other then defined in the Constitution which was only that the President had to be native born, and later the VP through Amendment), and that’s how we roll here in the U.S.A.

  228. Jim says:
    February 22, 2013 at 5:45 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: By that kind of reasoning, the contract between Obama and America concerning hope and change would nullify his presidency because he didn’t admit that socialism was his major change. The backroom deals to get his ObamaCare passed remained mostly secret. Thank you. I am glad to hear that ObamaCare is fraudulent. You mean we conservatives don’t have to continue to fight it?It’s null and void by your reasoning. Axiom 6.

    Really Bob, you’re now telling us you can’t tell the difference between legislation and the Constitution? But that’s OK, now the truth (that we all new in the beginning) comes out. It has nothing to do with the President’s eligibility, just your own dislike of him. Well, for that you got 1 vote. You lost. Get over it!

  229. misha marinsky says:
    February 22, 2013 at 5:48 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: By that kind of reasoning, the contract between Obama and America concerning hope and change would nullify his presidency because he didn’t admit that socialism was his major change.

    So? Shrub never admitted that the cornerstone of his presidency was fascism, and he never admitted that the real president was Cheney and Rove.

  230. obobma says:
    February 22, 2013 at 5:55 pm  (Quote)

    Jim:
    I haven’t seen him get around the fact that there are only 2 types of citizens recognized by the Constitution.Did I miss it?

    Citizens and natural-born citizens. I think I did present this before, but I will present it again in perhaps a different excerpt from my eBook:

    “The English language displays a rich variety of collective words: set, collection, group, class, assembly, family flock, herd and many others. The mathematician prefers the simplest, the term set, though he may occasionally use a synonym, especially collection.” The most common way to describe a set is to list its elements. Bouvier’s dictionary describes the set “citizen” and lists its elements as naturalized citizen and native-born citizen. It is not immediately clear whether Bouvier’s dictionary considers “natural-born citizen” a single element or the set “natural-born citizen.” If the term is considered a single term, then Bouvier’s dictionary is equating native-born citizen to natural-born citizen in sentence (3) without giving an explanation as to why the framers violated logic, common sense and Axiom 5 by not using the term native-born citizen in the presidential eligibility clause. It would have been logical and consistent to include “native-born citizen” in the set “citizen” and list it as the only kind of citizen that could become a president or vice-president by using “native-born citizen” in the eligibility clause. It would also be consistent and logical to consider “natural-born citizen” a set that contains two or more elements, which the dictionary actually implies by introducing sentence (3). But the dictionary does not identify the kind(s) of other citizen(s) in the set. Here is where the dictionary fails. If “citizen” means native-born and naturalized citizen, and no naturalized citizens may be elected president or vice-president, then what is the purpose of “natural-born citizen” in the presidential eligibility clause? Natural-born citizen necessarily contains native-born citizen and one more kind of citizen if sentence (3) is to be taken at face value. Does the set “natural-born citizen” contain both native-born and natural-born? If it does, then natural-born would still imply the next higher form of citizenship, higher than native-born. Either the category of natural-born citizen contains two kinds of citizens or it contains one, being natural-born citizen. If the set does not contain two, the same as “citizen,” then the framers really did commit a blunder by not stipulating that a president must be a native-born citizen and a Senator or Representative must be a citizen, meaning naturalized or native-born. Had they used native-born citizen for president, the wordage would have been logical. It would have made sense. Without this wording, the only way that Bouvier would make a modicum of sense would be if citizen meant naturalized citizen and natural-born citizen meant native-born citizen. Confusions such as this one in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary have kept lawyers and judges overturning the wrong rocks in the search for the meaning of natural-born citizen. The simplest approach would have been to see the logic right off that natural-born citizen had to be the next higher class of citizen if citizen included naturalized and native-born. Native-born as an element of natural-born should have been rejected on the power of reason.”

  231. ballantine says:
    February 22, 2013 at 5:56 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: By that kind of reasoning, the contract between Obama and America concerning hope and change would nullify his presidency because he didn’t admit that socialism was his major change. The backroom deals to get his ObamaCare passed remained mostly secret. Thank you. I am glad to hear that ObamaCare is fraudulent. You mean we conservatives don’t have to continue to fight it?It’s null and void by your reasoning. Axiom 6.

    Because natural-born citizen was never openly discussed makes the act a cabal? Then most of the things Obama does are cabals. The fact that most of the politicians used pseudonyms so as not to be initially connected to their arguments pro and con is the same thing you do.You hide; they hid. Why aren’t you comfortable with your replies? Divulge who you are. People call me every bad name under the sun but I am one of a few that has the guts to identify myself. I could have written the eBook with a pen name.

    Translation, you have no argument. The constitution can only be interpreted by trying to understand the meaning of its terms at the time. The framers used pen names but tried to explain to the people what they were adopting. There is no alternate theory that is acceptable in a republican government which has to be based upon the consent of the governed. This was also black letter law of statutory interpretation in 1787 that every framer would have been taught. This is not an exact science, but unless you can show anyone understood the term to mean what you say it means, you have no argument. Scalia would not even read conjecture about the subjective intent of the framers as such is not relevant to the understanding of the people who ratified the document. If they were trying to fool the people, the joke is on them as no court will ever honor their secret code.

    Thus, your whole exercise was based on a faulty premise on how the Constitution is interpreted. Until you can give a serious answer to this question, the rest of your arguments are meaningless.

  232. misha marinsky says:
    February 22, 2013 at 6:01 pm  (Quote)

    ballantine: Thus, your whole exercise was based on a faulty premise on how the Constitution is interpreted. Until you can give a serious answer to this question, the rest of your arguments are meaningless.

    “Bob Gard” and the rest of his sock puppets, is not a lawyer. He and his ilk never heard of Mattel outside of toys, until Donofrio dug him out of a dustbin.

    You’ll see: This same crowd will support Rubio and Cruz. Mark my words.

  233. obobma says:
    February 22, 2013 at 6:02 pm  (Quote)

    JPotter: “instinct”?

    Instinct?LOL!

    Wisdom of crowds? Guidance of the divine hand?

    Hmm … what else may have guided the masses of a predominantly caucasian population with long traditions of nativism and chauvinism to affect a preference for old white dudes from the block?

    Distortion as always. Nowhere in the definition of natural-born citizen as born of two American citizens was mentioned “old white dudes.”

  234. Rennie says:
    February 22, 2013 at 6:10 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: Distortion as always. Nowhere in the definition of natural-born citizen as born of two American citizens was mentioned “old white dudes.”

    Nowhere is natural-born citizen defined as “born of two American citizens”.

    Fathers, Bob. Fathers.

  235. misha marinsky says:
    February 22, 2013 at 6:10 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: Distortion as always.

    You presume to critique Shakespeare. He defined natural born centuries before Mattel:

    “…for none of woman born
    Shall harm Macbeth.”

    and

    “…Macduff was from his mother’s womb
    Untimely ripp’d.”

    You lose.

  236. MattR says:
    February 22, 2013 at 6:16 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: By that kind of reasoning, the contract between Obama and America concerning hope and change would nullify his presidency because he didn’t admit that socialism was his major change.

    I guess we can now add socialism to the list of words whose meaning Bob doesn’t understand.

  237. misha marinsky says:
    February 22, 2013 at 6:19 pm  (Quote)

    MattR: I guess we can now add socialism to the list of words whose meaning Bob doesn’t understand.

    Bob doesn’t understand anything unless Limbaugh, Beck and Bachmann explain it to him.

  238. Scientist says:
    February 22, 2013 at 6:20 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: By that kind of reasoning, the contract between Obama and America concerning hope and change would nullify his presidency because he didn’t admit that socialism was his major change

    Hope and change is a slogan, like tastes great, less filling. Besides a majority of the voters felt he fullfilled enough of his promises to re-elect him.

    obobma: The backroom deals to get his ObamaCare passed remained mostly secret.

    Most legislation involves deals to get it passed. Those deals are not law. Only the text of the bill is law. Only the text of the Constitution is law. You can’t include the secret deals in the Constitution.

    obobma: Divulge who you are

    I am Benjamin Franklin, writing from beyond the grave. You are full of sh!t in everything you say about the men who were my friends. Their spirits will haunt you the rest of your miserable life.

  239. donna says:
    February 22, 2013 at 6:20 pm  (Quote)

    Rennie: Fathers, Bob. Fathers.

    “Land where my fathers died, Land of the pilgrims’ pride” – i guess there was more than one “father” ….. what to do with that one

  240. Ballantine says:
    February 22, 2013 at 6:23 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: Citizens and natural-born citizens. I think I did present this before, but I will present it again in perhaps a different excerpt from my eBook:

    “The English language displays a rich variety of collective words: set, collection, group, class, assembly, family flock, herd and many others. The mathematician prefers the simplest, the term set, though he may occasionally use a synonym, especially collection.”The most common way to describe a set is to list its elements. Bouvier’s dictionary describes the set “citizen” and lists its elements as naturalized citizen and native-born citizen. It is not immediately clear whether Bouvier’s dictionary considers “natural-born citizen” a single element or the set “natural-born citizen.” If the term is considered a single term, then Bouvier’s dictionary is equating native-born citizen to natural-born citizen in sentence (3) without giving an explanation as to why the framers violated logic, common sense and Axiom 5 by not using the term native-born citizen in the presidential eligibility clause. It would have been logical and consistent to include “native-born citizen” in the set “citizen” and list it as the only kind of citizen that could become a president or vice-president by using “native-born citizen” in the eligibility clause. It would also be consistent and logical to consider “natural-born citizen” a set that contains two or more elements, which the dictionary actually implies by introducing sentence (3). But the dictionary does not identify the kind(s) of other citizen(s) in the set. Here is where the dictionary fails.If “citizen” meansnative-born and naturalized citizen, and no naturalized citizens may be elected president or vice-president, then what is the purpose of “natural-born citizen” in the presidential eligibility clause?Natural-born citizen necessarily contains native-born citizen and one more kind of citizen if sentence (3) is to be taken at face value. Does the set “natural-born citizen” contain both native-born and natural-born? If it does, then natural-born would still imply the next higher form of citizenship, higher than native-born.Either the category of natural-born citizen contains two kinds of citizens or it contains one, being natural-born citizen.If the set does not contain two, the same as “citizen,” then the framers really did commit a blunder by not stipulating that a president must be a native-born citizen and a Senator or Representative must be a citizen, meaning naturalized or native-born. Had they used native-born citizen for president, the wordage would have been logical. It would have made sense. Without this wording, the only way that Bouvier would make a modicum of sense would be if citizen meant naturalized citizen and natural-born citizen meant native-born citizen. Confusions such as this one in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary have kept lawyers and judges overturning the wrong rocks in the search for the meaning of natural-born citizen. The simplest approach would have been to see the logic right off that natural-born citizen had to be the next higher class of citizen if citizen included naturalized and native-born. Native-born as an element of natural-born should have been rejected on the power of reason.”

    Wow, you just can’t stop embarrassing youself. Bouvier, like everyone else, said there were two types of citizens and only native born citizens were eligible to be president, just like every other scholar of the period. Where is the scholar saying there is a third class of citizenship or that native born citizens were not considered natural born citizens? Such authority does not exist. And your twisting of Seybert’s words is not convincing anyone as he said no such thing. If you want to have a serious argument, you need to stop misrepresenting people. So far, You misrepresented McElwee, Roger Smith, Seybert, Bouvier, Madison. Am I missing anyone? Can’t you find anyone actually saying you are right?

  241. obobma says:
    February 22, 2013 at 6:24 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: I thought about commenting on this earlier.

    For sake of discussion, let’s grant the premise: That only selecting Presidents with two citizen parents is a Good Thing, and that the electorate instinctively tends to prefer such candidates.

    And their voting for such candidates is also a Good Thing, because it protects us from that hint of foreign influence that (God forbid) might be introduced by having a father or mother from Kenya. Or Japan. Or Germany.

    That still doesn’t imply that candidates with non-citizen parents are Constitutionally ineligible.

    Just because a thing is Less Good (or even Bad) doesn’t mean it’s contrary to the law, or to qualifications.

    I think we can all agree that electing a President with a prior conviction for bank robbery would be a Bad Thing. And I think we can probably agree that electing a President who was born of two US citizen parents in Louisville, Kentucky, but who was then sent at age 17 for 10 years of education at a communist indoctrination center in China would be a Bad Thing.

    But there is no Constitutional qualification that says bank robbers or people educated abroad in unfriendly countries can’t be elected President.

    Beyond the simple “natural born citizen” and age qualifications, the Founding Fathers didn’t intend to micromanage who we selected as President. They relied on the People to have a modicum of sense.

    Thank you for getting back to this style of questioning.

    Have you not considered this to be part of the reasoning for inserting, “. . . neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen years a Resident within the United States.” The two were added so that someone thirty-five or older would have had at least 14 years of assimilation and education in America before he could run for the presidency. The framers were not ready to allow their sons that spent decades in England being educated a chance to run for the presidency unless they had time in America under their belts.

    Your feelings about the children of non-citizens sound compassionate but can lead to disastrous results. The kings and queens of Europe not born in the countries they ruled often proved that premise.

    Let me present another excerpt:

    Decidedly against the allowing of a foreigner to run for the Senate without a long residence as citizen in the country, Pierce Butler maintained, “They [foreign-born candidates] bring with them, not only attachments to other Countries; but ideas of Govt. so distinct from ours that in every point of view they are dangerous. He acknowledged that if he himself had been called into public life within a short time after his coming to America, his foreign habits opinions & attachments would have rendered him an improper agent in public affairs. He mentioned the great strictness observed in Great Britain on this subject.” Obviously, he was more conservative than Wilson shown by his commendably honest viewpoint and was probably quite happy with the grandfather clause in the presidential eligibility requirements for personal reasons.

  242. Scientist says:
    February 22, 2013 at 6:30 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: By that kind of reasoning, the contract between Obama and America concerning hope and change would nullify his presidency because he didn’t admit that socialism was his major change

    Hope and change is a slogan, like tastes great, less filling. Besides a majority of the voters felt he fullfilled enough of his promises to re-elect him.

    obobma: The backroom deals to get his ObamaCare passed remained mostly secret.

    Most legislation involves deals to get it passed. Those deals are not law. Only the text of the bill is law. Only the text of the Constitution is law. You can’t include the secret deals in the Constitution.

    obobma: You mean we conservatives don’t have to continue to fight it? It’s null and void by your reasoning.

    John Boehner says it’s the law of the land. Gov Rick Scott says that everyone should have access to health care and he accepts the Medicaid expansion. Conservatives other than you are in fact no longer fighting it.

    obobma: Divulge who you are

    I am Benjamin Franklin, writing from beyond the grave. You are full of cr@p in everything you say about the men who were my friends. Their spirits will haunt you the rest of your miserable life.

  243. misha marinsky says:
    February 22, 2013 at 6:30 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: Pierce Butler maintained, “They [foreign-born candidates] bring with them, not only attachments to other Countries

    What about his evil twin brother, Skippy Butler?

  244. Scientist says:
    February 22, 2013 at 6:37 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: Your feelings about the children of non-citizens sound compassionate but can lead to disastrous results. The kings and queens of Europe not born in the countries they ruled often proved that premise.

    What does that have to do with someone born and raised in the US? And what data do you have that foreign-born monarchs were worse than native-born ones? Was Catherine the Great (a German) worse than Ivan the Terrible (Russian through and through)?

    obobma: Decidedly against the allowing of a foreigner to run for the Senate without a long residence as citizen in the country, Pierce Butler maintained, “They [foreign-born candidates] bring with them, not only attachments to other Countries; but ideas of Govt. so distinct from ours that in every point of view they are dangerous. He acknowledged that if he himself had been called into public life within a short time after his coming to America, his foreign habits opinions & attachments would have rendered him an improper agent in public affairs. He mentioned the great strictness observed in Great Britain on this subject.” Obviously, he was more conservative than Wilson shown by his commendably honest viewpoint and was probably quite happy with the grandfather clause in the presidential eligibility requirements for personal reasons

    What does that have to do with someone born and raised in the US?

  245. obobma says:
    February 22, 2013 at 6:38 pm  (Quote)

    sfjeff:
    Bob:
    “I concluded that the secrecy code disallowed them the freedom to make the problematic usage of natural-born citizen known to the 1790 Congress.”

    ‘The secrecy code’?

    Sorry, once I saw that I stopped reading.

    I presented my analysis of the 1790 naturalization act. You must have stopped reading before that.

    Are you unaware that secrecy was and always has been the manner of conducting most international negotiations and treaties? Are you unaware that judges use their chambers in secret? Are you unaware that there are some committees in Congress that predominately meet in secret? Are you unaware that Obama is constantly attacked for lack of transparency? Do lobbyists open their “talks” with Congressmen to the public eye all the time?

    Secrecy is a way of life in government.

  246. ballantine says:
    February 22, 2013 at 6:45 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: Thank you for getting back to this style of questioning.

    Have you not considered this to be part of the reasoning for inserting, “. . . neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen years a Resident within the United States.”The two were added so that someone thirty-five or older would have had at least 14 years of assimilation and education in America before he could run for the presidency. The framers were not ready to allow their sons that spent decades in England being educated a chance to run for the presidency unless they had time in America under their belts.

    Your feelings about the children of non-citizens sound compassionate but can lead to disastrous results. The kings and queens of Europe not born in the countries they ruled often proved that premise.

    Let me present another excerpt:

    Decidedly against the allowing of a foreigner to run for the Senate without a long residence as citizen in the country, Pierce Butler maintained, “They [foreign-born candidates] bring with them, not only attachments to other Countries; but ideas of Govt. so distinct from ours that in every point of view they are dangerous. He acknowledged that if he himself had been called into public life within a short time after his coming to America, his foreign habits opinions & attachments would have rendered him an improper agent in public affairs. He mentioned the great strictness observed in Great Britain on this subject.”Obviously, he was more conservative than Wilson shown by his commendably honest viewpoint and was probably quite happy with the grandfather clause in the presidential eligibility requirements for personal reasons.

    More dishonesty. The framers only talked about the dangers of the foreign born or people who had not resided in this country. Not a single person talked about foreign parents and the only thing discussed was a native birth requirement which offended Wilson since he was foreign born. After Wilson complained that these suggestions might disqualify him, someone suggested a grandfather provision. It is simply dishonest to claim anyone in the convention was concerned about foreign parentage or cared about Vattel’s definition. I understand you cannot cite anyone actually supporting you, but trying to read it into the convention debates is again dishonest and shows you are not serious.

  247. MattR says:
    February 22, 2013 at 6:49 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: Secrecy is a way of life in government.

    There is a difference between secrecy of process and secrecy of meaning. You cannot have a legitimate system of justice if the meaning of laws is unknown to the citizens. Your ‘secrecy code’ is much more reminiscent of a banana republic.

  248. Scientist says:
    February 22, 2013 at 6:50 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: Are you unaware that secrecy was and always has been the manner of conducting most international negotiations and treaties?

    Yes but the only legally binding language is what makes it into the final signed and ratified treaty. Similarly, any side agreements on the Constitution are not legally binding. How can you expect people to obey laws they don’t even know about? If you are right, Obama ran and was elected in good faith because he couldn’t have know about Jay’s secret agreements. So, you really don’t have a beef with him.

  249. gorefan says:
    February 22, 2013 at 7:07 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: Secrecy is a way of life in government.

    Bob, you wrote, “It is illogical to consider the requirement of one office in the United States that excludes native-born citizens and naturalized citizens as xenophobic.”

    What is illogical is to ignore the words of the Founders who say that native born is the same as natural born.

    Please explain – “The Constitution requires that the President shall be a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and that he shall have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and shall have been fourteen years a resident within the United States. Considering the greatness of the trust, and that this department is the ultimately efficient executive power in government, these restrictions will not appear altogether useless or unimportant. As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot intrigue for the office,“ James Kent

    And before you disrespect Chancellor Kent, the way you disrespected Revolutionary War hero St. George Tucker, be advised that Chancellor Kent was a personal friend to John Jay. Jay as governor of New York appointed James Kent to the New York courts.

    “While at Poughkeepsie my Federal celebrity procured my acquaintance and friendship with several distinguished men in New York, such as Chief-Justice Jay, Judge Hobart,
    of the Supreme Court, and Colonel Troup and Edward Livingston. …I was appointed a Professor of Law in Columbia College. The influence of Dr. S. Bard, of Judge Hobart, of
    B. Livingston, Edward Livingston, and probably of Chief-Justice Jay, procured me the appointment.”     MEMOIRS OF CHANCELLOR KENT

    “In 1796 I began my career of official life. It came upon me entirely unsolicited and unexpected. In February, 1796, Governor Jay wrote me a letter, stating that the office of Master in Chancery was vacant, and wished to know, confidentially, whether I would accept.” MEMOIRS OF CHANCELLOR KENT

    “After spending the months of January and February, 1797, at Albany, with the Legislature, I no sooner returned home than I was, very unexpectedly for myself, appointed Recorder of the City of New York. This was done at Albany [Governor Jay], and without my knowledge that the office was vacant or was expected to be.” MEMOIRS OF CHANCELLOR KENT

    “The commission of James Kent as Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, signed by John Jay, Governor, bears date June 16, 1798. ” MEMOIRS OF CHANCELLOR KENT

    “In February, 1798 I was offered by Governor Jay, and accepted, the office of youngest judge of the Supreme Court. This was the summit of my ambition.” MEMOIRS OF CHANCELLOR KENT

    It is inconceivable that Jay would not have disclosed the secret meaning of the term “natural born” to Chancellor Kent when Kent told him he was going to write a legal treatise on the Constitution and American law.

  250. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 22, 2013 at 7:11 pm  (Quote)

    I don’t accept axiom 5. As for the framers, it would be illogical for them to misrepresent the product of their deliberations to the people.

    obobma: without giving an explanation as to why the framers violated logic, common sense and Axiom 5 by not using the term native-born citizen in the presidential eligibility clause.

  251. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 22, 2013 at 7:13 pm  (Quote)

    🙄

    obobma: By that kind of reasoning, the contract between Obama and America concerning hope and change would nullify his presidency because he didn’t admit that socialism was his major change.

  252. donna says:
    February 22, 2013 at 7:17 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: By that kind of reasoning, the contract between Obama and America concerning hope and change would nullify his presidency because he didn’t admit that socialism was his major change.

    can you define “socialism”?

    Of the 427 companies in the S&P 500 that have reported results so far, 69.3 percent have exceeded analysts’ expectations, compared with a 62 percent average since 1994 and 65 percent over the past four quarters, according to Thomson Reuters data through Thursday morning.

    Fourth-quarter earnings for S&P 500 companies are estimated to have risen 5.9 percent, according to the data, above a 1.9 percent forecast at the start of the earnings season.

  253. JoZeppy says:
    February 22, 2013 at 7:24 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: By that kind of reasoning, the contract between Obama and America concerning hope and change would nullify his presidency because he didn’t admit that socialism was his major change.

    Except for the fact that there is no “contract” between Obama and America. He was elected to office by the people for 4 years, at which point, he is free to do anything within the law….That and he has done nothing in terms of socialism….so besides the fact that your statement is totally devoid of any facts or connection to reality (hmmmm a pattern forming?), I can see how you came by this reasoning..

    obobma: The backroom deals to get his ObamaCare passed remained mostly secret. Thank you. I am glad to hear that ObamaCare is fraudulent. You mean we conservatives don’t have to continue to fight it? It’s null and void by your reasoning. Axiom 6.

    Problem with your reasoning, is that the only part of the backroom dealing that matters is that which makes its way into actual legislation. If there was a backroom deal as part of the Afordable Heathcare Act that whenever they used the word “dollar” they actually actually means one million swiss fancs paid to an off shore account, that deal would be meaningless and non-enforceable…much like your supposed “super secret” definition of natural born citizen, that no one ever put to paper, or ever discussed or told anyone about. Your “reasoning” makes no sense. If something is kept secret, it’s impossible to enforce.

  254. obobma says:
    February 22, 2013 at 7:27 pm  (Quote)

    Kiwiwriter:
    Hi, Doc:

    I’ve been reading this page with near-religious fanaticism for some months now, and haven’t felt a need to comment, because your supporters are doing a pretty good job of it, but I finally saw something I had to weigh in on…

    This guy Bob Gard…in his story about his trip to Russia and his encounters with the cops, I noticed something that didn’t ring right.

    I’m not a constitutional scholar, I’m a historian, journalist, and writer, with an MFA in Creative Writing, so I ping on writing, story arcs, and stuff like that.

    What I saw that I pinged on was Bob’s account of how he got in trouble with Russian police. After his first two encounters with them, he went with his pals and got drunk at some tourist spot. Then he and his pals drove back from the tourist spot…drunk.

    And got nailed by the Soviet police.

    Now, the reason that didn’t ring right with me was the behavior. One would think that after two unpleasant encounters with the NKVD or their brethren, a visitor to the Soviet Union would have learned his lesson, and not behaved in a manner that would be guaranteed to attract the attention of the “greenskins.” But, nope, Bob had to go and get uproariously drunk, and then drive back to the hotel while soused.

    In America, that’s pretty serious and dangerous in business. In the Soviet Union, that’s pretty serious and dangerous business…especially by a foreign tourist. It’s like walking around wearing a neon sign that says, “Arrest me.”

    For that reason alone, I had trouble believing Bob’s highly-colored stories. I think he’s developed excuses for his failures, like other paranoiacs, and is blaming all these folks for his botch-ups.

    So those questionable personal credentials make me question his professional work.

    I think this web page is a tremendous site, and it’s absolutely fascinating. If these jokers like Orly Taitz weren’t making our judicial system, judges, and federal attorneys waste valuable amounts of time and energy responding to these idiocies, it would be hilarious. Instead, it’s just sad and depressing. I do wonder why Orly Taitz hasn’t been disbarred yet.

    The worst things about these train wrecks is that people believe them. I try to remind myself that there are also a lot of people who think that Elvis is alive, the Holocaust didn’t happen, and that UFOs are abducting American citizens. Would they would take Orly.

    “The young Intourist guide that escorted us was allowed to get more intoxicated on Sherries than we got, and we were intoxicated. Driving drunk in Russia was not against the law.” I didn’t say I drove. It wasn’t my vehicle.” “We rushed him to a clinic.” Does that equate to I drove him to the clinic. No, but I would have if the owner wanted me to. Your attention to what I said was not keen. The person not drunk in Russia was the rare bird. Take a guess at how many times Russians came up to me and flicked their throats with a finger every day. Even today the number of alcoholics in Russia is enormous.

    I liked adventure. I liked the adrenalin rush. I thrived on it.

    Second, don’t relate your fears to me. I crossed borders frequently without visas. I hitch-hiked through many war zones. People braver than you thought I was crazy to do what I did, such as the soldiers and insurgents I encountered in the war zones.

    I had almost no fear. My rule of thumb was I’d go into and through a war zone as long as approximately no more than 10% of the people doing the same thing went missing or their murdered bodies were recovered. The 10% was a feeling more than a real percentage. I talked to reporters, travelers and read English newspapers to get a sense of the danger. For adventure, I figured one had to accept a certain risk. Because the risk was too great, I did not sneak into China, though I went a little inside the border of a forbidden country just to say that I’d been there. I did not go overland through Parrot’s Beak. I stopped a bit inside Sudan and went back into Ethiopia because of the Dinka problem. I didn’t have the guts to travel much outside Lagos into the countryside during the Nigerian civil war. I flew from Israel to Cypress and then flew into Lebanon instead of trying to sneak across the Israeli-Lebanon border. I walked through a number of no-man’s lands like Angola’s border with the Congo and the no-man’s-land between Iraq and Iran. I was smart enough not to try to walk across the DMZ into North Vietnam as I looked upon it. That’s about it. That should give you plenty to accuse me of telling some whoppers.

    Almost to the person the people commenting on this site fear exposing themselves. Fear is their common bond. I don’t share the bond.

  255. obobma says:
    February 22, 2013 at 7:50 pm  (Quote)

    donna:
    obobma: By that kind of reasoning, the contract between Obama and America concerning hope and change would nullify his presidency because he didn’t admit that socialism was his major change.

    can you define “socialism”?

    Of the 427 companies in the S&P 500 that have reported results so far, 69.3 percent have exceeded analysts’ expectations, compared with a 62 percent average since 1994 and 65 percent over the past four quarters, according to Thomson Reuters data through Thursday morning.

    Fourth-quarter earnings for S&P 500 companies are estimated to have risen 5.9 percent, according to the data, above a 1.9 percent forecast at the start of the earnings season.

    If by your wish for me to define socialism, you want me to concede that Barack has not reached a political dictionary’s definition of socialism yet, I will concede. But that is his direction while at the same time wanting to usher in social justice. He’s smart enough to do it gradually.

    I studied socialism in a socialist country in the language of that county. If you can get Obama to open up about his academic records, I just might open up about mine. Good luck.

  256. donna says:
    February 22, 2013 at 8:00 pm  (Quote)

    obobma

    thanks for the giggle – gradually? so in his 3rd term? tell me which religion doesn’t advocate “social justice”?

    Catholic Leaders to Rep. Paul Ryan: Stop Distorting Church Teaching to Justify Immoral Budget

    The leaders wrote: “Simply put, this budget is morally indefensible and betrays Catholic principles of solidarity, just taxation and a commitment to the common good. A budget that turns its back on the hungry, the elderly and the sick while giving more tax breaks to the wealthiest few can’t be justified in Christian terms.”

    perhaps obama’s time as a community organizer with the catholic church educated him though i think that’s the kind of man he is ….. NOT a socialist but a fundamentally caring man

  257. Scientist says:
    February 22, 2013 at 8:02 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: If you can get Obama to open up about his academic records, I just might open up about mine

    He attended Occidental College then transferred to Columbia where he received his bachelors degree. He later attended Harvard Law, where he graduated summa cum laude.

    Now that he has fulfilled that, you should tell us where you studied and where, if anywhere, you got a degree. Fair is fair.

  258. obobma says:
    February 22, 2013 at 8:06 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I don’t accept axiom 5. As for the framers, it would be illogical for them to misrepresent the product of their deliberations to the people.

    I ran it by you several times. The framers were nervous about their ability to obtain ratification. They used the same reasoning that Washington did in a letter from Gen. Washington to Col. Spotswood, dated in1777, and to be found in a recent publication entitled “Maxims of Washington,” p. 192, the following passage occurs:—

    “You will therefore send me none but natives, and men of some property, if you have them. I must insist that in making this choice you give no intimation of my preference for natives, as I do not want to create any invidious distinction between them and foreigners.”

    You replied that Washington’s quotes about favoring natives had been tarnished by some authorities, but you never answered my question about which ones and, in particular, about this one.

    The framers wanted to let a possible source of resentment stay in the background. No use alienating any non-natural-born delegate to a ratification convention armed with a ratifying vote.

    Hope and change all over again with any definition the voter wanted, provided he voted for Obama.

  259. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    February 22, 2013 at 8:17 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: If by your wish for me to define socialism, you want me to concede that Barack has not reached a political dictionary’s definition of socialism yet, I will concede. But that is his direction while at the same time wanting to usher in social justice. He’s smart enough to do it gradually.

    I studied socialism in a socialist country in the language of that county.If you can get Obama to open up about his academic records, I just might open up about mine. Good luck.

    Sure you did butters just like your russian arrests story I find this hard to believe. It’s not the political definition Obama doesn’t meet its the dictionary definition and the historical definition.

  260. Scientist says:
    February 22, 2013 at 8:20 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: The framers wanted to let a possible source of resentment stay in the background. No use alienating any non-natural-born delegate to a ratification convention armed with a ratifying vote.

    Your statement is ridiculous. All of the ratifiers would have been eligible under the grandfather clause.

    Regardless, under your scenario, the clause is not binding law, it is a historical curiosity at best.

  261. Slartibartfast says:
    February 22, 2013 at 8:24 pm  (Quote)

    Bob,

    It is either extremely disingenuous or ignorant for a birther to whine about anti-birthers being anonymous. There have been many cases where anti-birthers have been harassed by birthers who’s nonsense they’ve debunked, including a particularly odious birther who has been cyber stalking an innocent anti-birther this very week. Personally*, I’ve had birthers (and other trolls) threaten me from the safety of their anonymous sock puppets, attempt to smear me with lies, and associate my name with those smears so that they will show up in search engines. Even if you wouldn’t do such things (and no one here really knows how you might react to those who are challenging your irrational delusions), others who are reading this might. If you have even a shred of integrity you will stop trying to goad people into doing something that may result in harassment or injury—your attempts reflect poorly on you. As for your own use of your (allegedly) real name, you are trying to pimp your book, something you can’t very well do without revealing the name you wrote it under. Not to mention the fact that any attention you get from anti-birthers is likely to enhance your birther “street cred” (not that you are going to sell more than a completely pathetic number of books).

    Why do you want to know the names of the people that are humiliating you anyway? Their arguments are far stronger than you can deal with just considering their merits—why would you want to add the authority of someone putting their name behind what they say? (After all, you are doing badly enough with Doc…).

    * My real name isn’t a secret (most of the long-time posters here know it), but I’m not going to tell you what it is because I’ve seen nothing but dishonesty out of you so I see no reason I should go out of my way to demonstrate my integrity.

    obobma: Almost to the person the people commenting on this site fear exposing themselves. Fear is their common bond. I don’t share the bond.

  262. JoZeppy says:
    February 22, 2013 at 8:31 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: I ran it by you several times. The framers were nervous about their ability to obtain ratification. They used the same reasoningthat Washington did in a letter from Gen. Washington to Col. Spotswood, dated in1777, and to be found in a recent publication entitled “Maxims of Washington,” p. 192, the following passage occurs:—

    “You will therefore send me none but natives, and men of some property, if you have them. I must insist that in making this choice you give no intimation of my preference for natives, as I do not want to create any invidious distinction between them and foreigners.”

    You replied that Washington’s quotes about favoring natives had been tarnished by some authorities, but you never answered my question about which ones and, in particular, about this one.

    The framers wanted to let a possible source of resentment stay in the background. No use alienating any non-natural-born delegate to a ratification convention armed with a ratifying vote.

    Hope and change all over again with any definition the voter wanted, provided he voted for Obama.

    except that nothing a person says campaigning for public office is enforceable on any level (except to the degree they won’t be re-elected), because no promise can be guarenteed (have to take into account the other two branches of government). Campaign promises or slogans are binding on no one. They don’t constitute a contract, legislation, or provide a cause of action.

    On the other hand, the Constitution and laws in general are intended, by nature, to be enforceable. That’s their whole point. You can’t have secret meanings in a law or constitution. If no one knows what it means, it is impossible to enforce. If the framers really wanted “Natural Born Citizen” to mean child of 2 citizen parents, and they really wanted to make sure that future presidents would be held to that requirement, do you really think they would go by it by using a term that was commonly used with a different meaning, and then not tell anyone they had changed that meaning, or recorded in any way their intentions of changing that meaning? How exactly would keeping it a secret achieve the end result of actually limiting the office of president to the child of citizen parents? To do so defies any rational thinking.

  263. Slartibartfast says:
    February 22, 2013 at 8:45 pm  (Quote)

    In fact, the sole purpose of the grandfather clause was to mollify non-natural born citizens like Alexander Hamilton or St. George Tucker (or the Marquis de Lafayette for that matter)—but apparently (according to Bob) they still couldn’t be told about the rule which didn’t apply to them and would favor their children over the children of new immigrants. Also Bob seems to be under the impression that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc. were not natural born citizens—yet another thing that he is mistaken about…

    Scientist: Your statement is ridiculous. All of the ratifiers would have been eligible under the grandfather clause.

    Regardless, under your scenario, the clause is not binding law, it is a historical curiosity at best.

  264. Scientist says:
    February 22, 2013 at 8:57 pm  (Quote)

    JoZeppy: You can’t have secret meanings in a law or constitution. If no one knows what it means, it is impossible to enforce.

    I wonder what Bob’s reaction would be if he got a ticket for going 60 mph on a highway marked “Speed limit 65 mph” and he was told that a secret group at DMV actually considered the limit on that stretch to be 30 mph? Would Bob pay the ticket or fight it in court?

  265. Dave B. says:
    February 22, 2013 at 9:12 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: The debate will be over when you recognize the influence of Vattel during the period and when you can explain all the questions concerning how the term natural-born citizens ended up in the 1797 edition without using my arguments.

    Yes, 00Bob, I’m sure that’s how you’d like for it to be. I guess it just won’t ever be over for you, because nobody else gives a hoot about “all the questions concerning how the term natural-born citizens ended up in the 1797 edition.” They’re irrelevant.

    Scientist:
    natural born = from birth
    source:The English language as used in literature, cinema, everyday speech and the Constitution

    Debate over.

    And as presented by W.J. Dixon, via Dr. McKinley Morganfield, who delivers a much more convincing argument than 00Bob ever has:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HdBiWEbyzY

    Or J.L. Hooker:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSNt_QYiMoY

    The reference comes along about 1:40.

    Or M.J. Reed:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PenGK9NI9hk

    Or A.D. Domino, Jr.:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWHpOR86-_c

    Or E.O. Bates:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZWsCrlVPKg

    (about 1:30)

    Or even M.R. Travis:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6Wrf9j1yxY

    And that’s not even bringing Marriott, Frampton, Ridley and Shirley (or a lot of other more recent entries) into it.

    Now against all that plain-old everyday understanding, 00Bob has a centuries-old dinner invitation.

  266. Dave B. says:
    February 22, 2013 at 9:20 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: It is entirely relevant to the notion of whether or not a Supreme Court willing to make blatantly unconstitutional decisions about constitutionality should have a right to interpret what’s in the Constitution.

    Why that doesn’t even make sense. Stop not making sense, 00Bob. Please.

    obobma: “. . . why did they make foreign-born citizens who first came to the United States as adults as eligible for the Presidency as George Washington?” Is that clause still in effect today?

    Nope. Didn’t say it was, did I? It sure was in effect in 1787, and in 1797, and for as long as those original citizens were alive, though; and it sure doesn’t do much for your Super-secret Vattel-to-Jay-to-Scott triple play, does it?

  267. donna says:
    February 22, 2013 at 9:21 pm  (Quote)

    obombo

    instead of posting here, where you will LOSE, why don’t you put your efforts and “vast knowledge” on paper and into law suits heading off rubio, bojangles and ted cruz?

    perhaps you will find others to support you in those efforts – UNLESS “brown people” don’t fall into you treatises

    those on the right don’t seem to be following you with their “savior” rubio and tea party heartthrob cruz

  268. Dave B. says:
    February 22, 2013 at 9:23 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: Citizens and natural-born citizens. I think I did present this before, but I will present it again in perhaps a different excerpt from my eBook:

    And that’s where I quit reading that response.

  269. MattR says:
    February 22, 2013 at 9:31 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: The framers wanted to let a possible source of resentment stay in the background. No use alienating any non-natural-born delegate to a ratification convention armed with a ratifying vote.

    In additon to the grandfather clause mentioned by others, why then did they explicitly include the phrase “natural born citizen” as part of the Presidential eligibility requirements?

  270. aesthetocyst says:
    February 23, 2013 at 12:30 am  (Quote)

    obobma: Distortion as always. Nowhere in the definition of natural-born citizen as born of two American citizens was mentioned “old white dudes.”

    Wow, only 4 days later, Bob finally finds time to blow my irony meter. You’re right, I wasn’t commenting on your straw man; your assertion that I was was quite an act of distortion, Bob!

    I was commenting on your cart-drawn horse* over there. What kind of MPG are you getting on that thing?

    4 days? Cruel neglect, Bob, cruel.

    ____________________

    * That would be the idea that the voting public has been subconsciously guided, for the past 220 years, by your modern, slightly-less-than-established definition of NBC.

  271. aesthetocyst says:
    February 23, 2013 at 12:33 am  (Quote)

    obobma: Hope and change all over again with any definition the voter wanted, provided he voted for Obama.

    Always the resentment of, and obsession with, Obama. You’re making it oh so very hard to believe we’re talking about timeless truths here, Bobby.

  272. Slartibartfast says:
    February 23, 2013 at 12:36 am  (Quote)

    Bob,

    Assuming this quote is genuine and assuming that Washington felt that this was as true of ratification as it was of revolution, how would the Constitution create an “invidious distinction” between natural born and foreign born ratifiers when both were eligible for the presidency? Once again you present an extremely weak argument along with evidence which, upon closer examination, completely destroys said argument. Even amongst the birthers, your reasoning abilities seem to be extremely sub-par.

    obobma allegedly quoting George Washington: “You will therefore send me none but natives, and men of some property, if you have them. I must insist that in making this choice you give no intimation of my preference for natives, as I do not want to create any invidious distinction between them and foreigners.”

  273. Slartibartfast says:
    February 23, 2013 at 12:48 am  (Quote)

    How true. Bob has a very bad case of Obama Derangement Syndrome and it clearly has him in violation of Axiom [sic] 6 (I’m sure he doesn’t view the presidents he likes in such a prejudicial way). We must be getting close to the bottom of the birther barrel to be seeing specimens of Bob’s quality…

    aesthetocyst: Always the resentment of, and obsession with, Obama. You’re making it oh so very hard to believe we’re talking about timeless truths here, Bobby.

  274. Paper says:
    February 23, 2013 at 12:59 am  (Quote)

    Yes you have, and each and every time it has been nonsense.

    Nervous about ratification? These were men fighting over all kinds of details, arguing over three-fifths of a human being! And you think they were such nervous nellies they couldn’t even talk about having two parents? If they didn’t want to alienate the others, they had a perfect way not to do so: don’t make up a secret definition! Accept the regular, normal definition. Oh wait, they did!

    And, again, there is a difference between being strategically quiet about a subject, not making a big drama about something, versus making up a secret definition that the other people don’t know. And you expect them to later agree? You expect any American to ever accept such a secret definition? No!

    Say you’re right. They kept it secret. Their mistake, their problem. Nobody else cares. Why are you siding with the conspiracy? Are you a communist or something? You don’t believe in democracy? You like tyranny?

    You are simply saying that after winning a revolution they were such cowards and fools that they would expect anyone to care what secret definition they were hiding? If they hid it, it doesn’t count. If you are right, it doesn’t count. You don’t get to tell your wife sorry that you didn’t mention it before but marriage actually means adultery.

    Your comparison to “hope and change” is beyond silly. “Hope and change” is not a law, not a ratified part of the constitution. It’s a freaking slogan! “Compassionate conservative” was a slogan. “Tippecanoe and Tyler too” was a slogan, as well.

    obobma: I ran it by you several times. The framers were nervous about their ability to obtain ratification.

    The framers wanted to let a possible source of resentment stay in the background. No use alienating any non-natural-born delegate to a ratification convention armed with a ratifying vote.

    Hope and change all over again with any definition the voter wanted, provided he voted for Obama.

  275. Paper says:
    February 23, 2013 at 1:10 am  (Quote)

    Are you unaware that that is all irrelevant?

    obobma:

    Are you unaware that secrecy was and always has been the manner of conducting most international negotiations and treaties?Are you unaware that judges use their chambers in secret? Are you unaware that there are some committees in Congress that predominately meet in secret? Are you unaware that Obama is constantly attacked for lack of transparency? Do lobbyists open their “talks” with Congressmen to the public eye all the time?

    Secrecy is a way of life in government.

  276. gorefan says:
    February 23, 2013 at 2:00 am  (Quote)

    Slartibartfast: Bob has a very bad case of Obama Derangement Syndrome

    What are the possiblities that when Bob was detained by the Soviets that the KGB didn’t replace him with a sleeper agent?

    From his own statements he seems to keep turning up in places that are undergoing conflict. Hmmmm.

    “Transmit the message, to the receiver,
    Hope for an answer some day
    I got three passports, a couple of visas,
    You don’t even know my real name”

  277. Keith says:
    February 23, 2013 at 2:26 am  (Quote)

    obobma: How many editions of Vattel do you own?How many have you read?

    You have no experience debating or you have forgotten that incivilities are not recommended. Tell me how many points would you gain accusing your opponent of being an idiot and a fraud?I suspect that you couldn’t debate my position better than I can because the judges would show you the door before you had your chance.

    You know virtually nothing of Vattel because you claim that in effect, I’d “want to argue that Obama would be an indigene only if his father was American, and claim the nationality of the mother is irrelevant.” Indigene to Vattel meant both parents were citizens. Your incapability of understanding this at the same time you claim knowledge about Vattel is self-contradictory. The single “père” line has nothing to do with a higher form of citizenship. It has to do with partus sequitur patrem (the offspring follows the condition of the father), nothing else.

    Wait, I’m not sure I have enough popcorn for this…

  278. Dave B. says:
    February 23, 2013 at 2:35 am  (Quote)

    A sleeper agent? Not this guy!
    http://cheezburger.com/6469303296

    gorefan: What are the possiblities that when Bob was detained by the Soviets that the KGB didn’t replace him with a sleeper agent?

  279. misha marinsky says:
    February 23, 2013 at 3:24 am  (Quote)

    obobma: Barack has not reached a political dictionary’s definition of socialism yet, I will concede.

    No kidding. You are talking to a former kibbutznik.

    obobma: while at the same time wanting to usher in social justice. He’s smart enough to do it gradually.

    Social justice is the cornerstone of Judaism and the Catholic peace movement. Change is evolutionary. So what else is new?

  280. misha marinsky says:
    February 23, 2013 at 3:29 am  (Quote)

    obobma: I flew from Israel to Cypress and then flew into Lebanon instead of trying to sneak across the Israeli-Lebanon border.

    You are making this up from whole cloth. I was there at the border many times. In fact, your whole post is Walter Mitty grade.

    You may fool some, but you are a crank.

  281. Lupin says:
    February 23, 2013 at 3:41 am  (Quote)

    obobma: How many editions of Vattel do you own? How many have you read?

    You have no experience debating or you have forgotten that incivilities are not recommended. Tell me how many points would you gain accusing your opponent of being an idiot and a fraud? I suspect that you couldn’t debate my position better than I can because the judges would show you the door before you had your chance.

    You know virtually nothing of Vattel because you claim that in effect, I’d “want to argue that Obama would be an indigene only if his father was American, and claim the nationality of the mother is irrelevant.” Indigene to Vattel meant both parents were citizens. Your incapability of understanding this at the same time you claim knowledge about Vattel is self-contradictory. The single “père” line has nothing to do with a higher form of citizenship. It has to do with partus sequitur patrem (the offspring follows the condition of the father), nothing else.

    You are an ignorant and arrogant idiot.

    It doesn’t matter how many copies or editions of a book one has, if one fails to understand the meaning of what’s written inside. Which is your case.

    I am a French lawyer with a Law Degree from the Sorbonne (1978) and I read Vattel before you had even head of his name. I have edited English translations of Vattel. You, on the other hand, have zero experience.

    At the bottom of it, the matter is pretty simple: does Vattel claim that both parents have to be citizens in order for a child to be so? The answer is clearly, unarguably NO. There is no “Two Parents” clause in Vattel.

    Therefore whether or not Vattel was influential or nor, or his terminology was correctly or incorrectly translated, are ultimately irrelevant. The truth is that Obama would indeed be an indigene or a naturel. Everything else proceeds from there.

  282. Lupin says:
    February 23, 2013 at 3:51 am  (Quote)

    My Swiss colleague Dr. James Whale and I were lucky enough to recently obtain an exclusive interview with none other than Emerich de Vattel himself. Here is a transcript:

    Dr. Whale. Another 2000 volts and we’re done. Go ahead.

    Me: Mr. Vattel, sorry for having dragged you out of your grave. We need you to answer one question. Here is a file on President Obama. Look at it and tell me if he is a natural-born citizen?

    Vattel: What do you mean by this?

    Me: For the sake of this interview, assume we mean naturel or indigene.

    Vattel: Let me look… [shuffle pages] wow, his mom sure was hot! … Lemme see… Where is she from?… Yes, there is no doubt, your Mr Obama is an indigene.

    Me: Can we quote you on this?

    Vattel: Absolutely. Now can I go back to sleep?

    Me: Certainly. You’ve been most helpful. Thank you.

  283. Lupin says:
    February 23, 2013 at 3:54 am  (Quote)

    obobma: By that kind of reasoning, the contract between Obama and America concerning hope and change would nullify his presidency because he didn’t admit that socialism was his major change.

    So not only you don’t know how to read Vattel, but you are also ignorant about what socialism mean?!

    You’re really a laughing stock, aren’t you?

  284. Lupin says:
    February 23, 2013 at 3:57 am  (Quote)

    obobma: If by your wish for me to define socialism, you want me to concede that Barack has not reached a political dictionary’s definition of socialism yet, I will concede. But that is his direction while at the same time wanting to usher in social justice. He’s smart enough to do it gradually.

    No shit Sherlock. Have you looked at the political; achievements of that well-known commie Richard Nixon? Or the Pope?

    obobma:I studied socialism in a socialist country in the language of that county.

    You’re either lying, or that country was Freedonia.

  285. Greenfinches says:
    February 23, 2013 at 4:06 am  (Quote)

    misha marinsky quoting a Bob sockpuppet: Cypress

    wow Bob you flew into a tree species?????

    I must say that your heroism is impressive. Most people fly into actual places, and even if they don’t know how to spell the place at first, they learn. You are much more daring and scorn such trivialities! Anyway, how did Cyprus strike you?

  286. Lupin says:
    February 23, 2013 at 4:07 am  (Quote)

    I’ve never been to China or Viet-Nam, but FWIW I was involved in a US/French/Russian film coproduction in the ate 80s during perestroika. It was an animated movie that was financed by US & French money and was going to be animated at Soyuzmultfilm the largest Soviet animation studio.

    The project fell apart, but some of the partners picked up the pieces and eventually made the animated versions of Shakespeare’s plays that played on HBO, if any of you remember this.

    During this time I few to Moscow twice for a week or 10 days each time, and otherwise dealt with a lot of Russians. Granted, I was a honored business guest bringing in money, so I was treated extremely well.

    I wouldn’t make a treatise our of this somewhat brief and probably uncharacteristic experience, but what Bob Gard writes strikes me as plainly delusional; even if there is an ounce of truth somewhere, it seems to be described through some kind of crazy prism, certainly not matching my own experience or that of anyone else I know.

    (One of my cousins, now long retired, had the exclusive representation rights to all Soviet spectacles, Bolshoi, Moscow Circus, Red Army Choruses, etc. for France in the 60s and 70s so I’m not entirely unfamiliar with the Russians.)

    I don’t think we can take anything Bob say at face value.

  287. Lupin says:
    February 23, 2013 at 4:16 am  (Quote)

    Slartibartfast: My real name isn’t a secret (most of the long-time posters here know it), but I’m not going to tell you what it is because I’ve seen nothing but dishonesty out of you so I see no reason I should go out of my way to demonstrate my integrity.

    I’m actually fairly easy to find too. My “page” on DKos has a link to my wife’s personal website. It wouldn’t take a Sherlock Holmes to find me.

    When I registered on DKos years ago (I was among the first hundred or so members) I took the alias of “Lupin” because at the time I was translating an Arsène Lupin book. I’ve kept it ever since and used it when I first came here. But I certainly don’t try to hide behind a shield of anonymity.

  288. misha marinsky says:
    February 23, 2013 at 4:31 am  (Quote)

    obobma: I flew from Israel to Cypress

    Since the airplane landed in a tree, you’re lucky to be alive.

    What was the name of the airline, and what was the make and model of the airplane?

    Be careful – I’ve flown to Cyprus several times.

  289. Majority Will says:
    February 23, 2013 at 7:51 am  (Quote)

    Paper:

    Your comparison to “hope and change” is beyond silly. “Hope and change” is not a law, not a ratified part of the constitution. It’s a freaking slogan! “Compassionate conservative” was a slogan.“Tippecanoe and Tyler too” was a slogan, as well.

    “Read my lips: no new taxes.”

  290. misha marinsky says:
    February 23, 2013 at 8:38 am  (Quote)

    obobma: I flew from Israel to Cypress and then flew into Lebanon

    What airline flies from Tel Aviv to Eilat, and what make and model airplane is commonly used?

  291. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 23, 2013 at 9:08 am  (Quote)

    Having read Vattel, would you agree that Vattel was an abolitionist and believed in a mandatory state religion?

    obobma: How many editions of Vattel do you own? How many have you read?

  292. Majority Will says:
    February 23, 2013 at 9:20 am  (Quote)

    “To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.”
    – Thomas Paine, The Crisis No. V

  293. Arthur says:
    February 23, 2013 at 9:37 am  (Quote)

    Lupin: I took the alias of “Lupin” because at the time I was translating an Arsène Lupin book.

    And I always thought you were just a plant fancier:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lupinus

  294. Greenfinches says:
    February 23, 2013 at 9:52 am  (Quote)

    Arthur: a plant fancier:

    Or is M. Lupin a follower of Monty Python, with its radically different highwaymen?????

  295. Paper says:
    February 23, 2013 at 10:20 am  (Quote)

    Married couples cheat on each other. They often keep or try to keep such things secret. They don’t want to “alienate” their spouse. That kind of secret has a purpose and affect.

    Your secret definition of natural born citizen has no effective purpose. You say it is because the framers didn’t want to alienate the others, the ratifiers. That’s very considerate of them. But the problem is if they ever tell the secret, ever, they still will alienate them, and not just them, future generations such as us.

    Are you unaware of that small reality?

    If they ever tell, the response is: no sorry we didn’t agree to that. And if they never tell, no one ever knows and nothing ever happens. Either way your secret definition fails to have any impact on the world.

    Now return to the thought experiment of our married couple.

    Try telling your spouse that the secret definition of marriage includes adultery. You didn’t mention it before the wedding because you didn’t want to alienate your spouse.

    Adultery is the secret that some people want to keep, not a secret definition of marriage that includes adultery.

    That’s what you are proposing, that our framers were idiots.

    obobma:

    Are you unaware …

    Secrecy is a way of life in government.

  296. Arthur says:
    February 23, 2013 at 10:26 am  (Quote)

    Greenfinches: Or is M. Lupin a follower of Monty Python, with its radically different highwaymen?????

    “Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore,
    Riding through the night.
    Soon every lupin in the land
    Will be in his mighty hand.
    He steals them from the rich
    And gives them to the poor,
    Mr. Moore, Mr. Moore, Mr. Moore!”

    As Bob Gard might surmise, “It’s obvious, if one uses the formula of conspiracy equals missing knowledge, that this so-called Lupin, is none other than an 18th century petal snatcher. Which reminds me of a drunken plane ride I took from the Kamchatka Peninsula to Leamington Spa trying to evade a man from U.N.C.L.E. And since you weren’t there, you can’t prove I didn’t do it.”

  297. bgansel9 says:
    February 23, 2013 at 10:38 am  (Quote)

    You know virtually nothing of Vattel because you claim that in effect, I’d “want to argue that Obama would be an indigene only if his father was American, and claim the nationality of the mother is irrelevant.” Indigene to Vattel meant both parents were citizens. Your incapability of understanding this at the same time you claim knowledge about Vattel is self-contradictory. The single “père” line has nothing to do with a higher form of citizenship. It has to do with partus sequitur patrem (the offspring follows the condition of the father), nothing else.

    Would you please point out where Vattel stated America was a nation that based its citizenship on the basis of jus sanguinis instead of jus soli? Can you please repeat what Vattel stated about nations that choose citizenship by jus solis?

    Being that our sister nation (England, see article 214 of Law of Nations) was a nation that chose citizenship based on jus soli, why would America be any different?

    Thank you.

  298. bgansel9 says:
    February 23, 2013 at 10:44 am  (Quote)

    Oh, and Obobma, after you’ve done that, would you please copy and paste the stipulation in U.S. Code, Title 8, Section 1401(a).

    Thank you.

  299. Publius says:
    February 23, 2013 at 11:15 am  (Quote)

    Bob, you said, in your book:

    “First of all, the minute a researcher puts words into someone’s mouth, he stops being an objective researcher.”


    By your own words, you are not an objective researcher.

    You have put words into the mouths of at least about 44 people.

    First, Emer de Vattel.

    Here we have Lupin, who is both a native French speaker AND a lawyer, who is WELL familiar with the writings of Monsieur Vattel, stating in no uncertain terms that nothing in Vattel’s wording requires two citizen parents. According to Lupin (who should know, far better than you), you and the other birthers have put words in Vattel’s mouth that he simply did not speak.

    What is your answer to that? Do you have other first-language French lawyers, or even first-language French speakers, who can contest the point? Or are you willing to concede the point? Hint: An OBJECTIVE RESEARCHER goes by the REAL EVIDENCE, not by his emotional attachment to his theory.

    Second, John Jay.

    You have claimed that John Jay used the words “natural born citizen” to mean “a person born on US soil of two citizen parents.” You have failed to explain why he would use that terms to mean (your idea of) Vattel’s “indigene,” instead of what it should OBVIOUSLY mean – the same as “natural born subject,” except for the difference between “citizen” and “subject.”

    So you claim that Jay completely abandoned the historical English meaning of “natural born subject.” And yet, your own book makes clear that Jay was the main author of the first New York State Constitution, which “carefully preserved” “all the guarantees of English liberty [that would later be] secured in the Bill of Rights.” (Your own words, Bob.)

    So Jay supposedly used English law (AND ITS TERMINOLOGY!) as the very basis and model for the New York Constitution, but then, according to you, totally threw it away for the term “natural born citizen.” He instead, supposedly, looked to a Swiss writer on international law who never used anything resembling the phrase, but instead talked about “indigenes,” to supply the meaning of that Presidential qualifying term.

    What is your clear evidence that he did this? YOU HAVE NONE. You have not presented a single credible piece of evidence, not one single SHRED of credible evidence, that John Jay believed in any such definition.

    And no, the sheer and utter speculation that Sir William Scott MIGHT have talked about the phrase with Jay, and MIGHT been, out of half a million men in London, the anonymous editor of a book 7 years later, which used the phrase, is NOT credible evidence.

    As we have seen, Scott’s supposed use of an American legal term in a LONDON translaton of a Swiss author intended for an ENGLISH audience makes not the slightest bit of sense at all.

    And as we have seen, prior English translators used the exact same phrase – “natural born citizen(s),” in prior ENGLISH translations of foreign works, in instances where “natural born subject” might have been used, but the author in the original language used “citizen.” That was EXACTLY the case in Vattel’s passage, and it is a perfect explanation for why the 1797 translator used the phrase.

    So you have put words in the mouth of John Jay, for which you have no credible evidence at all. You have put words in the mouth of Sir William Scott, for which you have no real evidence at all, either. Scott was ONE MAN OUT OF 500,000 in London in those days. Do you not understand that you have to have some real evidence that he was the translator in order to make that claim? Because the odds that he was NOT the translator are astronomical.

    In fact, you have put words into the mouth of the anonymous translator, whoever he was. You have no credible evidence at all of what he meant by the term, and given that your explanation of motive makes no sense, and given that the phrase is KNOWN to have been a replacement for “natural born subject” in ENGLISH translation works that used the word “citizen” in the original language, that is really the only reasonable explanation.

    So that makes 4 people so far whose mouths you have crammed with your words: Vattel, Jay, Scott, and the anonymous translator of the 1797. I count him as 4th because the odds are simply astronomically against he and Scott being the same person.

    Fifth, Seybert. As we have seen, a plain-English reading of his own words is that the difference between “natives” and “naturalized” is that one is eligible to the Presidency. This means that “natives,” as used by Seybert, is equivalent to “natural born citizens,” not – as you claim – completely distinct.

    So you have put words into Seybert’s mouth which are not there.

    Sixth through forty-fourth: The Framers of the Constitution. You claim that when they wrote “natural born citizen” in the Constitution, they meant YOUR definition of “natural born citizen,” not what the average person would have understood by the phrase.

    And make no mistake: It is the BOB GARD/ BIRTHER definition of “natural born citizen” we are talking about here, NOT the John Jay definition, since we have no credible evidence whatsoever that John Jay either believed two citizen parents were required, or that he ever transmitted such an idea to anybody else. Or that the Framers ever TALKED about such an idea. If they had, surely the debate would have appeared in the notes. Many of the Framers would undoubtedly have said, “If we mean Vattel’s ‘indigenes’ then why don’t we just use the WORD ‘indigene?'” And that would’ve been a very, very hard question to answer.

    Again, as you yourself noted, John Jay carried the entire weight of the English common law and its terminology over into the New York Constitution. It is simply ludicrous to suppose, in the lack of extremely compelling evidence, that the exact same man abandoned the terminology of the common law for the meaning of “natural born citizen.”

    And of course we also have the historical usages of “natural born subject” and “natural born citizen” INTERCHANGEABLY in law in Massachusetts. And the absolute statement of Rawle, who knew at least two of the most prominent Framers personally, that NO citizen parents are required in order for a person to be a natural born citizen and eligible to the Presidency.

    So we have that you have put words into the mouths of at least about 44 people here, Bob. According to your own words, you are not an objective researcher. Are you going to continue being not an objective researcher, or are you going to take your words out of their mouths?

  300. misha marinsky says:
    February 23, 2013 at 11:17 am  (Quote)

    obobma: I liked adventure. I liked the adrenalin rush. I thrived on it.

    Stick to pulp fiction. That’s your forte.

  301. Jim says:
    February 23, 2013 at 11:25 am  (Quote)

    obobma: I liked adventure. I liked the adrenalin rush. I thrived on it.

    misha marinsky: obobma: I liked adventure. I liked the adrenalin rush. I thrived on it.

    Dime store novels…then again, a dime is too much for this work of fiction.

  302. Publius says:
    February 23, 2013 at 11:33 am  (Quote)

    Scientist: You can wriggle like an eel, but you can’t get around the plain meaning of the adjective natural born = from birth, whether applied to ballplayers, musicians or citizens. No statement implied regarding parents.

    By the way, most of us do not say native born and natural born are precisely identical. Natural born is a larger set that includes those born abroad to citizen parents (one or two as detailed in the statutes) as well as the native born. Remember, natural born = from birth.

    In fact, I gave a list of nearly 100 completely different usages of the term with various nouns, in which it clearly meant that. In none of these usages could one argue that one had to have two parents who were the same thing.

    In other words, it is completely ridiculous to claim that when someone refers to a “natural born baseball player” or a “natural born scientist,” they are saying that the first had to have been born to a mother and father who both played baseball, or that the second had to be born to two parents who were both scientists.

  303. Scientist says:
    February 23, 2013 at 11:38 am  (Quote)

    Lupin: I am a French lawyer with a Law Degree from the Sorbonne (1978) and I read Vattel before you had even head of his name. I have edited English translations of Vattel. You, on the other hand, have zero experience.

    Lupin: You have created a real dilemma. Do we accept the analysis of a French lawyer, fluent in both English and French, who says that the plural form “parents” includes the singular, something which accords well with both common sense and my knowledge of the grammar of both languages? Or do we accept the analysis of someone who uses “CIT” for “CalTech” and “Cypress” for “Cyprus”and who has yet to demonstrate he speaks enough French to order a coffee and croissant on rue de Rivoli or a beer and poutine on rue Ste Catherine?

    Unless Bob can come up with better authorities than “my French and Swiss friends” I see no choice but to go with you and conclude that “parens” means “one or both” and includes ancestors.

    Of course, the question is somewhat moot until Bob can show that the ratifiers of the Constitution understood that natural born citizen was anything other than the citizen at birth with which they were quite familiar.

  304. Dave B. says:
    February 23, 2013 at 11:40 am  (Quote)

    Here you go:
    http://books.google.com/books?id=mtIRAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=snippet&q=fredonia&f=true
    That’s close enough for 00-Bombo.

    Lupin: You’re either lying, or that country was Freedonia.

  305. Dave B. says:
    February 23, 2013 at 11:42 am  (Quote)

    Of course 00Bob’s not an objective researcher. He’s a double-naught spy!

    Publius: So we have that you have put words into the mouths of at least about 44 people here, Bob. According to your own words, you are not an objective researcher. Are you going to continue being not an objective researcher, or are you going to take your words out of their mouths?

  306. Paper says:
    February 23, 2013 at 11:59 am  (Quote)

    Fine, he goaded me into it. My name is James Madison. The James Madison. I’ve tried to live a secret life in keeping with the secret codes. We precious few immortals need to be careful. But now that Mr. Gard has figured out one our secrets, I am so tired of the whole charade, I might as well let him know the rest, and initiate him into the secrets of immortality. He has won the right.

    Only a natural born objective researcher such as Mr. Gard could have possibly cracked this clue we left behind for our true descendants, excuse me, I mean the Children of Immortals, to find.

    Welcome, Mr. Gard. Your book will not sell. Your arguments will be ignored and will never affect presidential elections, eligibility or any such consideration. Americans will never accept your theory, much less agree to it even if they believed it. They do have a point. No one ever agreed to be bound by our secret definition.

    But no worries. We left the secret definition only as a clue for someone like you to find. It has no other purpose, other than to prove you are a natural born objective researcher, one of the Children of the Immortals, and deserving of being welcomed into our secret eternal life.

    So, welcome and well done!

    Slartibartfast:
    If you [Bob Gard] have even a shred of integrity you will stop trying to goad people into doing something that may result in harassment or injury—your attempts reflect poorly on you.

  307. Paper says:
    February 23, 2013 at 12:04 pm  (Quote)

    As just noted, Mr. Gard is truly not an objective researcher; he is a *natural born* objective researcher.

    Dave B.:
    Of course 00Bob’s not an objective researcher.

  308. Publius says:
    February 23, 2013 at 12:18 pm  (Quote)

    Bob says:

    We are now beyond 1,800 comments of discussion, and I can’t think of one single point that any of you has made that provides any real [meaning not circumstantial] evidence whatsoever to support your claim. My statement is as valid as yours except when you define my evidence as uncertain circumstantial and you define your evidence as smoking-gun spite of the fact that it is uncertain circumstantial. And you don’t have over a thousand pages of your kind of evidence.

    No, your statement is not as valid as mine. This isn’t a matter of, “I have my opinion and you have yours, and hey, they’re all equal.”

    Only one side of this debate has presented historical quotes that actually (and strongly) back their position. The other side has presented nothing but speculation “backed” by ephemeral wisps of hints of remote possibility.

    I stated earlier that ballantine could cite legal and historical authority all day that contradicts your claims. He can.

    Heck, even your own book has enough evidence in it to hang you, with no hope of an appeal. All one has to do is take the dozens of dictionary definitions you include. There is quite sufficient evidence just in the dictionary definitions of terms that you present, for the honest reader to conclude that your overall thesis is simply cracked.

    As far as a thousand pages of evidence… ???????!! First of all, a good portion of the evidence you present works, as I noted, to the detriment of your claim. If you were to take just the dictionary definition pages and give them to a bunch of honest people with no vested interest in the question, and have them study the definitions, and then ask them whether native born citizens qualify as natural born citizens, and whether natural born citizens had to have two citizen parents, virtually all of them would answer yes, and no.

    I’ve also noted how the evidence you present regarding John Jay and the New York Constitution establishes that Jay looked strongly to the English common law as a model for both the principles and the legal terminology for United States law.

    Your book, in fact, doesn’t have 1,700 pages of “evidence.” A lot of what you present is stuff like biographies and background material. A HUGE portion of those 1,700 pages, in fact. Your basic arguments, I believe, could have been WELL presented in LESS THAN 100 PAGES.

    Against that there is PLENTY of real evidence which is far stronger than anything you present. You totally blow off any and all early authorities that don’t agree with your thesis. And some of these are absolutely, crystal clear, like the Rawle quote that you dismiss so glibly. You have NOTHING that even REMOTELY approaches the clarity, the definitiveness and the authority of the William Rawle quote. NOTHING.

    The debate will be over when you recognize the influence of Vattel during the period and when you can explain all the questions concerning how the term natural-born citizens ended up in the 1797 edition without using my arguments.

    Okay. Then the debate is over and has been for a long time. Everyone here recognizes the influence of Vattel. The man was definitely influential IN MATTERS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. When it comes to the legalities of ships seized on the high seas, Vattel and his writings definitely had a strong influence.

    When it comes to how we defined our basic understanding of citizenship, there is not the slightest record that his views were even considered by any of the Founders or Framers. In fact, we have HARD DOCUMENTATION (which hasn’t even been brought up yet) that when it came to the writers that influenced the founders of this country, Blackstone and the English common law were way up high on the list, and Vattel was way DOWN the list.

    As for explaining how the term “natural born citizens” ended up in the 1797 Vattel, an explanation has been given that far better matches the facts than your explanation does.

    So by your own criteria, the debate is over.

    You have no smoking-gun evidence to support your belief that natural-born citizen has its roots in natural-born subject.

    Do you even have any idea how ridiculous you sound?

    Here we have two terms: “natural born subject” and “natural born citizen.”

    The former had a centuries-long meaning and was well known. It was also well known, absolutely well known, that when we founded this country we took the word “subject” (which implies servitude to a king) and DIRECTLY SUBSTITUTED the word “citizen” for it (which implies freedom and no such servitude to anyone designated as royalty).

    The completely obvious and prima facie conclusion that any REMOTELY RATIONAL person would naturally reach would be that “natural born citizen” means exactly the same thing as “natural born subject” always meant, except for the difference in servitude between a “subject” and a “citizen.”

    This natural, obvious and eminently rational presumption COULD be overridden if we had good, strong historical DOCUMENTATION that the Founders of the country had agreed that the term “natural born citizen” meant something else. But there does not exist the slightest hint of any such documentation ANYWHERE.

    On the contrary, we have literally dozens of instances in which EARLY LEGAL AUTHORITIES said that NATIVEs (which by every dictionary definition ever created NEVER required anything other than birth in a particular place) were eligible to be President.

    We have CONCRETE EXAMPLES of absolutely SYNONYMOUS usage of the two terms “natural born citizen” and “natural born subject” IN LAW in early America.

    We have ABSOLUTE STATEMENTS by early legal authorities (such as Rawle), some of whom like Rawle were extremely closely placed to our MOST IMPORTANT Founders, that the children born on US soil of aliens were NATURAL BORN CITIZENS, and eligible to be President.

    Against this you have the ridiculous claim, based on NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, that the Founders derived the term “natural born citizen” NOT from anything remotely similar to it (hint: “natural born subject”) BUT FROM THE WORD “INDIGENE.”

    Do you even have a clue how much of a quack you sound?

    You have circumstantial evidence and you limit it to the evidence that you think supports you.

    Oh, my gosh. Those here have patiently entertained every single quote that you and other birthers have thrown at them, and have patiently pointed out the flaws and the misreadings and the silliness again and again and again. And YOU, my friend, have repeatedly ducked any and all evidence brought up against your claims.

    This debate is not a farce but you want it to be. The farcical side is that Dr. Conspiracy used to run a web site that invited replies by anti-birthers and birthers.

    Bob, have you forgotten that it is actually THIS SITE and the people here who were decent enough to give your book an honest and fair hearing? What did you get from the birther sites?

    And that’s how they treated SOMEONE WHO WAS ON THEIR SIDE!

    Have you failed to notice that we, by contrast, have patiently (and for the most part, civilly) entertained ALL of your arguments on a daily basis for nearly three weeks now?

    You have proven a few things so far in this debate. I did not get the full picture of the 1967 House Record and I did not know about two naturalization acts using natural-born citizens. You have also proven that none of you can admit to any mistakes. Your are undoubtedly all perfect.

    I think if you dug back far enough you would find that a lot of people here have, in the past, expressed opinions that they later changed.

    That’s the difference between you and us, Bob. The people here have kept an open mind and learned along the way. You and other birthers will never admit you are wrong. Why? Because, well, it would involve admitting you were wrong.

    All the legal and historical evidence is simply against you. You will probably never admit that. You may not even ever be capable of recognizing it. But it’s the truth.

  309. Dave B. says:
    February 23, 2013 at 12:23 pm  (Quote)

    Say Hi to the missus for me.

    Paper: Fine, he goaded me into it. My name is James Madison. The James Madison.

  310. US Citizen says:
    February 23, 2013 at 12:26 pm  (Quote)

    I actually thought the name Lupin was for Remus Lupin in Harry Potter.
    Lupin was a teacher of the “defence against the dark arts” class and it seemed an appropriate usage for this forum.

  311. Publius says:
    February 23, 2013 at 12:32 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: The debate was over when you admitted that the people who ratified the Constitution didn’t share your quaint views on Citizenship.

    As for explaining “natural born citizen” in the the 1797 edition of The Law of Nations, I don’t see how you explained it beyond conjecture.

    Indeed, the debate was certainly over at that point.

    Others will argue that the debate was over when Bob failed to refute that Vattel doesn’t even say you have to have two citizen parents.

    As for the use of “natural born citizens” in the 1797 Vattel, I provided an explanation for that. At least I’m pretty sure I did. I’ll repeat the explanation here just in case.

    Eelbeck (1720), Spelman (1758) and Patsall (1774) are all ENGLISH translators who use the phrase “natural born citizens” in translations from foreign works. In every one of these prior instances, the translation is done IN ENGLAND and for an ENGLISH audience, yet the phrase “natural born CITIZEN” or “natural born CITIZENS” is used, rather than the more common “natural born subject(s).”

    Why? Because the original text, the original writer, or the original culture preferred the term “CITIZEN” over the term “subject.”

    Likewise, the specific passage translated from Vattel does not use the word “subject,” but REPEATEDLY uses “citoyen” and “citoyens.”

    So it’s a simple substitution of the word “citizens” into what would have otherwise been the phrase “natural born subjects,” because CITIZEN and not SUBJECT was used in the original text.

    That’s it.

  312. Paper says:
    February 23, 2013 at 12:34 pm  (Quote)

    You assume you deserve to be debated.

    (This is what I get for disagreeing with Keith and arguing that there is value in the “debate” here. On this level, though, I agree with him completely.)

    I personally am not an anti-birther. Birthers, in my opinion, do not rise to the level of having anti-birthers, or anti-anything. I breathe air. I am not anti-holding-my-breath. I just don’t do it, or not for very long.

    I also personally tried to have a debate in good faith with a birther I know. It ended up with a threat on my life.

    Mind you, I say all this as “Paper,” but remember I am really the original James Madison, so take what I say here as secret code meaning you are right and I agree with everything you say.

    obobma: Why is it that no anti-birther will debate in good faith? The meaning of Madison’s quote is not what the anti-birthers make it out to be.

  313. Slartibartfast says:
    February 23, 2013 at 12:35 pm  (Quote)

    I’ve got some groceries, some peanut butter
    to last a couple of days
    don’t got no speakers, don’t got no headphones,
    don’t got no records to play…

    I would have to guess that the probability that Bob is a KGB sleeper agent is higher than the probability that he has been completely honest regarding his exploits in the CCCP (not to be confused with the Maricopa CCCP).

    gorefan: What are the possiblities that when Bob was detained by the Soviets that the KGB didn’t replace him with a sleeper agent?

    From his own statements he seems to keep turning up in places that are undergoing conflict.Hmmmm.

    “Transmit the message, to the receiver,
    Hope for an answer some day
    I got three passports, a couple of visas,
    You don’t even know my real name”

  314. Publius says:
    February 23, 2013 at 12:38 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: How many editions of Vattel do you own? How many have you read?

    …

    You know virtually nothing of Vattel… Indigene to Vattel meant both parents were citizens. Your incapability of understanding this at the same time you claim knowledge about Vattel is self-contradictory.

    Oh, my goodness.

    Did Bob actually, really, truly, accuse a NATIVE FRENCH SPEAKING LAWYER who is VERY WELL acquainted with the TOTALITY of Vattel’s writing IN ITS ORIGINAL LANGUAGE of “knowing virtually nothing of Vattel?”

    Wow.

  315. Publius says:
    February 23, 2013 at 12:39 pm  (Quote)

    What are your qualifications, Bob? Are you a native speaker of the French language?

    Are you trained as a lawyer?

    What have you read or studied of Vattel other than the little bit you trumpet?

  316. Dave B. says:
    February 23, 2013 at 12:40 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: So it’s a simple substitution of the word “citizens” into what would have otherwise been the phrase “natural born subjects,” because CITIZEN and not SUBJECT was used in the original text.

    That’s it.

    Yes, that’s logical, and reasonable, and it makes sense, but you don’t have a two-hundred-year-old dinner invitation to back it all up with, do you? So there.

  317. bgansel9 says:
    February 23, 2013 at 12:49 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: I think if you dug back far enough you would find that a lot of people here have, in the past, expressed opinions that they later changed.

    That’s the difference between you and us, Bob. The people here have kept an open mind and learned along the way. You and other birthers will never admit you are wrong. Why? Because, well, it would involve admitting you were wrong.

    Sadly, since his argument has been placed into book form, you are probably less likely to get any such admission than you would have if had he not created a vehicle of monetary gain. The reality that a book can become an occupation is probably going to override any logic than can be taken from this debate. The “child” of the author will indeed be given space to grow and flourish (no guarantees that it will be prosperous, of course), despite whether the author takes anything from this debate or not.

    The argument is not what is most important to the author any longer. Instead, the success (or ability of success) will heavily be weighed.

  318. Paper says:
    February 23, 2013 at 12:50 pm  (Quote)

    One can argue, however vainly, and try to “research” what Vattel meant and how important he was in what way, who used him how, etc etc etc., but one cannot argue that a secret definition matters when no one at large even knew it existed, and as such could never have agreed to it.

    One cannot argue that even if true, especially if true, that when we find out about such a *conspiracy,* that we need to pay it the slightest attention, other than to say, no, we don’t agree to be bound by that, just as no one ever has agreed to be bound by it.

    “Sorry, but you’re the ones who kept it secret. You should have mentioned it two hundred and twenty five years or so ago.”

    In other respects, I agree with all your highlighted points of failure.

    Publius: Indeed, the debate was certainly over at that point.

    Others will argue that the debate was over when Bob failed to refute that Vattel doesn’t even say you have to have two citizen parents.

  319. Publius says:
    February 23, 2013 at 12:55 pm  (Quote)

    Paper: Mind you, I say all this as “Paper,” but remember I am really the original James Madison, so take what I say here as secret code meaning you are right and I agree with everything you say.

    Jim, that reminds me. I was on Skype with Jack last week as he has been kind of interested in the ongoing comments. Not enough to show up here and speak for himself, but mildly interested at least. He’s having a great time in Chiang Mai but is almost out of immortality juice. Can you ship him a box?

  320. Paper says:
    February 23, 2013 at 12:55 pm  (Quote)

    He just mean virtually, when compared to the the whole universe of knowledge, including centuries and centuries of unknown knowledge yet to be discovered. In comparison to that, what do any of us know? That’s what he meant. Very innocent.

    It’s not Mr. Gard’s fault that only the true *natural born* objective researcher can guide us through such an infinity of unknown knowledge.

    Publius:
    Did Bob actually, really, truly, accuse a NATIVE FRENCH SPEAKING LAWYER who is VERY WELL acquainted with the TOTALITY of Vattel’s writing IN ITS ORIGINAL LANGUAGE of “knowing virtually nothing of Vattel?”

  321. Paper says:
    February 23, 2013 at 12:59 pm  (Quote)

    Publius, I know you like to use your old moniker from back in our pamphleting days, but you really are too cruel, leaving such false clues for the innocents here. You know very well that the secrets of immortality are not in a juice. Nonetheless, I’ll follow up with Jack. Thanks. Any word on what George has been up to?

    Publius: Jim, that reminds me. I was on Skype with Jack last week as he has been kind of interested in the ongoing comments. Not enough to show up here and speak for himself, but mildly interested at least. He’s having a great time in Chiang Mai but is almost out of immortality juice. Can you ship him a box?

  322. Slartibartfast says:
    February 23, 2013 at 1:22 pm  (Quote)

    Paper: Fine, he goaded me into it. My name is James Madison.

    Okay Jimmy, if you’re going to out yourself, I’ll do it too, (also, as well, in addition)…

    I am really Bertrand Russell and I’ve come to praise Bob for his understanding of axiomatic systems and logical reasoning. Most people think that axioms are a set of logical statements which are assumed to be true by everyone participating in the discussion which are then used to establish the truth or falsity of assertions via the rules of logic, but Bob has seen past the plain meaning of my writings to realize the secret that logicians like myself have been keeping from time immemorial. Namely, that one can take a bunch of arbitrary statements and call them axioms—thereby forcing everyone else to accept them as true which undeniably allows them to be used to imply the truth of unrelated statements.

    Well done Bob—you’ve accomplished something that no student of logic has ever been able to manage.

  323. Publius says:
    February 23, 2013 at 1:23 pm  (Quote)

    Bob says:

    The [McElwee] essay does not contradict my views. It bolsters them although it does not claim that natural-born citizen is what you claim or what I claim. It indicates plainly that a presidential candidate has to be a native citizen but makes no indication that is the only requirement.

    Sigh. MCELWEE’S ESSAY (which you try to quote as “evidence” for your silly claims) DIRECTLY AND ABSOLUTELY CONTRADICTS YOU, BOB.

    Here are his exact words:

    To summarize: a natural-born citizen of the United States, as that term is used in the Constitution of the United States, means a citizen born within the territorial limits of the United States and subject to the laws of the United States at the time of such birth.

    This does not include children born within the territorial limits of the United States to parents who, although present with the consent of the United States, enjoy diplomatic immunity from the laws of the United States, and, as a consequence are not subject to the laws of the United States.

    Nor would this include children born within the territorial limits of the United States to alien enemy parents in time of War as a part of a hostile military force, and, as a consequence not present with the consent of the United States, and not subject to the laws of the United States.

    BUT THIS DOES INCLUDE CHILDREN BORN TO ALIEN PARENTS WHO ARE PRESENT WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE UNITED STATES “IN AMITY” I.E. WITH THE CONSENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND SUBJECT TO ITS LAWS AT THE TIME OF BIRTH. U.S. v. Wonk Kim Ark 169 US 649, Luria v. U.S., 231 US 9, Minor v. Happersett 88 US 162.

    Bob says:

    Remember Seybert: “Your constitution only recognizes the highest grade of citizenship that can be conferred—the alien is thus made a native, as it were, and is fully vested with every right and privilege attached to the native, with the exception impressed on the constitution . . .” By implication, Seybert is saying that the Constitution can only recognize the highest grade of citizenship that can be conferred, which is native. If native-born can be conferred, what cannot be conferred? He told us, “except in the instance specified, that of not being eligible to the Presidency of the United States.” Natural-born citizenship cannot be conferred. That doesn’t in itself unravel the enigma.

    I remember Seybert quite well. It has been conclusively shown that you have misread and twisted his words.

    It is abundantly clear that Seybert is saying that we don’t have first-class and second-class citizens in this country.

    Those who are NATURALIZED are equal in EVERY WAY with the NATIVE (or natural born) citizen, except for one thing and one thing only: The naturalized citizen cannot serve as President or Vice-President of the country.

    How can you read “distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the Constitution makes the distinction” as support only for your side? Where is native-citizen used in the Constitution? The sentence can be used with equal validity to support my side. If the presidential eligibility clause had read a “native-born citizen born in the United States,” to distinguish it from a naturalized native-born citizen, I wouldn’t stand before you.

    Obviously the author of that quote was saying that the Constitution DID make a distinction between “native citizens” and naturalized citizens. There is only ONE place where the Constitution makes such a distinction between two kinds of citizens. And that is where it says that only NATURAL BORN citizens can be President. So it is INESCAPABLE to any honest reader that the author is perfectly equating NATIVE citizens with NATURAL BORN citizens.

    It’s not hard, Bob. Even an 8th-grader can understand it.

  324. US Citizen says:
    February 23, 2013 at 1:27 pm  (Quote)

    Perhaps I missed it, but has Bob ever said what his actual career is or was?
    How did he finance his many intriguing adventures?

  325. Slartibartfast says:
    February 23, 2013 at 1:29 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: Sigh. [Bob’s latest inept appeal to authority] (which you try to quote as “evidence” for your silly claims) DIRECTLY AND ABSOLUTELY CONTRADICTS YOU, BOB.

    I fixed it for you—now you can use it as a response for any of Bob’s arguments.

  326. Paper says:
    February 23, 2013 at 1:30 pm  (Quote)

    Well, Ludwig gave it the old college try…if only he had had Mr. Gard’s insightfulness. Truly lamentable.

    Slartibartfast: Okay Jimmy, if you’re going to out yourself, I’ll do it too, (also, as well, in addition)…

    I am really Bertrand Russell and I’ve come to praise Bob for his understanding of axiomatic systems and logical reasoning….

    Well done Bob—you’ve accomplished something that no student of logic has ever been able to manage.

  327. Slartibartfast says:
    February 23, 2013 at 1:30 pm  (Quote)

    Why bother asking? Would anyone believe that his answer was honest?

    US Citizen:
    Perhaps I missed it, but has Bob ever said what his actual career is or was?
    How did he finance his many intriguing adventures?

  328. Kiwiwriter says:
    February 23, 2013 at 1:33 pm  (Quote)

    Jim: So Kiki…what do you think about Bob’s work of fiction?Does he need to work on his writing skills?

    Hi, folks: Sorry I haven’t answered this question earlier, but I have had a rough week, highlighted by having two teeth removed. However, that event could not have gone better…I publicly praised the oral surgeon.

    Back to pleasure. I waded through Bob Gard’s writing, and the problem for me is that most of his legal writing is in what I would call “book-report style.” It’s just technical writing and analysis of equally heavy-handed and technical documents, so after a while it got pretty tedious and abstruse. My main reaction to it was that it was long, dense, theory and speculation. He admitted that he had no “smoking gun,” and the “executive summary” of his grant application seemed to me that John Jay got the ideas for defining American citizenship in England from De Vattel and similar folks, and that even though Jay did not work on the Constitution, he passed the theories around to those who did, they accepted them, and therefore 200 years later, Barack Obama is not an American citizen, even though they didn’t say so specifically. I don’t believe that for a second.

    I was more interested in his writing about his homeric life…his obsession with his eighth-grade civics class, and his repeated battles with authority and authority figures. He kept being barred from achieving his goals of greatness or simply avoiding a Soviet jail by uncaring bureaucrats who were applying anti-White or anti-American policies that they themselves didn’t agree with. I didn’t buy that, either.

    One of the many interesting things about paranoid people is that they have a “life script” and they live their life in accordance with it, expecting it to turn out that way. So they behave in manners designed to achieve the script even when it doesn’t happen. They provoke their enemies into an overreaction so that the paranoid can say, “Look at that horrible thing he did to me! It’s just like I thought it was!” Behaving in this way also reinforces their paranoia.

    I would like to hear the other side of Bob’s interactions with authority folks…the Princeton recruiter, the Soviet cops, and so on. Did he come in with an aggressive attitude? Did he infuriate them? Did they tell him something that did not fit his script, so he ran their words through the filter of his brain and have it sluice out in a different way that fitted with his theories? What happened with his family and friends? How did he get into this obsession? In short, as we say in writing, “What’s his story arc?”

    His life sounded like a lot of the stories of these paranoid conspiracy theorists…they were thwarted all their lives from achieving true greatness by the agents of the great conspiracy. Some of these agents were hostile, others were unwilling tools of their masters. All of these folks believe that the vast mass of the people are really on their side, and if they could escape from under the iron heel, would voluntarily leap up and rush the White House in one gallant rush, string up Obama (or their high school assistant principal, or whoever the enemy is) and carry the conspiracy theorist off on their shoulders, and annoint him Emperor.

    It interests me how so many of these paranoid conspiracy theorists expect other people to do their work for them.

    Hope that answered the inquiry.

  329. Dave B. says:
    February 23, 2013 at 1:36 pm  (Quote)

    Bob’s very easy to find. He puts personal information all over his website.

    US Citizen:
    Perhaps I missed it, but has Bob ever said what his actual career is or was?
    How did he finance his many intriguing adventures?

  330. Arthur says:
    February 23, 2013 at 1:38 pm  (Quote)

    US Citizen: How did he finance his many intriguing adventures?

    Fantasy adventures cost nothing and will take you wherever you wish to go.

  331. Paper says:
    February 23, 2013 at 1:47 pm  (Quote)

    But you get points by suggesting our founders and framers were idiots and frauds?

    Frauds by lying about natural born citizen, and idiots to think such a lie has any actual consequences.

    obobma: Tell me how many points would you gain accusing your opponent of being an idiot and a fraud?

  332. Kiwiwriter says:
    February 23, 2013 at 1:53 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: “The young Intourist guide that escorted us was allowed to get more intoxicated on Sherries than we got, and we were intoxicated.Driving drunk in Russia was not against the law.” I didn’t say I drove.It wasn’t my vehicle.”“We rushed him to a clinic.” Does that equate to I drove him to the clinic. No, butI would have if the owner wanted me to. Your attention to what I said was not keen. The person not drunk in Russia was the rare bird. Take a guess at how many times Russians came up to me and flicked their throats with a finger every day.Even today the number of alcoholics in Russia is enormous.

    I liked adventure. I liked the adrenalin rush. I thrived on it.

    Second, don’t relate your fears to me.I crossed borders frequently without visas.I hitch-hiked through many war zones.People braver than you thought I was crazy to do what I did, such as the soldiers and insurgents I encountered in the war zones.

    I had almost no fear. My rule of thumb was I’d go into and through a war zone as long as approximately no more than 10% of the people doing the same thing went missing or their murdered bodies were recovered. The 10% was a feeling more than a real percentage. I talked to reporters, travelers and read English newspapers to get a sense of the danger. For adventure, I figured one had to accept a certain risk.Because the risk was too great, I did not sneak into China, though I went a little inside the border of a forbidden country just to say that I’d been there. I did not go overland through Parrot’s Beak. I stopped a bit inside Sudan and went back into Ethiopia because of the Dinka problem. I didn’t have the guts to travel much outside Lagos into the countryside during the Nigerian civil war. I flew from Israel to Cypress and then flew into Lebanon instead of trying to sneak across the Israeli-Lebanon border. I walked through a number of no-man’s lands like Angola’s border with the Congo and the no-man’s-land between Iraq and Iran.I was smart enough not to try to walk across the DMZ into North Vietnam as I looked upon it. That’s about it.That should give you plenty to accuse me of telling some whoppers.

    Almost to the person the people commenting on this site fear exposing themselves. Fear is their common bond. I don’t share the bond.

    I see. You don’t let fear and good sense hold you back. Maybe you should learn about fear…you have to overcome it to become truly brave.

    No. I don’t believe it. I’ve heard enough whoppers and highly-colored stories from radicals, poseurs, adventurers, cranks, and even politicians.

    I once read a vast web page by a guy who insisted that legless RAF war hero Douglas Bader was repatriated back to England by his German captors for a brief period in 1943, and he met Bader in a Liverpool hotel. This guy harassed the Bader family and their foundation, in the face of the family’s denials and legal threats from the foundation. He went on with his bizarre campaign anyway, denouncing anyone who argued with him as a tool of MI 5 and a pedophile.

    As for why the folks here prefer to keep their names and locations off the radar, that’s because we don’t want the kind of harassment that radicals and extremists inflict on their “enemies.” When a big wheel in the League of the South got the e-mail of an SPLC researcher, he signed that address up for subscriptions to all kinds of extremely explicit and objectionable sexual sites, and the poor woman’s in-box was drenched with ghastly pornography. SPLC’s lawyers and computer guys investigated, traced it back to the League of the South’s bigshot, called the authorities, and appropriate action was taken. The League of the South bigshot had to send the researcher a letter of apology and resign his position…not as much because he had done something morally reprehensible, but because his actions embarrassed the League of the South. The SPLC has resources to protect its people from harassment. Folks on this web page do not. I think it’s a sad commentary taking such defensive measures are necessary, but they are.

    As for your stories: They are all rubbish. So’s your book.

  333. John Marshall (really Slarti's sockpuppet, but don't tell Bob) says:
    February 23, 2013 at 1:56 pm  (Quote)

    Bob,

    In regard to the term “smoking gun evidence” that you keep throwing around, are you aware that it doesn’t mean what you think it does? As was pointed out in one of the earlier threads (by Paper …or Publius …or some other commenter with a pseduonym starting with “P” …or maybe “B” …definitely a letter of the alphabet), a smoking gun is circumstantial evidence. It is generally considered strong circumstantial evidence, but it is not direct evidence of a shooting (such as an eyewitness or video of the shooting). Do you not understand that there is a difference between seeing a shooting and coming into a room to see one person holding a still smoking gun and another person who has been shot?

    You should also be aware that your understanding of the “reasonable doubt” standard is also egregiously wrong. If you were on trial for a capital crime, would you be satisfied if the prosecutor merely met the same standard of evidence that you have met in your investigation? I’m guessing that if your life were on the line you would suddenly get a lot pickier about what “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” means…

  334. Majority Will says:
    February 23, 2013 at 1:58 pm  (Quote)

    US Citizen:
    Perhaps I missed it, but has Bob ever said what his actual career is or was?
    How did he finance his many intriguing adventures?

    From the Lakin Action fund:

    Bob Gard holds a degree in Political Science and is an author. After completing college he traveled through 120 countries on a dollar a day and became fluent in three languages. He then began his career in the food industry. His life-long interest in politics, and in particular the natural born citizen clause, has become a second career culminating in his recent book titled, “ON GARD, OBAMA, YOU ARE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN, WHICH I SHALL PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.”

    So, he ran the Chum Bucket and tried for years to steal the secret formula.

  335. Paper says:
    February 23, 2013 at 2:02 pm  (Quote)

    Antidote # 1 to false axioms:

    Apples are not French fries. I mean, oranges are not Freedom fries.

    obobma: By that kind of reasoning, the contract between Obama and America concerning hope and change would nullify his presidency because …

  336. Arthur says:
    February 23, 2013 at 2:03 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will: So, he ran the Chum Bucket and tried for years to steal the secret formula.

    Bob hinted that the secret formula is: mayo, ketchup, a little more mayo, some pickle relish, and a dash of conspiracy.

  337. Majority Will says:
    February 23, 2013 at 2:18 pm  (Quote)

    Arthur: Bob hinted that the secret formula is:mayo, ketchup, a little more mayo, some pickle relish, and a dash of conspiracy.

    And he is naturally krabby.

  338. Publius says:
    February 23, 2013 at 2:25 pm  (Quote)

    Paper: Publius, I know you like to use your old moniker from back in our pamphleting days, but you really are too cruel, leaving such false clues for the innocents here. You know very well that the secrets of immortality are not in a juice. Nonetheless, I’ll follow up with Jack. Thanks. Any word on what George has been up to?

    As I think you know, George and I had a bit of a falling out after that fiasco in Sierra Leone. I swear it reminded me of his screwup with the French, and I told him so. Well as you can imagine, that didn’t go over so well. Last I heard anything about it, he was somewhere in South America with that Jamaican tart of his.

    And except for a modest commission that frankly wasn’t worth either the trouble or the risk, the diamonds went with him.

  339. Paper says:
    February 23, 2013 at 2:28 pm  (Quote)

    *Your* best case scenario is that it was a cabal. You are the one making that claim, and claiming to be something of a true American understanding the true Constitution, while also supporting such an undemocratic cabal or conspiracy in the very writing of the Constitution.

    But even then, even if or especially if true, it would have been a stupid cabal. For your theory to work, the framers need to have been idiots.

    You don’t even seem to understand your own theory. It’s a good thing you are a natural born objective researcher.

    obobma:

    Because natural-born citizen was never openly discussed makes the act a cabal?

  340. Jim says:
    February 23, 2013 at 2:33 pm  (Quote)

    Kiwiwriter:

    Hope that answered the inquiry.

    Good read thanks. Hope your mouth is feeling better now! 😀

  341. Paper says:
    February 23, 2013 at 2:36 pm  (Quote)

    The thing about immortality is we all get a chance, out of boredom if nothing else, to see how the other side lives. George, however, has been an adviser to tyrants for a long time now. I can understand your falling out. Back in the day, you warned us that all that talk of not wanting to be king was just a cover. If George had told us that this natural born idea of his actually came from Jay, we never would have gone along with it. Jay always was making stuff up.

    Publius: As I think you know, George and I had a bit of a falling out…

  342. Publius says:
    February 23, 2013 at 2:39 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: Bob: I demand you answer the question as to how a Constitution ratified under false pretenses as a result of a secret conspiracy could possibly be binding? Unless you can get around this, all your other arguments are meaningless and simply a feeble attempt to distract.

    Although I may answer a few more of Bob’s points as well, I second this.

    Bob: I demand you answer the question as to how a Constitution ratified under false pretenses as a result of a secret conspiracy could possibly be binding?

  343. gorefan says:
    February 23, 2013 at 2:43 pm  (Quote)

    Kiwiwriter: they were thwarted all their lives from achieving true greatness by the agents of the great conspiracy.

    I get the impression he is trying to relive his greatest achievement – that East Africa thingy.

    “Ahh, but the strawberries that’s… that’s where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with… geometric logic… that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox DID exist, and I’d have produced that key if they hadn’t of pulled the Caine out of action. I, I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officers… Lt. Cmdr. Phillip Francis Queeg

  344. Paper says:
    February 23, 2013 at 2:49 pm  (Quote)

    This indeed is the next step to immortality, Mr. Gard. Please show these people how a *natural born* objective researcher works. They haven’t seen the like in their short lifetimes. Be patient and forgiving with them.

    – James Madison (aka “Paper”)

    Publius: Although I may answer a few more of Bob’s points as well, I second this.

    Bob: I demand you answer the question as to how a Constitution ratified under false pretenses as a result of a secret conspiracy could possibly be binding?

  345. Publius says:
    February 23, 2013 at 2:50 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: [Jim said: I haven’t seen him get around the fact that there are only 2 types of citizens recognized by the Constitution.Did I miss it?]

    Citizens and natural-born citizens. I think I did present this before, but I will present it again in perhaps a different excerpt from my eBook:

    This is just about the stupidest damn thing I’ve ever read.

    By Bob’s logic, “citizens” and “natural born citizens” are two distinct types of… “citizens.”

    Good Lord.

    First of all, the statement is self-contradictory. “natural born citizens” are not part of “citizens” (which supposedly “only” includes “native-born” and “naturalized”), but they are one of the two kinds of “citizens.”

    Even if it weren’t self-contradictory, it would still be stupid.

    Over here you have “citizens,” and over here you have “natural born citizens.” And “natural born citizens” are not “citizens.”

    Excuse me. I’m going to go throw up now.

  346. Paper says:
    February 23, 2013 at 2:58 pm  (Quote)

    Don’t worry. Mario Apuzzo is standing by with an airsickness bag for you. It’s a complimentary bag, nicely stenciled with these words: “Welcome to my world.” The bag also has one of those new-fashioned greeting card thingies, so that if you squeeze the bag it also laughs hysterically.

    Publius:

    Excuse me. I’m going to go throw up now.

  347. Publius says:
    February 23, 2013 at 3:03 pm  (Quote)

    Lupin: You are an ignorant and arrogant idiot.

    It doesn’t matter how many copies or editions of a book one has, if one fails to understand the meaning of what’s written inside. Which is your case.

    I am a French lawyer with a Law Degree from the Sorbonne (1978) and I read Vattel before you had even head of his name. I have edited English translations of Vattel. You, on the other hand, have zero experience.

    At the bottom of it, the matter is pretty simple: does Vattel claim that both parents have to be citizens in order for a child to be so? The answer is clearly, unarguably NO. There is no “Two Parents” clause in Vattel.

    Therefore whether or not Vattel was influential or nor, or his terminology was correctly or incorrectly translated, are ultimately irrelevant. The truth is that Obama would indeed be an indigene or a naturel. Everything else proceeds from there.

    Ooh. Popcorn indeed.

  348. Scientist says:
    February 23, 2013 at 3:05 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: Although I may answer a few more of Bob’s points as well, I second this.
    Bob: I demand you answer the question as to how a Constitution ratified under false pretenses as a result of a secret conspiracy could possibly be binding?

    His answer last night was: 1. Obama’s slogan “hope and change” is false (totally subjective, but 51.something % of the voters felt he provided sufficient hope and change to re-elect him). Slogans are not law, of course.

    2. Legislating usually requires deal-making. Yes, if those deals get written into the final bill, they are law; but, if they don’t, they are not. Snice “2 citizen parents” didn’t get written into the final version of the Constitution that was ratified, it is not law.

    3. I haven’t given my real name. Somehow, my failure to do so has altered the Constitution. There is a space-time warp involved, no doubt.

  349. US Citizen says:
    February 23, 2013 at 3:06 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will: Bob Gard holds a degree in Political Science and is an author.

    Thank you for an actual answer.
    I thought it a reasonable question, but started wondering if I instead needed a doctorate to entertain the notion of debating him. 😉

    So basically this is another L Ron Hubbard?
    All fanciful claims made up of word salad with no meat in between.

  350. Majority Will says:
    February 23, 2013 at 3:08 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: I get the impression he is trying to relive his greatest achievement – that East Africa thingy.

    “Ahh, but the strawberries that’s… that’s where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with… geometric logic… that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox DID exist, and I’d have produced that key if they hadn’t of pulled the Caine out of action. I, I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officers… Lt. Cmdr. Phillip Francis Queeg

    Awesome reference. Queeg was a natural born lunatic.

  351. Kiwiwriter says:
    February 23, 2013 at 3:15 pm  (Quote)

    Jim: Good read thanks.Hope your mouth is feeling better now!

    Yeah, he did a terrific job in an unpleasant situation…the teeth were in bad shape, one had no bone, the other was very infected.

    It’ll be interesting to see how and if Bob responds. Onwards….

  352. US Citizen says:
    February 23, 2013 at 3:17 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will: Awesome reference. Queeg was a natural born lunatic.

    And you must admit, both Bob and Queeg had balls.

  353. Kiwiwriter says:
    February 23, 2013 at 3:18 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: I get the impression he is trying to relive his greatest achievement – that East Africa thingy.

    “Ahh, but the strawberries that’s… that’s where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with… geometric logic… that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox DID exist, and I’d have produced that key if they hadn’t of pulled the Caine out of action. I, I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officers… Lt. Cmdr. Phillip Francis Queeg

    You know, I was just re-reading “The Caine Mutiny” last night. What’s interesting about that novel is that the real villain of the book is not the cowardly, stupid, mean, incompetent, paranoid Captain Queeg, but the sensitive, cynical, manipulative novelist, Tom Keefer, who goads Steve Maryk into the mutiny and then lies to cover his own tracks.

    But I think you have the situation with the “birthers” pretty perfectly.

  354. gorefan says:
    February 23, 2013 at 3:24 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: Over here you have “citizens,” and over here you have “natural born citizens.” And “natural born citizens” are not “citizens.”

    Bob’s logic would prevent natural born citizens from being Senators or members of the House of Representatives.

  355. Majority Will says:
    February 23, 2013 at 3:25 pm  (Quote)

    US Citizen: And you must admit, both Bob and Queeg had balls.

    Willy: What the hell you need ball bearings for?
    Fletch: Awww, come on guys, it’s so simple. Maybe you need a refresher course.
    [leans arm on hot engine part]
    Fletch: Hey! It’s all ball bearings nowadays. Now you prepare that Fetzer valve with some 3-in-1 oil and some gauze pads. And I’m gonna need ’bout ten quarts of anti-freeze, preferably Prestone. No, no make that Quaker State.

  356. bgansel9 says:
    February 23, 2013 at 3:44 pm  (Quote)

    Bob, if a “Natural Born Citizen” is a separate class of citizenship reserved for only people who meet certain qualification(s), please show me where in the U.S. Code such qualification(s) reside.

    Thank you.

  357. obobma says:
    February 23, 2013 at 4:03 pm  (Quote)

    Paper:
    *Your* best case scenario is that it was a cabal. You are the one making that claim, and claiming to be something of a true American understanding the true Constitution, while also supporting such an undemocratic cabal or conspiracy in the very writing of the Constitution.

    But even then, even if or especially if true, it would have been a stupid cabal.For your theory to work, the framers need to have been idiots.

    You don’t even seem to understand your own theory.It’s a good thing you are a natural born objective researcher.

    Cabal is a secret plot or conspiracy, especially a political one.

    There is no conspiracy if the framers took an oath to keep the proceedings secret. That’s not a plot. It is the same kind of oath that everyone who joins the CIA takes. Notwithstanding, I said several times that the framers weren’t much better than our current politicians. They were better grounded in the history of governments; they had more language skills; and they seemed more intelligent.

    The natural-born citizen part of the presidential eligibility clause was never discussed in the records of the Constitutional Convention. It was only mentioned a number of times. The framers didn’t discuss it there, so why does it seem so strange that they didn’t discuss it publicly after the convention? If they didn’t discuss it openly on the floor of Independence Hall, then you assume, induce or use whatever word you want to claim they meant native-born citizen based on your circumstantial evidence. I feel I have much more pertinent circumstantial evidence than you do. I can explain more phenomena than you can but I am clearly inducing my conclusions as you are. I have always said I just wanted the American people to see my evidence. You don’t have many contributors that are not from the left, but I am thankful for the opportunity to address them. Darn, there’s another expression of my faux humility. Shame on me.

    Here are the times that “natural born Citizen” was used in the Constitutional Convention:

    “Tuesday JOURNAL September 4

    Sect. 2. No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the U. S. at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President: nor shall any Person be elected to that office, who shall be under the age of 35 years, and who has not been in the whole, at least 14 years a resident within the U. S.”
    Here it came out of committee on September 4, 1787, what we were all waiting for—the term natural born Citizen. No discussion, no debate, bam, out of nowhere! Do you really believe that it came out of nowhere?”

    “Tuesday Sepr. 4. 1787. In Convention

    . . . (5) ‘Sect. 2. No person except a natural born citizen or a Citizen of the U—S— at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President . . .
    “Friday MADISON September 7
    The (section 2.) (see Sepr. 4) requiring that the President should be a natural-born Citizen, &c & have been resident for fourteen years, & be thirty five years of age, was agreed to nem: con:” Every other motion, every other resolution—including the number of years and the threshold age of the president—had undergone some discussion and debate. If nothing else, the lack of debate on the issue of natural-born Citizen indicated the power of a Caesar. Ben Franklin was the only other member of the Constitutional Convention that came close to George Washington in wielding power, but Jay had given his letter to Washington.

    “Monday MADISON September 10
    COMMITTEE OF STYLE

    Sect. 2. No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the U. S. at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President: nor shall any Person be elected to that office, who shall be under the age of 35 years, and who has not been in the whole, at least 14 years a resident within the U. S.” [A comma has been re-inserted between “Citizen” and “or.” No comma after U.S. and no comma after Constitution; a colon after President.]

    MADISON

    Tuesday Sepr. 11. I787. In Convention

    . . . [Article II., Sec. I] 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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.” Notice that the comma between “natural born citizen” and “or” remained; there is now a comma after “States” and after “constitution;” and the colon after president has gone back to a semicolon. It is not commonly known but I found: “THIS IS THE FIRST DRAFT OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION ORDERED TO BE PRINTED BY THE FEDERAL CONVENTION. It was secretly struck off for the numbers as a basis for the continuation of the discussion. Both this and the later drafts are of the greatest rarity, the number printed being probably not over sixty copies. Nearly all copies were destroyed. Ford, in his Bibliography of the Constitution, locates only four copies, two in the archives of the Department of State, and one each in the Library of Congress and the Massachusetts Historical Society. This Draft was printed by Dunlop of Philadelphia.” A photograph of this document will be presented in Chapter 15, Fig. 207.

    “McHENRY

    Monday 17 Sepr. I787.

    Read the engrossed constitution.

    Major Jackson Secry. to carry it to Congress—Injunction of secrecy taken off. [This pertained only to the printed, finished product adopted as the Constitution] Members to be provided with printed copies—adjourned sine die— Gentn. of Con. dined together at the City Tavern” [Without a doubt, the City Tavern had been a place where many “backroom” deals had been made.]

    “THE CONSTITUTION [This was the printed copy.]
    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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. . . . [The punctuation is the same as last time.]

    That’s all there is. You call it conspiracy. I call it consensus. I say the framers bent to Washington’s will and were satisfied with the grandfather clause to make sure their political futures emerged intact. Where is the grandfather clause debated? There was no discussion about it on the convention floor. It is plausible to assume that everything was discussed in back rooms and off site for natural born Citizen and the grandfather clause. How can you believe that nothing was discussed at all? I believe Washington made his desire known to the delegates in the same way he had to Col. Spotswood. This desire came from the most powerful man in the nation.

  358. obobma says:
    February 23, 2013 at 4:42 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: His answer last night was: 1. Obama’s slogan “hope and change” is false (totally subjective, but 51.something % of the voters felt he provided sufficient hope and change to re-elect him).Slogans are not law, of course.

    2. Legislating usually requires deal-making.Yes, if those deals get written into the final bill, they are law; but, if they don’t, they are not.Snice “2 citizen parents” didn’t get written into the final version of the Constitution that was ratified, it is not law.

    3. I haven’t given my real name.Somehow, my failure to do so has altered the Constitution.There is a space-time warp involved, no doubt.

    Not giving your name shows fear. The signers of the Declaration of Independence signed their real names as those who put their names to the Constitution. You can decide to back up your statements with your identity or not. No matter how you slander Apuzzo and Taitz, they chose the honorable way of our founders who put their lives on the line for their beliefs.

    Explain how the Constitution was ratified under false pretenses? How can you go from the fact that many ratifiers didn’t know what the true meaning of natural born Citizen was to the Constitution was ratified under false pretenses? False pretenses would mean that the framers had publicly given natural born Citizen the definition of native-born when they really meant born of two American citizens in the United States. Your common sense and logic escape me. As I have said many times, the meaning of natural born Citizen is up for grabs. Your definition is by no means certain.

    According to the judges in the Supreme Court, no one knew what the Constitution meant in those days because they have distorted it beyond recognition over the centuries. You don’t dare to answer my question about John Robert’s prima facie unconstitutional decision using a British explanatory act to “explain” the constitutionality of ObamaCare by re-designating a fee into a tax.

    Just today a question about the stop and frisk laws has come under fire. How can anyone gifted with common sense claim that stop and frisk laws don’t not violate : “The right of people to be secure in their persons . . . ” Have you forgotten Terry v. Ohio. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person “may be armed and presently dangerous.” Distortion, distortion, distortion.
    Change the 4th Amendment by another amendment or stay away from interpreting plain English into twisted English. The Supreme Court was never meant to have political agendas.

  359. Publius says:
    February 23, 2013 at 4:43 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: Bob’s logic would prevent natural born citizens from being Senators or members of the House of Representatives.

    Without going back through the thing, offhand, that does seem like it would probably a consequence.

  360. Reality Check says:
    February 23, 2013 at 5:14 pm  (Quote)

    I have enjoyed reading the comments today. Remind me never to oppose our Publius on anything.

    I have said this before to Birthers. If you want proof that a natural born citizen does not have to have two citizen parents you have to look no further than 1600 Pennsylvania, Ave., Washington, DC. I know that you might say that is begging the question but it really isn’t. Barack Obama was recognized to be a serious contender for the Democratic nomination at least by 2006. No one ever brought up the two parent citizen theory for over two years and not in a court filing until late 2008. Do you think Hillary Clinton and John McCain later knew that Barack Obama Sr. was not a US citizen in 1961? Do you think they cared? Only Palin in a very oblique fashion tried to use Obama’s background in general in her attack that Obama was somehow less “American” in some way and in no way to question his eligibility.

    Even Bob Gard who claims he has known the true definition since the eighth grade in the 1960’s doesn’t seem to have ever mentioned anywhere that can be found on the Internet until he published his book last year. Where was he in 2007-08?

  361. Publius says:
    February 23, 2013 at 5:20 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: Not giving your name shows fear. The signers of the Declaration of Independence signed their real names as those who put their names to the Constitution. You can decide to back up your statements with your identity or not. No matter how you slander Apuzzo and Taitz, they chose the honorable way of our founders who put their lives on the line for their beliefs.

    Not giving your name may or may not show fear. It may simply reflect a desire to avoid being hassled.

    In any event, not all of the Founders always DID use their real names. Ben Franklin wrote as “Silence Dogood.” Heck, JOHN JAY, along with Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, wrote as “Publius.”

    And as far as I can see, using their real names is about the only honorable thing Taitz and Apuzzo have done.

    Explain how the Constitution was ratified under false pretenses? How can you go from the fact that many ratifiers didn’t know what the true meaning of natural born Citizen was to the Constitution was ratified under false pretenses?

    The obvious, natural, PLAIN ENGLISH meaning of “natural born citizen” is the same thing as “natural born subject,” except for the use of “citizen” (meaning a full member of a society, who is NOT subservient to a king) instead of the use of “subject” (meaning a full member of a society, who IS subservient to a king).

    That is the OBVIOUS AND PLAIN ENGLISH MEANING OF THE TERM.

    If the Framers sneakily used such a term which OBVIOUSLY means virtually the same thing as NATURAL BORN SUBJECT to mean Vattel’s “indigene” instead of the OBVIOUS AND PLAIN ENGLISH meaning, then YES. That is FRAUD.

    And to anybody who is not invested up to his eyeballs in the theory that it takes two citizen parents, it is CLEAR, OBVIOUS, and UNDENIABLE fraud.

    As I have said many times, the meaning of natural born Citizen is up for grabs. Your definition is by no means certain.

    No. The meaning of “natural born citizen” is NOT up for grabs.

    The 1) similarity to “natural born citizen” (which could not POSSIBLY be more similar without being 100% identical), combined with

    2) the COMPLETE AND ABSOLUTE SILENCE of ANYBODY ever giving it any different definition, combined with

    3) the 100% interchangeable use of the two terms in known law in early America,
    combined with

    4) the EXTREMELY frequent interchangeable use of “native-born” and “natural-born” in early America, combined with

    5) plenty of early statements that give Presidential qualifications as requiring that a person be “born in the United States” without EVER listing citizen parents, combined with

    6) the CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS testimony of people like William Rawle who knew some of our most important Founders on an intimate personal level, combined with

    7) the dictionary definitions that you yourself have quoted in your book, combined with

    8) the example that you yourself brought up of the 1701 Settlement Act in England which was virtually a model (and may in fact have served as an actual model) for our natural born citizen provision, combined with

    9) the utter failure of you or any other birther to bring forth any real evidence to the contrary of any real significance whatsoever, combined with

    10) the writings of legal experts on American law both very early and throughout American history, combined with

    11) clear and consistent rulings by the courts on the matter starting as far back as the mid 1800s, which have clearly established that the legal meaning of “natural born citizen” does, in fact, include the children born on US soil of non-citizen parents,

    ALL TOGETHER place the question BEYOND ANY SERIOUS DOUBT WHATSOEVER.

    I understand that this theory is near and dear to your heart. I understand that being stripped of it means that you wasted a year of your life and (apparently) a very good deal of money. I understand that (even more importantly) it means your ego takes a bruising.

    But sir, you do not have a leg to stand on. Not even a peg-leg. I hope you do not count me and others as your enemy for telling you the truth. I am in fact a bit sorry for having to disillusion you.

    But the truth is what you have been given, by me and others, in the conversations here.

  362. Kiwiwriter says:
    February 23, 2013 at 5:32 pm  (Quote)

    Publius, I would also point out that the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were making a new nation. They could NOT be anonymous, because of the galactically public nature of their acts.

    I’m just answering a guy with a very large penknife to grind in an internet forum. I don’t expect to re-write the world’s maps or change the nature of government. So I don’t think my life should face the kind of retribution that radicals can and do inflict on their enemies.

  363. bgansel9 says:
    February 23, 2013 at 5:52 pm  (Quote)

    Oh gosh, so if someone doesn’t post their personal info, that means their opinion is moot?

    Dream on.

  364. Paper says:
    February 23, 2013 at 6:19 pm  (Quote)

    First, we do not believe the Constitution was ratified under false pretenses. You are the one making that argument.

    You are the one saying the framers kept their definition of natural born citizen secret because they didn’t want to alienate the ratifiers.

    If that is true, then they were operating under false pretenses. They did not tell the ratifiers they had a secret definition. They were *lying* to the ratifiers, by omission, by not telling them the “real” definition.

    Because you argue the ratifiers would have been alienated by such a definition, clearly that secret definition was not the common everyday definition that anyone would understand, as then their alienation would have been inevitable and unavoidable. No secret definition would matter.

    If the framers really believed in your notion of natural born citizen as being born of two citizens, unless that definition was obvious and common knowledge without any need for explanation, they needed to say so. Otherwise that is false pretenses, a lie.

    We have to teach you what a lie is?

    obobma:

    Explain how the Constitution was ratified under false pretenses?How can you go from the fact that many ratifiers didn’t know what the true meaning of natural born Citizen was to the Constitution was ratified under false pretenses?False pretenses would mean that the framers had publicly given natural born Citizen the definition of native-born when they really meant born of two American citizens in the United States. Your common sense and logic escape me.As I have said many times, the meaning of natural born Citizen is up for grabs. Your definition is by no means certain.

  365. donna says:
    February 23, 2013 at 6:27 pm  (Quote)

    obobma : “Not giving your name shows fear.”

    YES, i know of (important) litigants in divorce suits (to name 1) who file as “anonymous v anonymous” for FEAR that their dirty laundry would be spread from page 6 and beyond – their lawsuits are no less important nor credible – some even have jury trials – the decisions rendered or agreements reached become part of the record and case law

  366. Whatever4 says:
    February 23, 2013 at 6:31 pm  (Quote)

    The George Washing quote appears to be genuine, but it is not Washington’s sentiment for all purposes. It is specifically for 4 men who would serve as his personal guard in wartime. In a letter to Colonel Alexander Spotswood of the 2d Virginia Regiment, Washington wrote:

    Sir:
    I want to form a Company for my Guard. In doing this I wish to be extremely cautious; because it is more than probable, that in the Course of the Campaign, my Baggage, Papers, and other Matters of great public Import, may be committed to the Sole care of these Men. This being premised, in order to impress you with proper attention in the Choice, I have to request that you will immediately furnish me with four Men of your Regiment, And, as it is my further wish, that this Company should look well and be nearly of a Size, I desire that none of the Men may exceed in Stature 5 feet 10 Inches, nor fall Short of 5 feet 9 Inches, Sober, Young, Active and well made. When I recommend care in your Choice, I would be understood to mean Men of good Character in the Regiment, that possess the pride of appearing clean and Soldierlike. I am satisfied there can be no absolute security for the fidelity of this Class of people, but yet I think it most likely to be found in those who have Family Connections in the Country. You will therefore send me none but Natives, and Men of some property, if you have them. I must insist, that in making this Choice, you give no Intimation of my preference of Natives, as I do not want to create any invidious Distinction between them and the Foreigners.

    Washington is almost as concerned about how they look.

  367. bgansel9 says:
    February 23, 2013 at 6:32 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: If the Framers sneakily used such a term which OBVIOUSLY means virtually the same thing as NATURAL BORN SUBJECT to mean Vattel’s “indigene” instead of the OBVIOUS AND PLAIN ENGLISH meaning, then YES. That is FRAUD.

    And yet, there is no documentation that there was a secret meaning and obviously nobody alive today actually talked to the founders. How could anybody take this argument seriously?

  368. obobma says:
    February 23, 2013 at 6:43 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: This is just about the stupidest damn thing I’ve ever read.

    By Bob’s logic, “citizens” and “natural born citizens” are two distinct types of… “citizens.”

    Good Lord.

    First of all, the statement is self-contradictory. “natural born citizens” are not part of “citizens” (which supposedly “only” includes “native-born” and “naturalized”), but they are one of the two kinds of “citizens.”

    Even if it weren’t self-contradictory, it would still be stupid.

    Over here you have “citizens,” and over here you have “natural born citizens.” And “natural born citizens” are not “citizens.”

    Excuse me. I’m going to go throw up now.

    “First of all, the statement is self-contradictory. ‘natural born citizens’ are not part of ‘citizens’.” These are your words, not mine, and they are fallacious.

    You did not understand a word I wrote. “Over here you have ‘citizens,’ and over here you have ‘natural born citizens.’ And ‘natural born citizens’ are not ‘citizens.’” Your sentence makes no sense. We are talking about “citizen” in the Constitution in relation to Representatives and Senators. We are not talking about it in the sense of American citizens, which include naturalized, native-born and natural born. Once again you are trying to twist my words.

    In constitutional context, natural born Citizens are citizens, but a higher form according to my conclusion. According to yours, they are simply native-born citizens. Natural-born citizen had to be (1) a single element of native-born citizen, (2) a set of native-born citizen and citizen born of two American citizens in the United States, or (3) a single element of citizen born of two American citizens in the United States. Do you agree? Natural born Citizen could not be naturalized citizen. Do you agree? (1) would make the lawyers in attendance incredibly sloppy by introducing a different term for native-born citizen. Please explain why they would do that. (2) would make them careless by introducing confusion, and (3) would make them logical.

    Let’s talk Vattel for a moment. I have always thought he was redundant in 212. “The natives, or indigenes, are thoſe born in the country of parents who are citizens.” Redundant but clear. If the framers meant to be redundant but clear they would have written “Sect. 2. No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a native-born Citizen, being a citizen born in the United States . . . shall be eligible to the office of President . . .”

    You are the one impugning their intelligence and integrity.

  369. Paper says:
    February 23, 2013 at 6:45 pm  (Quote)

    Thanks for the full quote. I was being reserved on this point, but now that it is all here, I will revisit.

    Mr. Gard, as Whatever4 notes, the context here is not just of war, but of General Washington’s personal guard.

    Given your use of this text for your own out-of-context purposes, why are you not concerned that presidents are allowed, even encouraged, to be taller than 5’10”? Why are you not concerned about Washington’s hypocrisy in later accepting the presidency, he himself being 6’2″?

    Whatever4:
    The George Washing quote appears to be genuine, but it is not Washington’s sentiment for all purposes. It is specifically for 4 men who would serve as his personal guard in wartime….

  370. Majority Will says:
    February 23, 2013 at 6:58 pm  (Quote)

    “Let’s talk Vattel for a moment.”

    That’s the cue: * rolling eyes *

  371. Paper says:
    February 23, 2013 at 6:58 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. C himself has already done that for you, in that natural born citizen is not the same as native born citizen. Native is a subset of natural born. That has been spelled out numerous times here. You can argue about that if you like, but start by recognizing the point.

    obobma:

    (1) would make the lawyers in attendance incredibly sloppy by introducing a different term for native-born citizen. Please explain why they would do that.

    Let’s talk Vattel for a moment.I have always thought he was redundant in 212.“The natives, or indigenes, are thoſe born in the country of parents who are citizens.” Redundant but clear. If the framers meant to be redundant but clear they would have written “Sect. 2. No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a native-born Citizen, being a citizen born in the United States . . . shall be eligible to the office of President . . .”

  372. bgansel9 says:
    February 23, 2013 at 7:02 pm  (Quote)

    U.S. Code, Title 8, Section 1401 does not state that a citizen has to be born of two American parents and there is no stipulation for a Natural Born Citizen.

    There is nothing in your argument but speculation.

    There is no documentation about a special citizenship.

    Vattel was perfectly fine with Jus Soli for nations that chose their citizens that way, of which England was one. We were a nation that sprang from England and English culture (The northernmost portion of the East Coast was (and is still) called New England.) Many of the cities and towns in the original 13 colonies were named after English name places (I come from the first state, Delaware, in a county called New Castle. The other two counties in Delaware are called Kent and Sussex – as an example). There is nothing to suggest that America didn’t do things the same way they did in England, Jus Soli.

    Our U.S. Code makes use of Jus Soli with the only exceptions being children being born to foreign diplomats.

  373. Slartibartfast says:
    February 23, 2013 at 7:06 pm  (Quote)

    I’ve got a small quibble with this—I would agree that “native born citizens” are a subset of “natural born citizens”, but some natives (i.e. those born to parents who were not under US jurisdiction) are not citizens.

    Paper: Native is a subset of natural born

  374. US Citizen says:
    February 23, 2013 at 7:13 pm  (Quote)

    Bob,

    You are right that many people fear if their identities are revealed.
    This is not necessarily because they have anything to hide, but because of the nature of media and specifically here, the emotionally-based creatures known as birthers.

    I myself was once mentioned by an Academy award winner in an interview.
    Immediately my email box was filled with people that loved me, hated me, wanting to know how to get in touch with that other person, offers to buy things, sell things, phone calls from the other side of the globe at 3AM.. the works.

    While some opportunities may arise from such disclosures, in general it’s a pain.

    Donna is also quite right.
    Celebs will usually do anything to not have to go to court.
    Legal posturing, counter-suits and out-of-court settlements are the norm.
    Understand that these people can get sued for the most bizarre things and very regularly.
    If things hit the press, they may lose a job which could pay millions of dollars.
    Contrary to some beliefs, not all publicity is good.

  375. donna says:
    February 23, 2013 at 7:26 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: Excuse me. I’m going to go throw up now.

    i once asked apuzzo to correct my interpretation of his scenario for US citizenship and the “3 classes”

    a) born on us soil

    1. to 2 american parents = natural born and a requirement for the presidency

    2. to non-american parent(s) = not qualified to be president

    b) naturalized

    he ignored me

    when i asked him to translate a simple french phrase using “des parents” he told me to ask a french waiter

    constitutionalists say that ted cruz, born in canada to an american mother and cuban father, IS QUALIFIED to be president – his mother passed the residency requirement

    One criteria for “Citizenship at Birth for Children Born Outside the U.S. and its Territories” from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services:

    One parent is a U.S. citizen at the time of birth and the birthdate is on or after November 14, 1986

    The parents are married at the time of birth and the U.S. citizen parent had been physically present in the U.S. or its territories for a period of at least five years at some time in his or her life prior to the birth, of which at least two years were after his or her 14th birthday.

    Eleanor Darragh, mother of Ted Cruz, was raised in Delaware, graduated from a Catholic High School in the U.S., as well as Rice University, so clearly she meets the residency requirements.

    The Naturalization Act of 1790, passed just 12 months after our constitution became effective in 1789, undoubtedly reflects the understanding of “natural born citizen” in effect in that era, and states:

    And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…

    A 2011 report prepared by the Congressional Research Office concludes:

    The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.

  376. gorefan says:
    February 23, 2013 at 7:43 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: John Robert’s prima facie unconstitutional decision using a British explanatory act to “explain” the constitutionality of ObamaCare by re-designating a fee into a tax.

    Actually, it wasn’t Chief Justice Roberts who re-designated a fee into a tax. It was the position originally argued by the Solicitor General Donald Verrilli in both his Appellant Brief and in oral arguments.

    “Congress’s power “(T)o lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” Art. 1, 8, Cl. 1, provides an independent basis to hold the constitutionality of the minimum coverage provision. The taxing power is “comprehensive.” Steward Mach. Co, v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582 (1937). In “passing on the constitutionality of a tax law,” a court is “concerned only with its practical operation, not its definition or the precise form of descriptive words which may be applied to it.” Nelson v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 312 U.S. 359, 363 (1941) (citation omitted). The practical operation of the minimum coverage provision is as a tax law. it is fully integrated into the tax system, will raise substantial revenue, and triggers only tax consequences for non-compliance. See Liberty University, Inc. v. Geithner, no. 10-2347, 2011 WL 3962915, at *16-*22 (4th Cir. Sept. 8, 2011) (Wynn, J., concurring), petition for cert. pending, no. 11-438 (filed Oct. 7, 2011). The Court has never held that a revenue-raising provision bearing so many indicia of taxation was beyond Congress’s taxing power, and it should not do so here.”

    http://www.ago.ne.gov/resources/dyn/files/755185ze1efe6be/_fn/DOJ+Opening+Br+(Mandate).pdf

    Notice he based his argument on the Constitution not some British explanatory act.

  377. gorefan says:
    February 23, 2013 at 7:48 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: In constitutional context, natural born Citizens are citizens, but a higher form according to my conclusion. According to yours, they are simply native-born citizens.

    Let me fix that for you.

    “In constitutional context, natural born Citizens are citizens, but a higher form according to my conclusion. According to yours and the Founders, they are simply native-born citizens.”

  378. Scientist says:
    February 23, 2013 at 8:27 pm  (Quote)

    I am not going to address the Obamacare decision or the stop and frisk laws because they are off topic. Nor is it necessary that I agree with all Supreme Court decisions, nor do I. But every society needs a dispute resolution mechanism and the courts are the one this society has.

    The simple fact is that the 2 citizen parent postulate has been argued numerous times in the past few years and the courts have all rejected it. In no case is there the slightest indication that any court even saw it as a close call. As a practical matter, it doesn’t matter whether they are “right” or “wrong”. The law is not science, which examines objective reality; it is a purely human construct. Unlike the speed of light, which is constant everywhere in the Universe, there is no absolute definition of who is a citizen; it varies from nation to nation and over different eras for any given nation. At the end of the day, I am convinced you are wrong, but even if you were right in some absolute sense, the Constitution gives the power to the Court to rule even wrongly, just as umpires sometimes call balls in the dirt strikes. That’s part of the game. And in the case of natural born citizen = citizen at birth, that is waist high down the middle of the plate. And you just watched it go into the catcher’s mitt for strike 3, pal.

  379. obobma says:
    February 23, 2013 at 8:43 pm  (Quote)

    Lupin: You are an ignorant and arrogant idiot.

    It doesn’t matter how many copies or editions of a book one has, if one fails to understand the meaning of what’s written inside. Which is your case.

    I am a French lawyer with a Law Degree from the Sorbonne (1978) and I read Vattel before you had even head of his name. I have edited English translations of Vattel. You, on the other hand, have zero experience.

    At the bottom of it, the matter is pretty simple: does Vattel claim that both parents have to be citizens in order for a child to be so? The answer is clearly, unarguably NO. There is no “Two Parents” clause inVattel.

    Therefore whether or not Vattel was influential or nor, or his terminology was correctly or incorrectly translated, are ultimately irrelevant. The truth is that Obama would indeed be an indigene or a naturel. Everything else proceeds from there.

    Obviously, you don’t know what site you are on. It is the site where one is called a liar, a fraud and an idiot if he claims any sort of education without proof of transcripts. So let’s see them. Touché on Cypress—a carless mistake. I take it you have never made such a mistake.

    I am not fluent in French. Never said I was. According to my French friends, “parens” means parents in the sense of mother and father. Did I tell you that my French friends were born in France and Switzerland and grew up in those countries? But your having a degree from the Sorbonne makes your judgment better, right? Your Law Degree, not produced as of yet, and your interest in Vattel should make you capable of citing where you have written in a law journal or an academic publication that parens citoyens means what you say it does. Please cite where. Then I can research what other French layers—oops, lawyers—thought of your translation.

    I would love to buy the editions of Vattel you edited. Please name them. I searched for them on several sites, including the Library of Congress, and found nothing, except for “ Lupines as poisonous plants.” Is Lupine your real name?

    “You [Bob] are an ignorant and arrogant idiot.” Are you really saying that because I disagree with you? If you are so sure of your translation, why did you bring “[d’un] pere [citoyen]” into the discussion unless you believe “pere” can also mean mother. Show me one French dictionary in which that is true.

    “The French in the 1758 edition of Le Droit des Genes was clear—’Je dis que pour être d’un pays, il ſaut être né d’un pere citoyen; car ſi vous y êtes né d’un étranger, ce pays ſera ſeulement le lieu de votre naiſſance, ſans être votre patrie.’ The phrase “d’un pere citoyen” unquestionably meant that the citizenship of children followed their fathers. “Pere” meant father. Here are the definitions of “pere” in four old French dictionaries:

    Père. Pater (Jean Nicot: Le Thresor de la langue francoyse, 1606)
    PERE. s. m. Celuy qui a un ou plusieurs enfants. (Dictionnaire de l’Académie française, 1st Edition, 1694)
    PÈRE. s.m. Celui qui a un ou plusieurs enfans.( Dictionnaire de l’Académie française, 4th Edition, 1762)
    PèRE, s. m. [1re è moy. et long, 2e e muet.] Au propre, celui qui a un ou plusieurs enfans. (Jean-François Féraud: Dictionaire critique de la langue française, 1787-88)

    The definition conforms to the other four or five twentieth-century dictionaries I consulted and it conforms to the definition offered by two of my Swiss friends and one French friend, who categorically said it meant “father,” without any other possible meaning. Beyond a shadow of doubt, Vattel upheld the age-old doctrine in most societies that children at birth inherited the citizenship from their fathers —‘Partus sequitur patrem’—ancient Rome’s maxim.

    I recognize that “parens” can mean mother or father, but I do not believe Vattel meant it that way nor did my French friends. In my eBook, I wrote:

    “Les Naturels ou Indigènes ſont ceaux qui ſont nés dans le pays, de parens citoyens.” This sentence is the most important for this study. “de parens citoyens” is crucial for a few reasons. The first reason is that in present day French and Swiss French, the word “parens” never seems to be used. Was it unique, did it have a meaning different from “father,” or was it simply a Swiss variant for the French “parents,” which is modern French for “parents” with exactly the same spelling as in English? Though my French-speaking friends thought it was misspelled and the author meant to write “parents,” or that it might be “canadien-french,” it was in fact old French:
    Parens. Le pere ou la mere (Jean Nicot: Le Thresor de la langue francoyse, 1606)
    Parens, ſ. Pl. progenitori, parents
    Not every dictionary included the word; for example, only “parent” was entered in an earlier dictionary I own:

    Parent, ſ . un père, ou mere, parente, padre e madre.

    By comparing the French definitions of the era of “pere” and “parens” to the English definitions, it is verifiable that both were correctly translated and meant the same things. Hence, we know beyond a shadow of doubt that Vattel and American founding fathers were talking about the same things when they mentioned fathers and parents. Parents could mean either the mothers or the fathers but the context was clear in Vattel’s . 212 that he meant the fathers and the mothers side by side.”

    If Vattel meant either parent, then why didn’t he simply write, “d’un paren citoyen”? That would certainly be permissible and more precise, would it not? In my modern-day dictionary “parents” plural is “les père et mère.” I forgot, does ‘et’ mean “or”? “D’un paren citoyen” would introduce a contradiction to the sentence farther along that talks about paternity as being the critical factor in passing along citizenship: “Je dis que pour être d’un pays, il ſaut être né d’un pere citoyen . . . (I ſay, that in order to be of the country, it is neceſſary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen . . .) Given this tidbit, in the sentence “Les Naturels ou Indigènes ſont ceaux qui ſont nés dans le pays, de parens citoyens,” the natives or indigenes “de parens citoyens” must mean that both father and mother have to be citizens in order to create the highest form of citizen in their offspring. If Vattel were interested in defining the age-old jus sanguini principle that the citizenship of children followed their fathers, he would have not used parens citoyens because, as you agree, it could mean father and/or mother, but it would then be in contradiction to his later sentence in which he pointed out that only fathers could pass on citizenship. How could mothers be important in “Les Naturels ou Indigènes ſont ceaux qui ſont nés dans le pays, de parens citoyens” if only fathers could make their children natives or indigenes according to Vattel’s new definition in relation to accepted jus sanguinis? To adopt a favorite word of Publius, the mothers would be “superfluous” unless their citizenship coupled with with the citizenship of the fathers resulted in a higher form of citizen.

    I left sanguini in there to see if you discount all I said since I misspelled it. It wouldn’t be the first time. And it won’t be the laſt time that I spell Cypress for Cyprus when thinking about Cyprus. Oh my gosh, I spelled last in old English too. O.K., I confess, nothing of my reasoning has merit.

  380. Scientist says:
    February 23, 2013 at 8:45 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: Change the 4th Amendment by another amendment or stay away from interpreting plain English into twisted English.

    Change the natural born citzen clause by amendment to read the way you would like in plain English instead of interpreting it using twisted English poorly translated from archaic French.

    Here, let me suggest: 28th Amendment- The qualifications for President shall be to be born within the territorial limits of the United States to parents who are both US citizens at the time of birth (I’m not sure how you wish to treat biological vs adoptive parents, but you can work that out yourself) and to be at least 35 years of age and to have resided in the United States for at least 14 years (you might want to specify whether cumulative or continuous).

    Get that ratified and I am confident the courts will rule just as you would wish. Interestingly, I have never seen a single birther propose that. Would you care to say why not?

  381. Paper says:
    February 23, 2013 at 8:55 pm  (Quote)

    I think you mean children of enemy soldiers and diplomats? Yes, those are exceptions for those born here.

    Slartibartfast:
    I’ve got a small quibble with this—I would agree that “native born citizens” are a subset of “natural born citizens”, but some natives (i.e. those born to parents who were not under US jurisdiction) are not citizens.

  382. Scientist says:
    February 23, 2013 at 8:58 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: Did I tell you that my French friends were born in France and Switzerland and grew up in those countries?

    All my American friends who were born and grew up in the United States say that to be President you only need to be a citizen at birth. None of them agree with you regarding parents. In fact, most find your viewpoint noxious and un-American. I’m sorry to disappoint you, but that is a fact.

    obobma: If Vattel meant either parent, then why didn’t he simply write, “d’un paren citoyen”?That would certainly be permissible and more precise, would it not?

    If Vattel meant obligatorily both parents, why didn’t he write “de deux parens citoyens”? That would certainly be permissible and more precise, would it not?

  383. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 23, 2013 at 9:01 pm  (Quote)

    Bob, are you being dishonest here?

    My recollection was that you said, I think in your book, that your French-speaking friends didn’t recognize the word, or thought it was misspelled and that it was found to be from old French. M. Lupin, however, has studied the old form of the language, and so is a reasonable authority. Further, Mr. Paul Pieniezny is a professional translator, and concurs with M. Lupin.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-translation-of-vattel-from-the-french/

    I’m not at home this evening with access to your book, but Publius might perhaps search for “parens” and see if I am correct in my recollection.

    And for the record, I have a copy of the works of Vattel which M. Lupin edited. And Lupin is not his real name.

    obobma: I am not fluent in French. Never said I was. According to my French friends, “parens” means parents in the sense of mother and father. Did I tell you that my French friends were born in France and Switzerland and grew up in those countries? But your having a degree from the Sorbonne makes your judgment better, right? Your Law Degree, not produced as of yet, and your interest in Vattel should make you capable of citing where you have written in a law journal or an academic publication that parens citoyens means what you say it does. Please cite where. Then I can research what other French layers—oops, lawyers—thought of your translation.

    I would love to buy the editions of Vattel you edited. Please name them. I searched for them on several sites, including the Library of Congress, and found nothing, except for “ Lupines as poisonous plants.” Is Lupine your real name?

  384. Rennie says:
    February 23, 2013 at 9:13 pm  (Quote)

    He didn’t write “d’un parent citoyen” because he was apparently a lot better at grammar than you. The sentence is plural – “les naturels” requires “parents citoyens.”

    The VERY NEXT SENTENCE reads… “those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers.”

    Fathers, Bob. FATHERS. If we follow your rules, then only a child with two fathers can be a natural born citizen.

    Fathers, Bob. Explain that please, in a manner consistent with your interpretation of the first sentence.

    obobma:

    If Vattel meant either parent, then why didn’t he simply write, “d’un paren citoyen”? That would certainly be permissible and more precise, would it not?

  385. bgansel9 says:
    February 23, 2013 at 9:34 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: Here, let me suggest: 28th Amendment- The qualifications for President shall be to be born within the territorial limits of the United States to parents who are both US citizens at the time of birth (I’m not sure how you wish to treat biological vs adoptive parents, but you can work that out yourself) and to be at least 35 years of age and to have resided in the United States for at least 14 years (you might want to specify whether cumulative or continuous).

    What happens to the fates of Chester Arthur and James Buchanan (not even having to touch upon Obama). Would SCOTUS just deem that they weren’t eligible and weren’t really presidents? How would one explain that we had some presidents who had foreign born parents that apparently weren’t naturalized at the time of birth and therefore they weren’t eligible?

  386. gorefan says:
    February 23, 2013 at 9:45 pm  (Quote)

    Rennie: Explain that please, in a manner consistent with your interpretation of the first sentence.

    It’s a secret.

  387. Dave B. says:
    February 23, 2013 at 10:05 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: Not giving your name shows fear. The signers of the Declaration of Independence signed their real names as those who put their names to the Constitution. You can decide to back up your statements with your identity or not. No matter how you slander Apuzzo and Taitz, they chose the honorable way of our founders who put their lives on the line for their beliefs.

    No, not giving your name shows prudence. Isn’t that what your friend C. Stanton would tell you? As for me, I’ve been getting Valentines addressed to Dave B. since I was six years old. And you know, 00Bob, when you redact your street address from photographs of your correspondence on your website but leave the city and state in place, you really might as well have just left the whole thing there.

    obobma: Obviously, you don’t know what site you are on. It is the site where one is called a liar, a fraud and an idiot if he claims any sort of education without proof of transcripts.

    No, 00Bob, you’re on the site where liars are called liars, frauds are called frauds, and idiots are sometimes called idiots. You’re a bit sui generis, so I just call you 00Bob– although I do like combining that with Donna’s obombo to get 00-Bombo. Makes you sound more, I don’t know, jolly? Kind of like an undiscovered sixth Marx Brother– not as articulate as Harpo, not as funny as Zeppo, not as relevant as Gummo. You could use some jollying up, 00-Bombo!

  388. Dave B. says:
    February 23, 2013 at 10:24 pm  (Quote)

    To celebrate how easy it was to find M. Lupin’s genuine identity, I have broken my general rule of not purchasing Kindle content costing more than $3 and laid down nearly twice that much for one of his books. And Doc, I don’t think it even has any Zombies in it.
    00Bob, I wouldn’t buy your book even if it was in compliance with my rule. Maybe if you de-doublenaughted it, taking out all the Gardage and just leaving the references, you might actually sell a few. Have you considered that?

    obobma: I would love to buy the editions of Vattel you edited. Please name them. I searched for them on several sites, including the Library of Congress, and found nothing, except for “ Lupines as poisonous plants.” Is Lupine your real name?

  389. Publius says:
    February 23, 2013 at 10:54 pm  (Quote)

    obobma: You did not understand a word I wrote. “Over here you have ‘citizens,’ and over here you have ‘natural born citizens.’ And ‘natural born citizens’ are not ‘citizens.’” Your sentence makes no sense. We are talking about “citizen” in the Constitution in relation to Representatives and Senators. We are not talking about it in the sense of American citizens, which include naturalized, native-born and natural born. Once again you are trying to twist my words.

    I am not making any effort at all to twist your words. They are quite twisted enough without my help.

    So now “citizen” means something different when applies to Representatives and Senators, than it means when applied to ordinary Americans? Because that is what you are saying.

    In constitutional context, natural born Citizens are citizens, but a higher form according to my conclusion. According to yours, they are simply native-born citizens.

    The Constitution is written in words that people could and can understand. When the Framers wrote “natural born citizen,” there is not the slightest indication that they meant anything by the term other than the way it was understood both popularly and by those in the legal profession. Again, the CLEAR and OBVIOUS meaning of the term is that it meant exactly what “natural born subject” had always meant, except for the difference between “subject” and “citizen.” And there is absolutely no textual or historical evidence to indicate otherwise. Specifically, there is absolutely no textual or historical evidence to even REMOTELY indicate that it means the Bob Gard definition of “natural born citizen.” Again, we can’t even call it the “Vattel” definition because it’s clear that he never used the term and even the concept he promoted doesn’t call for two citizen parents.

    And no, according to my understanding they are NOT “simply native-born citizens.” To my understanding and that of virtually every American in history, legal authority or otherwise (except for the recent birther), “natural born citizen” means “a citizen at or by birth.”

    The reason people used the term “native born” and “natural born” synonymously in early America is that virtually all natural born citizens in that day WERE native born, and native born citizens completely fulfilled the qualification regardless of whether their parents were citizens or not.

    Natural-born citizen had to be (1) a single element of native-born citizen, (2) a set of native-born citizen and citizen born of two American citizens in the United States, or (3) a single element of citizen born of two American citizens in the United States. Do you agree?

    I have no idea what you are talking about, as the way you have phrased it makes no sense. But as far as I can tell, NO. I do not agree, and neither does anybody else, except for a few birthers deluded by a powerful desire that the current President be ineligible, and wishful thinking.

    I believe that “Natural born citizen” means a citizen at or by birth. This would include all persons born in America, except the very few, very rare, historical exceptions. These are the same exceptions as always existed for “natural born subject.” I believe it also includes those born citizens by virtue of birth to American citizens abroad. There is at least a bit of doubt about the latter, but there is NO doubt about the former. There just isn’t.

    Natural born Citizen could not be naturalized citizen. Do you agree?

    Of course I agree.

    (1) would make the lawyers in attendance incredibly sloppy by introducing a different term for native-born citizen. Please explain why they would do that. (2) would make them careless by introducing confusion, and (3) would make them logical.

    No, 3 would NOT make them “logical.” It would make them completely ILLOGICAL, by introducing a term that was defined differently than the understanding of ANYONE who would read it.

    It would be about the same as writing an important legal document that said, “candidates for President must reside for 14 years in the United States,” and meaning by the word “reside” that they are required not only to be physically present, but also to own their own two-storey home free and clear for that period of 14 years.

    And your “definition” of “natural born citizen” makes no more sense than the “definition” I just gave for “reside.”

    Let’s talk Vattel for a moment. I have always thought he was redundant in 212. “The natives, or indigenes, are thoſe born in the country of parents who are citizens.” Redundant but clear. If the framers meant to be redundant but clear they would have written “Sect. 2. No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a native-born Citizen, being a citizen born in the United States . . . shall be eligible to the office of President . . .” You are the one impugning their intelligence and integrity.

    No. The Framers of the Constitution were quite clear enough. If they had meant “indigenes, as defined by Vattel,” then they would have WRITTEN “indigenes, as defined by Vattel.” At the very LEAST, they would have written “indigenes.”

    They would NEVER have written “natural born citizen” unless they meant what both the public and those in the legal profession understood by the term. And that is exactly what “natural born subject” had always meant, except we changed the word “citizen” for “subject” because we didn’t like the idea of being subservient to a king. Or to a President, for that matter.

    That idea of equality of members of the nation is the SOLE difference that anybody would have EVER understood by “natural born citizen.”

  390. Publius says:
    February 23, 2013 at 11:02 pm  (Quote)

    In any event, let us revisit what you claim for the “definition” of terms as it applies to Senators and Representatives and Presidents.

    For a candidate for SENATOR or PRESIDENT to be a “citizen” or a “naturalized citizen” or a “natural born citizen” means something DIFFERENT from what it means for an ORDINARY CITIZEN (oops, there’s that word) to be a “citizen” or a “naturalized citizen” or a “natural born citizen.” Don’t you know.

    You stated that “citizens” (but only when applied to political candidates) is made up of the “native born” and the “naturalized.” You further stated that “natural born citizens” were a completely different class for “native born” and “naturalized.”

    “Natural born citizens,” then, ACCORDING TO YOU, are NOT “citizens.”

    Like I said, your argument is just about the stupidest damn thing I’ve ever read.

    That’s not to say that you personally are “stupid.” I am not insulting you personally. But your argument is… well, I’m trying to think of a polite term for it. It is total, complete, absolute BS.

    Bernie Madoff was undoubtedly an intelligent man. But he became committed to a stupid idea: The idea that he was going to run a great Ponzi scheme. How did he fall into it? I don’t know. I don’t care. The fact is, his STUPID IDEA led him into an utter, unfathomable stupidity that cost him the rest of his life. He will never get out of jail.

    Those who are completely committed to idiotic ideas, whether they themselves are reasonably intelligent people or not, end up where those stupid ideas take them.

  391. Publius says:
    February 23, 2013 at 11:04 pm  (Quote)

    Paper: Dr. C himself has already done that for you, in that natural born citizen is not the same as native born citizen. Native is a subset of natural born. That has been spelled out numerous times here. You can argue about that if you like, but start by recognizing the point.

    Yes, it’s been spelled out numerous times.

  392. donna says:
    February 23, 2013 at 11:09 pm  (Quote)

    obombo has not read the books lupin edited and yet criticized his work and conclusions?

    lupin, a native french speaker, who is also an attorney, who edited books on vattel and with whom we are honored to have access?

    and yet we should believe some who take the words as golden from people who can’t translate the french “des parents” into english and base their conclusions on improper translations?

    who was it who spent $40,000 on research?

  393. Publius says:
    February 23, 2013 at 11:09 pm  (Quote)

    donna: A 2011 report prepared by the Congressional Research Office concludes:

    The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.

    Huh. In other words, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service gives the exact same definition for “natural born citizen” as most of us do here.

  394. misha marinsky says:
    February 24, 2013 at 12:07 am  (Quote)

    obobma: I confess, nothing of my reasoning has merit.

    That’s the only thing you have said that is true, in all of what you write.

  395. Dave B. says:
    February 24, 2013 at 12:20 am  (Quote)

    You’ve found the poil in the erster.

    misha marinsky: That’s the only thing you have said that is true, in all of what you write.

  396. Publius says:
    February 24, 2013 at 12:48 am  (Quote)

    obobma: I am not fluent in French. Never said I was. According to my French friends, “parens” means parents in the sense of mother and father. Did I tell you that my French friends were born in France and Switzerland and grew up in those countries? But your having a degree from the Sorbonne makes your judgment better, right? Your Law Degree, not produced as of yet, and your interest in Vattel should make you capable of citing where you have written in a law journal or an academic publication that parens citoyens means what you say it does. Please cite where. Then I can research what other French layers—oops, lawyers—thought of your translation.

    There’s an argument to be made here, but it’s weak.

    I just looked up 3 French language dictionaries of the period, more or less at random although probably the ones I happened across first were some of the most major and best known.

    Furetiere’s “Universal Dictionary, Containing Generally All French Words, Old and Modern, and Terms of the Sciences and Arts,” dated 1701. (That one is a 153 MB download).

    Richelet’s “Dictionary of the French Language, Old and Modern,” dated 1759

    And finally, the “Dictionary of the French Academy,” 4th edition, dated 1762.

    I note that both of the latter were absolutely contemporary with Vattel.

    Here are images of the relevant pages:

    Furetiere:

    http://tinypic.com/r/353duko/6

    RIchelet:

    http://tinypic.com/r/2mlg5/6

    French Academy:

    http://tinypic.com/r/126g47m/6

  397. MN-Skeptic says:
    February 24, 2013 at 1:08 am  (Quote)

    donna:

    and yet we should believe some who take the words as golden from people who can’t translate the french “des parents” into english and base their conclusions on improper translations?

    To birthers, the experts are folks who agree with them. Witness all the “experts” trotted out to state that Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery. Orly just loves her experts. Isn’t it ironic how quickly they dismiss true experts like John Goodman and Lupin!

  398. Publius says:
    February 24, 2013 at 1:26 am  (Quote)

    Okay, so let’s look at these.

    Lupin or whoever is really good at French can correct me if I get any of this wrong.

    Furetier (1701) says “parent” is:

    “A relative term that is said of all who make up the same family, and come from the same source. It [only?] signifies equally those who are linked to us by blood, and in general, without particularly designating the father or the mother.

    There are decent authors who use the word in this sense, but it is not necessary to defer too much to that.”

    Richelet (1759) says of “parent:”

    “A person who is linked to us by blood. (Our parens are not always our best friends. This is his close parent. At his [sides?] marched [or walked] about 200 of his closest parens…)

    This word sometimes means father or mother, but some do not find the word elegant in this meaning. [We might put that, ‘some authorities do not approve of this usage.’]”

    French Academy (1762) says “parent” is:

    “[Someone] who is of the same family, who is of the same blood, who is related by blood or ancestry with someone. As in, a paternal parent. A maternal parent. A parent in the third degree. He’s my parent. He’s one of my parents. On what side are you parens? They are parens. They are distant parens. She is my parente. He has [acted as] a good parent. He has no parens. They are neither friends nor parens. To have a gathering of parens. Advice from a parent.

    One says proverbially, ‘A good friend is worth more than a parent.‘ And one says in the familiar style, ‘We are all parens through Adam.'”

    “Parens, is also said of those from whom one is descended, e.g., He was born to distinguished parens. The word is sometimes taken to mean particularly the father and mother. He married without the consent of his parens.

    When one says, ‘our first parens, one ordinarily is speaking of Adam and Eve.”

    So it is clear that the PRIMARY meaning of the word “parens” is not “mother and father.” In fact, that usage was clearly frowned upon by many authorities.

    The PRIMARY meaning of “parens” was simply: RELATIVES.

  399. donna says:
    February 24, 2013 at 1:36 am  (Quote)

    Publius: The PRIMARY meaning of “parens” was simply: RELATIVES.

    previously, i asked apuzzo to translate a simple french phrase: j”ai des parents en italie mais mes parents sont ici en amérique

    he told me to ask a french waiter

  400. Publius says:
    February 24, 2013 at 1:46 am  (Quote)

    One thing that always seems true about birthers.

    It’s never about the evidence.

    It simply doesn’t matter how much or what quality of evidence you put before a birther. Doesn’t matter. One might as well be trying to reason with a doorknob.

    I had somewhat hoped Bob was capable of admitting when his evidence was non-existent, and when evidence against his theory was very well-founded, but that simply doesn’t appear to be the case. Not that I ever really expected it. It just would have been refreshing for a change.

  401. misha marinsky says:
    February 24, 2013 at 2:01 am  (Quote)

    donna: who was it who spent $40,000 on research?

    Here’s the receipt for the $40K Bob spent:

    http://www.worldofmonopoly.com/fansite/images/money/monopoly_money_500.jpg

  402. Lupin says:
    February 24, 2013 at 3:07 am  (Quote)

    obobma: According to my French friends, “parens” means parents in the sense of mother and father.

    I don’t believe you. You’re lying.

    Try http://www.larousse.com, the best online French dictionary, and search the definition for “parent” This is what you will find.

    1. Personne liée une autre par le sang ou par le mariage.
    2. Le père ou la mère.

    Translation:

    1. Relative by blood or marriage
    2. Father or mother

    That alone is enough to prove that you are an idiot and a liar.

    The reason why I don’t believe you is that any French person asked to explain the meaning of “j’ai des parents aux USA” (ie: I have parents in the USA) will immediately tell you that said parents could be an uncle or a cousin.

    So you either did not ask an actually French person or you lied about what they told you.

  403. Lupin says:
    February 24, 2013 at 3:09 am  (Quote)

    obobma: I would love to buy the editions of Vattel you edited. Please name them.

    Ask and you shall receive:
    http://www.blackcoatpress.com/nemoville.htm

    Our esteemed host actually bought a copy of the book recently.

  404. Publius says:
    February 24, 2013 at 3:11 am  (Quote)

    Lupin, have I mangled anything in my translations of the Furetier, Richelet and French Academy dictionaries from the 1700s above?

    If you go a couple of posts up, there are links to images of the relevant pages.

  405. Lupin says:
    February 24, 2013 at 3:11 am  (Quote)

    obobma: and found nothing, except for “ Lupines as poisonous plants.” Is Lupine your real name?

    First it’s Lupin without an “e” you idiot.

    You can’t even read correctly what’s on this site, how can you expect to figure out anything more complicated.

    Two, “Lupin” is a pseudonym, of course, after the French pulp hero Arsène Lupin.

  406. Lupin says:
    February 24, 2013 at 3:20 am  (Quote)

    obobma: If you are so sure of your translation, why did you bring “[d’un] pere [citoyen]” into the discussion unless you believe “pere” can also mean mother. Show me one French dictionary in which that is true.

    “The French in the 1758 edition of Le Droit des Genes was clear—’Je dis que pour être d’un pays, il ſaut être né d’un pere citoyen; car ſi vous y êtes né d’un étranger, ce pays ſera ſeulement le lieu de votre naiſſance, ſans être votre patrie.’ The phrase “d’un pere citoyen” unquestionably meant that the citizenship of children followed their fathers. “Pere” meant father. Here are the definitions of “pere” in four old French dictionaries:

    Père. Pater (Jean Nicot: Le Thresor de la langue francoyse, 1606)
    PERE. s. m. Celuy qui a un ou plusieurs enfants. (Dictionnaire de l’Académie française, 1st Edition, 1694)
    PÈRE. s.m. Celui qui a un ou plusieurs enfans.( Dictionnaire de l’Académie française, 4th Edition, 1762)
    PèRE, s. m. [1re è moy. et long, 2e e muet.] Au propre, celui qui a un ou plusieurs enfans. (Jean-François Féraud: Dictionaire critique de la langue française, 1787-88)

    The definition conforms to the other four or five twentieth-century dictionaries I consulted and it conforms to the definition offered by two of my Swiss friends and one French friend, who categorically said it meant “father,” without any other possible meaning. Beyond a shadow of doubt, Vattel upheld the age-old doctrine in most societies that children at birth inherited the citizenship from their fathers —‘Partus sequitur patrem’—ancient Rome’s maxim.

    I recognize that “parens” can mean mother or father, but I do not believe Vattel meant it that way nor did my French friends. In my eBook, I wrote:

    “Les Naturels ou Indigènes ſont ceaux qui ſont nés dans le pays, de parens citoyens.” This sentence is the most important for this study. “de parens citoyens” is crucial for a few reasons. The first reason is that in present day French and Swiss French, the word “parens” never seems to be used. Was it unique, did it have a meaning different from “father,” or was it simply a Swiss variant for the French “parents,” which is modern French for “parents” with exactly the same spelling as in English? Though my French-speaking friends thought it was misspelled and the author meant to write “parents,” or that it might be “canadien-french,” it was in fact old French:
    Parens. Le pere ou la mere (Jean Nicot: Le Thresor de la langue francoyse, 1606)
    Parens, ſ. Pl. progenitori, parents
    Not every dictionary included the word; for example, only “parent” was entered in an earlier dictionary I own:

    Parent, ſ . un père, ou mere, parente, padre e madre.

    By comparing the French definitions of the era of “pere” and “parens” to the English definitions, it is verifiable that both were correctly translated and meant the same things. Hence, we know beyond a shadow of doubt that Vattel and American founding fathers were talking about the same things when they mentioned fathers and parents. Parents could mean either the mothers or the fathers but the context was clear in Vattel’s . 212 that he meant the fathers and the mothers side by side.”

    If Vattel meant either parent, then why didn’t he simply write, “d’un paren citoyen”? That would certainly be permissible and more precise, would it not? In my modern-day dictionary “parents” plural is “les père et mère.” I forgot, does ‘et’ mean “or”? “D’un paren citoyen” would introduce a contradiction to the sentence farther along that talks about paternity as being the critical factor in passing along citizenship: “Je dis que pour être d’un pays, il ſaut être né d’un pere citoyen . . . (I ſay, that in order to be of the country, it is neceſſary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen . . .) Given this tidbit, in the sentence “Les Naturels ou Indigènes ſont ceaux qui ſont nés dans le pays, de parens citoyens,” the natives or indigenes “de parens citoyens” must mean that both father and mother have to be citizens in order to create the highest form of citizen in their offspring. If Vattel were interested in defining the age-old jus sanguini principle that the citizenship of children followed their fathers, he would have not used parens citoyens because, as you agree, it could mean father and/or mother, but it would then be in contradiction to his later sentence in which he pointed out that only fathers could pass on citizenship. How could mothers be important in “Les Naturels ou Indigènes ſont ceaux qui ſont nés dans le pays, de parens citoyens” if only fathers could make their children natives or indigenes according to Vattel’s new definition in relation to accepted jus sanguinis? To adopt a favorite word of Publius, the mothers would be “superfluous” unless their citizenship coupled with with the citizenship of the fathers resulted in a higher form of citizen.

    I left sanguini in there to see if you discount all I said since I misspelled it. It wouldn’t be the first time. And it won’t be the laſt time that I spell Cypress for Cyprus when thinking about Cyprus. Oh my gosh, I spelled last in old English too. O.K., I confess, nothing of my reasoning has merit.

    This makes no sense whatsoever. You’re basically rambling, attributing to me things I never said. I’ve heard more sensible speeches coming out of people handing greasy leaflets in the subway.

    The facts are very simple: When Vattel uses the word “parents” he means relatives and uses it as a group plural. So there is NO requirement for a child to have two, three or several parents all citizens; one will do just fine. That is enough to make Obama a naturel or an indigene, thereby undermining your entire delusional theories.

    I could stop here, but I pointed out that Vattel’s subsequent sub-clause about children inheriting their father’s citizenship could arguably be turned into an argument. You never made that argument because preferring instead to rely on your basic misunderstanding of an ordinary group plural sentence. That also shows the degree of ignorance.

    I then traced the evolution of this specific clause in French Law, showing how it became obsolete, and even in one was (wrongly) to apply it to Obama, it still wouldn’t apply today.

    None of this you apparently understood, suggesting that the label “idiot” is entirely accurate in your case.

  407. Lupin says:
    February 24, 2013 at 3:22 am  (Quote)

    Scientist: Unless Bob can come up with better authorities than “my French and Swiss friends” I see no choice but to go with you and conclude that “parens” means “one or both” and includes ancestors.

    Seriously, guys, don’t take my word for it: check the French online dictionary Larousse.

    http://www.larousse.com/en/dictionaries/french

  408. Lupin says:
    February 24, 2013 at 3:26 am  (Quote)

    Publius: Here we have Lupin, who is both a native French speaker AND a lawyer, who is WELL familiar with the writings of Monsieur Vattel, stating in no uncertain terms that nothing in Vattel’s wording requires two citizen parents. According to Lupin (who should know, far better than you), you and the other birthers have put words in Vattel’s mouth that he simply did not speak.

    I will genuinely challenge anyone to find any source that interpreted that famous Vattel article as requiring TWO parents citizens before Apuzzo & his ilk got into this.

    Hell I’ll pay $100 to anyone who can find a pre-birther article book that claims this.

    There is none, because it is not what it means.

  409. misha marinsky says:
    February 24, 2013 at 3:30 am  (Quote)

    US Citizen: How did he finance his many intriguing adventures?

    Travel posters don’t cost much.

  410. Lupin says:
    February 24, 2013 at 3:32 am  (Quote)

    US Citizen: I actually thought the name Lupin was for Remus Lupin in Harry Potter.
    Lupin was a teacher of the “defence against the dark arts” class and it seemed an appropriate usage for this forum.

    I suspect Ms Rawling was thinking of Lupine as in wolf-like, in this case.

    For those who don’t know who Arsène Lupin is, the ever-reliable wiki link:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ars%C3%A8ne_Lupin

    To read my translations (I’m not proud enough to not pitch my own books):
    http://www.blackcoatpress.com/arsenelupin.htm
    http://www.blackcoatpress.com/arsenelupin2.htm
    http://www.blackcoatpress.com/arsenelupincagliostro.htm
    http://www.blackcoatpress.com/lupinfaces.htm

    (or on Amazon, B&N, etc)

  411. Lupin says:
    February 24, 2013 at 3:47 am  (Quote)

    For the record, I don’t care that much about anonymity either way and I’m not trying to hide. I’ve been famous (in minor circles) for years and have learned to live with it.

    I have an entry on wiki; here it is:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Marc_Lofficier

    Understandably (because of its focus), Wiki covers only one aspect of my professional career: the writing, the translating, the editing, etc; it doesn’t cover my 25+ years as a banker and a lawyer, and even today, I’m honored to still act as counsel for a number of famous artists and writers. Let’s leave it at that, because a lot of it involve confidential matters.

    Apologies for being OT, but I felt that if I asked you to rely on my credibility as an expert witness (as it were; a role I was actually asked to play in a couple of lawsuits), you should know who I am.

  412. Lupin says:
    February 24, 2013 at 3:57 am  (Quote)

    Publius: I just looked up 3 French language dictionaries of the period, more or less at random although probably the ones I happened across first were some of the most major and best known.

    Furetiere’s “Universal Dictionary, Containing Generally All French Words, Old and Modern, and Terms of the Sciences and Arts,” dated 1701. (That one is a 153 MB download).

    Richelet’s “Dictionary of the French Language, Old and Modern,” dated 1759

    And finally, the “Dictionary of the French Academy,” 4th edition, dated 1762.

    I note that both of the latter were absolutely contemporary with Vattel.

    Here are images of the relevant pages:

    Furetiere:

    http://tinypic.com/r/353duko/6

    RIchelet:

    http://tinypic.com/r/2mlg5/6

    French Academy:

    http://tinypic.com/r/126g47m/6

    Excellent research!

    I’m not going to waste time retyping the entries (which are in old French spelling to boot) but it’s enough to look at the first which starts with definition of parents as “members of the same family” — not just “father and mother”.

    As Rennie has also correctly pointed out (several times), the structure of Vattel’s sentence requires a plural in order to be correct.

    As in my favorite example: “only CHILDREN whose PARENTS [not PARENT] are members of the club may use the pool.”

    Honestly, it seems utterly nonsensical for me to even to argue this very simple and obvious point — not even a legal point — with people like Gard and Apuzzo. You don’t need to a French lawyer to argue this, a school child could do it.

  413. Slartibartfast says:
    February 24, 2013 at 3:59 am  (Quote)

    Gee Bob, it looks like it sucks to be you. Not only are your arguments somewhere between non-sensical and ludicrous, but it turns out that Lupin’s assertion that “parens” means “ancestors” or “relatives” (which renders your theory a complete non-starter) is supported by numerous dictionaries and his identification of himself pretty much destroys your feeble complaint about the anonymity of your opponents. You’ve reached the point where the only honest response you have in this debate is to concede your point—something I’m guessing that you don’t have the integrity to do.

    By the way, did you think Lupin’s Wiki page was impressive? I thought it was impressive… 😉

    Lupin,

    I’m worried that you did not provide enough information for Bob to identify you—I’m not sure that this natural born researcher can figure out how to follow a link. Maybe you should have included instructions.

    Publius: So it is clear that the PRIMARY meaning of the word “parens” is not “mother and father.” In fact, that usage was clearly frowned upon by many authorities.

    The PRIMARY meaning of “parens” was simply: RELATIVES.

  414. Lupin says:
    February 24, 2013 at 4:04 am  (Quote)

    Publius: One thing that always seems true about birthers.

    It’s never about the evidence.

    It simply doesn’t matter how much or what quality of evidence you put before a birther. Doesn’t matter. One might as well be trying to reason with a doorknob.

    I had somewhat hoped Bob was capable of admitting when his evidence was non-existent, and when evidence against his theory was very well-founded, but that simply doesn’t appear to be the case. Not that I ever really expected it. It just would have been refreshing for a change.

    Once at the very beginning of my visits here I had hoped that Apuzzo might at least acknowledge that the TWO parents citizens was a honest mistake of his, and then concentrate on the “citizenship inherited only from the father” line to build his attack on Obama’s eligibility. (See my posts way above.)

    In fact I had initially concentrated my posts on debunking the father-only line of attack based on French law, Vattel’s footnoted second edition [should be 1863 French edition. Doc.], etc., etc. (Old posters here may remember this.) I naively never thought someone could cling steadfastly to such a gross mistake as the “two citizens parents” statement. Boy, was I wrong!

    That’s when I began suspecting that Mr. Apuzzo was being paid to knowingly lie and dissemble.

    Bob Gard, from the start, came across as a phony scholar, not knowing what he was talking about. So I never thought for a minute that he would be honest in his argument.

  415. Lupin says:
    February 24, 2013 at 4:08 am  (Quote)

    Publius: Lupin, have I mangled anything in my translations of the Furetier, Richelet and French Academy dictionaries from the 1700s above?

    If you go a couple of posts up, there are links to images of the relevant pages.

    No it was superlative work. And the meaning has not changed today. This is not rocket science, as the saying goes.

    To quote Monty Python (or was it Fawlty Towers?) we’re dealing with the “bleeding obvious” here. 🙂

  416. Lupin says:
    February 24, 2013 at 4:13 am  (Quote)

    Slartibartfast: I’m worried that you did not provide enough information for Bob to identify you—I’m not sure that this natural born researcher can figure out how to follow a link. Maybe you should have included instructions.

    A friend of mine once berated me, the only thing missing from your site is where you hide the spare key. 🙂

    I do have a (small) collection of genuinely crazy letters (or emails) (the last bunch is from a lunatic who thinks he is the real author of the Rick Riordan PERCY JACKSON books and wanted me to take his case) but we’ve been lucky that no one has ever stalked us in person at home.

    Once at a DR WHO convention I was stalked by a guy disguised as Meglos (a giant cactus) who felt we’d slighted his girl-friend in the judging of the masquerade costume, but that’s another story.

    (This is REALLY OT now!)

  417. Publius says:
    February 24, 2013 at 4:17 am  (Quote)

    Lupin: Bob Gard, from the start, came across as a phony scholar, not knowing what he was talking about. So I never thought for a minute that he would be honest in his argument.

    Well, I have made a discovery that appears as if it might call Mr. Gard’s honesty into doubt.

    I checked the 1606 work by Nicot (Le Thresor de la langue francoyse) that Bob refers to above. It’s available via the French national library at http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k50808z/f462.image . And it DOES NOT say what he claims it says.

    What Bob says it says:

    Parens. Le pere ou la mere (Jean Nicot: Le Thresor de la langue francoyse, 1606)
    Parens, ſ. Pl. progenitori, parents

    Maybe he means only the first of those. But Nicot’s dictionary, as far as I can see, contains neither.

    I include an image of the page below (or you can probably just click the link above), showing what it actually says:

    http://tinypic.com/r/344b1fr/6

    The book, if I understand correctly, is a continuation of an earlier French-Latin dictionary. And the definitions are all in Latin, which makes it a bit harder to read.

    Nonetheless, it is clear even from this work that the primary definitions given are ALL along the lines of “relatives.”

    Neither the words “père ” or “mère,” or “pater” or “mater” appear anywhere in the definitions. Instead, words that mean “relatives” and “blood relations” are used again and again. The Latin word “parentes” (which looks like it can mean either “parents” or “relatives”) is used as well.

    So I would like to know where Bob’s quoted definitions come from, since they do NOT appear to come from the 1606 Nicot dictionary.

    What say you, Bob?

  418. Lupin says:
    February 24, 2013 at 4:22 am  (Quote)

    Publius: The book, if I understand correctly, is a continuation of an earlier French-Latin dictionary. And the definitions are all in Latin, which makes it a bit harder to read.

    I found it almost moving that, across the centuries, it in fact says exactly what Larousse today still says: relatives by blood or marriage.

  419. Lupin says:
    February 24, 2013 at 4:25 am  (Quote)

    Dave B.: To celebrate how easy it was to find M. Lupin’s genuine identity, I have broken my general rule of not purchasing Kindle content costing more than $3 and laid down nearly twice that much for one of his books.

    Bless you! You, sir, are a true friend! 🙂

    If you want zombies, try this novel of ours:
    http://www.blackcoatpress.com/katrinaprotocol.htm

  420. Publius says:
    February 24, 2013 at 5:12 am  (Quote)

    Well, I figured out the first step of where his definitions come from. They come from his book.

    The French in the 1758 edition of Le Droit des Genes was clear—“Je dis que pour être d’un pays, il ſaut être né d’un pere citoyen; car ſi vous y êtes né d’un étranger, ce pays ſera ſeulement le lieu de votre naiſſance, ſans être votre patrie.” The phrase “d’un pere citoyen” unquestionably meant that the citizenship of children followed their fathers. “Pere” meant father. Here are the definitions of “pere” in four old French dictionaries:668

    Père. Pater (Jean Nicot: Le Thresor de la langue francoyse, 1606)
    PERE. s. m. Celuy qui a un ou plusieurs enfants. (Dictionnaire de l’Académie française, 1st Edition, 1694)
    PÈRE. s.m. Celui qui a un ou plusieurs enfans.( Dictionnaire de l’Académie française, 4th Edition, 1762)
    PèRE, s. m. [1re è moy. et long, 2e e muet.] Au propre, celui qui a un ou plusieurs enfans. (Jean-François Féraud: Dictionaire critique de la langue française, 1787-88)

    The definition conforms to the other four or five twentieth-century dictionaries I consulted and it conforms to the definition offered by two of my Swiss friends and one French friend, who categorically said it meant “father,” without any other possible meaning. Beyond a shadow of doubt, Vattel upheld the age-old doctrine in most societies that children at birth inherited the citizenship from their fathers —‘Partus sequitur patrem’—ancient Rome’s maxim.

    “Les Naturels ou Indigènes ſont ceaux qui ſont nés dans le pays, de parens citoyens.” This sentence is the most important for this study. “de parens citoyens” is crucial for a few reasons. The first reason is that in present day French and Swiss French, the word “parens” never seems to be used. Was it unique, did it have a meaning different from “father,” or was it simply a Swiss variant for the French “parents,” which is modern French for “parents” with exactly the same spelling as in English? Though my French-speaking friends thought it was misspelled and the author meant to write “parents,” or that it might be “canadien-french,” it was in fact old French:669

    Parens. Le pere ou la mere (Jean Nicot: Le Thresor de la langue francoyse, 1606)
    Parens, ſ. Pl. progenitori, parents670

    670 Bottarelli, F., Dictionnaire Portatif, Franҫois, Italien, et Anglois. Soigneusement compilé des Dictionnaires de
    L’Academie Franҫois, De la Crusca, Du Dr. S. Johnson, et des autres Dictionnaires des Auteurs les plus renomés,
    Second Edition Venitienne, Volume III, Chez Thomas Bettinelli, Á Venize, MDCCCIII (1803), p. p. 251.

    The first definition, as noted, does not appear at all to come from Nicot’s Thresor de la langue francoyse. And the entries that are there fairly scream “relatives.”

    The second comes from Bottarelli. But there are also a couple of other things in that dictionary that hint at the meaning of relatives. Specifically, the entry before it:

    Parent, -ente: s. parente, o congiunto, relation

    Bob continues:

    Not every dictionary included the word; for example, only “parent” was entered in an earlier dictionary I own:671

    Parent, ſ . un père, ou mere, parente, padre e madre.

    671 Bottarelli, F., The New English, French and Italian Pocket‐Dictionary, Vol. II, Carefully compiled from the Dictionaries of Dr. S. Johnson. The French Academy, La Crusca, and from other Dictionaries of the Best Authorities, J. Nourse, in the Strand, Bookſeller to His Majesty, London, M.DCC.LXXVII (1778), unpaginated.

    By comparing the French definitions of the era of “pere” and “parens” to the English definitions, it is verifiable that both were correctly translated and meant the same things. Hence, we know beyond a shadow of doubt that Vattel and American founding fathers were talking about the same things when they mentioned fathers and parents. Parents could mean either the mothers or the fathers but the context was clear in Vattel’s . 212 that he meant the fathers and the mothers side by side.

    The latter definition appears to be a simple goof-up. I don’t have access to the 1778 Bottarelli in English he refers to, but the 1805 version gives the exact same definition.

    ONLY IT’S NOT THE DEFINITION OF THE *FRENCH* WORD “PARENT,” IT’S THE DEFINITION OF THE *ENGLISH* WORD “PARENT.”

    This explains why the definition that follows is printed in both French and Italian.

    This appears to be really sloppy work, by the way. I do not attribute it to fraud. But including the definition of the English word “parent” in a way that makes it look as if it’s the definition of the French word “parent?” That’s really pretty sloppy.

  421. Publius says:
    February 24, 2013 at 5:20 am  (Quote)

    Actually, what I have in the 1805 is slightly different:

    Bob: Parent, ſ . un père, ou mere, parente, padre e madre.

    1805: Parent, s. un père, ou une mère, parent, padre, e madre.

  422. Lupin says:
    February 24, 2013 at 6:41 am  (Quote)

    Bob: Hence, we know beyond a shadow of doubt that Vattel and American founding fathers were talking about the same things when they mentioned fathers and parents. Parents could mean either the mothers or the fathers but the context was clear in Vattel’s . 212 that he meant the fathers and the mothers side by side.

    And as I’ve been harping about, herein lies Bob’s twin mistake: (i) Vattel and the American founding fathers were NOT talking about the same things when they mentioned parents and (ii) Vattel’s . 212 did NOT fathers and mothers side by side, but either (relative).

    To quote the excellent Slartibartfast, any theory relying on Vattel is “a non-starter.”

    As I have often said, if anything, Vattel UNDERMINES the birthers’ cause.

  423. Scientist says:
    February 24, 2013 at 7:02 am  (Quote)

    Lupin: Try http://www.larousse.com, the best online French dictionary, and search the definition for “parent” This is what you will find.

    1. Personne liée une autre par le sang ou par le mariage.
    2. Le père ou la mère.

    Translation:

    1. Relative by blood or marriage
    2. Father or mother

    I find it interesting that the definition even includes relatives by marriage. While it is obvious to the entire Universe that Obama had citizen parents (his mother and her family) I had actually thought that this definition if it were actually the one used in the US Constitution (it is not, of course) would exclude people like Rubio and Jindal. But, if we include relatives by marriage, then they had citizen parents as well.

  424. Scientist says:
    February 24, 2013 at 8:39 am  (Quote)

    Lupin: Once at the very beginning of my visits here I had hoped that Apuzzo might at least acknowledge that the TWO parents citizens was a honest mistake of his, and then concentrate on the “citizenship inherited only from the father” line to build his attack on Obama’s eligibility. (See my posts way above.)

    I think Apuzzo is smart enough to know that attempting to build his case on patrilineal inheritance of citizenship only would put him in a difficult spot. He is very quick to deny his argument is racist in any way, and always says that 2 US citizen parents does not exclude any race whatsoever. While I doubt Mario’s good intentions, that statement is prima facie true. Once he would get into the swamp of father only, even meretricious Mario would have a hard time refuting the charge of sexism. Given that there are doubtless some females among his fans and certainly among birthers in general, that would be bad for business. And, let’s face it, business comes first. Always.

  425. Paper says:
    February 24, 2013 at 8:59 am  (Quote)

    With my family I once had had that hope, but here I simply am curious *how* various birthers will manage to avoid and deny, how deep they will dig their holes, no matter how clearly matters are presented. Mr. Gard has nothing on either of two particular people in my family, with whom he shares a number of traits, including the ability to go on at epic length.

    Lupin: Once at the very beginning of my visits here I had hoped …

  426. misha marinsky says:
    February 24, 2013 at 9:34 am  (Quote)

    Lupin: I have an entry on wiki; here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Marc_Lofficier

    Merci, I bookmarked it along with Black Coat Press.

  427. misha marinsky says:
    February 24, 2013 at 9:46 am  (Quote)

    Lupin: I have an entry on wiki; here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Marc_Lofficier

    You’re 366 km from Marseille. Formidable!

  428. bgansel9 says:
    February 24, 2013 at 9:57 am  (Quote)

    Publius: I believe that “Natural born citizen” means a citizen at or by birth. This would include all persons born in America, except the very few, very rare, historical exceptions. These are the same exceptions as always existed for “natural born subject.” I believe it also includes those born citizens by virtue of birth to American citizens abroad. There is at least a bit of doubt about the latter, but there is NO doubt about the former. There just isn’t.

    You are correct, Publius. My former husband was the son of a diplomat who was born abroad, and he was an American citizen. His parents were both born in the United States. His father (now deceased) was a former Ambassador.

  429. Paper says:
    February 24, 2013 at 10:06 am  (Quote)

    A natural born scholar, if you will.

    Trying to prove that being natural born is all one needs to be just as smart as the professionals. But no matter the degree of quality, from tawdry to sterling, professionalism takes work and training, social context. Natural borns in my experience have a tendency to think professionalism is a racket, that PhDs are the phonies. Phonies are everywhere, but I grew up with a natural born telling me how stupid educated people were, so I know what this particular chip on the shoulder looks like.

    Raw brain power is not enough. Apprenticeship, one way or another, mentorship, graduate school, residency for a doctor, is an integral part of the process. For whatever reason, Mr. Gard seems to have been in battle with that very process since the eighth grade. The natural born horse of a scholar that will not be tamed, but still wants to be part of the rodeo. Whatever the truth of Gard’s adventures, I know that spirit, and such spiritedness has great value, but it is not enough if one wants to achieve something in society.

    As a brief related aside, there recently was an interesting Op Ed pitching the idea of apprenticeships for lawyers. Something a certain lawyer, much discussed in other threads here, no doubt could have used.

    Lupin:
    Bob Gard, from the start, came across as a phony scholar, not knowing what he was talking about. So I never thought for a minute that he would be honest in his argument.

  430. bgansel9 says:
    February 24, 2013 at 10:28 am  (Quote)

    Lupin: The facts are very simple: When Vattel uses the word “parents” he means relatives and uses it as a group plural. So there is NO requirement for a child to have two, three or several parents all citizens; one will do just fine. That is enough to make Obama a naturel or an indigene, thereby undermining your entire delusional theories.

    I hear Orly has trouble with pluralities also. Must be a common Birther thing.

  431. Sef says:
    February 24, 2013 at 11:37 am  (Quote)

    Lupin: I don’t believe you. You’re lying.

    Try http://www.larousse.com, the best online French dictionary, and search the definition for “parent” This is what you will find.

    1. Personne liée une autre par le sang ou par le mariage.

    Translation:

    1. Relative by blood or marriage

    IOW, if Vattel’s daffynition of citizenship were to be followed everyone in the world would be a citizen, because everyone can be connected by blood of marriage if enough work is done to find the connections.

  432. Paper says:
    February 24, 2013 at 11:50 am  (Quote)

    “…that species [cannot] be mortally wounded.”

    Lupin:
    I naively never thought someone could cling steadfastly to such a gross mistake as the “two citizens parents” statement. Boy, was I wrong!

  433. bgansel9 says:
    February 24, 2013 at 12:22 pm  (Quote)

    Lupin: I naively never thought someone could cling steadfastly to such a gross mistake as the “two citizens parents” statement. Boy, was I wrong!

    And isn’t it interesting that U.S. Code, Title 8, Section 1401 does not use the two citizen parent argument either. In fact, what Bob calls extra qualification of “natural born” citizenship is not even mentioned in U.S. Code at all. I wonder why that is? (not really)

  434. Dave B. says:
    February 24, 2013 at 1:05 pm  (Quote)

    I would be honored to be considered so! And it looks like I hit the jackpot, because that’s the one I bought.

    Lupin: Bless you! You, sir, are a true friend!

    If you want zombies, try this novel of ours:
    http://www.blackcoatpress.com/katrinaprotocol.htm

  435. Greenfinches says:
    February 24, 2013 at 1:16 pm  (Quote)

    Paper: there recently was an interesting Op Ed pitching the idea of apprenticeships for lawyers.

    Well Mr Madison we have such ‘apprenticeships’ here in the UK, traineeships (once called articles, which I served a few aeons ago) and there is much to be said for them as you learn on the job and that includes absorbing some good principles. Being able to learn and survive make mistakes en route is helpful. I don’t see inability to effect service of legal documents lasting long here, your ‘supervisor’ would eat you alive as he looked a negligence claim square in the eye………meanwhile, you are paid fairly poorly and your time is charged out at a low rate to clients.

  436. Dave B. says:
    February 24, 2013 at 1:16 pm  (Quote)

    I have a little theory here. Perhaps 00Bob just doesn’t see very well. The other day I pulled down a book on “Spoken German”, thinking it said “Spanish Grammar”. Once I realized my error, I merely shifted the focus of my immediate interest. I did not proceed to write a 1700-page book confusing Goethe with Cervantes to prove that Dalí was responsible for Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony.
    Perfectly adequate reading glasses are available for the same amount I generally expend on the books I buy for my Kindle. May I humbly suggest that our 00Bob purchase a few pairs for his double-naught spy kit?

  437. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 24, 2013 at 1:34 pm  (Quote)

    Unfortunately, the blindness of bias is not so easily corrected.

    Dave B.: Perfectly adequate reading glasses are available for the same amount I generally expend on the books I buy for my Kindle. May I humbly suggest that our 00Bob purchase a few pairs for his double-naught spy kit?

  438. Publius says:
    February 24, 2013 at 1:36 pm  (Quote)

    Well said, and the blindness of bias is so much of what I would say that I see here.

  439. Dave B. says:
    February 24, 2013 at 1:41 pm  (Quote)

    Sadly, that is true. He does seem to have a hard time making things out, though. Might help a leeeeeetle bit if he could see better.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Unfortunately, the blindness of bias is not so easily corrected.

  440. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 24, 2013 at 1:49 pm  (Quote)

    Yes, and having finished Gogol’s Dead Souls, it is next on my reading list.

    Lupin: Our esteemed host actually bought a copy of the book recently.

  441. Paper says:
    February 24, 2013 at 1:54 pm  (Quote)

    Good to hear. Though I suspect Mr. Gard for one will not appreciate that the British practice such traineeships. Traineeships, explanatory acts…what’s next? Wigs?

    Greenfinches: Well Mr Madison we have such ‘apprenticeships’ here in the UK, traineeships (once called articles, which I served a few aeons ago) and there is much to be said for them as you learn on the job and that includes absorbing some good principles.

  442. Slartibartfast says:
    February 24, 2013 at 2:15 pm  (Quote)

    While I agree that it’s all business for Mario, I don’t think Apuzzo’s business is grifting, I think it is lawyering (i.e. he is being paid to advocated birtherism by a client). I would also point out that the “2 citizen parents” requirement was demonstrably not in effect for President Obama’s parens. The Dunhams are citizens by virtue of their non-citizen slave ancestor being male and their white citizen ancestor being female.

    I think that a comparison between Mario and Bob is instructive—both champion the faux-Vattel two citizen parent theory, both consider Minor to be an argument in their favor, both wont use one word when 1,500 will do… and there are probably other similarities if I wanted to root around in the abstruse details (great word Kiwiwriter! An apt adjective to describe Bob’s work 😉 ). They are, however, completely different when it comes to the “debate” tactics they take. Where Mario seems to be aware of the failings of his theories and uses excess verbosity to steer the debate away from the flaws in his reasoning or to cover them up, Bob, on the other hand, spews his voluminous excretions which exhibit nearly textbook fractal wrongness. Not only is Bob wrong on the big things (what Vattel said, how Constitutional interpretation works), but in essentially every aspect of his prattle there is some sort of flaw in reasoning, error in fact, or outright lie.

    It is amazing to me that someone could be so consistently and egregiously wrong, but Bob somehow manages it—what a guy!

    Scientist: I think Apuzzo is smart enough to know that attempting to build his case on patrilineal inheritance of citizenship only would put him in a difficult spot.He is very quick to deny his argument is racist in any way, and always says that 2 US citizen parents does not exclude any race whatsoever.While I doubt Mario’s good intentions, that statement is prima facie true.Once he would get into the swamp of father only, even meretricious Mario would have a hard time refuting the charge of sexism.Given that there are doubtless some females among his fans and certainly among birthers in general, that would be bad for business.And, let’s face it, business comes first.Always.

  443. US Citizen says:
    February 24, 2013 at 2:20 pm  (Quote)

    I find it amusing that if one searches for Robert Gard in Google, it returns several other Robert Gards with the following careers:

    -A Lt. General.
    -A successful author and world traveler.
    -A lawyer specializing in immigration and naturalization.
    -A doctor.

  444. donna says:
    February 24, 2013 at 2:57 pm  (Quote)

    US Citizen:

    get susan daniels to FRAUDULENTLY investigate – i want to see the forms she produces

    after all, she has never been criminally prosecuted for her previous efforts

  445. Paper says:
    February 24, 2013 at 4:07 pm  (Quote)

    An interesting lead-in indeed, though it does end unfinished…

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Yes, and having finished Gogol’s Dead Souls…

  446. American Mzungu says:
    February 24, 2013 at 4:18 pm  (Quote)

    Doc, are you planning to close out the “Great Debate” thread now that Bob Gard has broken off engagement with your previous discussion? He has obviously decided your arguments were unanswerable and has decided to post a “red herring” to ignite a firestorm of rebutting criticism on the “kibitzers” thread. It is entertaining to watch “obobma” personal get destroyed by the excellent posts by the OTC regulars, but at some point it resembles the scene from Bonnie & Clyde:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&v=oAr-CULUb6E&NR=1

  447. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 24, 2013 at 5:32 pm  (Quote)

    Well, I have a couple more things I want to add later in the week. I was toying with coming up with a suggested set of axioms for Bob to use in Part II of his book, although really he should revise the hell out of Part I first.

    American Mzungu: Doc, are you planning to close out the “Great Debate” thread now that Bob Gard has broken off engagement with your previous discussion?

  448. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 24, 2013 at 5:39 pm  (Quote)

    I don’t know that it needs an ending if it is regarded as a collection of caricatures of Russian classes. In modern fiction, ambiguity as to whether Chichikov will reform or continue his scheming to get rich is pretty normal. My favorite from Gogol is his short story, The Nose.

    What is interesting is to compare various characters in 18th century Russian fiction, like Chichikov, and Tientietnikov (also in Dead Souls), and Oblomov, and Pechorin (in A Hero of Our Time).

    Paper: An interesting lead-in indeed, though it does end unfinished…

  449. Paper says:
    February 24, 2013 at 5:58 pm  (Quote)

    I agree the heck with you. I have an important and good connection to that story. It meant a lot to me at one point, and actually ended up with me getting an award. You’ll get no complaints out of me. Russian characters are incredible. And then there is futurism which was a special love of mine once upon a time.

    I guess I was just being playful with the notion that birtherism never ends, or certain birthers just vanish, such as how foreigner vanished right after the election, or oppositely how some, beyond their errors, seem unable to deal with the Constitution as an unfinished project. That point is a whole conversation in just normal political discussions, never mind the hothouse of birtherism. The inability to handle ambiguity, or the notion that not everything need be spelled out in triplicate in order to be real, exemplified so often here…

    Just ruminating, I guess.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I don’t know that it needs an ending if it is regarded as a collection of caricatures of Russian classes. In modern fiction, ambiguity as to whether Chichikov will reform or continue his scheming to get rich is pretty normal. My favorite from Gogol is his short story, The Nose.

    What is interesting is to compare various characters in 18th century Russian fiction, like Chichikov, and Tientietnikov (also in Dead Souls), and Oblomov, and Pechorin (in A Hero of Our Time).

  450. Lupin says:
    February 25, 2013 at 1:15 am  (Quote)

    Personally, I think people like Gard and Apuzzo — even if initially, their findings came from simply sloppy research (as Publius demonstrated) — perpetrate a fraud from the moment their errors were pointed out & yet they continue to pitch their theories.

    It’s a bit like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Everyone knows the book is a fraud. Demonstrably so. Yet, some folks continue to use it as if it were true to propagate their racist agenda.

  451. Paper says:
    February 25, 2013 at 3:18 am  (Quote)

    My response to birthers is fine, you’re not racist, what is your problem then? There is something deeply wrong. What is it? You tell me.

    I guess I would maintain a distinction between delusion vs. collusion, even after the reality has been pointed out endlessly. I’m not sure I would say being deluded is the better option, in that they are enablers. I would agree, though, that knowingly or not, they perpetuate a fraud, a lie, at best an error gone ballistic.

    For the rest of this rumination, I set aside individuals such as Apuzzo. I don’t find them very interesting. I am interested in the true believers.

    People show know better, but really, people simply often just don’t. And they cannot lose face, and will fight you to the bitter end just because you are against them, do not treat them as they see themselves, bruise their egos.

    Basically, whenever we question anyone’s *intentions,* we are making enemies, even if necessarily and rightly so. I also do believe the motto that there is no need to blame malice when stupidity, especially buttressed by ego, is more likely. Of course, push something far enough and it becomes its opposite.

    Stupidity becomes malice, unwittingly perhaps, even unrecognized in oneself, by way of righteousness–by way of telling oneself I mean well, I am a good person, therefore I know I have the best of reasons for believing the President is ineligible, criminally or negligently. I’m not even stupid, I’m very bright (and that’s often true). But because I am *right* and good, I must fight tooth and nail against the devil or communists or whoever uses their forked and silver tongues, or their fancy professional titles, to try and deceive me and distract me from the truth. I know the truth, must maintain the truth in the face of all manner of trickery.

    It’s then no longer about discovering truth, but maintaining what they think is truth in the onslaught of their enemies. Moreover, add in a desperate need to not be caught out, to not admit error.

    In the end, what happens? A man who thinks he is a Christian threatens my life over his delusion, while maintaining that I have treated him like dirt, though actually I have bent over backwards, and everyone in the family knows that to be so.

    This particular birther, and at least one other like him in the family, are just as self-deluded as Mr. Gard, and think and express themselves in similar ways. I might say all kinds of things about them, I would not hold them up as noble lovers of diversity, but I wouldn’t call them racists. For that matter, they truly despised Clinton and Bush just as much, with just as much investment in the conspiracy theories involving those presidents.

    I think the self-delusion is somehow deeper than hate of other kinds of people. Aggrieved ego mixed with perfectionism (emotionally can’t afford to be wrong) certainly plays an important role.

    But as I say, birthers, you tell us what your problem is. I may not have the full story (I suspect you would insist upon that), but you will need to start by acknowledging you have a problem. That is an unavoidable reality, however you care to explain it.

    Lupin:
    Personally, I think people like Gard and Apuzzo — even if initially, their findings came from simply sloppy research (as Publius demonstrated) — perpetrate a fraud from the moment their errors were pointed out & yet they continue to pitch their theories.

    It’s a bit like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Everyone knows the book is a fraud. Demonstrably so. Yet, some folks continue to use it as if it were true to propagate their racist agenda.

  452. Publius says:
    February 25, 2013 at 3:47 am  (Quote)

    A very good post, Paper.

    I must confess that I feel a bit sad for the true believers. They are victims too. First, of their own thinking pattern, or their desire to find meaning in patterns of noise, or whatever it is that leads them into conspiracy theories that have no real basis in the evidence. And no one is as likely to end up with an ego-bruising as someone who has bought into a theory for which there is no real evidence.

    But they are also victims of other people. I was thinking today about how memes spread, and why someone like Bob Gard would spend so much time and effort promoting this particular idea. I don’t think he would likely have come up with it apart from the fact that others embraced it before he did. I mean, when you really understand the history and the law and the language and all of it, you realize there is just not any reason why anyone ought to believe this stuff.

    But people do, and a lot of it is because they read some “authority” that gave them belief in the theory. Mario Apuzzo. Leo Donofrio. Or somebody else. And part of it was, this person was telling them something they really wanted to hear and believe. And they were duped.

    And sometimes the person doing the duping may be doing so deliberately. But often, it’s simply someone else who got duped as well.

  453. Lupin says:
    February 25, 2013 at 7:11 am  (Quote)

    I’m a bit rushed today, but FWIW, Vattel in Book II Chapter XVIII of LAW OF NATIONS (a rather poor translation of LE DROIT DES GENS BTW) spells out how in Ancient Greece, the Law allowed the PARENS of some who had been murdered in a foreign country to seize up to three citizens of that country & keep them imprisoned until the murderer was either punished there or delivered to Athenian justice.

    Both context and common sense indicate that PARENS is used here — again — in the wider meaning of “relatives,” and not merely “father and/or mother”.

    If folks claiming to know Vattel had actually read or studied Vattel (I mean, the rest of it), they wouldn’t come up with their stupid theories.

  454. Scientist says:
    February 25, 2013 at 7:40 am  (Quote)

    Publius: But they are also victims of other people. I was thinking today about how memes spread, and why someone like Bob Gard would spend so much time and effort promoting this particular idea. I don’t think he would likely have come up with it apart from the fact that others embraced it before he did.

    Of course, Bob claims to have come up with it in middle school, a claim I can only take with an ocean full of salt unless Bob can document it. Given that he claims to have been in middle school in the early 1960s, most of his classmates should still be around and surely one would remember such a noteworthy exchange.

    But if true, it begs the question, “Where was Bob when Obama announced he was running in February 2007?” At that time, the story of his father was well known-he had written a best selling book about it and spoken about it in dozens of speeches, including his keynote at the 2004 convention. Yet, there was not a peep from Bob or any of the other 2 citizen parent birthers until virtually the eve of the election.

    I have yet to hear from any of them a plausible explanation of such behavior. Does anyone imagine that if a truly ineligible person, like Schwarzenegger, announced for President, that he would even get through the first paragraph without someone pointing that fact out.

    This is yet another piece of evidence that the entire “theory” is concocted nonsense driven solely by dislike of the President, for a whole host of reasons that probably vary from person to person. In Bob’s case, I think he harbors a resentment of the President’s successes vs his own lack of such.

  455. Arthur says:
    February 25, 2013 at 9:09 am  (Quote)

    Publius: I must confess that I feel a bit sad for the true believers. They are victims too. First, of their own thinking pattern,

    I imagine you have someone like this grandmother from ORYR in mind:

    SUSANM

    I PRAY TO GOD THAT SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE, WOULD STAND UP FOR ”AMERICA” BEFORE ITS TO LATE.. PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHTS TO QUESTION WHO IN THE HELL IS THIS president. LIE AFTER LIE IS ALL WE HEAR, OBAMA IS LAUGHING AT YOU AND I. HE WALKS AROUND WITH THAT COCKEY SMILE THAT I WISH I COULD SLAP HIM DOWN, MICHELL IS NO BETTER…I’M 67 LIVE A GOOD LIFE 3 KIDS, 5 GRANDKIDS AND I WOULD LIKE ALL THE KIDS IN OUR COUNTRY TO LIVE LIKE WE HAVE A FREE COUNTRY & NOT SOMETHING OBAMA IS LOOKING FOR WHICH IS TO DESTROY OUR WAY OF LIFE, TO CONTROL PEOPLE, & MY WORST FEAR IS TO TAKE THE CHILDREN AND RAISE THEM IN FEMA CAMPS, CAUSE OUR WHITE ASS WILL BE DEAD……….GOD BLESS ALL, GOD BLESS THE U.S.A…….P.S. THANKS FOR LISTENING TO ME.
    ITS I FEAR WHAT IS COMING….

  456. Paper says:
    February 25, 2013 at 9:19 am  (Quote)

    It could be a fabrication, exaggeration or truth. But say basically true, to whatever degree of more or less you desire, the most likely scenario is it lay dormant, as he went about his life, which would fit what I think I remember him saying earlier, until provoked back out into the open by recent events (as you say, probably dislike of this particular President). Being a natural born researcher, he knew it was time to return to his true love but unfortunately his research just took too much time to get right.

    I think the basics of this part of his history are glorified juvenilia, whether true or not. “Yeah, I wrote that poem as a kid. It represents the greatness upon which my entire oeuvre is founded.” Well, maybe, but still, juvenilia. Small doses, please.

    Scientist: Of course, Bob claims to have come up with it in middle school, a claim I can only take with an ocean full of salt unless Bob can document it….

    But if true, it begs the question, “Where was Bob when Obama announced he was running in February 2007?”… there was not a peep from Bob or any of the other 2 citizen parent birthers until virtually the eve of the election.

    I have yet to hear from any ofthem a plausible explanation of such behavior….

  457. misha marinsky says:
    February 25, 2013 at 10:12 am  (Quote)

    Lupin: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Everyone knows the book is a fraud.

    As an officer in the International Jewish Conspiracy™: Sorry, pal – that’s my instruction manual.

  458. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 25, 2013 at 10:28 am  (Quote)

    Bob has added an additional response.

  459. Lupin says:
    February 25, 2013 at 10:29 am  (Quote)

    misha marinsky: As an officer in the International Jewish Conspiracy™: Sorry, pal – that’s my instruction manual.

    According to Umberto Eco (not everyone agrees with this BTW) the originator of the source materials, Joly, would have plagiarized the secret agenda of the Jesuits as outlined by Eugene Sue in his sequel to THE MYSTERIES OF PARIS.

    It would be ironic and tragic if a clearly fictional anti-Jesuit tract had eventually morphed into the #1 anti-semitic tract of all times.

    IMHO there is a point beyond which knowingly disseminating false information justifies the label of fraud.

  460. Lupin says:
    February 25, 2013 at 10:38 am  (Quote)

    In the Great Debate, Bob Gard just wrote:

    “Dr. Conspiracy misunderstood Axiom 1. It means, applied to Vattel’s definition for natives and indigenes, that Vattel’s definition never found its way into a dictionary anywhere in the world. Show me a dictionary that defines native or indigene as a person “born in the country of parents who are citizens” or, if you prefer, the Lupinian translation, a person born in the country of a parent who is a citizen. Vattel knew what his definition meant in his own mind. No need to distort my axiom, Dr. Conspiracy.

    Dr. Conspiracy misunderstood Axiom 2. It means that Vattel used native and indigene in “a different way than defined in dictionaries,” which means that none of you lawyers and judges can define Vattel’s definition by looking it up in a dictionary. You have to resurrect Vattel’s definition, which none of you have been willing to do and most of you deny the true meaning of.”

    This is b*llsh*t plain and simple. “Vattel knew what his definition meant in his own mind.” Now Bob claims to be a mind-reader of long-dead scholars!

    Vattel was actually a fairly plain writer, and what he wrote is easy to grasp. It’s pretty much the principles of jus sanguinis without frills.

    It takes the delusional mind of a Bob Gard to twist his words & obfuscate his meaning to somehow conjure up the notion of the two citizen parents — which by the way, I didn’t see pop up at the end of Bob’s “demonstration”. So what is he trying to argue exactly?

    And why does he keep writing “Lupine”?

  461. Lupin says:
    February 25, 2013 at 10:46 am  (Quote)

    More of Bob Gard’s insanity:

    “I reproduced Vattel’s French as is. I don’t see how you can accuse me of choosing “a translation that suits” unless it is in the sole case of parens citoyen. I picked both parents. I did not manipulate the translation because two were valid. I picked the one that fit best. Lupine’s translation causes contradiction and confusion.”

    The notion of group plural exists in English and clearly applies to the sentence in question. There are no conflicting translations; there is only one translation, and nowhere does that translation implies that BOTH parents must be citizens, even in English.

    To state otherwise is wrong not only in the context, but simply as a matter of syntax. In fact NO ONE HAS EVER STATED SO until two or three years ago.

    I dealt with the context and consequences of Vattel’s line about “fathers” above, and I don’t intend to do it again. Suffice it to say that it doesn’t cause any “confusion” — at least in ordinary scholars’ minds.

    (Reading this I can portray Bob Gard looking like the classic SCREAM painting shouting “Oooo I’m soooooo confused!”)

  462. donna says:
    February 25, 2013 at 11:02 am  (Quote)

    Scientist: “Does anyone imagine that if a truly ineligible person, like Schwarzenegger, announced for President, …..”

    in 2003, there were efforts by several republicans (ie hatch/rohrabacher) to make Schwarzenegger eligible (and people like him) – the amendments included requirements of perhaps a 20-35 year residency as a citizen

    (Representatives Sherman, Conyers. Snyder, Frank, and Issa proposed amendments that requires 35 years of citizenship for a naturalized citizen to run for president.)

    i do believe, the future holds changes in the requirements – as Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark. said “But it’s really about kids — kids now in kindergarten or grade school or junior high, getting their dreams lined up.”

    the birther movement of today will be revisited as to how funny was that, obama was born here to an american mother and some questioned his eligibility –

    “The bar to the nation’s highest offices is the only formal restriction on the rights of the USA’s 12.8 million foreign-born, naturalized citizens, who are among the 34 million U.S. residents born abroad. Every year, 450,000 immigrants are naturalized, including 25,000 children adopted by citizens.”

    “Proponents of change note that 700 immigrants in uniform have been awarded the Medal of Honor since the Civil War, and that 60,000 now serve in the military.”

    of note, “[s]upporters of an amendment often note that the Constitution disqualifies from top offices immigrants who have shown loyalty in positions of public trust. Henry Kissinger (who was born in Germany), Madeleine Albright (Czechoslovakia) and Christian Herter (France) were secretaries of State. Retired Army general John Shalikashvili, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was born in Poland.”

    “Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat, was born in Canada. (When online surfers reach amendforarnold.org, the Web site’s message is a bipartisan “amend for Arnold and Jen.”) Sen.-elect Mel Martinez, R-Fla., was born in Cuba. Labor Secretary Elaine Chao is from Taiwan. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, was born in the Netherlands.”

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2004-12-02-schwarzenegger-amendment_x.htm

    IMO, any day now, the constitution will change

    the hatch bill: http://rense.com/general42/ldle.htm

  463. Paper says:
    February 25, 2013 at 11:04 am  (Quote)

    Are you a natural born researcher or not? If you search this very site, you will find that Dr. C even has posted a link to his thesis here. Look it up, if you care.

    Bob Gard: Prove it with your transcripts and your name; otherwise you are a fraud and a liar according to the wise reasoning of all your contributors. You simply will not apply the same standards to yourself as to me. That is Axiom 6, not your twisted version.

  464. Paper says:
    February 25, 2013 at 11:20 am  (Quote)

    I agree with this. Even if you believe you can fly, even if you are not a scoundrel faking your ability to fly without a parachute, you are perpetuating a reckless fraud, whether or not you are selling tickets, even if you “innocently” just haven’t yet noticed the approaching ground.

    Lupin:
    IMHO there is a point beyond which knowingly disseminating false information justifies the label of fraud.

  465. Rickey says:
    February 25, 2013 at 11:20 am  (Quote)

    Scientist:

    But if true, it begs the question, “Where was Bob when Obama announced he was running in February 2007?”At that time, the story of his father was well known-he had written a best selling book about it and spoken about it in dozens of speeches, including his keynote at the 2004 convention.Yet, there was not a peep from Bob or any of the other 2 citizen parent birthers until virtually the eve of the election.

    And in 2008 Jerome Corsi, birther Harvard Ph.D. in Political Science, wrote an entire book about Obama without once bringing up his “ineligibility” due to his father’s citizenship.

    From the day that Obama announced his candidacy on February 20, 2007 until just before the election, the only question about his eligibility had to do with whether he was born in the United States.

    For what it’s worth, I don’t believe for a minute that Bob had a debate with his 8th-grade civics teacher over the definition of natural-born citizen, any more than I believe his story about being denied entrance to the universities of his choice because of affirmative action.

  466. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 25, 2013 at 11:21 am  (Quote)

    Actually, what I posted was a published paper from the Journal of Undergraduate Mathematics, written when I was an undergraduate. I haven’t linked to my Masters thesis, which I might have a copy of. While my committee accepted the paper, I think it had some problems in retrospect.

    Paper: Dr. C even has posted a link to his thesis here.

  467. ballantine says:
    February 25, 2013 at 11:21 am  (Quote)

    What about Ballantine, who wants to ignore the massive evidence in context about America’s belief in voluntary expatriation before 1868? This principle was a crucial differentiation between natural-born citizen and natural-born subjectship. Every one of you wants to treat these two forms of citizenship as nothing more than a reflection of jus soli, ignoring the original definition developed by Lord Coke and the colonial evolution of citizenship in America, which drifted away from British natural-born subjectship.

    What is really sad is that you can’t admit you are wrong about anything even though you clearly have no understanding of this history. It is a simply have that “natural born citizen” and “natural born subject” were conflated in the early republic as I have shown repeatedly. It is simply a fact that Congress did not proclaim the right to expatriate until 1868 and even in that Congress they argued whether the right had ever existed. It is simply a fact that no court prior to 1868 declared such right to exist, and to the contrary, suggested it did not. It is simply a fact that the State Department did not fully assert the right with respect to our naturalized citizens expatriating from their native nations until 1858. It is a fact that the leading scholars of the period, Kent and Story, thought the right did not exist until Congress declared it. Congress debated the issue many times including in 1794 and 1797 but never came to agreement on the issue. In fact there were competing views of expatriation and even proponents of expatriation only believed in a limited right.

    England gradually recognized the right to expatriate as well. By 1787, they had recognized a partial right. After the War of 1812, they essentially only tried to enforce the right against someone who went back to England, a position our State Department agreed with until 1858 when Secretary of State Cass took a harder line view. England fully recognized the right in 1870 while still retaining the jus soli rule from Calvin’s Case.

    You can keep saying that we drifted away from natural born subjectship all you want. No one in history agrees with you. You really are a pretty bad researcher.

  468. Paper says:
    February 25, 2013 at 11:31 am  (Quote)

    My mistake.

    In the other aspect of this thread concerning birthers perpetuating fraud, in order to conserve on number of posts as we approach 500, I note here that we may be discussing something akin to the applicable distinctions between types of manslaughter vs. murder. Those are more exteme crimes, and I’m just using them as examples of a distinction between related crimes, as a possible distinction between the frauds committed by various birthers.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Actually, what I posted was a published paper …

  469. ballantine says:
    February 25, 2013 at 11:33 am  (Quote)

    Axiom 3 is a simple statement. “So any time evidence is lacking, Bob can invoke secrecy and substitute his own ideas.” No. “Conspiracy distorts written history.” Does anyone disagree? I would have thought that this axiom would have passed muster under the eyes of anyone with intellectual honesty. What did Rahm Emanuel say—Never let a good crisis go to waste? Dr. Conspiracy refuses to let an innocuous statement go to waste. There is definitely something Chicagoan in the site.

    Is this supposed to be an argument? Yes, anyone with a brain disagrees with your stupid axiom. Your axiom misses the point that even if the framers had a secret code, the joke would be on them as no court would ever care about such code. Treaties may be negotiated in secret, but nothing that doesn’t make it into the document as understood it ratifiers is relevant to the law. No court in history has ever looked to any secret meaning of the drafter of any statute, treaty or Constitutional provision as such would violate the most fundamental premise of republic government. It is sovereign citizen-type crazy. The bottom line is that your whole argument pre-supposes that the Constitution should be interpreted by finding a secret code or meaning not know to the ratifiers. Such has no basis in law or our history and, quite frankly, is dumb. So, I guess you can have your own fantasy court system where courts with secret decoder rings enforce secret provisions never approved by the people. Of course, that is not the United States.

  470. Publius says:
    February 25, 2013 at 11:46 am  (Quote)

    Lupin: “Dr. Conspiracy misunderstood Axiom 1. It means, applied to Vattel’s definition for natives and indigenes, that Vattel’s definition never found its way into a dictionary anywhere in the world.

    I suppose now we get to debate Bob’s axioms.

    Here’s an axiom for you:

    Publius’ Gard Axiom #1: Dictionaries are generally a solid reflection of the general public perception of what a word or other term means. Legal dictionaries are generally a solid reflection of the general perception, in the legal world, of what a word or other term means. To all useful intents and purposes, we can call this the “MEANING” of the word orr phrase. Therefore, it is generally possible to know what a word or phrase MEANS by consulting dictionaries for that term.

    It is possible that an obscure meaning might, on rare occasions, escape publication in a particular dictionary. But we have a large number of dictionaries available, and dictionary writers are dedicated to ferret out even obscure meanings of every term that appears in their books.

    This being the case: If a particular meaning does not appear in any dictionary, legal or otherwise, then we must assume the reason is because THAT’S NOT WHAT THE WORD MEANT. This is why no known commercially-published dictionary lists “a large, furry, yellow-haired cat with sharp claws” among its definitions for “bathtub” That is not what the word means.

    It is possible to reliably discover what a word or phrase does and does not mean by consulting multiple dictionaries. In the case of a specialized field (such as law), it is possible to reliably learn the MEANING of terms of that field by consulting the specialized dictionaries that serve that field.

    Now it is really pretty hard to argue with Publius’ Gard Axiom #1. Why? Because it is obviously true.

    We can easily take PG Axiom #1, and the evidence in Bob’s book, and arrive quite reliably at the conclusion that natural born citizen means what we have said here, and that it quite certainly does NOT mean what Bob Gard says it does.

  471. Scientist says:
    February 25, 2013 at 11:48 am  (Quote)

    donna: IMO, any day now, the constitution will change

    donna: I don’t believe that any amendment is necessary for naturalized citizens to be President. They already are eligible and if anyone in Congress or the courts says otherwise they are wrong. It was the secret understanding between John Jay and George Washington that the clause only applied to foreign royalty or nobility. Since Arnold’s family were commoners in Austria and Granholm’s family were commoners in Canada, they are eligible.

  472. Publius says:
    February 25, 2013 at 11:53 am  (Quote)

    ballantine: The bottom line is that your whole argument pre-supposes that the Constitution should be interpreted by finding a secret code or meaning not know to the ratifiers. Such has no basis in law or our history and, quite frankly, is dumb.

    Well said

  473. Publius says:
    February 25, 2013 at 11:58 am  (Quote)

    Bob says:

    Axiom 5. Dr. Conspiracy seems to have perceived another crisis in this axiom. I reproduced Jay’s letter. I never claimed he used any term except natural born Citizen. With circumstantial evidence, I have proved beyond a reasonable doubt what is definition was.

    Given the absolute, utter destruction we have seen of Bob’s “circumstantial evidence,” and the fact that he has absolutely nothing to say in the light of far stronger evidence that completely contradicts his claims, this entire statement is just Cocoa-Puffs crazy.

    Utterly delusional.

    Sad.

    Bob, do you have any clue how Cocoa-Puffs delusional you are sounding here? YOUR ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY DESTROYED. Do you not understand that? You don’t have a single stick left.

    I know that’s hard for you to accept, but it is the honest truth.

    If you can find a way to embrace reality, I do have a suggestion for how some of your research might be put to a legitimate use.

  474. Sef says:
    February 25, 2013 at 12:02 pm  (Quote)

    Doc C should be very careful about being dragged into a discussion involving axioms. An axiom is a statement which cannot be proven, but is necessary for the development and proof of theorems and corollaries. It is accepted as true by definition. By using “axioms” BG is setting himself up so that all others are in no-win positions if they accept his axioms. Don’t go there.

  475. Publius says:
    February 25, 2013 at 12:03 pm  (Quote)

    For those who did not grow up in America (like Lupin) and who therefore might not necessarily understand the Cocoa Puffs reference:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uVP1Uy5tL0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF3m-ZuF1lQ

    “Cuckoo” is a slang term for crazy.

  476. Scientist says:
    February 25, 2013 at 12:07 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: If you can find a way to embrace reality, I do have a suggestion for how some of your research might be put to a legitimate use.

    Now that would be interesting, because I don’t see that Bob has uncovered any new facts at all, only speculation. He hasn’t shown that Scott translated Vattel, only that it is possible he did. That Scott and Jay knew each other in London was well known already, since they negotiated a treaty, so Bob adds nothing. And the stuff about the secret cabal involved in writing the Constitution is not only totally unsupported, it is ludicrous and of course of no legal weight were it true.

    So I would be curious as to what use you think any of Bob’s book could be put to. At least if it were paper, it could be used to light a fire or for something less genteel, but it’s a CD and those really aren’t good for much, except maybe as a very lousy frisbee.

  477. Publius says:
    February 25, 2013 at 12:10 pm  (Quote)

    Sef: By using “axioms” BG is setting himself up so that all others are in no-win positions if they accept his axioms. Don’t go there.

    Why not?

    Most of Bob’s axioms are flawed. Without looking (i’m in a hurry) most of them either have the flaw of either

    a) being either highly debatable or (more likely) downright unreasonable, (in other words, WRONG) or
    b) being such that accepting them would enable anyone to make any claim about history that they like (in other words, USELESS)

    Again, without looking, i seem to recall that axioms 6 and 7 were reasonable… and that Bob himself has egregiously violated those.

    Bob has lost on every front. What’s one more? His axioms are as subject to destruction as every other argument he has made in support of the birther claim.

    Which is what it is. I really don’t think that in the beginning it was “Bob’s claim.” I don’t think he invented the two citizen parent claim. He was just duped by it.

    It’s really pretty sad.

  478. Publius says:
    February 25, 2013 at 12:14 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: So I would be curious as to what use you think any of Bob’s book could be put to.

    He has devoted a fair bit of space to biographies of Framers. He could take some of that research and author a legitimate book giving mini-biographies of the Framers of the Constitution.

    A real, legitimate book.

    And yes, it has been done before. There is one other book out there in particular that would be a competing book. But he could get that book, read it, and come up with a unique angle that would make his book different.

    For example, he could target his book to children, or teens.

    Now I haven’t read his biographies thoroughly, so I can’t comment much on the quality and interest level of the biographical material he’s presented. But he seems to have done the research.

    Bob, this is a REAL contribution that you could make, and a book that you could actually be proud of. I suggest you think about that idea.

  479. Publius says:
    February 25, 2013 at 12:15 pm  (Quote)

    Note: I haven’t done detailed research to verify only one competing product. Only a quick Amazon search.

    But if you’re interested in having a REAL product, and a useful one, that’s the kind of thing I’d look at. Even if there’s more than one, you might still be able to hit a useful niche.

  480. Paper says:
    February 25, 2013 at 12:18 pm  (Quote)

    Speaking as the actual, original James Madison (want proof? see tongue, see cheek.)…I am not about to apologize. The quote is an indication of my thought, and if you are going to talk about context and assume otherwise about my attitude, not to mention Washington’s attitude, I advise you to read the rest of my statement regarding Smith. Not just what has been quoted here, but the whole thing. Yes, true enough, I do not mention the Presidency, but I do talk about and consider the pros and cons of this as a precedent and I do speak of approaching the specific case of Smith from the vantage point of “general principles,” and I do note that place of birth is what applies in the United States.

    You can see from my concerns expressed *generally* that you would be hard-pressed to junp from my *reasonable* statements here to an orherwise unexpressed and distinct hardline when it cones to the presidency. Need I remind you I was a dual Feench citizen, as well? And need I mention William Rawle’s explicit statement? I know in this case you are hung up on the idea if the signers but I mean, if you want to harp on context, there is the context of what people, key people other than myself, actually were saying at the time?

    If you do not wish to use my statement as a smoking gun, nonetheless it remains a loaded musket, which will not easily leave my hands to be replaced by your suppositions of things I never said or indicated or can reasonably be extrapolated from my life.

    So, I will not apologize for reason.

    Bob Gard: There are no greater contextual violators than your contributors and you, especially concerning Madison’s quote. No one has apologized for trying to skew the meaning. The quote came as a part of an argument that was advanced over William Smith’s citizenship. It was not a singularly about allegiance as you purported.

  481. Sef says:
    February 25, 2013 at 12:19 pm  (Quote)

    Apparently Publius missed what an axiom is. Read my post again, or read a basic logic book.

  482. Scientist says:
    February 25, 2013 at 12:28 pm  (Quote)

    No, Publius, biographies of the framers are well-trodden ground http://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/?category_id=898973
    There are also a lot of web sites that have biographies, including the National Archives.
    I would be surprised if Bob really had anything both new and true to say about them. If he played it straight, he would be an amateur unknown competing with well-known historians. If, as is more likely, he tried to paint the framers as proto-birthers, then it would just be another piece of garbage like his curent book.

  483. Publius says:
    February 25, 2013 at 12:38 pm  (Quote)

    Sef: Apparently Publius missed what an axiom is. Read my post again, or read a basic logic book.

    Bob’s axioms are not what you might call true axioms. Just because he uses the word “axiom” does not mean they are unapproachable.

    Bob’s axioms are as attackable as any other point of his arguments. I maintain that in probably every case one of three things can be shown:

    a) That the axiom is unreliable as measured against the real world (and often downright unreasonable);

    b) That the axiom is completely useless because accepting it would enable one to proclaim literally whatever he want is true – like the claim posted by Scientist above:

    It was the secret understanding between John Jay and George Washington that the clause only applied to foreign royalty or nobility.

    c) That in the case of any axiom that might survive a) and b), Bob has himself violated his own (valid) axiom.

  484. Sef says:
    February 25, 2013 at 12:42 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: Bob’s axioms are not what you might call true axioms. Just because he uses the word “axiom” does not mean they are unapproachable.

    Bob’s axioms are as attackable as any other point of his arguments. I maintain that in probably every case one of three things can be shown:

    a) That the axiom is unreliable as measured against the real world (and often downright unreasonable);

    b) That the axiom is completely useless because accepting it would enable one to proclaim literally whatever he want is true – like the claim posted by Scientist above:

    c) That in the case of any axiom that might survive a) and b), Bob has himself violated his own (valid) axiom.

    My point is that if you accept to use his terminology of “axiom” you have lost from the get-go. Don’t go down the rabbit hole.

  485. Majority Will says:
    February 25, 2013 at 12:54 pm  (Quote)

    “There is definitely something Chicagoan in the site.”

    It’s probably the pizza.

  486. Dave B. says:
    February 25, 2013 at 1:36 pm  (Quote)

    At least this response is comprehensible:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/02/the-great-debate/#comment-251011

    And makes more sense than both the one which precedes it and the one which follows it. 00Bob could certainly tell us where the edge is. He’s found it, the only way it can truly be found.
    And about that “Axiom 12”, 00Bob…
    I have another theory. 00Bob requires such long responses in order to insert the secret coded messages which make up his actual responses, which might– MIGHT– not be quite as nonsensical as the responses in which they are contained. With a double-naught spy like 00Bob, who can be sure?
    Or maybe Little Double-Naught Bobby is just telling us to be sure to drink our Ovaltine.

  487. Dave B. says:
    February 25, 2013 at 2:03 pm  (Quote)

    That sentence could be a good place to start trying to decode 00Bob’s secret coded messages.

    Majority Will:
    “There is definitely something Chicagoan in the site.”

    It’s probably the pizza.

  488. Dave B. says:
    February 25, 2013 at 2:09 pm  (Quote)

    00Bob says
    “I reproduced Jay’s letter. I never claimed he used any term except natural born Citizen. With circumstantial evidence, I have proved beyond a reasonable doubt what is definition was.”
    Whose doubts about 00Bob’s conclusions have been reasoned away?

  489. Majority Will says:
    February 25, 2013 at 2:41 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.:
    That sentence could be a good place to start trying to decode 00Bob’s secret coded messages.

    Quite a few concern trolls and birther bigots have proven to be little more than illogical and paranoid jackasses with ODS and liberal-itis as primary motivations. Yawn.

  490. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 25, 2013 at 3:14 pm  (Quote)

    There are two ways of looking at axioms. I think Bob uses them in the sense that “everybody would agree with these.” That’s not the mathematical definition, but Bob talks as if he has proven something in some kind of a mathematical sense using them. The problem is that the axioms Bob presents are imprecise, and do not provide any useful criteria for deciding questions. Rather than saying what “must be,” Bob’s axioms say what “might be.” And course, the more times you have to invoke “might be” in your argument, the less reliable it is, and the less probable your result. Bob’s axioms are nothing more than a license to accept conjecture as fact.

    In mathematics, however, there’s no necessity that axioms actually be true in the real world. For example, not all mathematicians accept the Axiom of Choice in set theory. The undefined terms, defined terms, axioms, postulates and the rules of logic determine what is true under those conditions. Ones axioms determine the properties of the mathematical objects thereby described. And this is another way of saying “garbage in, garbage out.”

    Publius: Bob’s axioms are not what you might call true axioms. Just because he uses the word “axiom” does not mean they are unapproachable.

  491. Dave B. says:
    February 25, 2013 at 3:34 pm  (Quote)

    Or in this case, Gardage in, Gardage out. I wrote a little poem about 00Bob’s e-book (which I’ll freely admit I haven’t read; but my inferences about its content are more soundly based than the inferences 00Bob has drawn), in honor of the Augean task you’ve subjected yourself to in perusing it:

    It’s Gardage in, Gardage out.
    Gardage is all it’s about.
    It’s on page 1, it’s on page 2–
    It’s fraught with Gardage, through and through!
    The weight of Gardage it contains
    Might overwhelm the weaker brains;
    For those with brains of sterner stuff,
    Yards of Gardage ain’t enougn.
    So haul this Gardage all away–
    There’s nothing left for him to say!

    Dr. Conspiracy: And this is another way of saying “garbage in, garbage out.”

  492. Publius says:
    February 25, 2013 at 4:10 pm  (Quote)

    Sef: My point is that if you accept to use his terminology of “axiom” you have lost from the get-go. Don’t go down the rabbit hole.

    I don’t really see how. But heck, call it whatever you like. Say that his assumptions are bad.

  493. Publius says:
    February 25, 2013 at 4:13 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.: [Bob:] “I reproduced Jay’s letter. I never claimed he used any term except natural born Citizen. With circumstantial evidence, I have proved beyond a reasonable doubt what is definition was.”

    He keeps using that word. I do not think it means what he thinks it means.

  494. gorefan says:
    February 25, 2013 at 4:20 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: For example, he could target his book to children, or teens.

    It could be a pop-up book.

  495. Publius says:
    February 25, 2013 at 4:24 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: Ones axioms determine the properties of the mathematical objects thereby described. And this is another way of saying “garbage in, garbage out.”

    In the end, the whole thing really is kind of silly. It’s basically, “Let’s assume that we probably have a conspiracy theory. We can then come up with a specific conspiracy theory that I like. And then we can say, based on the flimsiest of ‘evidence’ imaginable, that we have ‘proved that beyond a reasonable doubt.'”

    It really is a case of “gardage in, gardage out.”

  496. JoZeppy says:
    February 25, 2013 at 4:25 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: Publius
    February 25, 2013 at 4:13 pm Publius(Quote)
    #

    Dave B.: [Bob:] “I reproduced Jay’s letter. I never claimed he used any term except natural born Citizen. With circumstantial evidence, I have proved beyond a reasonable doubt what is definition was.”

    He keeps using that word. I do not think it means what he thinks it means.

    Publius: He keeps using that word. I do not think it means what he thinks it means.

    I don’t think he knows what “circumstanial evidence” means either.

  497. JPotter says:
    February 25, 2013 at 6:55 pm  (Quote)

    “Why is my eBook 1700 pages? Context!”

    Another gem …. quantity = instant ‘context’!

    I note that, if you’re generating the content, according to Gard, you’re inventing the context. That’s pretty darn convenient!

  498. Slartibartfast says:
    February 25, 2013 at 7:01 pm  (Quote)

    JoZeppy:
    I don’t think he knows what “circumstanial evidence” means either.

    I made a comment about this that got buried (I was using a sock puppet so it got held in moderation for a while…)

    John Marshall (really Slarti's sockpuppet, but don't tell Bob):
    Bob,

    In regard to the term “smoking gun evidence” that you keep throwing around, are you aware that it doesn’t mean what you think it does?As was pointed out in one of the earlier threads (by Paper …or Publius …or some other commenter with a pseduonym starting with “P” …or maybe “B” …definitely a letter of the alphabet), a smoking gun is circumstantial evidence.It is generally considered strong circumstantial evidence, but it is not direct evidence of a shooting (such as an eyewitness or video of the shooting).Do you not understand that there is a difference between seeing a shooting and coming into a room to see one person holding a still smoking gun and another person who has been shot?

    You should also be aware that your understanding of the “reasonable doubt” standard is also egregiously wrong.If you were on trial for a capital crime, would you be satisfied if the prosecutor merely met the same standard of evidence that you have met in your investigation?I’m guessing that if your life were on the line you would suddenly get a lot pickier about what “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” means…

  499. Paper says:
    February 25, 2013 at 7:21 pm  (Quote)

    To be fair, Mr. Gard no doubt is simply voyaging in the microcosm, following that other template Vattel left behind.

    He simply may have become confused amidst and among the “ambulant Worlds,” and may simply have lost track of whose world he was visiting “the last time [his] soul left the body with which it was united.” (Vattel)

    Lupin:

    This is b*llsh*t plain and simple. “Vattel knew what his definition meant in his own mind.” Now Bob claims to be a mind-reader of long-dead scholars!

    Re: below, one might say it is almost as if they are frozen in error, and all emissaries from warmer lands are turned away by “a monster known as Pride [guarding] the entrance.” (Vattel, ibid)

    Lupin:
    Personally, I think people like Gard and Apuzzo — even if initially, their findings came from simply sloppy research (as Publius demonstrated) — perpetrate a fraud from the moment their errors were pointed out & yet they continue to pitch their theories.

  500. Slartibartfast says:
    February 25, 2013 at 7:26 pm  (Quote)

    Hey Doc, looks like we need another thread… 😉

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.