After 6 years, memories can become less precise, and misunderstandings can gel into false memories. It’s useful for me to go back to sources and be sure I have things right. This morning, I woke up thinking I had a solid grasp on why the Reed Hayes report hadn’t been released.
The source we have for Hayes, a document expert from Hawaii, is what Mike Zullo said about the report Hayes produced for him, for what Zullo said, we can look to his “Alabama Affidavit” in which he quoted an anonymous document examiner that has to be Reed Hayes:
…based on my observations and findings, it is clear that Certificate of Live Birth I examined is not a scan of an original paper birth certificate, but a digitally manufactured documented created by utilizing material from various sources.” and
“In over 20 years of examining documentation of various types, I have never seen a document that is so seriously questionable in so many respects. In my opinion, the birth certificate is entirely fabricated.”
Because Hayes could contradict a false statement, I am assuming Zullo quoted him accurately. The context is slight, but this exact quote was enough to burst the bubble of my early morning conclusion. If I misremembered, so might someone else—so the purpose of this article is remind everyone of what Zullo said about the Reed Hayes report. That’s the “continuing education.”
Given the importance of the report, from the only credentialed document examiner to come up with a conclusion of fabrication , there must be some serious reason why Zullo has kept it under wraps, and the only reason left that makes sense to me is that Hayes has changed his mind and no longer stands behind the report or that his report is materially inconsistent with other Zullo claims.
See also this comment from ellen who talked to Hayes.
I believe Ellen talked to Hayes and he said he still stood by his conclusions.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2014/07/the-occasional-open-thread-press-any-key-to-continue/
“In any case, I called him yesterday and asked him about his opinion. He sticks with the claim that Obama’s birth certificate is forged. But, interestingly, HE BELIEVES THAT OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII, so he thinks that it is possible–perhaps even likely—that the forged long form was forged by an enemy of Obama’s in order to attack Obama.”
Time for a new open thread.
Maybe Sven, Nancy and e.vattel should get their own.
Maybe you could call it the Open Digital Delusion thread.
Charles Pinckney, South Carolina, Continental Congress and signer of the Constitution.
“What better way to insure attachment to the country than to require the President have his American citizenship through his American father and not through a foreign father”
I presume you meant that a as joke.
Zullo didn’t identify his “expert” which leads to credibility problems, and then we have the credibility problem of just about anything and everything Zullo says. I don’t doubt or question that Zullo said it, I just question it.
I have a hard time believing Hayes, in the sense I didn’t think he would be dumb enough, would make that kind of statement since it would be well outside of his field of expertise, which goes to his credibility. The only thing he would have had to look at would have been a multi generation copy, and there is no way to validly make such a determination from that source.
Well if he inherited it though a forign father it would be a very strange jus sanguinius rule
Doc, my apologies for posting here but the open thread is closed.
Our poster Obliged Friend reported that Christian names are English names and Barack is not an English name.
I spent a bit of time today in the federal court house in Los Angeles. More about that later. However, I asked one my colleagues who is Jewish for the name of Our Lord translated to English and he said it would be Yeshua Ben Yosef or Yehoshua Ben Yosef.
I submit those are, by definition, Christian names.
By the way, Barack was Deborah’s general. It’s in the Book of Judges. You can look it up. Any name in the Bible is good enough for me. (Doc is in Snow White and that’s good enough for me, too.)
Is Obliged Friend, upon the Second Coming, going to tell Our Lord that as Yeshua Ben Yosef is not a Christian name, and he can’t be President, or (b) the Messiah?
Or, as Bill Maher has been known to ask, if Jesus was Jewish, how come he had a Spanish name?
OK. Second post. I was in the Los Angeles Federal Court today. (I was assisting a client at a settlement meeting. I was there to explain how the widget at issue worked. Widget is, of course, the technical name.)
At one point one of our group needed to go to the clerk’s office, so I tagged along. They weren’t busy, so I asked a clerk if they had a way to search naturalization records. She said they did, and I explained my (odd) interest. She showed me how she searched. There are no records for Barack Obama or Barack Soetoro.
So Sven was, shall we say, misinformed.
Third post.
I research my family genealogy on Ancestry.com. Ancestry has a database of naturalization stuff. From 1794 through 1995.
No Obama.
No Soetoro.
Sven is misinformed.
Consider the possibility that the ‘anonymous document examiner’ is none of the above. Zullo could have been pulling the quotes out of his backside, or referring to one of the other known non-expert experts that have weighed in on the matter. Given that his main game was to just to get into court, if it was found, in court, that his expert wasn’t expert after all, then he would lose that part of his case, but he would have still gotten farther than anyone else.
Again, this would could be explained if the quotes are fabricated. Suppose that the Hayes Report is damning for Zullo’s case. If the ‘anonymous document examiner’ Zullo speaks of was not Hayes, then he hasn’t lied about Hayes, and Hayes has no cause for objection.
Except that Ancestry.com doesn’t have information about living persons.
I disagree. What’s your source for that? If I search Ancestry for my name I can find references to me. I can find references to Barack Obama. I just can’t find that darn naturalization certificate.
Certain family trees which are posted exclude information for living persons, which Ancestry assumes includes everyone without a death entered.
Here’s a sample:
Name:
Barack Obama
[User-submitted-comment]
Birth Date:
4 Aug 1961
Address:
1440 E 52nd St, Chicago, IL, 60615-4131
Pinckney never said that. It was written by “P.A. Madison” on his Federalist Blog in 2008.
Do you want to try again? If you don’t independently verify quotations you’re going to be caught with your pants down.
Concur. I’ve been spending way too much time on ancestry.com these days, and I confirm there are plenty of databases that include living persons.
I just looked and found Henry Kissinger’s record in the naturalization database (which covers up to 1992).
Obligedfriend wrote (in the closed thread):
Please cite the Hawaiian “Christian name Law” that you think was in effect in 1961.
Thanks in advance.
Or, there’s another possible explanation. More than one, in fact.
The quote also refers to “the document”.
Hayes may not be an expert in PDFs, but he should know what a “document” is, and would not ordinarily be expected to refer to a digital image as though it were one.
So, among the other possibilities are:
1. It’s not his report (as Keith suggested earlier).
2. He examined something else (perhaps the POSKBC, or the “Bomford certificate”), either instead of, or in addition to, the PDF.
3. He doesn’t want to be exposed for using sloppy, unprofessional language in what Zullo is calling an “affidavit”. If he swore he examined a COLB when all he did was look at a picture of it, it might even re considered “perjury”.
If he’s really willing to answer questions, it would be interesting to ask him “Is the text in Zullo’s daffydavit an accurate quote of your conclusions about the PDF?”.
He is basing it on this case
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3471792410169306775&q=Hawaii+birth&hl=en&as_sdt=2003
But ignores footnote 6.
He also seems to believe that he would be the one to decide what is and what isn’t a “Christian name.” Setting aside the whole problem with attempting to apply a repealed law to something totally irrelevant to that law. It is interesting that the State retained an 1860 law established by the King of Hawaii, though.
OK, so “Christian name”, which he apparently is unaware is merely a very common synonym for “given name” (and in fact that’s what they later changed the verbiage to)! To which I can only say: what a maroon.
FWIW wiki has a page about famous Arab Christians:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Christians
with all kinds of “musloid” names, of course.
OligedRacist is a moron.
Precisely. This was a birther meme that died quickly, but it seems the zombie is back again.
Excellent observation. A variant of bait-and-switch. He’s talking about A while leading everyone “in the know” (birthers and Obots alike) to believe he’s talking about B.
Depending on the contractual agreement, it’s possible Hayes would not be allowed to withdraw or “disown” the report later.
It’s quite possible the report shoots down some of Zullo’s claims.
Also I’m still convinced that publishing the report would reveal under how many assumptions (i.e. qualifications) the report was made. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was either a meta-report (reporting on others’ findings) and/or one exclusively relying on material provided by Zullo (like only looking at the PDF and not at the hi-res photos etc.).
In other words, as we’ve all said before, enough to shoot down the credibility of the report within hours of its release, so no propaganda value to be gleaned among non-birthers.
OKay, Okay. I surrender. There is no need to rub it in.
I was under the impression that ancestry.com had a site policy against disclosure of details of living persons. Long time since I’ve been on it; I’ll check it out some day.
It would make sense like how zullo never released the Tim selati report but then showed garret pappits work. Selati contradicted several of zullos claims and theorized the long form was scanned in on a Mac then emailed and saved on a pc.
After Zullo’s announcement of the so-called Reed Hayes Report, I engaged Mr. Hayes in a brief and civil exchange of emails. In them, he affirmed that he said what Zullo said he said. The exchange ended abruptly when I pointed out to him the two official Verification statements that authenticate the pdf at Whitehouse.gov as the real McCoy. Never heard from him again.
It’s quite possible Mr Hayes is a full-tilt birther like Mara Zebest. I’m just hesitant to state that without further proof as accusing people of bias without ample evidence is not something I like to do.
What we can reasonably surmise is that there is something in the Reed Hayes report which Zullo does not want seen.
Zullo’s approach is akin to an attorney taking sworn testimony from a witness and then trying to get that testimony into evidence by submitting a summary of it instead of the actual transcript.
As John Reilly mentioned, that applies to member-built family trees. Any entry for a living person appears as “Private” to anyone else looking at the tree. (One minor correction: it’s a box you check. You can have dead people in your tree with no known date of death.)
Not meaning to rub it in, but just being my usual compulsive self: The 1940 US Census database, for example, has lots of living people in it.
At the very least, he seems to be an example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect like Mara and Garrett Papit. He may believe his expertise encompasses things that it just doesn’t, such as the way modern scanners work, and leaps to the conclusion that internal artifacts in the way a document is stored must be tampering of some kind.
…although it would be, as we’ve beaten to death, the most bizarre and ultimately pointless way to conduct a forgery ever seen. Especially since the “forgery” isn’t the most useful example of the document available, as about 5 minutes with Google (or, you know, a word from his client) should have shown him.
He also ignores the Hawaii birth indexes where we can see first names like Saichi, Saadia, Rezondala, and Fern.
Mind providing where Charles Pinckney said that quote? I googled that exact quote, and all I got was a bunch of birthers quoting that without ever providing where he said that. Maybe you can help me by proving the exact place that he said that. I’d be really interested to know.
As Rickey points out above this is not from Pinckney but from birther blogger P.A. Madison
http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/
Another example of birther deficits in reading comprehension,
e.vattel (obligedfriend) is notorious for misreading sources for example his claims about Professor Gilmore.
Birthers are also very poor at looking for original sources. They read something they like and never bother to see if it is true or even possible. Lately, the LFBC hospital name meme and the “don’t called it Kenya” meme have appeared in comments at BR.
or he’s since realized he overstepped his expertise. either way i doubt we’ll hear from mr hayes again even if zullo ever releases the report.
—-
Though I know little about Charles Pinckney, I suspect that he had a better command of the English language than that.
Funny, that nonsensical quote sounds more like a George W. Bush type of misstatement.
I looked at my email conversation with Reed Hayes in June 2013. He indicated his examination was of the document posted at the White House web site. His exact answer to what he examined was
When I followed up with additional questions he referred me to Mike Zullo. I never engaged with him after that since I concluded that he had probably violated the NADE Code of Ethics and outlined why in an article on my blog.
https://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2013/07/17/did-reed-hayes-violate-the-nade-code-of-ethics/
(Mainly, that he hired himself out to Zullo when no reputable document examiner would touch this with a ten foot pole for obvious reasons brought discredit to his organization.)
Since I first read the Zullo affidavit (and I’ve read it again), it has been my impression that the specific “findings” in the 40-page report are the findings of Zullo et al., not the findings resulting from Reed Hayes’ own examination/evaluation.
A close look at the affidavit reveals this. Hayes was brought in after the investigators completed their detailed analysis of the pdf. ALL specific findings mentioned in the affidavit are credited to the work of the posse, aka “the investigators”, and not to any specific findings of Hayes. Essentially, Hayes is credited only with generally agreeing.
Hmmm. If I had retained a real independent expert who then produced a detailed 40-page report, why would I then NOT cite any of that expert’s specific findings? Why would I continuously point only to the specific findings of “investigators” that predate the independent expert’s analysis/report?
I suspect that Zullo first brought Hayes in to look at the signatures/handwriting, and then convinced him to look at the posse’s pdf analysis and to comment on it. I suspect Hayes looked at 40-pages-worth of Zullo’s findings and said something like, “wow, I’ve never seen so many questioned/questionable things!” I suspect that Hayes now regrets lending his name to this farce, and he and Zullo would both be embarrassed if the “report” were released.
Ran, to put not too fine a point on it, if Hayes made the statements attributed to him, he is either incompetent, lying, or both. Since the only “document” he could likely have had access to was the multi-generation copy posted at the White House site. His level of expertise is limited and he is most certainly NOT a forensic document specialist. He is a graphologist when it comes right down to it.
My personal suspicion is that the Hayes Report is so qualified and so full of holes that Zullo couldn’t afford to have it see the light of day. I also suspect that Hayes doesn’t want it seeing the light of day and endagering what certification he has.
My speculation:
Not being a digital document examiner, Hayes was understandably thrown by the fact that Stanley Ann’s signature was separated into two different “layers” of the PDF. I fully expect that his report bases its concussions primarily (if not entirely) on that feature.
However, Zullo is now perfectly aware that such a detail is the ordinary result of the Xerox workflow. The three (and only three) sentences that Zullo has periodically quoted from the report are still useful to him, but not the now obsolete analysis that was used to justify them.
That was another reason I think Reed violated the NADE code of ethics He opined in an area outside his expertise. Of course my opinion of NADE is that their code of ethics is not worth the bits on their website on which it is written.
Reed Hayes could never meet the requirements to testify as an expert in the field of digital forensics.
That said, if I hired an expert to render and opinion for me for purposes of litigation, civil or criminal, I would never release the report until it was necessary to do so legally. And since this will never see the light if day in a courtroom, it will either a) never be released or b) will be incorporated into Zullo’s upcoming book or expose’ or whatever he does to convince the ignorant and gullible that he has the goods on Obama but no one will touch it.
And Reed apparently could not release it himself because Zullo supposedly copyrighted it. His reasoning, IIRC, was so it could never modified or changed. That is of course a faulty assumption. An expert can always modify or change their report or even their opinion entirely.
Except, if you watch the Gillar video that Zullo used at the “Constitutional Sheriffs” meeting in 2013 where the news of Hayes’s involvement was first made public, Gillar introduced Hayes this way:
“Some of the anomalies that we’ve pointed out today were first discovered by a certified document examiner named Reed Hayes.”
However, all the “anomalies” covered in the presentation to that point were those which Zullo had called out in his press conferences, both before Hayes was ever engaged. ZUllo appears to be completely willing to credit Hayes for “findings” that were not his.
Obliged, we’re all waiting with bated breath Before posting again would you kindly cite the providence of the South Carolinians founder’s quote about parentage?
Since we know that Zullo is a serial liar anything he said is suspect. Gillar is pretty much, completely???, in the same boat as far as I am concerned. So that pretty well leaves anything they said regarding the report is what could charitably be called suspect.
If somebody has a copy of Photoshop, would you take a look at this document and see if any of the signatures are split across layers:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2012-certificates/pdfs/vote-california.pdf
I see the same thing on Facebook. People see something which they are predisposed to believe and they post it without bothering to check to see if it is authentic.
No, the signatures are all part of the background. The fuzziness that you are probably asking about lines up with the block boundaries common to jpeg. This is probably due to an aggressive jpeg compression scheme. It’s also possible that this was originally scanned by a Xerox or similar machine, printed, and then rescanned on the Epson scanner noted in the metadata.
FIFY
This one has bits of the signature on a text layer and most of it on the background and it steals typed text.
http://www.lowrynews.com/pictures/demand%20letter%20n%20response/Scanned%20from%20a%20Xerox%20multifunction%20device001.pdf
Typical RW brain function. Their echo chambers bury claims behind a seemingly endless chain of sources where the first one in the chain always refers to
* some anonymous person or
* some alleged foreign TV report for which there is no online video or
* some alleged foreign newspaper that isn’t available online
The other day I tried to find a source for the RW claim that Norwegian violent crime had decreased by 31% after Norway threw out Muslim hate preachers. No way Jose, just RW blog quoting each other. (I actually found one Norwegian stat saying that petty crime, i.e. pickpocketing etc., had decreased by 30%.)
Or the one about Obama allegedly having threatened Israel to shoot down their planes should they attack Iran – ultimately buried behind an obscure Kuwaiti news outlet that referred to an anonymous source.
Or the one about Austria allegedly passing a law that requires Muslims to read the Koran in German and their preachers to hold their sermons in German. (Being a native speaker, I was able to read the law in its original text and it said nothing of the sort, only that religious communities must provide a translation of their texts to qualify for certain privileges.) Or that foreign funding was outlawed (actually the law only requires organizations to be self-sufficient, i.e. they may still receive foreign funding as long as that isn’t the only thing preventing them from bankruptcy).
But then again this has been right-wing MO forever. If the base wants to believe it, you don’t really need sources, just a bold claim with evidence hidden behind anonymous sources.
My memory is that he did this to have leverage to stop it being dissected on Obot sites in case it should be leaked (or become public by being used in court proceedings). But maybe that was our explanation and not Zullo’s claim.
Sonoran News sez: “Zullo has copyrighted the report as a precaution against manipulation or misuse” (http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2013/130710/news-obama-fraud.html)
So he obviously wasn’t talking about Mr. Hayes changing his report but rather clearly references refutations (“misuse”) or potential claims of his that the report does not say what Obots claim it says (“manipulation”).
Professor Gilmore…wrote Vattel was in the Constitution. Many places…including the 1st Amendment.
Let’s keep the discussion to the famous Sec 212. Gilmore writes,,…”it is in this sense it is used in the Constitution of the United States”
I realize you guys try to spin Gilmores words. Vattel was not around when the Naturalization Amendment (14th) was fraudulently passed
Professor Gilmore references a French edition…
Add Justice Daniel….natural born citizens are born to citizen parents and let’s not forget..
A.P. Morse quoting a French edition “natural born citizens born to citizen parents.”
This is 3 strikes…and you guys are out.
Please stop covering for Obama’s illegal Presidency. Protect the Constitution.
Professor Gilmore’s book on Vattel is very enlightening,
If Obama was born in Hawaii what was his domicile.
1. The place of birth of a person is his domicile, if, at the time of his birth, it is the domicile of his parents,
We know Barak Hussein Obama was never Domiciled in the United States..
What was Barack Hussein’s domicile at his birth?
Gilmore is referencing Justice Story and a section of Vattel.
Did you guys read Professor Gilmore on Vattel?
ObligedFriend, you are off-topic here. This thread has nothing to do with Vattel and the Constitution.
As for your “three-strikes,” I can cite for you 220 cases that say you’re wrong and you can’t cite a single one that says you’re right. Article III of the Constitution affords the courts the authority to resolve disputes “arising under this Constitution.” I don’t see anywhere in the Constitution where it affords Professor Gilmore or Vattel that authority.
Given, the 220 cases I can readily cite that effectively affirm President Obama’s eligibility, I’d say it’s 220 strikes…and you’re out.
I hate to burst your bubble but speaking as a French lawyer who has worked on some of Vattel’s works, there is nothing in Vattel that could be used to disqualify Obama.
The greatest lie propagated by birthers is that Vattel originated the notion that a “natural-born citizen” (that term is not in Vattel) had to have two parents who were also citizens in order to be so. That is not true: Vattel only required that the father be a citizen in order to be “naturel”.
Needless to say, what was true in the 1790s was later amended/updated to give women an equal role.
I have written at great length about the subject; find the links and read the articles.
Really? Vattel was in the first amendment? Is that why Vattel called for a restriction of the press? Is that why Vattel called for an establishment of a national religion and government control of that religion?
Try reading section 214 which states that in England they do things differently. Thus, even if your twisted reading of Vattel is correct (and our colleague Lupin and over 220 courts have explained otherwise), you need to deal with the fact that the English did it differently.
You also need to explain why not one of those 220 courts or any member of Congress shares your view. Not a single one.
Ankeny v. Daniels, an appellate court case here in Indiana, specifically held that being born in the United States (except for some irrelevant exceptions) was all it took to be a natural born citizen. That court specifically rejected the Vattel argument because the English did it differently.
Perhaps you like to give your version of how the 14th amendment was ‘fraudulently’ passed. Passed by the Congress, ratified by the States, by the appropriate margin, doesn’t sound ‘fraudulent’ to me.
And if the 14th Amendment contradicts Vattel: Even Vattel acknowledges that if a nation has a law that is not in accordance with his views, we still must respect those laws.
I usually leave the Vattel arguments to an expert. So correct me if I am wrong.
Birthers conveniently ignore Vattel’s writings on freedom of religion and freedom of the press along with his opposition to both. I’ve asked the same question as you did and as many others have done and I’ve never seen a reply. They simply ignore what doesn’t fit with their preconceived notions. Wow, that sounds familiar!
Let me see if I can make it very simple.
Your constitution says that the President must be a “natural-born citizen” but fails to define what it means by this.
From what I gather, American Courts have since long defined the term as one born on US soil; so that would include Obama.
Obviously this answer does not please birthers, so they go looking for another definition and lo and behold! they found this law treatise written in 1758 in French by a Swiss guy called Emer de Vattel, which was indeed very influential at the times.
The first problem is that Vattel does no talk about “natural born citizen” — he talks about “naturels”, “indigenes” and “citoyens”, none of which are arguably exactly what birthers are trying to define.
But, fair enough — what does Vattel actually say about any of these? Well, he says that citizenship is transmitted by blood, specifically from father to child. Nowhere at all does he speak about two citizens being required — nowhere.
This is the biggest zombie lie concocted by the birthers, which crop up again and again.
I agree that Obama’s father not being an America, that does raise a problem — in 1760!
But can you in good logic assume that a law written in 1760 would still apply in 1960?
The only way to tell is to look at other countries which adopted the Vattelian system, like France with the Napoleonic Code written in 1804.
First France, like Vattel, only recognized two categories of citizens: those born citizens, and those made citizens. No third category.
Second, within 50 years, the French recognized that, in certain circumstances, a mother alone could also transmit citizenship to her offspring.
By the beginning of the 20th century both sexes were made equal before the law in their capacity to transmit citizenship.
So, as you can plainly see, there is absolutely nothing in Vattel which helps the birther argument.
I would add that I have constantly challenged the top birther proponents of this to find one single legal source supporting their obvious misinterpretation of Vattel and they have found none — because there are none.
—-
Faceman, just this week I came across this assertion for the first time–it is apparently the view of neo-confederates. FYI, here’s what the Southern Poverty Law Center says about it.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2000/summer/attacking-the-14th-amendment
I’ve come across it a few times mainly it was Tracy Fair making the claim.
Even if the argument is that the former Confederate states were coerced into ratifying the 14th Amendment, many other states have ratified it since the Civil War ended. For example, the last states to ratify the 14th were Maryland and California in 1959. If there is no deadline for ratification set in the enabling legislation for an amendment, it can be adopted at any time. What was to become the 27th Amendment was proposed by James Madison on September 25, 1789 and it was adopted as the 27th Amendment on May 7, 1992 which was 202 years, 7 months later.
If this were a boxing match, the ref would’ve ended it long ago. EnragedFriend, you are getting pummeled here. You should leave this ring immediately before you suffer permanent brain damage. From your comments, though, I fear it may be too late.
Well, this is delightful. The SPLC says:
So the “fraudulent” part breaks down to, “How dare you let everyone be a citizen by demanding the losers in the war we just fought accept that the reason for the war was this terrible thing they were doing!”
Yeah, that’s an argument anyone should be proud to stand behind.
Yes, I saw something similar. Confederate States were not allowed representation in Congress unless they passed the 14th amendment. Controversial? Maybe. “Fraudulent”? I don’t know. By the letter of the law, all the T’s were crossed and I’s dotted. What do you have to say about it, friend?
President Johnson vetoed the 14th Amendment Bill. Ohio and another state withdrew their vote supporting the Bill.
Seward fraudulently claimed the bill was passed without the bill being returned to Congress.
White Southerners were removed from state legislatures with the bayonet.
The 14 Amendment is a fraud and this fraud is destroying the republic.
There is no 14th Amendment by David Lawrence, USA News and World Report, 1957
http://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm
Lawrence quotes the Encyclopedia Americana in his editorial:
Seems legit.
Have you thought about quoting from stormfront?
Sorry, the president can’t veto a constitutional amendment. He vetoed earlier legislation, what became the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and it was the first time in US history that the Congress actually overrode a president veto.
The 14th amendment was a totally different piece of legislation.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. An amendment to the Constitution can’t be vetoed as Presidents have no input on constitutional amendments.
President Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. His veto was overidden on a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 became the law of the land.
If anyone wants to invalidate the 14th Amendment, they can do it in the exact same way that the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) was invalidated, you adopt another amendment (the 21st repealed the 18th).
The president has no vote in the amendment process.
Obliged Fiend’s link to an article, written in September 1957, adds a nice historical touch.
Let’s look at the context. In September 1957, nine African American high school children entered a Little Rock, Arkansas high school as registered students, pursuant to Little Rock’s brand new program to integrate–and thereby comply with the Supreme Court’s holding in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) rendered three years earlier. Was there a single person in America, or around the world, who didn’t follow the news about the commotion regarding Little Rock?
Segregationists didn’t think black children should go to school with white children, and some argued that the 14th amendment and the federal government couldn’t make them integrate the schools. Sven’s link has provided us an historical example of the segregationist argument/rhetoric from that moment in time.
Editorial, to be precise, by the arch-conservative founder/publisher of the magazine.
The magazine’s current profile of their late founder notes that he was “stridently opposed to the civil rights movement, which he saw as too reactionary.” He is quoted elsewhere as saying that civil rights legislation was “the coercion of our legislative or executive process by street mobs.”
Just to put the editorial in context.
—
Correction: My apologies to Sven. It was Obliged Friend who provided us with the Jim Crow argument and link. Not Sven.
I should’ve said “just to add more context,” since you’d set the stage nicely with the zeitgeist of the times.
… and yet Obama goes on being President.
Going to break this as easily as I can for you. Obama was legally sworn in as President and was elected overwhelmingly twice. He will serve his two terms and leave office and will remain in history as one of this country’s Presidents. Nothing you birthers do, now or in the future, will ever change this. Nothing.
As such, he will also remain as the precedent of what qualifies for President of the United States by circumstances of birth. Again, this is something you birthers will never change, now or in the future. Never.
The ridiculous notion that blood and soil somehow confers allegiance is forever shattered as the superstitious nonsense it always was.
So much ignorance.
The President can not veto an amendment.
Justice Scalia disagrees with you.
““My goodness, I thought we’ve … held that the 14th Amendment protects all races,” he [Scalia]said. “I mean, that was the argument in the early years, that it protected only … the blacks. But I thought we rejected that. You, you say now that we have to proceed as though its purpose is not to protect whites, only to protect minorities?”
In fact the Supreme Court has ruled in a number of cases that there is a Fourteen Amendment.
Why do you continue to lie about Professor Gilmore?
Here is what he said about Section 212 of Vattel:
“So far as Mr. Vattel states the doctrine on the subject of citizenship in this section he states it correctly, but there are other questions on this subject, not noticed by him, which it would be well to state. These have reference to the following: “
“I. Children born of the subjects of one power in the territory of another. 2. Illegitimate children born of a foreign mother. 3. Foreign women who have married the subject of a State. Upon these points the doctrine in United States, is, 1, That children of foreigners born here are American citizens if they elect to declare themselves so, whilst the children of American citizens born abroad are themselves citizens of the United States, unless the 14th amendment has changed this doctrine, upon which there is a difference of opinion”
Professor Gilmore recognizes the Fourteen Amendment why don’t you?
More of your lies about A.P. Morse. Here is what he said about Vattel and the United States:
“§ 5. In the law of nations, “citizen” is a term applicable to every member of the civil society, every individual who belongs to the nation.”
“This character is acquired in various ways, according to the laws of each state. In many states birth is sufficient to confer it; so that the child of an alien is a citizen from the fact of having been born within the territorial limits and the jurisdiction.2”
Footnote 2 reads “2. It is so in England and in the United States [but the births must be “within the jurisdiction”‘].”
and later
“The Constitution does not make the citizens (it is, in fact, made by them); it only recognizes such of them as are natural, home-born, and provides for the naturalization of such of them as are alien, foreign-born, making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former.”
In another 1884 treatise, “Citizenship in Relation to the State”, Morse writes,
“Of the principle tests of citizenship – the place of birth and the nationality of the father – neither is at present adopted without qualifications by British, French, or American law. The laws of these countries exhibit, in fact, different combinations of the two, Great Britain and the United States lay chief stress on the place of birth, while France the father’s nationality determines, though not absolutely and in all cases, that of the child”
Ignorance is why birthers have been and will continue to be failures. Both Gilmore and Morse tell you that Vattel was not used in the United States with regards to citizenship. And yet out of shear ignorance you continue to cite them. Congratulation on continuing the birthers fine tradition of failure.
ObligedFriend, aka evattel/DancingRabbitt/DraggingCanoe does not care about the Constitution at all. He hates black persons. That is the full story and nothing more.
I will not go in full detail, to avoid accidentally giving too much info that might identify our friend (keeping with Doc’s rule), but Mr. Obliged was whining about blacks eating all the donuts in the motel he ran before Obama was even running for President, among his other complaints about African Americans.
All of his waving about here is window dressing. He does not care about America. He only complaint leader of the country is not like him. Obliged is just sad weakling and cannot handle this.
Sorry Obliged, the human race is leaving you behind. Leave you fear behind and you can rejoin us.
Mr. ObligedFriend seems to want to ignore the 220 court decisions from all across the country that essentially found Mr. Obama eligible to serve as President. He ignores the authority the Constitution affords the courts to determine what is and what isn’t Constitutional.
Are there any other amendments which are fraudulent? Like the 13th? Can we bring back slavery? Repeal the income tax? Repeal direct election of Senators?
And having read the material you attached, I feel the need to apologize, on behalf of my immigrant ancestor, who having left Ireland during the famine served in the Union Army and undoubtedly shot at some Southerners, who were just defending their states’ rights. Does my apology need to be handwritten?
I do find it encouraging, though, that in one of your points you capitalized “Negroes.” Very forward thinking.
Do let us know when you get around to the 20th Century.
Professor Gilmore wrote Vattel’s sec212 was in the Constitution..
it’s interesting how you guys spin and distort. I post what he wrote and you guys post Strawmen.
It’s the same with Morse.
Justice Daniel…nothing but spin and personal attacks.
Again…Professor Gilmore writes 212 is used in the Constitution. No amount of spin and personal attacks can change this fact.
Professor Gilmore breaks down Vattel chapter by chapter listing where his book is in the Constitution.
Read it and learn.
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x000883938;view=2up;seq=60;skin=mobile Link to page 55 Professor Gimore’s Lecture on Vattel
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x000883938;view=2up;seq=26;skin=mobile offenses against the law of nations
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x000883938;view=2up;seq=72;skin=mobile imposing taxes and the 5th Amendment.
No, he writes:
“… but its ordinary signification [of “citizen”] is, a person owing allegiance to a government and entitled protection from it, and it is in this sense that it is used in the Constitution of the United States.”
You notice “citizen”, not “natural-born citizen”.
He continues
“So far as Mr. Vattel states the doctrine on the subject of citizenship in this section, he states it correctly”
(you notice again “citizenship”, not “natural-born citizenship”)
and then goes on to mention all the stuff Vattel forgot. Not quite “Vattel is exactly what is in the Constitution”, I’d posit.
A Treatise on Citizenship. A.P. Morse. Preface IX
“The natural-born or native is one who is born in the country, to citizen parents” 4
4. Vattel, Droit des Gens Sec 212
https://archive.org/stream/cu31924020027870#page/n15/mode/2up
Are you particularly stupid or just incapable to read? I explained the whole Vattel thing to you just above.
Here is Art. 212 in the original French:
Les Citoyens sont les membres de la Société Civile : Liés à cette Société par certains devoirs, & soumis à son Autorité, ils participent avec égalité à ses avantages. 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 condition de leurs Péres, & entrent dans tous leurs droits. La Société est censée le vouloir ainsi ; par une suite de ce qu’elle doit à sa propre conservation ; & l’on présume de droit que chaque Citoyen, en entrant dans la Société, réserve à ses enfans le droit d’en être membres. La Patrie des Péres est donc celle des enfans ; & ceux-ci deviennent de véritables Citoyens, par leur simple consentement tacite. Nous verrons bien-t’t, si parvenus à l’âge de raison, ils peuvent renoncer à leur droit, & ce qu’ils doivent à la Société dans laquelle ils sont nés. Je dis que pour être d’un pays, il faut être né d’un pére Citoyen ; car si vous y étes né d’un Etranger, ce pays sera seulement le lieu de votre naissance, sans être votre Patrie.
The second sentence:
Les Naturels, ou Indigènes sont ceux qui sont nés dans le pays, de Parens Citoyens.
means:
Natives or indigenes are those born in that country from [blood] relatives who are already citizens.
It is merely a restatement of the principles of jus sanguinis. The plural here in the absence of a preceding article is a group plural; in other other words it doesn’t mean that ALL relatives must ALL be citizens; just some.
Further proof (if needed) follows in the very next sentence:
said children inherit the status of their fathers and all their rights and obligations.
and yet again two sentences further, repeating:
It follows that the homeland of the fathers will therefore also be that of their children,
In Vattel’s days (the late 1700s), as I stated, the rights of the fathers trumped those of the mothers. This was already modified by 1850.
Also look at Art. 214:
§.214 Naturalisation.
Une Nation, ou le Souverain qui la réprésente, peut accorder à un Etranger la qualité de Citoyen, en l’aggrégeant au Corps de la Société Politique. Cet Acte s’appelle Naturalisation. Il est des États où le Souverain ne peut accorder à un Etranger tous les droits des Citoyens, par exemple, celui de parvenir aux Charges, & où par conséquent il n’a le pouvoir de donner qu’une Naturalisation imparfaite. C’est une disposition de la Loi fondamentale, qui limite le pouvoir du Prince. En d’autres États, comme en Angleterre & en Pologne, le Prince ne peut naturaliser personne sans le concours de la Nation réprésentée par ses Députés. Il en est enfin, comme l’Angleterre, où la simple naissance dans le pays naturalise les enfans d’un étranger.
The last sentence reads:
Lastly, there are countries like England where a simple birth in the country is enough to naturalize the children of a foreigner.
Also Art 215:
§.215 Des enfans de Citoyens, nés en pays étranger.
On demande si les Enfans nés de Citoyens, en pays étranger, sont Citoyens ? Les Loix ont décidé la question en plusieurs pays, & il faut suivre leurs dispositions. Par la Loi Naturelle seule, les Enfans suivent la condition de leurs péres, & entrent dans tous leurs droits (§.212) ; le lieu de la naissance ne fait rien à cela, & ne peut fournir de lui-même aucune raison d’’ter à un enfant ce que la nature lui donne ; je dis de lui-même, car la Loi Civile, ou Politique peut en ordonner autrement, pour des vûës particuliéres. Mais je suppose que le Pére n’a point quitté entiérement sa Patrie pour s’établir ailleurs. S’il a fixé son Domicile dans un pays étranger ; il y est devenu membre d’une autre Société, au moins comme habitant perpétuel, & ses enfans en feront aussi.
The last sentence means:
If [the father] has become a member of a foreign country, at least as a pemanent resident, then his children will become citizens of that country.
In effect, there isn’t really anything in Vattel that helps your cause and indeed much that speaks directly against it.
So stop waving it around as if it were some kind of magic mumbo jumbo.
A Treatise on Citizenship. A.P. Morse. Preface IX
“The natural-born or native is one who is born in the country, to citizen parents” 4
4. Vattel, Droit des Gens Sec 212
https://archive.org/stream/cu31924020027870#page/n15/mode/2up
Complain to Alexander Porter Morse.
His words referencing Vattel and Sec 212.
The truth must be painful for many in this forum.
None of you have the credentials of A.P. Morse.
You are an idiot. I am a French lawyer with actual experience with Vattel translations and the meaning of the words he used. There’s 200+ years of scholarship on the subject and we pretty much know by now what he wrote.
Even the AP Morse translation which you keep quoting ad nauseam talk about “citizens parents” as a group plural (as in “only children with parents who are members of the club may use the pool” i.e.: either parent, not both) — this is elementary English syntax. Can’t you recognize it when you see it?
And the next sentence in the same AP Morse translation goes on to say that only ONE parent transmits citizenship — the father. Vattel never wrote that one needed to have two parents.
So 1) you misquote Vattel AND AP Morse by taking one sentence incorrectly and out of context, and 2) You should be ashamed to have to be taught the syntax your own language by a foreigner such as I.
It’s no wonder you’re a blithering racist; you’re basically uneducated.
A.P. Morse’s credentials:
He argued on behalf of Louisiana in Plessy v Ferguson.
In that case, Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote a scathing dissent in which he predicted the court’s decision would become as infamous as that of Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) Following is part of Justice Harlan’s dissent, asserting, “The law regards man as man”:
[I]n view of the constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved.
I don’t see anything anywhere in the Constitution that cites Vattel or Gilmore and refers to their writings as a reference source for interpreting the Constitution. 🙂
The only party that has the Constitutional authority to ultimately interpret the Constitution as it is used to resolve disputes and controversies is the Supreme Court and its “inferior courts.”
In resolving the “controversy” as to whether or not President Obama is eligible to serve as President, the Supreme Court has effectively found 25 times that he is.
ObligedFriend, you can hyperventilate all you want about how much you think Vattel’s ideas can be found in the Constitution. Until and unless you can get the Court to agree, you are up dipsh*t creek without a paddle.
More lies about Professor Gilmore and A.P. Morse.
Have you no shame.
Yeah it was kinda easy to figure out his real name.
http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship
One may become a citizen at birth if they
1) were born in the US, or
2) if born abroad, had a parent or parents who were citizens and who meet certain other requirements.
http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship
ObligedFriend, aka evattel/DancingRabbitt/DraggingCanoe can barely understand English (presumably his mother tongue?) as far as I can tell.
But it doesn’t stop him from trying to guess the exact meaning of an 18th century Swiss legal text written in French, parsing sentences out of existing translations to serve his purpose, and despite any corroborative evidence whatsoever, blithely applying it to 20th century America.
The arrogance, ignorance and stupidity of these people remains a constant source of amazement.
I wanted to follow up with ObligedFriend, who asserts that the 14th Amendment was fraudulently passed and thus not really in the Constitution.
That means, of course, that Pres. Obama can’t be President since he only has 14th Amendment citizenship, if I understand the argument correctly.
It also means that the Supreme Court could not have ruled in Pres. Bush’s favor in Bush v. Gore as the challenge to Florida’s recount was on equal protection 14th Amendment grounds. Thus, Al Gore was elected President. How do you suggest we fix this? Where’s the magic re-set button?
McDonald v. Chicago, the recent SCOTUS ruling on gun rights, was based on the due process clause of the 14th amendment (Justice Thomas argued for using the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th). I have a hunch the 14th amendment haters only hate the parts that give non-whites equal protection under the law.
I think that it is time for Doc to ban ObligedRacist, just as he previously banned his various sock puppets. Why should we listen to someone who believes that the president can veto a Constitutional amendment?
He is just a troll who never engages. Never mind his opinions, even his factual assertions are incorrect. And when his errors are pointed out to him, he ignores it.
whomp
Is your ignorant statement that President Johnson vetoed a bill that created the 14th Amendment a “straw man?” You should read a sixth grade Civics book and learn how the Constitution is amended.
When totaling three judge appeals court panels, seven and nine judge state Supreme Court panels plus the 226 original jurisdiction judges, darn near close to 1,000 Triers of Fact have had the opportunity to review Barack Obama’s eligibility credentials and not a single Judge or state Elections Board has found his credentials to be in violation of Constitutional principles.
Additionally Congress is satisfied with the current president’s constitutional eligibility, there has jot been one minute of congressional hearings held on natural born citizenship or its constitutional meaning.
I disagree. Ripping ObligedFriend a new one on an hourly basis is great sport. It is politically incorrect to make fun of the kids on the short bus but here in cyber-space it is perfectly permissible to destroy the metaphorical “kids on the short bus” in contemporary American politics, the birthers. ObligedFriend is exhibit “A.”
I think that clause was pretty much eviscerated by the Supreme Court in the Slaughterhouse Cases.
—
That has always bugged me–how the SC has just blown off that clause… Seems to me the Court should revisit that clause some day….
Bam! Nicely done, Lupin.
Is a book by a Swiss Philosopher more important than our Constitution?
If you read the declarations of secession for Texas, Mississippi, South Carolina and Georgia, they have slavery written all over them. Mississippi comes right out at the very beginning (3rd paragraph) stating their cause is thoroughly related to slavery. – http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html
By the way, anyone who says it’s States Rights should be directed to Lee Atwater’s taped confession.
You or people close to you (siblings, parents, children who you have added to your family tree access, approved collaborators and/or hired genealogists) are the only people who have access to information about you. If you do not have a death record and I looked you up, I would not have access to that information. – http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2012/04/12/living-people-in-your-family-tree/
There are two kinds of “information” you can look up on ancestry.com:
1. Family trees built by members
2. Information in various databases (census records, street directories, naturalization records, yearbooks, and so on)
The protection against access to information about living people applies only to (1) — looking at a family tree that someone else has built.
You can quite easily look up any information in the databases (2) about living people. (I noted earlier that I was able to find Henry Kissinger’s naturalization record.)
There is no “check for a death record” protection whatsoever. If you look at a member-built family tree, the protection criterion for each entry in the tree is whether or not the person owning the tree has indicated explicitly whether that person is “living” or “dead”.
You can declare a person in a family tree without a date of death to be “dead”. You can also declare a person 150 years old to be “living”.
If I recall correctly, Justice Thomas wants to restore the privliges and immunities clause from their exile after the Slaughterhouse cases. His concurrent opinion in McDonald was done as part of his attempt.
Morse continues in another chapter his Treatise on Citizenship
“under the view of the law of nations, natives or natural born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.” 5
“the country of the father is that of the children” 5
5. Vattel
How can that be? The President has no role in Constitutional Amemndments, and no veto power in the process.
Its hard to take him seriously since he tried to claim Andrew Johnson vetoed the 14th amendment even though the president doesn’t have a say in the amendment process.
ObligedFriend also thinks “Christian name” means something other than “given name.”
Morse also continues in the Treatise on Citizenship:
”In the law of nations, ”citizen” is a term applicable to every member of the civil society, every individual who belongs to the nation.
“This character is acquired in various ways, according to the laws of each state. In many states birth is sufficient to confer it; so that the child of an alien is a citizen from the fact of having been born within the territorial limits and the jurisdiction.2″
And in footnote 2:
”It is so in England and in the United States [but the births must be ” within the jurisdiction”‘].”
He also says,
“The Constitution does not make the citizens (it is, in fact, made by them); it only recognizes such of them as are natural, home-born, and provides for the naturalization of such of them as are alien, foreign-born, making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former.”
President Obama is “natural, home-born” according to Morse.
—-
Hmmm. I’ll have to look at that. If the Court wants to revisit it, I hope the Court defines and applies it judiciously. I am not generally inclined to agree with Thomas’ approach to the Law and Jurisprudence, to say the least. I’d prefer to see a more thoughtful Justice write any binding opinion/precedence on the subject.
President Johnson: The 39th Congress was not a Congress of the United States, but a Congress of only part of the states and therefore had no power to propose amendments to the Constitution.
Source: History of the Impeachment of President Johnson, Edmund Ross author
—-
Gee, where did all the other states go? Oh yeah–after the guy from Illinois got elected President, some states seceded from the USA and lost a long bloody war. We Reconstructed. About 150 years ago. Accept it.
Lincoln and Johnson believed the Southern States were still part of the United States. Their pretended acts of secession was null and void.
And what did the Congress say about Johnson disrespecting them? That he had a free speech right. Big deal.
Funny that the Supreme Court has had a number of rulings based on the Fourteenth Amendment. I guess they disagree with Andrew Johnson.
Why has the Supreme Court continued to rely on the Fourteenth Amendment. Are they not as smart as you?
Here educate yourself:
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2014/07/10-huge-supreme-court-cases-about-the-14th-amendment/
—-
I expect you particularly don’t like Sections 3 and 4 of the 14th Amendment:
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
I expect he also doesn’t like the 16th Amendment.
There was a lot of real shooting. It was in all of the newspapers. Did you miss that?
Yes indeed. ANY parent. And parent in this context means relative. That’s the general rule.
And which parent is prioritized? The father. ONE parent. Duh.
Do you actually understand English? Did you attend school beyond age 13? Talking to you is like talking to an 8-year-old with learning disabilities.
If you have a learning handicap, please tell us; I don’t want to make fun of someone so clearly incapable of understanding what he reads/writes.
20 states ratified the 14th Amendment, 6 were part of the original states. Several became states in 1864.
Kentucky, Delaware and Maryland rejected – 3
Ohio and New Jersey revoked ratification – 2
Texas, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Virginia Ratified after rejection. 5
Arkansas ratified after restoration to Union. Some states above ratified after restoration.
Stanton illegally signed military orders by Direction of the President to remove state legislatures not complying.
Read New Jersey’s justification why they rescinded ratification. It explains why the 14th is illegal.
The 39th Congress had 70 Senate seats 18 were vacant. Why? The House
240 seats 42 were vacant. Why?
Because 9 of the States had not had a legally operating Government for years and had not legally appointed their Senators.
Because 9 of the States had not had a legally operating Government for several years and had not held legal elections for their Congressional representatives.
You ignored the real shooting done by your racist friends in 1861-65. There are consequences to being a traitor. In some places, you get lined up and shot. Lincoln was more than generous. You might learn from that instead of beefing that a bunch of traitors were barred from Congress until they made amends.
Seward listed the states in the Union, his list does not match the vacant seats in the Senate and House in the 39th and 40th Congress.
California and Mississippi never acted on ratification prior to Seward claiming the 14th amendment was ratified.
Do the math…Seward claimed there were 37 states…in the Union. Seward ignored Ohio and New Jersey rescinded ratification.
The 14th Amendment is not Constitutional. the Union Party wanted the Negro vote.
Today an illegal President wants the illegal alien vote…history repeats.
Do we really have to wade through the racist rantings of an unrepentant segregationist who care barely read & understand English beyond a third grade level?
You might as well claim the sun rises in the west.
Because unfortunately for you, no one on the Supreme Court going back to the ratifing of the Fourteenth Amendment, agrees with you.
Honestly, I think Doc lets a few idiots run around in here, as to keep things from becoming dreadfully dull.
—-
FIFY:
The 14th Amendment amended the Constitution. The United States of America wanted all Americans to be citizens; rebelling insurrectionists did not. Today, another President from Illinois wants all peaceful people who have migrated here to be treated with human dignity; neo-rebelling-insurrectionists do not… History repeats.
Please explain to me the “do-over” mechanism, Obliged, that would allow a state to unratify an amendment. I’m having trouble finding that in the Constitution.
It would seem that our Obliged Friend is not only an all purpose bigot, but mathematically challenged as well. At all times from the beginning of the Civil war to its conclusion, there was a legal quorum in Congress, 9 states taking their marbles and going off to sulk didn’t change that. There were also sufficient members to legally and validly vote for constitutional amendments, pass them and send them out to the states for ratification, again without the missing states who were deemed as vacant seats not voting.
The unratify an amendment vote schtick has already been repeatedly argued to death and lost. States have two options vote for ratification or vote no or not vote at all. Once done that is it, no do-overs. So whether they changed their minds later is irrelevant, they voted to ratify and they only get one strike. The same with the wording on an amendment, they are not voting on the wording regardless of how they present it to their legislatures, they are voting on the act that the Congress passed. So that dog don’t hunt!!!!!
Add Maryland
If the 14th Amendment was legal, Obama cannot be a citizen. He fails subject to jurisdiction because his daddy was a transient alien student.
If Congress is limited to naturalization(White Immigrants)m remember natural is a Kind, how can the 14th make Natural born citizens? It cannot.
A.P. Morse – Obama not a natural born citizen.
Justice Daniel – Obama is not a natural born citizen.
Thomas Jefferson – Obama cannot work in the Federal Government
Founding Fathers – Obama is not a citizen
Original Constitution – Obama is not a citizen
Chief Justice Taney – …….
Obama’s father was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States while he was in Hawaii, but even if he wasn’t it doesn’t matter, because his son was subject to the jurisdiction.
The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that the parent(s) have to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. It says that the person born here has to be subject to the jurisdiction.
Your misunderstanding of this simple concept is similar to your inability to understand the difference between the adjective “kind” and the noun “kind.”
You are a racist imbecile.
No.
If the 14th Amendment did NOT exist then Obama would not be a citizen ( because of Dred Scott ).
Obama was absolutely born ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of American law. Period.
If this Obliged Idiot is all that’s left, that’s pretty sad.
Actually, you may want to take a look at the actual argument in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.
The argument basically goes:
1. These terms are in the Constitution, which includes Citizen and Natural Born Citizen. These terms are not defined in the Constitution, so, we must look back to English Common Law for their definitions.
2. This is what the English Common Law citizenship rules. These were in the Colonies before the revolution.
3. This rule stayed with the States after the war of Independence.
4. The 14th Amendment did not change this rule, it was just declaratory of what the Common Law was at the time.
Therefore Wong is a citizen of the United States.
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark was a direct overruling of Scott v. Sanford. It would not have mattered if the 14th Amendment was there or not. The 14th Amendment Citizenship clause was just declaratory of what the rule actually was. Obama’s a citizen with, or without, the 14th Amendment, because he was born on the soil. It doesn’t matter if the 14th Amendment is not part of the Constitution.
Chief Justice Fuller- Obama not a natural born citizen. Wong Kim Ark dissenting opinion
Justice Harlan – Concurred with Fuller
How many Chief Justices and Justices of the Supreme Court would concur Obama not a natural born citizen. 5, 10, 20, 30?
President Johnson disagees with your opinion.
The Holding in Wong Kim Ark both parents must be Domiciled permanent residents for the child gain citizenship if born in the USA.
Barak Obama was never a permanent resident, transient alien students are not Domiciled not Permanent residents.
Spin all you want. Obama is not a citizen according to WKA?
It’s a fact WKA was ruled a citizen, never a natural born citizen. Obama clearly never met the same rules applied to WKA.
Don’t forget Justice Daniel in Dred Scott defined natural born citizens are born to citizen parents. His concurring opinion was in the Majority.
That would be the ‘correct’ answer if the world were a ‘reasonable’ place. However, the fact is that the 14th Amendment was needed to remedy the outrageous decision in the Dred Scott case. Millions of Americans, “born on the soil” were denied citizenship in the wake of Scott v Sanford. Millions.
In Scott v Sanford SCOTUS specifically held:
(source)
As a person of African ancestry, Barak Obama, would have clearly been excluded from citizenship if the Dred Scott decision still stood.
That case was decided with exactly the same background of ‘common law’ as WKA and shows you what could have happened in WKA absent the 14th Amendment.
WKA probably would have been decided otherwise without the 14th Amendment and Scot v Sanford would have probably have been cited as precedent.
—
Let’s face it, it took a horrific civil war to decide the matter…. That’s what pisses me off most about Obliged Fiend et al–after all the human misery, he still wants to fight about it, probably would like to see more blood spilled about it…. He longs to not have to co-exist with the rest of us… What an ignoble cause.
The Dred Scott v Sandford decision was rendered moot by both the Civil Right Act of 1866 and by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. It was precedential for only nine years and has no bearing today.
“Domiciled” simply means not a tourist. Barack Hussein Obama Senior lived in the U.S. longer than Wong Kim Ark’s parents who returned to China. The Senior Obama also had applied for student visa extensions to complete his doctorate at Harvard but his request was denied.
There have been nineteen court rulings that have specifically declared Barack Obama II to be a natural born citizen.
Here’s an excerpt from one of the nineteen:
Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the [Georgia] presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012
You’re wrong again because you don’t know how to read a Supreme Court decision. You’re the Constitutional “expert” who thought that a president could veto a Constitutional amendment!
And you’re still a racist imbecile.
New Jersey re-ratified the 14th Amendment on April 23, 2003. Oregon re-ratified on April 25, 1973, Ohio re-ratified on March 25, 2003.
Read the actual decision of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. I don’t think it would have been decided differently, because U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark didn’t really rely upon the 14th Amendment to come to the conclusion of what the common law was. It took the opinion that the 14th Amendment didn’t actually provide anybody new citizenship, it just declared what the citizenship already was.
Even before the 14th Amendment was passed, the lower courts and Justices of the Supreme Court (riding Circuit at the time) wrote in direct contrast to Scott v. Sanford. U.S. v. Rhodes directly contradicted Scott v. Sanford, and declared, “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.”
This was the argument in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.
I. The Constitution must be read in light of English Common Law.
II. English Common Law gave citizenship to all persons born within the land.
III. “The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
IV. The United States never used the Roman example of citizenship by descent.
V. “In the forefront both of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms.”
VI. Chinese are not excluded towards this.
VII. Wong never had his citizenship taken away.
The court spent sections I through IV never relying upon the 14th Amendment. If the 14th Amendment had never been there, they would have found the exact same way on U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. Wong completely overruled Scott v. Sanford.
TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE FRENCH REPUBLIC
Louisiana Purchase.
Article III
The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States and admitted as soon as possible according to the principles of the federal Constitution to the enjoyment of all these rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States, and in the mean time they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and the Religion which they profess.
“Property” Slaves
When Seward signed the 14th was ratified he knew this amendment was not legally ratified.
Georgia refused ratification several times, The Union army kept removing the state legislatures until the desired vote was obtained. Carpetbaggers.
I wouldn’t necessarily say that. Dred Scott excluded from citizenship the children of slaves because they weren’t citizens. Obama’s mother was a citizen.
Dred Scott came to the rather absurd conclusion that anyone born in the United States of non-citizen parents was not a citizen, nor could become one through naturalization. I sincerely doubt that that decision was ever applied to anyone but former slaves, but it should have.
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
Order affirmed.
I’m beginning to think that ObligedFriend is either incapable of answering direct questions or is just a troll. As soon as one avenue of debate becomes an obvious loss, he pulls out something else. Not to be a jerk, but I really don’t see how a legal document from 1803 incorporating the land and citizens of a foreign county into the U.S. has anything to do with the 14th Amendment. Are you claiming that the slaves who were property under French law would still be property under U.S. law? If so, who cares? They and/or their descendents were freed by the 14th Amendment.
Totally wrong again.
Slavery was already illegal under French Law at that time and therefore French citizens could not own slaves, hence “property” meant real estate, worldly posessions, etc. — anything and everything BUT slaves.
In fact slavery had to be “reinstated” into Louisiana Territory AFTER the Purchase in order to appease other Southern States. Which is why those wanting to contract a mixed race marriage had to petition the French Consul in New Orleans to reclaim their french citizenship in order to have a lawful marriage because they couldn’t get one under US Law at the time.
I’m not sure why the Treaty would be relevant to your argument (which involves US constitutional history & SCOTUS decisions that I am not competent to discuss) but in this respect at least, unsurprisingly you are again totally wrong.
Lincoln and Congress violated the Louisiana Purchase Treaty with the French Republic.
North Carolina agreed to give her vast territory in the West to the Government if slavery would not be abolished in the terrority. The government agreed.
The ironic kicker here is that the law at the time was that the child’s status followed the mother. Neither of Obama’s parents were slaves.
If Ann had married the alien african “at the time” she lost her citizenship.
It should be clear Obama is not a citizen based on the holding in WKA. His father was never a permanent resident.
WKA was held to be a citizen not a NBC. He’s not a 14th Amendment citizen.
Justice Daniel defined a natural born citizen in his concurring majority opinion Dred Scott.
Many so called Birthers mentioned natural born citizens born to citizens from Supreme Court opinions. But you guys claimed they don’t count because they came from minority opinions.
Justice Daniel’s NBC definition is not from a dissenting opinion.
I really don’t see how you can honestly defend this but as always I will enjoy reading your attempts to discredit Justice Daniel.
Well, I wouldn’t say that either.
In fact, Dred Scott came to the rather absurd conclusion that anyone from a race that was not commonly considered worthy of equality of respect with the white european founders and authors of the Constitution; e.g. ‘the negro race’ (and presumably by extrapolation ‘the Asian race’) could not be citizens.
Dred Scott turned on whether or not the founding generation considered ‘the negro race’ worthy of citizenship and whether or not citizenship granted by one State was binding on another State where that person was considered as property. Birth on the soil didn’t enter into the decision. Most slaves at that time were ‘born on the soil’, none were citizens any more than horses were citizens.
The first clause of the 14th amendment directly corrected the Dred Scott mistake and returned the law of the land to the common law. Absent the 14th Amendment, Dred Scott was the law of the land and no member of ‘the Negro race’ could be a citizen because the finding of the court was that the founders established this country for white men. Period.
I assert that if this was still the law of the land, that members of ‘the Asian race’ would likewise be excluded from citizenship.
Direct quote from Taney’s decision in Scott v Sandalford:
1) It is a fact that there are exactly two kinds of citizens: natural born and naturalized (according to Minor v Happersett).
2) It is a fact that WKA could not, by federal law be naturalized. (according to the Chinese Exclusion Acts).
Conclusion: It is therefore a fact that since WKA was ‘ruled a citizen’, the only kind of citizen he could possibly be is a natural born citizen.
If I flip a coin and ask you to choose heads or tails, ‘elephant’ is not a relevant choice.
Actually it was ruled that he was born a citizen. You also seem to miss that the supreme court upheld the district court’s ruling saying that he was a natural born citizen. You seem not to know that the government was arguing against the lower court ruling or the dissenting argument you seem fond of stated that the opinion of the court would mean people like Wong Kim Ark could run for president.
Thomas Jefferson: “Louisiana as ceded by France to the U.S. Is made a part of the U.S. It’s white inhabitants shall be citizens…..” “Florida also, when ever it shall be obtained it’s white inhabitants shall be citizens…..”
The Conversational History of the Louisiana Purchase page 26
Constitutional History
Something you seem to have no clue about
I see your point.
Wait. Not only were you and I wrong about French law concerning slavery (thank you Lupin) but you also are making the claim that a treaty between two sovereign nations can dictate the future possible changes in law of one of those nations over 60 years later? I am no legal expert, but can you please show me the section or clause in the treaty that negates and reverses the L.P. upon the abolishment of slavery in the U.S.?
And why would S.A.D. lose her citizenship upon marriage to a foreigner? Please, again, state the section of law relevant in 1961, not 1861.
It’s quite possible that you are not aware that a country can change, and even reverse, previous laws from its history.
Are you also arguing that the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, was not ratified either? Since that amendment states that slavery does not exist in the United States, any provision of law based on it becomes invalid.
While some of our ancestors were racists, that doesn’t mean that we have to be.
ObligedFriend, I will remind you once again that there have been 220 court decisions that have effectively deemed Barack Obama to be eligible to serve as President. This portfolio of judicial decisions from courts all across the country serves as one of the largest bodies of case law on a singular Constitutional question in the history of the Republic.
Article III of the Constitution affords the courts the authority and responsibility to resolve questions and disputes arising under our Constitution. You can wax eloquent all you want about what you believe it should be based upon your own understanding of American history, but, fortunately, Article III didn’t give idiots like you the authority to interpret diddliesquat about our Constitution. Our founding fathers were very wise.
🙂
It’s my claim natural born citizen and naturalization is a Kind/Race. The Constitution gave Congress the power to naturalize, why would they use the word natural unless it’s a Kind.
Isn’t this blog about learning?
The first naturalizion act was white settlers, Jefferson writes only white inhabitants in Florida and the Louiiana terrority can be citizens.
Franklin wrote “we are clearing America’s woods for white settlers”
The Preamble…we give the Constitution to our posterity…..white people.
The Founders limited the Presidency to their own natural kind. Natural born is a Kind.
The kindly fruits of the earth, were all thy children kind and natural, yearnings to be with her own natural kind.
Why do so many here despise truth and knowledge.
I’ve given this forum a gift.
Dear god almighty, everything you just cited (dubiously I might add) is from the 18th century. Is there nothing from even the 20th century that might actually apply to our discussions? There is a process allowed by the Constitution that allows for future generations to alter it, particularly for problems that the Founders may not have anticipated. It’s called an amendment.
I might also add that the North American woods were cleared already by the Native Americans. If not for disease, European settlers would have found it much more difficult to conquer the territory. Some estimate that up to 90% of some Native populations were wiped out in the years between Columbus and Plymouth Rock.
It’s just too bad your claim is wrong like most of the stuff you’ve posted here. I stopped taking your trolling seriously the moment you told us the Andrew Johnson vetoed the 14th amendment.
And nowhere in the preamble does it say White People.
If natural means kind then these phrases actually read:
were all thy children kind and kind,
yearnings to be with her own kind kind.
Makes perfect sense. LOL
“Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.”
ObligedFriend
“I’ve given this forum a gift.”
Birthers are really into looking for and giving gifts.” 🙂
“I’ve given this forum a gift.”
This is something Zullo, Gillar or Gallups could have written. And the would have believed every word.
—-
I’ve learned one thing from you. From your avatar on BR, I did a little research and learned who your hero Nathan Forrest was. That’s how I was able to recognize the guy in the KKK billboard put up this week in Selma to greet our President et al.
If the legality of the 14th Amndment had been successfully challenged at any point since 1868, we’d have something significant to talk about but I doubt that there has been a Supreme Court Justice in the 20th or 21st century who hasn’t based a holding on the 14th Amendment and there is no way for a Justice to be confirmed today who doesn’t believe that the 14th Amendment is perfectly legal.
As far as post Civil War legislative actions in the states in rebellion, “to the victors belong the spoils.”–Andrew Jackson
I think ObligedFriend has forgotten that the Constitution as originally written in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 acknowledged and institutionalized for purposes of apportionment that there were three classes of persons: free persons, “Indians not taxed” and “other persons” in the United States.
For example, the first Person of African ancestry to be elected to a State office in the United States was Alexander Twilight, elected to the Vermont Legislature, 1836-1837.
The first American Indian elected to statewide office was Greenwood LeFlore, elected in the 1841, LeFlore was elected Mississippi state representative and senator. He was a personal friend of Jefferson Davis. He was elected to represent Carroll County in the state house for two terms, and elected by the legislature as a state senator, serving one term.
The Founding Fathers were prescient enough to make provision for any and all of their original thinking to be altered by future generations of Americans.
—-
Phil Ochs – Too Many Martyrs (around 1965)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3OiLBRh9X8
The gift of laughter, yes… for which you’l have at least 5 minutes of our gratitude.
The KKK you know came from the movie Birth of a Nation. Forrest never formed the KKK and the original KKK disbanded in the 1860’s.
Forrest was a self made man and a military genius with no formal military training.
Ask Union General Sturgis about Gen Forrest at Brice Crossroads. Read Forrest speeches to the Negro community after the War Between the States.
Union Major Anderson at Ft. Sumter owned slaves, Gen Grant was a slave owner, his wife kept her slaves during the war.
Many people in the North owned plantations in the South, the North built the rum factories to trade for slaves. New York harbor was full of slave ships flying the American Flag.
Cincinnati sold farming implements to the plantations, The North sold slave clothing to the South.
The North tried slavery but could not make a profit, they sold their slaves to the South.
Let me speak for myself: I hold slavery in abomination.
Do you?
—-
Not so.
African-Americans In the Union Army
African-Americans served in the Civil War on both the Union and Confederate side. In the Union army, over 179,000 African American men served in over 160 units, as well as more serving in the Navy and in support positions. This number comprised both northern free African Americans and runaway slaves from the South who enlisted to fight. In the Confederacy, African-Americans were still slaves and they served mostly in labor positions. By 1865, the South allowed slaves to enlist but very few actually did. – http://www.historynet.com/african-americans-in-the-civil-war#sthash.mfEsIjWC.dpuf
At the onset of the Civil War, free black men rushed to volunteer for service with the Union forces. Although African Americans had served in the army and navy during the American Revolution and in the War of 1812, they were not permitted to enlist because of a 1792 law that barred them from bearing arms in the U.S. Army. President Abraham Lincoln also feared that accepting black men into the military would cause border states like Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri to secede.
Free black men were permitted to enlist late in 1862, following the passage of the Second Confiscation and Militia Act, which freed slaves who had masters in the Confederate Army, and Lincoln’s signing of the Emancipation Proclamation. By May 1863, the Bureau of Colored Troops was established to manage black enlistees. Recruitment was low until active efforts were made to enlist black volunteers—leaders like Frederick Douglass encouraged free black men to volunteer as a way to ensure eventual full citizenship.
http://www.historynet.com/african-americans-in-the-civil-war#sthash.gLdMVzOv.dpuf
“Once let the black man get upon his person the brass letters US, let him get an eagle on his button, and a musket on his shoulder, and bullets in his pocket, and there is no power on earth or under the earth which can deny that he has earned the right of citizenship in the United States.”–Frederick Douglass
Speech, “Should the Negro Enlist in the Union Army?”, National Hall, Philadelphia (6 July 1863); published in Douglass’ Monthly, August 1863
Ask the 6th U.S. Regiment and the 2nd Light Artillery and Major Lionel F. Booth about Forrest at Fort Pillow.
Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. George Washington owned slaves.
Lots of people owned slaves (in the states where is is allowed). It was ‘expected’ that if you could afford slaves you did, just like it is ‘expected’ that people own cars today.
That didn’t make it right then and it certainly doesn’t make it right now.
The Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and freedom of religion and and freedom of association and habeas corpus were systematically eliminated in the United States in the years before the war in defense of the institution of slavery. Do you suppose that is what the founders, most of them dead for only a few decades, wanted to happen when they wrote those provisions into the Constitution?
What’s your point? Even if these were true at some point in the past, slavery has been abolished since the inclusion of the 13th amendment. Yes the northern colonies had slavery at some points early in colonial history, but at the ratification of the Constitution, five states allowed “men of color” to vote.
I’m a bit afraid to ask, but is your point that since the founders saw fit to include those with African descent as slaves within the Constitution, we should still treat their descendents as such? Is it your claim that only Americans with European descent can be citizens? And you still haven’t answered previous questions pertaining to the Louisiana Purchase or Stanley Ann Dunham losing her citizenship upon marriage to Obama Sr.
From The Second Confiscation and Militia Act of July 17, 1862: “That every person who shall hereafter commit the crime of treason against the United States, and shall be adjudged guilty thereof, shall suffer death, and all his slaves, if any, shall be declared and made free.”
By you reasoning, the Wong Kim Ark decision only applies to people of Chinese descent who are subjects of the Emperor of China.
As I said before, you don’t know how to understand a Supreme Court decision. A recitation of the facts of a case is not a statement that all of those facts are relevant to the decision. You have to read the entire case, including the briefs, in order to comprehend what is essential and what is not. If “permanent domicile” was an essential requirement, why did the government fail to raise the well-known fact that Wong’s parents had returned to China years earlier?
You’re still a racist imbecile. And we still have a black president.
Birth of a Nation is credited as being a major factor in the resurgence of the Klan, the so-called “second era.”
No they did not. In fact i know of no historian that has ever made that claim.
While it is true that the “Americanization” of Louisiana gradually resulted in a step backward for people of color with some freemen losing certain rights as they became characterized as officially “black”, it certainly did not constitute a treaty violation.
In fact one might argue that Napoleon reinstating slavery from 1802-15 in Haiti after it had been abolished in 1794 was a huge step backward motivated by the influence of its Confederate neighbor. Be it as it may by 1848 the French colonies were totally emancipated.
Is that the point at which we have arrived? Arguing with an objectively pro-slavery ignoramus who doesn’t know how to properly read & understand English and steadfastly refuses to accept any historical developments posterior to circa 1860?
Seems to all we do now, is argue with the same few yahoos who hijack every thread they enter. But there’s nothing new and fresh going on in the world of birtherism. Its all stale. Even birther infighting over at Gerbil Report has lost it’s appeal. The “news” cycle over there is pretty stale too. When their not playing the “Old news is fun!” game, they trot out a new “Some person of no consequence thinks Obama is born in Kenya!” piece. Even the comment sections are dreadfully predictable. You’ve got the A&Z holdouts, the couple of people wishing really hard for an armed insurrection, a few people who’ve come to their senses realizing A&Z day is never coming and BSE posting more bunk about how every national tragedy is secretly some hoax.
Let’s return to the Louisiana Purchase Treaty article III “property”
From the majority opinion Dred Scott:
“My opinion is that the third article of the treaty 1803 ceding Louisiana to the United States stands protected by the Constitution and cannot be repealed by Congress.”
The amendments created by the Radical 39th and 40th Congress and Lincolns freeing the slaves are not valid.
“Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) stands first in any list of the worst Supreme Court decisions – Chief Justice Hughes called it the Court’s greatest self-inflicted wound.” – Bernard Schwartz, Professor of Law, University of Tulsa
“Scott v. Sandford: The Court’s most dreadful case.” – Paul Finkelman, President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law and Public Policy and Senior Fellow in the Government Law Center, Albany Law School
“The decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri in the Scott case was, unquestionably, our court’s worst decision ever. But if the Supreme Court of Missour got the decision badly wrong, the Supreme Court decision five years later got it horribly wrong.” – David Thomas Konig, professor of history and a professor of law at Washington University, St. Louis
Congress didn’t repeal them. The Constitution was amended in such a way that the offensive provisions of the treaty were no longer ‘protected’ (if they ever were).
Do you actually understand the difference between ‘an Act of Congress’ and ‘a Constitutional Amendment’?
Short refresher: the Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land; Acts of Congress and Treaties are not.
All:
obliged friend is bushpilot from free republic who used to post over there that the presidency was only meant for white people. He kept using kind this and kind that over there until he finally said white people only for president and got banned…but it took him to outright say stuff that you’d find on stormfront before they banned him.
Then the other free republic bigots tried to re-write history saying that he never said white people only for president and only one or two of them said good riddance….
So hello bushpilot1/obliged friend…I see you haven’t change and are still a member of the kkk.
Bookfiend said: Is it your claim that only Americans with European descent can be citizens?
Yes, bushpilot/obliged friend said exactly this. Not only white people, but CERTAIN white people are supposed to be president of the United States.
…I’m not kidding….he said this over on free republic before he got banned.
So one of the white aryan race pushing racists?
Well, after reading his last response concerning the 13th/14th Amendments being invalid, I’d have to agree with your claim of a racial bias. I also agree with Lupin that it’s best not to waste time with this person who is so obviously not interested in a debate but is only interested in either promoting racist claims or trolling this website.
It stands to our credit that we are secure enough as to give a voice to a person whose views were extreme enough that even FR would not tolerate them. However I am beginning to doubt that he is sincere. I suspect that we are being trolled. I also have to admit that his citations, spun and misconstrued as they are, have been quite educational for me. My education did not provide much exposure to the counter arguments against abolition or the arguments in favor of secession. I find it a fascinating topic, and one that is rarely given voice. On the other hand, we appear to be in direct contact with someone who honestly believes that slavery remains technically lawful in the United States, which is as weird and unexpected to me as the people I have encountered who speak in support of 1930s Germany. I hope this thread ends soon, and its instigator loses interest in our forum. But I don’t disagree with allowing him to speak his mind, at least not if he refraina from making threats or personal insults.
I agree with you in terms of allowing him to speak his mind. It is also interesting trying to decipher the logic he employs through his posts and interpretations. I just feel trying to engage him in a debate is pointless and ultimately frustrating.
Thomas Jefferson: “When Florida is obtained the white inhabitants shall be citizens” “Lousiana Terrority it’s white inhabitants shall be citizens”
A.P. Morse: “natural born citizens are born to citizen parents”
Justice Daniel: Majority Opinion US Supreme Court. “Natural born citizens are born to citizen parents”
Professor Gilmore: Vattel is just about everywhere in the Constitution including 212.
The Act to Establish Naturalization 1790. White settlers only.
Louisiana Purchase Treaty Article III. Property is protected by Treaty.
US Supreme Court property is by the Louisiana Treaty and Constitution. Congress cannot interfere.
Professor Kellogg: Kind and Natural Children are a race. https://archive.org/details/shakespeareski01shak
William Wordsworth: “yearnings to be with her own natural kind” Her own race.
You’re telling me the Founders used natural born to include all races.
Is Barack Hussein Obama included in the Constitution’s Preamble? We give to our posterity?
You know he’s not.
I cannot see how the fraudulent 14th Amendment can make natural citizens. Africans and White folk are not the same natural kind. This means they’re not the same natural born.
Chaucer wrote of a Gecynde King. This means a King from the same race generation to generation. Guess what. In the early English language Gecynde and Natural have the same meaning.
Cynde became Kindly and natural. The kindly fruits of the Earth…means…the natural fruits of the Earth.
Now stop you’re ranting, go get your Pulitzer.
Yes I’m that clever. My last post. An attorney is requesting copies my documents.
natural born citizens are born from the same natural kind as the Founders from generation to generation. Posterity.
Wrong. Science has already settled that we all descended from African ancestors.
Guess what: the Founders did not fight for freedom from England to replace one blood lineage concept with another.
So? Still no justification for your racist interpretation of legal terms in the Constitution.
Riiiiiiiiiight. Somebody get the straight jacket. We have another “everybody in 200+ years is wrong but me” candidate.
No, you’re an ill-educated imbecile who thinks he is is clever (like most village idiots do).
Leaving aside your odious ideas, the fact remains that you are totally and objectively wrong about (amongst others) your interpretations of Vattel and the Louisiana treaty, even left in their contemporary context.
In other words, even a pro-slavery, yet intelligent and educated man from 1800 would see your errors and disagree with you.
It’s been explained very clearly and factually to you, and you still ramble on with the same trumped up rubbish.
This has nothing to do with race or kind, but your own stupidity. If i were on the council of the KKK, I would kick you out because you’re a terrible advocate for their ideology.
My beef with you is not as much your abhorrent ideas better left in the past, but the fact that you’re either a moron or a troll.
I disagree in part, see Article VI:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land”
(BTW another reason why the open letter to Iran by the “Gang of 47” is legal BS – a President can’t undo a treaty with a stroke of the pen.)
And yet, he remains President of the United States. With a nod to Misha, next up, Cory Booker.
Let me guess failed birther attorney Larry KKKlayman?
“Posterity” means future generations. “Our” in context means “of the United States of America.”
Before the adoption of the 14th Amendment, state citizenship determined national citizenship and there were states that always granted citizenship to all residents regardless of race.
In 1789 The “father of the Constitution” James Madison said: “It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain
criterion. It is what applies in the United States. It will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”
Quite so.
However, the Constitution trumps treaties. Treaties cannot be ‘made, under the Authority of the United States’ that violate the Constitution.
The hierarchy, then, is Constitution at the top, then Treaties, then Federal legislation, then State law, then local laws. Treaties cannot override provisions in the Constitution, but it can override provisions in Federal and State Legislation.
According to the news reports I’ve seen on TV, the negotiations with Iran and the P5+1 will not produce a treaty, but some sort of “executive agreement” (like a SOFA) that doesn’t require Senate ratification.
Why would Pres. Obama propose a treaty with Iran? It would not be approved, and its rejection does not generate political points like making the Republicans take a stand against his immigration policy.
The lawyers on this forum are also quite clever and you have given them a good laugh.
You’re correct, I was wrong w.r.t. the status of the potential Iran agreement.
Setting aside your blatant racism, President Obama certainly is the Founders’ “posterity”. He is entitled to be a member of the “Sons of the American Revolution” which requires (from their webpage):
“The SAR is a “lineage” society. This means that each member has traced their family tree back to a point of having an ancestor who supported the cause of American Independence during the years 1774-1783.”
Therefore he is much more of an American and posterity of the Founders than a dishonest and racist seditionist like yourself.
See what I mean…..bushpilot1 from free republic who got banned over there because he said only white people (and certain ones of those) are supposed to/were meant to be president.