In an article discussing objections to the candidacy of Marco Rubio that say he’s not a natural born citizen because his parents were not US citizens, United Press International quotes Georgetown law professor Lawrence Solum saying:
"The arguments aren’t crazy," said Georgetown law Professor Lawrence Solum. But, he added, "The much stronger argument suggests that if you were born on American soil that you would be considered a natural-born citizen."
Solum’s comment is in line with what other authorities have said. I would just point out that he didn’t just say “stronger” but “much stronger.” It’s important to recognize, in the highly polarized atmosphere of of the birther conflict that the birther argument in favor of citizen parents for presidential eligibility is not vacuous, just weak.
Solum was also the one law professor that the birthers could turn to and not look like they were crazy. I remember that they were using one of his papers to try to argue that their philosophy was mainstream. The paper said “parents”. Birthers, not actually knowing English grammar, had interpreted that has proving that you need “2 parents” and proving that Obama is ineligible. Solum finally revised that paper to basically say “No, you idiots, one parent is enough.”
No. The two citizen parent stuff is vacuous as to what the law requires. There is no debate. I am learning that more and more everyday.
The Head Researcher
Far be it from me to say what is and isn’t crazy. But here is what we do know:
1. The birther arguments were considered by a court (Ankeny) and dismissed unanimously. Never previously had this court (The Indiana Court of Appeals) been considered “crazy” nor anywhere outside the mainstream of American jurisprudence. The case was appealled to the Indiana Supreme Court and no review was granted. Now, I realize that SCOTUS can overrule state courts when federal law is involved, but guess what, not a single solitary birther even bothered to file an appeal. Now if someone thought a state court erred on an important matter, one that, to listen to the birthers, is the most important legal issue in the history of mankind, being people who have routinely appealed every single decision so far, you would think that one of them would have bothered to appeal Ankeny. But they didn’t. And that strikes me as a bit crazy.
2. Obama announced his candidacy in February 2007. At that point not only was he not hiding his father’s situation, he had written a book about it and mentioned it in many of his speeches, including the one he gave at the DNC in 2004. All through 2007, as he campaigned around the country, no one came forward and mentioned that he was ineligible. Through most of 2008, as he won primaries and caucuses and opponents dropped by the wayside, no one mentioned it. When Hillary dropped out leaving Obama as the only candidate, no one mentioned that he was ineligible. When he accepted the nomination, no one mentioned it. Through most of the general election, no one mentioned it, until practically the eve of the election, when the polls were clear Obama was going to win. And that strikes me as a bit crazy.
But what do I know about crazy?
Strongly suggesting that Solum is a Vatellist who knows the intricacies of French grammar.
Someone should point out to hi; an interesting intricacy of French VOCABULARY at the time Vattel was writing.
http://books.google.be/books?id=KMdFAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA311&lpg=PA311&dq=Dominique+Bouhours+parens&source=bl&ots=fvv1qhKpAG&sig=zPpzSUW-sOySDHoq7k0lou5K0AM&hl=nl&ei=P8uhTqmGEuz24QTK09XPBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ce%20mot%20n%27est%20pas%20noble&f=false
On page 310 of his epic “Rémarques nouvelles sur la langue françoise”, Dominique Bouhours, imminent and influential grammarian of the French language (see his article on Wikipedia) tells us that the use of parens with the meaning of father and mother “n’est pas noble”.
It meant relatives, and Vattel used it with that meaning elsewhere in his book.
What we do know is that birthers are not so much believing their defiinition, and therefore are concerned about Obama, but rather are searching for any definition which will serve to remove the hated black guy in the whitehouse.
Well, from an Internet Artilce I just did called Remember The Maine, Battleship!!! Remember The Wong Kim Ark???,
http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/remember-the-maine-battleship-remember-the-wong-kim-ark/
I have found a thingy called American Law Review from 1898 which makes it clear that the doubts have been resolved. But, it also argues that doing stuff like Vattel makes better sense. Which these things ARE a matter of opinion. But it is not just “opinion” WHAT the. Like for example, I believe Abortion is wrong, and should be against the law. BUT, abortions are legal, whether I like it or not. Some Vattle Birthers can not make that distinction. Sooo, if Solums is saying what he is as a OPINION on which is better or more reasonable, then that is one thing. If he is saying it is questionable about needing two citizen parents, then he should really be prepared to back that up, or else I will clobber him WITH LOGIC, too.
The Head Researcher
You are not crazy. There was a single birther who quietly pursued the two-parent theory before November 4, 2008, and that was Leo Donofrio. His theory began to spark after the haters woke up to the election results, and after Leo surreptitiously took a train to Washington DC with his passport tucked safely in his boot while he evaded homeless men with radio transmitters strapped to their wrists, in order to file his soon-to-be-denied petition for certiorari. And, as they say, the rest is (revisionist) history.
Still looking for that 1959 McGraw Hill civics book that proves they learned it, but somehow forgot about it until just before the Inauguration.
And that great (or, more properly, grate) patriot allowed his fellow countrymen to remain in the dark until it was too late to do anything about it?
Which would make Obama eligible, but not Rubio or Jindal. Sounds good to me….
Many things that are wrong are not and should not be illegal. Like:
Being rude
Being selfish
Wearing plaid pants off the golf course
Being a Red Sox fan (OK, that should be illegal)
The public policy implications of making abortion illegal are very negative. Since you claim to be a “researcher” you should research what happened in Ireland when abortion was illegal and when they even tried to criminalize going to England to get one. It did not work and abortion is now legal there.
Georgetown JD:
I whacked Mario Apuzzo, Esq. and Leo Donofrio, Esq. in another new Internet Article called “A Minor Inconvenience For The Knot Heads” in which I found another thingy at American Law Review from 1876 about Minor Happersett, which was a whole 19 words long. The “Dueling” stuff had more copy. Tee Hee!!!
Sooo, I put thaty page up, and teased them about it, and Leo Donofrio, Esq. about his “revisionist” history Spucatum Tauri. (Which is Latin.) Oh, these Vattle Birthers will be sorry they ever made me mad.
http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/a-minor-inconvenience-for-the-knot-heads/
Plus, I am working on a really big White Paper thingy on NBC stuff, and I just swear I read something about a 1300 something NBC case in England, and I thought in Lynch versus Clarke, but I can not find it for anything, Was I dreaming??? Have you ever heard of it??? It is not in the secret book I found either.
The Head Researcher
Knot Head – great term…thanks for introducing that to us!
Capt. Pam Barnett has written in her new book about Natural Born Citizen. Capt. Barnett provides overwhelming proof to what a NBC is and shows beyond all doubt that Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen as well as Marco Rubio.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/53024295/NATURAL-Born-Citizen-Chapter-of-Never-Vetted-by-Pamela-Barnett
Not I am not sure which is the greater wrong, being a birther or wearing plaid pants off (or on) the golf course.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asd9vZWpLO8&feature=related
Dude, who died and left Pamela Barnett in charge of defining who a natural born citizen is? You’re a dumb ass birfer and President Obama, Jindal and Rubion are all NATURAL BORN CITIZENS BECAUSE THEY WERE BORN ON AMERICAN SOIL. End….of….story, you dumb ass birfer, Pamela Barnett and her book notwithstanding.
Now all Pammy has to do is get someone in a position of authority or jurisdiction to pay attention to her idle speculation about what she really needs the definition of NBC to be.
It would help her case a lot if she was any sort of recognized expert on the subject, or even had any sort of formal education or experience…
Sadly, for her, she has nothing.
Saw the cover… skimmed the contents… hope she’s not planning on making any money off that.
Even Corsi writes better by a country mile, and he couldn’t give away his last book.
Hear Researchers writing style is remarkably similar to that of Squeeky Fromm – Girl Reporter.
Or is that just me seeing that?
The whole and fullly correct SELF description of Pammie is Disabled Black Vet, 2 lies in a 3 sentence description, by Pammie of herself.
Duh!!! Squeeky Fromm refuses to post here ever since she was falsely accused of being a racist by a rabid mob of Obots, and threatened with banning. Sooo, her agent, The Head Researcher, posts her for her as her Agent because a Head Researcher of a Think Tank has a obligation to do stuff in that capacity, that a individual does not have to do. Which, where have you been not to know this???
The Head Researcher, as Agent.
So….basically she just quotes Mario’s arguments.
And lies- such as the lie about Justice Thomas.
A preponderance of the evidence available proves Obama is a Usurper, anUnlawful President. How did this happen? Was all of Congress grossly negligentand ignorant? Taken advantage of by a well orchestrated misinformationcampaign by Obama operatives? Or did Congress know the truth but wereafraid to act? What happened to the courts? Justice Clarence Thomas said thatthe Supreme Court was avoiding the Obama eligibility issue duringCongressional hearings. (video availablewww.unlawfulpresident.com) HasCongress and the Supreme Court effectively removed the Natural Born Citizenrequirement for Obama by not enforcing it? More on this in the Obstruction
Hey, who need actual Constitutional Law scholars when we have Pam Barnett. She’s obviously more qualified than a guy who teaches Constitutional Law at one of the top law schools in the country.
Jindal is out, according to Vattel. But if you read the famous sentence that birthers always quote correctly (remember, it is the French version that counts, because at the time when the Constitution was written, no English version mentioned the term “natural born citizen”), you will know that Vattel wanted you to have a sponsor (assumed male) who was already in the country, a citizen, and related to you.
You may think Rubio cannot possibly fit the bill, as his parents are supposed to have fled head over heels because of the tyranny of Castro. Thanks to the Florida paper linking to the application for US naturalization by his father, we now know that Rubio’s parents came over well before Castro took over. So there you are: they were economic immigrants and the chance that they had a sponsor, a rich relative already living in the USA, is increased.
Of course, as Blackadder would say if he returned as a judge, there is one tiny flaw in the theory of the “noted” law professor. It is bollocks. Wong Kim Ark. Ankeny vs Indiana.
If you want to call that copy-paste job “writing” knock yourself out.
Because Head Researcher is Squeeky Fromm
Even today, parents means not just “parents” but “relatives” in general. Ask any Frenchman (or woman) if the sentence: “j’ai des parents qui vivent aux Etats-Unis” means (a) My father and/or mother live in the USA or (b) I have relatives who live in the USA.
We don’t have to look to medieval or ancient French to figure out that one.
To the extent that any such argument relies on Vattel, that part of it at least is misconstrued and “vacuous”.
A number of “vital’ paragraphs in The Law of Nations start with a sentence that proposes a general priciple, which is then used to develop the “law”. Often the paragraph will end with the personal opinion of the writer-diplomat.
Vattel first proposes that it is a natural principle that people are citizens of the country where they were born and raised by their FAMILY. He then turns this into an argument to say basically that children share the citizenship of their father.
Of course, he later says in the same chapter that England and others (the courts of Paris for instance) use the principle that children obtain the citizenship of the country under whose jurisdiction they were born – and that international law should respect that.
Elsewhere, Vattel condemns the monarchs of France and Austria for still pretending that the children of protestant refugees born in Prussia still own allegiance to them. Meaning he had at least no problem with the English principle that with jurisdiction goes protection, and that without protection there is no jurisdiction.
I am sure the birfers are going to shout “Godwin” now, but considering Vattel’s work makes you shout “Godwin” at every fifth page, let me mention one of the last times Vattel WAS taken seriously. In 1938, Dutch newspapers were reporting how Hitler was using Vattel to get “Germans” heim ins Reich. Would he go for Switzerland now (the irony!) or for … Dantzig. Why Vattel? Because 1) Vattel based “la patrie” on blood lines 2) Vattel, in contrats to Grotius had claimed that nations had the right to go to war to further imminent interest.
On the 5th of July, 1938, the Utrechtsch Nieuwsblad wondered whether Hitler’s new treaty law would make him go for Czechoslavakia, Hungary or Dantzig first and called the followers of Hitler in Holland “satellites of the Vattellites”, betrayers of the principles of Grotius.
http://www.hetutrechtsarchief.nl/collectie/kranten/un/1938/0705
(Page nine “Eerst Tsjechoslowakije …” Vattel is quoted several times. Page one deals with Hitler and Switzerland. Sorry, I cannot find any computer printouts of this, which would help with google translation. I could provide one for Doc’s archive, of course).
So, now you know why at least one “dam forigner'” is interested in this Vattellite nonsense. In view of what a lot of Americans think about the united Nations and what US foreign policy should be, is our noted law professor a satellite of the Vatellites, or does he still believe in Grotius?
A provocative question, indeed. Matthew 10:34.
Well, maybe the book is by a different Pamela Barnett as the writer does not seem to be in actual existence (in esse). The Pamela, with all the lawsuits, is in actual existence a person, not in potential, blah:blah.
Get back to us when she finds a publisher.
I’m working on a book called “John, the Village Idiot.” I’ll let you know when it is published.
I’d like to see her produce evidence that actually was a Captain in the U.S. Army. Captain is pay grade O-3 in the Army, the equivalent of a Lieutenant in the Navy. She couldn’t have spent a lot of time in the Army if she got out before at least making Major.
She is 40 years old now, she obviously got out of the Army while quite young. And obviously is not black, as proven by photos of her which have been posted elsewhere.
In terms of “academic exercise,” it might not be considered “crazy.” In real world law, it’s considered “already decided” what NBC means, given the extensive case listing over the past two centuries on that subject. Attempting to rewrite it at this time to meet a completely different standard, just because you don’t like the candidate/officeholder is crazy. I don’t have to like Rubio or Jindal as candidates, but that doesn’t mean they’re not eligible – they are. Damn.
Well, I think the French are being set up on this whole Vattle Birther thingy. It was probably intentional.
http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/the-case-of-the-sleeping-case-a-whimsy/
The Head Researcher
I am going to contact Professor Lawrence Solum and advise him that I have Barack Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate and that, as he will well know then, Obama is an illegal de facto president and must be removed from Office in a peaceful manner!
On top of that I want him, and everyone here at Dr Conspiracy’s Obot haven to know that I have published a new, and very informative, blog report at my WOBIK blog.
“Stanley Ann Dunham goes to Kenya.”
http://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/blog/barrack-obama-eligibility/stanley-ann-dunham-goes-to-kenya/
Please read, comment and share. Thanks!
Lucas D. Smith
319-804-0440
Found that to be an extremely entertaining read! Good job not only with the pot-boiler pulp fiction format and the excellent parody of Donofrio & Apuzzo but also the informative and explanative footnotes at the end. Muchos Kudos.
Yes, it is definitely squeeky. She admitted over at free republic that she posts here under this head researcher or whatever name.
At least she thinks that the parents have to be born here (preferrably in some favorite state of the birthers, like Texas) meme is bullshit.
But yes, it’s sqeeky
This post is toooooooooo funny.
How soon will you be heading back to prison for fraud or whatever felony you’ll be convicted of next?
You have quite a long rap sheet. Is it two or three Class D felonies? Can you even remember how many misdemeanors anymore?
Make sure you or Bruce forward your criminal résumé to the Professor as well.
Hey, can you meet up with me and give me a copy of that REAL Kenyan birth certificate of President Obama?? I’ll pay you a whole $1.00 for it, and when I make a pdf of it, it better not have any layers……………dumb ass……
Lucas, your litany of Kenyan travel and communication statistics utterly FAIL to provide *any* evidence linking Stanley Ann Dunham to Kenya whatsoever. Without such, all the statistics in the world are meaningless in your quixotic quest. They simply add up to…NOTHING.
There simply is no “there” there. You are merely chasing the wind and coming up empty.
I thought you sold it? Didn’t the buyer come through with the dough? Did you give him/her/it the negative feedback they deserve?
You have had it for how long now? My advice is to keep it. If it was authentic, you wouldn’t have been holding on to it so long.
Why? because you said so? Who died and left you in charge of defining the meaning of NBC?
See how silly you sound? LOL
Which makes no difference whatsoever. Rubio’s father did not naturalize until after his birth; therefore, IN MY OPINION (which is what counts for me) he could not possibly be a NBC.
You all are so funny. You think shouting your opinion of the meaning of NBC from the roof tops will have some sort of affect on the birthers. Then after you affirm your own definition you say PERIOD, END OF STORY – like a proclamation of some sort that magically makes all birthers stop in their tracks and see the err of their ways. I laugh when I see people creating these statements as if they are the true and correct gospel and then the PERIOD, END OF STORY seals the deal and I just giggle.
You all do realize you are not changing hearts and minds here on this blog, right? The birthers believe what they believe and will take that belief into the voting booth with them….where they will be free of your PERIOD, END OF STORY proclamation ‘thingys’.
Carry on, you crusaders – PERIOD. END OF STORY!
No problems, Sally.
As the saying goes,
Born in Hawai’i is a fact, not an opinion. Hawai’i is American soil, again fact, not opinion. Born on American soil is sufficient grounds for “Natural Born Citizenship” of the USA; once again fact not opinion.The citizenship status of the parents, is 100% irrelevant when the child is born on American soil; yet again, FACT not opinion.
Obama’s eligibility is a fact, not an opinion – PERIOD. END OF STORY!
OK, you got me. That isn’t 100% true. If the parents are foreign diplomats or members of an invading army, their status does disqualify the child from NBC. Obama’s parents were neither; fact not opinion.
Oh yeah. Rubio and Jindal are NBC for the same reason. fact not opinion.
See, that is what is called PROJECTION. Because Sally Hill plays pretend make-believe, naively thinking that her opinions somehow translate into reality…she incorrectly assumes everyone else functions the same delusional way.
Sorry Sally Hill, most of what we’re dealing with has nothing to do with our opinions. These are simple plain old matters of law and evidence. We merely point them out to you. You can continue to stick your fingers in your ears and scream lalalalalala all you want, but that won’t change reality.
There is a simple reason why Birthers have lost EVERY single lawsuit, letter writing campaign, etc. in their quixotic quest – because you all happen to be completely wrong. Simple as that.
It doesn’t matter how stubborn you are in your wrongness. It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat your incorrect babble. It simply doesn’t change reality one bit and only makes you all look like the delusional fools you come across as.
We really don’t care that you cling to false opinions. You can be as paranoid and crazy as you want to be. We simply will continue to laugh and point out your delusions. Every street corner idiot proclaiming that the “End of the World is Nigh” has every right to post his opinion and carry his crazy cardboard sign. And once he puts himself out there in the public square, everyone else has just as much right to mock him for it and call him crazy.
Trust me, we fully expect most of you hard core idiots to remain “stuck on stupid” for the rest of your lives. Just because we think you are hopeless doesn’t mean that we are going to stop correcting the record when you post your nonsensical lies or stop pointing out that your latest “OMG” moment is assuredly destined for 100% fail like every one before that.
You are free to vote for whomever you want. Nobody’s taken that away from you nor does anybody expect you to vote for Obama nor care that you won’t. Trust me, your vote for someone else than him has already been factored in. You were never going to vote for him before and you won’t next year either, so that really doesn’t change the equation at all, does it?
Just as you are entitled to your vote, so is everyone else…and yes, hate to tell you, that includes everyone who choses to vote FOR Obama as well…and yes, there is nothing you can do about that either. Welcome to how our democracy works. You are free to vote your choice, but so is everyone else as well…which simply means the candidate you choose is not always going to be the one who ends up winning. Learn to deal with it.
Sorry, but you simply have no credibility and a 100% loss record for a reason: Because your opinions of NBC are simply wrong and have no basis in our actual laws. And that’s a fact. And there’s your End of Story.
Some random Professor isn’t going to have enough clout to do anything, even if he actually believed you. How about a real journalist? Oh, that’s right… they’d want to see more than just the document. Like proof you were in Kenya when you claimed. Or other Kenyan BCs that matched the format.
I can’t believe I actually went and looked. It looks to me like your “research” shows how rare travel was to the area, and how very unlikely a teenage pregnant woman would travel there by herself without generating any news reports.
So — less than 7K Americans visited all of East Africa in 1961. (I know you said “at least,” but if it was more you’d say so.)
Nearly 10K international calls from all of East Africa. Less than 30 per day for all of Uganda, Kenya, Tanganyika, and Zanzibar. That includes calls to India, Pakistan, and the UK — countries with nationals living and working in the colony.
Dignitaries and the Cabot Lodges visited and made the news.
So with all that, what were the odds that Stanley Ann actually went literally halfway around the world by herself: alone, pregnant for the first time, on a multi-stage trip over several days, costing a year’s salary for the average Hawaiian (much less an unemployed minor), and the details of her trip left no traces? No human interest stories in Hawaiian papers, not a peep to anyone who ever worked with her? There was no reason at all to keep such a trip so secret. Not even the State Department seemed to know about it. (From the FOIA results on Obama and Soetoro.)
Which is more likely — that Stanley Ann went to Kenya and left no trace, that you went to Kenya and left no trace, or that this is all badly-written fiction?
It looks like a persecution complex as well with well documented obsessive, querulous behavior.
YIKES.
It’s no wonder that these strange, little, babbling birther bigots become isolated, mocked and outcast.
“You can continue to stick your fingers in your ears and scream lalalalalala all you want, but that won’t change reality.”
Nice line.
This fringe group of pathetic idiots is so far removed from reality that they see no problem claiming a superior knowledge of the history, precedence and facts of U.S. law over a highly respected, conservative, Reagan appointed Supreme Court Justice.
“All of our Presidents have, to date, been born in the 50 states. Notably, President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, and so is clearly a natural born citizen.”
– US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (retired)
Thank the law for restraining orders too.
Or that this is all badly-written fiction . . . from a convicted forger who would rather try to pass phony checks, sell a kidney or a haunted house and try to swindle gullible birthers rather than earn a respectable living abiding by the law?
—
How ironic it can be reading back to back comment from the same person. No one has change the definition of NBC, but it is the courts opinions that ultimately matters. Maybe changing the order would be suitable.
—
—
The irony.
You left out pedophile.
But your opinion doesn’t count as obviously you don’t know anything about law. The Supreme Court rejected the 2 parent theory a century ago as any real lawyer would know. A lawyer arguing the Supreme Court has said otherwise or repeating the Minor nonsense would likely be sanctioned. Of course, birther laywers are used to having their nonsense being called frivolous by courts, being theatened wth sanctions and otherwise being laughed out of court. Hard to believe one of them could beat a traffic ticket.
We know all of you will go to your grave believing you are right and all the courts and real legal scholars are wrong. I guess 9/11 truthers feel the same way. Doesn’t change the fact that you are wrong on the law. It isn’t our opinion. It is a act known by anyone who can read case law. I suggest the birthers save some money and send someone to a real law school so they can explain things to you.
No one here is in charge of anything. However, when it comes to determining whether a President-elect is qualified, the Constitution clearly and unambiguously gives that job to Congress (eg, see the 12th and 20th amendments). In Obama’s case, knowing full-well what his father’s citizenship was they found him qualified.
As for the courts, assuming they have jurisdiction, which is debatable, the one court that looked at this in a case directly involving a Presidential election was Ankeny. They found birth in the US to be sufficient to make an NBC. The Supreme Court, despite multiple opportunities to take one of the birther cases has declined.
Now, I’ve heard all the birther excuses about how Congress and the courts were all afraid of “riots in the streets” or some such nonsense. First that’s garbage, as there was not even the slightest hint or threat of such riots. Second, so what? The law and history are not based on coulda, woulda, shoulda, but on what courts and legislatures actually DO.
Now, the all-knowing, all-seeing Sally Hill can argue that Congress and the courts were “wrong”. That is meaningless drivel. They are the designated decision makers, not you. Every human sphere has a decision maker or makers and at some point, right or wrong, their decision stands. Last night, the umpire called a Cardinal runner safe at first who was clearly tagged out and they went on to score 5 runs. Guess what? The call stands. Tough luck for Texas. And whether Congress and the courts are right or wrong, tough luck for the birthers.
Are you seriously pretending that any of the birthers would vote for Obama no matter where he was born or who his father was? Seriously?
Now just suppose that the Republicans nominate Rubio, which there is good chance they might do, since he is from a key state and might attract Hispanic votes. Will you and your pals vote for the guy with one citizen parent or zero? Or will you stay home or vote for a third party? That might help Obama’s re-election.
This is going to be fun!
I don’t think anyone shouting at you has any hope that it will have any effect except possibly to relieve some of our own frustration. As long as YOUR OPINION is all that matters to you, why would anyone else expect you to listen to another? What really matters is not what YOUR OPINION is, nor what MY OPINION is, but rather the opinion of people who know what they are talking about and the opinion of people that make the decisions. The people who matter don’t agree with YOUR OPINION and that’s not going to change. You can, however, vote for whomever you want.
It’s the economy, stupid.
Excellent!!
To Sally Hill:
You said: “You all are so funny. You think shouting your opinion of the meaning of NBC from the roof tops will have some sort of affect on the [Vattle] birthers. Then after you affirm your own definition you say PERIOD, END OF STORY – like a proclamation of some sort that magically makes all [Vattle] birthers stop in their tracks and see the err of their ways. I laugh when I see people creating these statements as if they are the true and correct gospel and then the PERIOD, END OF STORY seals the deal and I just giggle.”
When it comes to defining what something means, for legal stuff, the people who get to say what something means are called “Judges.” Judges can be wrong and they are not perfect. But, when there are bunches of them saying the same thing in America ever since 1844, then if you are reasonable, you have to admit it really takes a lot to prove them wrong.
That is where Vattle Birthers miss the boat. The law cases say what they say, and unless somebody printed the cases wrong in all the law books, then being born here, and not being a kid of a diplomat or invading soldier is enough to be a natural born citizen. Here is what a JUDGE FROM 1844 says about it, and that was 167 years ago:
6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question. None was found by the counsel who argued this cause, and so far as I have been able to ascertain, it never has been expressly decided in any of the courts of the respective states, or of the United States. This circumstance itself, in regard to a point which must have occurred so often in the administration of justice, furnishes a strong inference that there has never been any doubt but that the common law rule was the law of the land. This inference is confirmed, and the position made morally certain, by such legislative, judicial and legal expositions as bear upon the question.
That was from a case called Lynch vs. Clarke and the Supreme Court quoted it in Wong Kim Ark in 1898. Sooo, that is written in English and is pretty easy to understand. This is why come people laugh at Vattle Birthers and call them names. Because you really have to work hard to not understand what that judge said. And no judge has ever said anything different in 167 years. In fact, the judges after that say the same thing. For example again:
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
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. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.
None of this stuff is written in legal gobbledygook or anything. It is just plain English. The Wong Kim Ark judges who quoted the above case, also decided what “allegiance” was.
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
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.”
Again, as long as you aren’t the kid of a diplomat or a invading soldier, you are born in the allegiance. This is NOT hard stuff to understand. Quit listening to stupid pretend lawyers on the Internet, and quit listening to a couple of Bozo real lawyers who have it all backwards and keep getting thrown out of court with this stuff. Don’t even listen to me. Just forget what you think you know and read the 2 or 3 cases with an open mind. This stuff isn’t hard, and that Ankeny vs. Governor Indiana case is very easy to read. So quit being a Vattle Birther, OK???
The Head Researcher
Awesome. Thanks.
You are entitled to your opinion. Your are not entitled to your own facts (until you discover the Tardis in your backyard, of course).
Fact is that your opinion is almost certainly based on Vattel – before Donofrio (an almost lawyer, almost chess player, almost rock musician and almost Jesus Christ) googled up that famous sentence, no one ever claimed you had to have citizen parents. Fact is Vattel actually never wrote what you think he wrote. Fact is that both the Supreme Court and the court in Ankeny vs Indiana have laid down what a natural born citizen is, and it has nothing to do with citizen parents.
The Vattle Birthers DO have a “box”, too. It is in this Internet Article, and you just have to hover your mouse over the picture to read the Easter Egg!
http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/pooperscooping-the-vattel-birthers-no-2-the-doctor-who-thingy/
The Head Researcher
ROTFLMAO! “Is Tard”… Yes, that is them, indeed. LOL! Ahh, loved the pic & the easter egg and article that followed. (Yes, I’m a Dr. Who fan).
Yes also, these Birther people are deceitful and INTENTIONALLY not only quote out of context but mix-match incongruent time frames on purpose all the time.
Actually it was an application for a stay, not a petition for certiorari. On his blog, Leo Donofrio claims:
“Both Donofrio v. Wells, and the petition I prepared in Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz were referred to the full Court for conference. Nobody knows how many votes, if any, were in favor of reviewing the eligibility of Obama. Regardless, certiorari was refused in both cases.”
That’s false. Donofrio and Wrotnowski applied for stays; they did not petition for certiorari.
That’s correct. The SCOTUS docket shows that no cert petition was filed in either case.
No, not because I say so, you idiot. Those folks saying Jindal and Rubio are NOT eligible are acting as if there is some court case that renders them not eligible to run. I’m saying that if you’re born here, you’re eligible and Jindal and Rubio are born here and that is the law, not cause I say it, but because the law says it.
Nothing stupid sounding about that, unless, of course, a birther is reading it.
Well you must laugh a lot when you read statements by birthers. They proclaim that President Obama is not president all the time and that they, the all mighty birthers, will get him out of office ANY DAY NOW.
Boy you must be laughing your head off……………at the birthers!!!
BREAKING NEWS!!! 1880 Republicans Scrubbed Libraries of Minor v. Happersett!!! An Exclusive Expose !!!
http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/10/23/breaking-news-1880-republicans-scrubbed-libraries-of-minor-v-happersett/
The Head Researcher
Another fun read. Just goes to show how ludicrous their thinking is…you know you’re dealing with conspiracy cranks who’ve gone completely off the deep end when they start making claims that somehow their perceived opponents “got” to everyone and/or “scrubbed” all the evidence… As soon as someone starts talking like that, you know they are a complete looney and not credible enough to have a meaningful conversation with anymore..
Alos: Loved the imagery, easter eggs & 1898 Ivory Soap ad at the end too…
Obviously “they” scrubbed all civics books of the definition of NBC “as everyone was taught it” as well. Absence of evidence is proof of the power of the conspiracy, as we all know. (It’s just the birfer brains which are so highly trained HAARP couldn’t yet get to them.)
And I wouldn’t be surprised if the “$15,000 for a paper copy of the Honolulu paper with Obama’s BC announcement” stunt turns into “no-one came forward which is proof the original papers were all destroyed by ‘them'” as well.
Funny coincidence, just today Orly claims “they” have been scrubbing tens of thousands of web articles on her as well, ending in the priceless quote ” I wonder, [sic] if someone is trying to scrub me out of existence.” Orly better watch her feet, they start looking suspiciously transparent already. *lol*
“You cursed brat! Look what you’ve done! I’m melting! melting! Let me feeeen-eeeshhh!”
Orly doesn’t realize that Monday is bit bucket emptying day.