Two reasons to reject the 'Birther' Movement arguments over Obama's citizenship
Paul Robinson
them myself, and I wish I had.
It looks like Donald Trump has just "drunk the Kool-Aid" of the
Birther Movement arguments against the validity of Barack Obama's so-
called birth certificates. As CNN reported, Trump's claim it doesn't
have a seal is wrong, it does have one; Trump's claim it doesn't have
a serial number is also wrong. And a few other things he's mistaken
about.
The first argument was that they note - or at least it was Trump who
noted it, was that the supposed document that showed that Obama was
born in Hawaii was a 'certificate of live birth' not a document issued
by an agency of the State of Hawaii, but a document which came from
the hospital.
Well, I just realized something, which I remembered. I don't have a
copy of my birth certificate any more. What I do have now is what is
considered equivalent, I have a summary of the information from my
certificate, recorded by the state where I was born. It has a raised
state seal on it, and is considered good enough for most purposes.
Getting a copy of the original takes a lot longer than a summary.
I was born in the midwest, a few months earlier than Obama, to a
married couple who were also both born in the United States. And you
know what the document that was that showed I was born here? A
'certificate of live birth' issued by the hospital. It was then
recorded with the county. I just remembered that myself, that this
was the standard practice back then.
I know this document was good enough to prove that I am a natural-born
citizen: in 1985 I submitted mine with my application and was issued a
U.S. passport.
The second reason - and I wish I had realized it - which is why I'm
posting this to HPO, is the simpler and more logical reason: it would
have been in the clear and direct self-interest of the Hillary Clinton
campaign to find a really big and juicy disqualifier like this, and
blast it across the world. It would have destroyed Barack Obama as a
candidate and left Hillary as the only person who could have been
nominated by the Democratic party.
The fact that Hillary's campaign found no evidence to disprove that
Barack Obama was a native-born U.S. citizen and thus eligible to be
President, when they would probably have killed someone to get it if
it existed, and it was clearly in their own self-interest to do so,
makes it ultimately and obviously clear that no such evidence to
disprove this exists.
Charles Bell
> I thought I'd point out a couple of things because I didn't think of
> them myself,
Of course,
> and I wish I had.
Do you?
>
> It looks like Donald Trump
A 'birther' conspirator might wonder why (1) a friend and political
ally of the President Potatohead Bomber, the new Governor of Hawaii,
Neil Abercrombie, brought this issue to the fore only to leave it
unresolved and (2) Trump, a man of no particular political standing
other than as an occassional liberal Republican, just as inclined to
donate money to Sen. Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, for the obvious
reason that Reid is infinitely corruptible when it comes to protecting
anyone's casino interests, even that of an occassional liberal
Repubican, should bring this up -- and only in the exact same context
as Gov. Abercrombie, as a matter resolvable by finding a birth
certificate. Of course, finding a birth certificate that would
satisfy that O-bomber was born in Hawaii does not make him eligible to
be President, having had dual nationality through his father, never a
U.S. citizen, and therefore not a natural born citizen. The
conspiracy would be in Trump knowingly wanting to "resolve" the issue
in exactly the manner O-bomber would.
Paul Robinson
[Bell] Of course, finding a birth certificate that would satisfy that
O-bomber was born in Hawaii does not make him eligible to be
President, having had dual nationality through his father, never a
U.S. citizen, and therefore not a natural born citizen.
Wrong again, Mr. Bell. You clearly have failed to learn to read, and
I will repeat the point I made back on March 31:
Can we try this again? The Supreme Court settled this issue more than
100 years ago
This was settled by the last paragraph of United States v. Wong Kim
Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 705 (1898):
"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."
Some say this doesn't apply because a different decision was made in
the (reprehensible) Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873), except
for one small thing. Wong Kim Ark was decided *after* the Slaughter-
House Cases, so to the extent {Ark} is different from {Slaughterhouse}
it over-rides it.
The same conclusion was given in Woodworth, "Who are citizens of the
United States?", 32 American Law Review 554, St Louis: Review
Publishing Co., 1898. Which says basically the same thing: {U.S. v.
Wong Kim Ark} has basically settled the issue that there are only two
types of citizenship: citizenship by birth, and citizenship by
nationalization, and the 14th Amendment means what it says, if you are
simply subject to the jurisdiction of the State, you are a citizen by
birth if you are born in the U.S.
Congress can create an immigration law to clarify the status of
children born outside the U.S. to American Citizens, and thus grant
them citizenship, but it has no power to take it away from someone
born here.
They also ignore Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), which refers back
to {U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark} as basically still being good law.
So as recently as 1982 the U.S. Supreme Court has said the same thing
that was said in 1898: a person born in the United States (unless they
have diplomatic immunity or are otherwise not subject to the
jurisdiction of the laws of the United States) is a citizen by birth.
- Paul Robinson, "Obama's War in Libya", March 31, 2011,
http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.philosophy.objectivism/browse_thread/thread/7bee7115ffa1f42a/e8b366c5adb3726b?hl=en&q=%22supreme+court%22+group:humanities.philosophy.objectivism+author:Paul+author:Robinson#e8b366c5adb3726b
http://tinyurl.com/3fpzw5x
Charles Bell
> On Apr 10, 2:47 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> [Bell] Of course, finding a birth certificate that would satisfy that
> O-bomber was born in Hawaii does not make him eligible to be
> President, having had dual nationality through his father, never a
> U.S. citizen, and therefore not a natural born citizen.
>
> Wrong again, Mr. Bell. You clearly have failed to learn to read, and
> I will repeat the point I made back on March 31:
>
Your argument is wrong in logic and on the facts, as I clearly pointed
out then and now
http://www.mindmelding.com/natural_born.htm
. . .in that it is impossible for O-bomber to be a natural born
citizen of the U.S. and that the Wong Kim Ark decision only forced
Congress to make law that anyone born on U.S. soil (except of
diplomats, etc,) to legally resident aliens be a citizen with no
effect on who is or is not a natural born citizen and on modifying the
provision in Article II, 1, 5.
You started with the lie that Presidential eligibility requirement be
only that a person be a citizen when it is necessary to be a natural
born citizen. Wong Kim Ark and any of his class born to legally
resident aliens on U.S. soil are not natural born citizens even though
they are statutory citizens in class different than naturalized
citizens. You asserted that that can be only two types of citizens:
the natural born and naturalized but the Wong decision clearly
counters that assertion and so does the language itself of Article II,
1,5 "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the
United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution..." in
which the Founders were neither natural born U.S. citizens nor
naturalized citizens but were citizens (by self-declaration)
nevertheless.
Paul Robinson
> On Apr 10, 4:31 pm, Paul Robinson <p...@paul-robinson.us> wrote:
{Me] Wrong again, Mr. Bell. You clearly have failed to learn to read,
and I will repeat the point I made back on March 31:
[Bell] Your argument is wrong in logic and on the facts, as I clearly
pointed out then and now
[Bell] http://www.mindmelding.com/natural_born.htm
You're referring to some Birther-group's website that clearly
misstates the exact words stated in the Ark case. They're so fixated
on trying to argue something clearly incorrect and contrary to facts
that it reminds me of some of the nutcases who try to argue that 9/11
was a government conspiracy.
[Bell] . . .in that it is impossible for O-bomber to be a natural
born citizen of the U.S. and that the Wong Kim Ark decision only
forced Congress to make law that anyone born on U.S. soil (except of
diplomats, etc,) to legally resident aliens be a citizen with no
effect on who is or is not a natural born citizen and on modifying the
provision in Article II, 1, 5.
I suspect you've never actually read what Ark said. It said that
Congress could add classes of people for the purpose of declaring them
natural born (or native born) but it couldn't take that away from
those who were. It's why later - 1921 I think - they had to change
the law to make people born on tribal reservations to have the same
status as native-born citizens because technically the law has no
jurisdiction over them and they wouldn't be citizens.
Ark was a decision based on clause 1 of the 14th Amendment, and not on
any statutory issue.
[Bell] You started with the lie that Presidential eligibility
requirement be only that a person be a citizen when it is necessary
to be a natural born citizen.
There is no distinction here and I didn't say that. I said that he is
one because he was born within the United States and was subject to
its jurisdiction when he was born. That makes him a natural-born
citizen, end of story.
[Bell] Wong Kim Ark and any of his class born to legally resident
aliens on U.S. soil are not natural born citizens even though they are
statutory citizens in class different than naturalized citizens.
Try again, Mr. Bell:
I've got another one where someone else reads exactly the same thing
I've been saying.
"n the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark,20 decided in 1898, the
Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether, under the terms of
the Fourteenth Amendment, persons born in the United States of alien
parents, are citizens of the United States. In this case the question
was as to the citizenship of a child of Chinese parents who not only
were not citizens of the United States, but could not, under the
existing laws, become such by naturalization."
The next four words of the paragraph is clear on the issue:
"In sustaining Ark's citizenship the court held that the clause of the
Amendment declaring that "all per-sons born or naturalized in the
United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
of the United States," is but declaratory of the common law principle
unreservedly accepted in England since Calvin's case (the case of
Postnati, decided in 1608) and in the United States since the
Declaration of Independence, that all persons, irrespective of the
nationality of their parents born within the territorial limits of a
State, are ipso facto, citizens of that State. "
http://chestofbooks.com/society/law/The-Constitutional-Law-Of-The-United-States/132-Wong-Kim-Ark-Case.html
http://tinyurl.com/64zce6m
Since Ark was 'born' in the United States, and was a citizen, clearly
he wasn't a naturalized citizen, thus - despite his parents not being
naturalized and could never be - he was a native-born citizen. No
other reading is possible unless you're one of those Birthers who
wants to ignore what the law is and read it differently from what it
says.
If you have federal case law saying that there are two or more
different kinds of citizenship in addition to nationalization, please
present it. I don't like or agree with the decision of the U.S.
Supreme Court saying that a military draft does not violate the 13th
Amendment's rule against involuntary servitude ( {Selective Draft Law
Cases}, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), {United States v. O'Brien}, 391 U.S. 367,
377 (1968) ) but I don't try to argue that it isn't what the law is.
The Supreme Court settled the issue over 100 years ago and re-affirmed
it in 1983 in Plyler v. Doe, so the point is moot: the Birthers are
wrong, and all the spin doctoring they want to do ignores what has
been settled law for over 100 years. You haven't even answered the
most important argument of all. If what they are saying is true, why
didn't Hillary's camp raise this issue: We know she wanted badly to
get the nomination, so you can't claim she would have given him a pass
on this issue since it would have destroyed his candidacy. So why
didn't the HRC campaign bring this up?
Because it's a phantom issue of absolutely no credibility. You got
real court cases to the contrary, cite them. Put up or shut up.
Otherwise you're just being a squawking parrot for the discredited
Birther movement who have nothing but the hot air of yack-yack talk
and nothing to support their vacuous claims.
Charles Bell
> On Apr 10, 5:07 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 10, 4:31 pm, Paul Robinson <p...@paul-robinson.us> wrote:
>
> {Me] Wrong again, Mr. Bell. You clearly have failed to learn to read,
> and I will repeat the point I made back on March 31:
>
> [Bell] Your argument is wrong in logic and on the facts, as I clearly
> pointed out then and now
>
> [Bell]http://www.mindmelding.com/natural_born.htm
>
> You're referring to some Birther-group's website that clearly
> misstates the exact words stated in the Ark case.
I am referring to my own words on the subject that being a natural
born citizen is a natural condition of birth in blood and soil and not
a statutory one given to Congress by the Constitution and interpreted
by the Supreme Court, and would you please respond to the argument
therein rather than cut-and-pasting from Wikipedia with no reference
to what I wrote. Namely, as I said, you started with the lie that
Obama need only be a statutory citizen at birth rather than a natural
born citizen to be eligible to be President, and you have repeated
that lie.
> "in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark,20 decided in 1898, the
> Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether, under the terms of
> the Fourteenth Amendment, persons born in the United States of alien
> parents, are citizens of the United States.
Yes, indeed the law is such that now all born to legal residents on
U.S. soil are U.S. citizens, but that does not make them natural born
citizens who must be born of citizens.
> "In sustaining Ark's citizenship the court held that the clause of the
> Amendment declaring that "all per-sons born or naturalized in the
> United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
> of the United States,"
Yes, indeed the law is such that now all born to legal residents on
U.S. soil are U.S. citizens, but that does not make them natural born
citizens who must be born of citizens.
> Since Ark was 'born' in the United States, and was a citizen, clearly
> he wasn't a naturalized citizen,
Yes, indeed the law is such that now all born to legal residents on
U.S. soil are U.S. citizens, but that does not make them natural born
citizens who must be born of citizens.
There are five types of citizens that are contained in the
Constitution which are incorporated into constitutional law since the
Wong Kim Ark decision, only one of which is a natural born citizen.
There is no basis in fact or logic that citizenship must be divided
between "natural-born" and "naturalized" as the founders themselves
were neither, and the very eligibilty clause itself states this:
Article II, 1,5 "No person except a natural born citizen, or a
citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution..."
Please provide an argument in refutation to the one I have provided
rather than repeating the lie that the President need not be a natural
born citizen.
Paul Robinson
> On Apr 11, 5:56 pm, Paul Robinson <p...@paul-robinson.us> wrote:
> > On Apr 10, 5:07 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Apr 10, 4:31 pm, Paul Robinson <p...@paul-robinson.us> wrote:
{Me] Wrong again, Mr. Bell. You clearly have failed to learn to read,
and I will repeat the point I made back on March 31:
[Bell] Your argument is wrong in logic and on the facts, as I clearly
pointed out then and now
[Bell]http://www.mindmelding.com/natural_born.htm
[Me] You're referring to some Birther-group's website that clearly
misstates the exact words stated in the Ark case.
[Bell] I am referring to my own words on the subject that being a
natural born citizen is a natural condition of birth in blood and soil
and not a statutory one given to Congress by the Constitution and
interpreted by the Supreme Court, and would you please respond to the
argument therein rather than cut-and-pasting from Wikipedia with no
reference to what I wrote. Namely, as I said, you started with the
lie that Obama need only be a statutory citizen at birth rather than a
natural born citizen to be eligible to be President, and you have
repeated that lie.
1. I have not used anything from Wikipedia.
2. Your claim that it is a lie or that it is incorrect is not
supported by anything except your own opinions claiming it to be.
[Me] "in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark decided in 1898,
the Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether, under the
terms of the Fourteenth Amendment, persons born in the United States
of alien parents, are citizens of the United States.
[Bell] Yes, indeed the law is such that now all born to legal
residents on U.S. soil are U.S. citizens, but that does not make them
natural born citizens who must be born of citizens.
The U.S. Supreme Court has so decided that they are full citizens same
as everyone else, Mr. Bell, notwithstanding what their parents
immigration, naturalization, or citizenship status was. Please
present case law - a state court decision, a federal court decision, a
U.S. Supreme Court decision, or a federal statute - to the contrary,
as we are arguing a legal precedent here, not what you think the law
is or should be.
[Me] "In sustaining Ark's citizenship the court held that the clause
of the Amendment declaring that "all per-sons born or naturalized in
the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States,"
[Bell] Yes, indeed the law is such that now all born to legal
residents on U.S. soil are U.S. citizens, but that does not make them
natural born citizens who must be born of citizens.
Case law, proving your point, please? Since you so clearly argue this
to be the case, surely you have good law to argue the point rather
than just your opinions of what you want the law to be, don't you?
[Me] Since Ark was 'born' in the United States, and was a citizen,
clearly he wasn't a naturalized citizen,
{Bell] Yes, indeed the law is such that now all born to legal
residents on U.S. soil are U.S. citizens, but that does not make them
natural born citizens who must be born of citizens.
Case law, proving your point, please? I have case law that backs up
every point I'm making. What's yours?
[Bell]There are five types of citizens that are contained in the
Constitution which are incorporated into constitutional law since the
Wong Kim Ark decision, only one of which is a natural born citizen.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-US-C...
http://tinyurl.com/mjq2mz
I'm having a hard time figuring out exactly what that particular
website is saying because they - perhaps intentionally - posted their
examples as an image file with very tiny, quite blurry text instead of
as ordinary text which could be properly read and examined. I suspect
they want to say something that they know is incorrect. But I'll try
and see what it says.
The one you refer to in that one is the last box, a "natural born
citizen" and one of the cases they refer to is {Perkins v. Elg}, 307
U.S. 325 (1939). Which also more-or-less makes the same point I did
in the Syllabus, and expands it further:
"1. A child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the
United States. P. 307 U. S. 328.
"2. As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, the
same person may possess a dual nationality. P. 307 U. S. 329.
"3. A citizen by birth retains his United States citizenship unless
deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional
enactment or by his voluntary action in conformity with applicable
legal principles. P. 307 U. S. 329.
"4. It has long been a recognized principle in this country that, if a
child born here is taken during minority to the country of his
parents' origin, where his parents resume their former allegiance, he
does not thereby lose his citizenship in the United States provided
that, on attaining majority, he elects to retain that citizenship and
to return to the United States to assume its duties. P. 307 U. S.
329."
So even the website YOU QUOTED uses yet another Supreme Court case
that says the same thing that I said. {Perkins v. Elg} also refers
back to {United States v. Wong Kim Ark} as case law it has made in the
past supporting its ruling in that case.
[Bell] There is no basis in fact or logic that citizenship must be
divided between "natural-born" and "naturalized" as the founders
themselves were neither, and the very eligibilty clause itself states
this:
[Bell] Article II, 1,5 "No person except a natural born citizen, or a
citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution..."
[Bell] Please provide an argument in refutation to the one I have
provided rather than repeating the lie that the President need not be
a natural born citizen.
Uh, no, Mr. Bell, you don't get to pull that stunt. You're making the
argument to claim something. It's just like one who argues that there
is a God, it's not my requirement to prove there isn't one or refute
your argument, it's your requirement to prove that there is. Nor do
you get to make a bald claim that what I am saying is a lie just
because you disagree with it. But I have case law - from the U.S.
Supreme Court, no less, and even referenced by some of the items you
use as references, that settles the issue.
{United States v. Wong Kim Ark}, 169 U.S. 649, {Perkins v. Elg}, 307
U.S. 325, and {Plyler v. Doe} 457 U.S. 202
Further, an amendment to the Constitution thus overrides any prior
text of the constitution that would have been in conflict with that
Amendment. Thus even if the intent of Article II was intended to mean
something else, Sec. I of the 14th Amendment has settled what a
natural-born citizen is, and clearly Barack Obama qualifies as one.
He was born in the United States and was subject to the jurisdiction
of its laws.
If you have case law to support the argument to the contrary, what is
it? Not what someone claims, not what you think it should be, but
federal statutes, federal court cases or supreme court cases to the
contrary. Good, solid, black-letter case law, such as I have, not
mere opinion from someone, especially when they don't know what
they're talking about. I've got three Supreme Court decisions which
agree with my opinion, what do you have?
In poker, 3 of a kind beats nothing at all, what's your hand, Mr.
Bell?
Further, if you want to argue the point, did you consider that by your
argument John McCain isn't a natural born citizen, he wasn't even born
within the U.S., he was born in the Canal Zone!
Charles Bell
> On Apr 12, 6:57 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> http://www.mindmelding.com/natural_born.htm
> 2. Your claim that it is a lie or that it is incorrect is not
> supported by anything except your own opinions claiming it to be.
>
You started in on this topic: a person need only be a citizen to be
eligible for the Presidency and you have not changed from that
position when the fact is that a person needs to be a natural born
citizen, a citizen born of citizens, to be eligible to be President.
"The President need only be a U.S. citizen, over 35 and resident 14
years to be President" is a lie.
<<No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United
States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be
eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be
eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of
thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the
United States.>>
A natural born citizen is a citizen who is a citizen of citizens, and
a "citizen at the time of the adoption of [the] Constitution" was a
citizen, of any nationality and national origin, on self-declaration
at the adoption of the Constitution a citizen of the U.S.. In the
very eligibilty clause in question is drawn the distinction between a
natural born citizen -- impossible to anyone in 1787 -- and a citizen,
nor can a citizen in 1787 have been "naturalized". There are five
types of citizens, all with full citizenship rights, but only one of
which can be President.
> [Me] "in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark decided in 1898,
> the Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether, under the
> terms of the Fourteenth Amendment, persons born in the United States
> of alien parents, are citizens of the United States.
>
> [Bell] Yes, indeed the law is such that now all born to legal
> residents on U.S. soil are U.S. citizens, but that does not make them
> natural born citizens who must be born of citizens.
>
> The U.S. Supreme Court has so decided that they are full citizens same
> as everyone else
>
That is irrelevant. One needs to be a natural born citizen, citizen
born of citizens, to be eligible to be President, just as one needs be
over 35 y.o.a. to be eligible to be President even though a 34 year
old may be a "full citizen", too.
In Wong Kim Ark those of the class of persons born on U.S. soil to
legally resident aliens are citizens. There was no declaration in
that decision, or any other, that they are natural born citizens and
that such citizens have the same citzenship rights as natural borns,
but only natural borns may be President..
Elg in Perkins v. Elg was born of citizens in the U.S. and therefore
*was* a natural born citizen whose rights as a citizen could not be
taken away by statute or treaty nor shared through statute or treaty
with another nation, the only such kind of citizen for which that is
true, and that was the exact intent of the natural-born eligibilty
requirement. No President can have been, or can be, or ever is
eligible to be a citizen of another nation unless he renounce his U.S.
citizenship at a time after his majority.
> Further, an amendment to the Constitution thus overrides any prior
> text of the constitution that would have been in conflict with that
> Amendment.
There is no prior text in the Constitution on citizenship which the
14th Amendment overrides. The 14th Amendment overrode the Dred Scott
Supreme Court decision which denied negro slaves, born in the U.S,
regardless of the jurisdiction of the state into which they were born,
U.S. citizenship.
come back and address the issues I raised here:
http://www.mindmelding.com/natural_born.htm
instead of repreating the lie in different ways that the President
need only be a U.S. citizen.
"'At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the
constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children
born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became
themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or
natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born
within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their
parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the
first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve
these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to
consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the
jurisdiction, are themselves citizens." -- Minor v. Happersett
(1874)
The Wong Kim Ark decision only settled the "doubt" on who might be
citizens "born within the jurisdiction" of the U.S. of alien parentage
and did not confuse by inclusion the issue as to who are *without a
doubt* natural born citizens.
Paul Robinson
> On Apr 13, 7:42 am, Paul Robinson <p...@paul-robinson.us> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 12, 6:57 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>http://www.mindmelding.com/natural_born.htm
supported by anything except your own opinions claiming it to be.
[Bell] You started in on this topic:
Actually, I didn't raise the issue, I thought it was irrelevant until
you started raising it. I simply responded because I heard an
additional answer I hadn't even thought of: if it had any validity at
all, why didn't Clinton raise it during the campaign?
[Bell] a person need only be a citizen to be eligible for the
Presidency and you have not changed from that position when the fact
is that a person needs to be a natural born citizen, a citizen born of
citizens, to be eligible to be President. "The President need only be
a U.S. citizen, over 35 and resident 14 years to be President" is a
lie.
We were not discussing that qualification, Mr. Bell. On that, there
is no issue being raised. First of all, you're not claiming that Mr.
Obama is under 35 or that he's not been in the country for 14 years.
You were not raising that issue, thus it wasn't the one we were
discussing. What we were discussing is your claims that Obama is not
constitutionally eligible to be President for the reason that he is
not a natural-born citizen. You never made any claims I remember
seeing that he wasn't in the country long enough or that he was too
young.
I never once heard you raise that issue at all, which is why I did not
address it. Why would I bother to raise a separate issue that's not
relevant to the discussion or that there is no disagreement upon?
This is also a standard second-hander stunt: deflection. You don't
like my arguments because you can't answer them, so now you raise
unrelated issues to try and hide the point.
[Bell] No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the
United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,
shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person
be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of
thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the
United States.
[Bell] A natural born citizen is a citizen who is a citizen of
citizens, and a "citizen at the time of the adoption of [the]
Constitution" was a citizen, of any nationality and national origin,
on self-declaration at the adoption of the Constitution a citizen of
the U.S.. In the very eligibilty clause in question is drawn the
distinction between a natural born citizen -- impossible to anyone in
1787 -- and a citizen, nor can a citizen in 1787 have been
"naturalized". There are five types of citizens, all with full
citizenship rights, but only one of which can be President.
If that is correct, I'm sure you can find a statute saying so or an
administrative regulation of the State Department, or case law to show
this, correct? You're making the claim that it is so, it is then your
responsibility to back up the claim with something other than hot air.
It's the standard rule in a debate, those who claim the preposition of
something are required to prove the claim. You claim that being a
natural-born citizen requires something more than just being born in
the United States. It's not my responsibility to prove this is not
true, it's your responsibility to prove it is. So prove that to be
what the law says, not what you want it to say. You need to show what
the law is by the actions of administrative agencies that enforce the
laws, what Congress has written as the law, and what the courts say
the law means.
If someone claims that God exists and is in some manner connected to
or acting upon this world, it is the requirement of the person making
this claim to prove its validity, not the person who denies it to
prove it is not. Once evidence is provided *then* it's the
requirement of those who disagree to disprove it.
I will repeat what I said before. Despite what you think the law is,
or some birther movement website wants to claim it is, unless you've
got case law to show otherwise you're blowing smoke. The part you are
quoting is basically saying that unless you were born here - as you
pointed out, impossible in 1787 - or were a citizen because you chose
to be one (as opposed to choosing to remain a British subject) when
the Constitution was adopted, then you're not eligible to be president
(plus the other qualifications over which as far as I know we have no
disagreement that he does qualify).
So again, where is your case law that says what you claim? The cases
I've cited (and I didn't even cite the dissent in the Dred Scott case)
all support what I've been saying.
I asked you for black-letter case law to back up your opinion. Your
failure to cite anything shows you have none. I've cited three
Supreme Court cases to support my opinions. All you've done is try to
spin them to say something different from what they actually said.
Where do you have: Administrative proceedings of a U.S. government
agency that agree with your interpretation? Federal cases that agree
with your interpretation? Supreme Court Cases that agree with your
interpretation? Hell, do you even have any opinions from any major
law school's law review to support your opinion?
No, apparently all you have is some birther movement website and a lot
of hot air.
Come back with your argument when you've got case law to support your
opinion, as I do. Or even serious educated legal scholarship like a
published law review. Do you even have so much as that?
The state of the law is not what you hope it would be, or what you
want it to be, it's what the legislature, the administrative agencies,
and the courts say it is. And right now you don't have anything from
any of these.
When you have serious sources to back up your argument then it's time
to talk about the issue. You may well be correct and this was all
illegal (a moot point since he's been elected). It was generally
accepted that the 21st Amendment was an exception to the general rule
that states cannot regulate Interstate commerce and thus was the only
time a state could regulate interstate commerce. The Supreme Court
found this was not the case in {Granholm v Heald} and {Swedenburg v
Kelly}. States did not gain any additional power to regulate
interstate commerce from the 21st Amendment.
Did anyone ever ask the State Department? Oh yeah, you're going to
presume that they're not going to argue otherwise; on that point, you
may be right.
But what about someone who teaches law at one of the major
universities, has anyone asked them for an opinion?
Do any of you people even have any attorneys who specialize in
immigration law who are on your side of the issue and can argue the
reasoning for your opinion?
Also, you still are ducking the biggest issue of all: the Hillary
Rodham Clinton campaign wanted to get rid of Obama so that she could
get the nomination. If the evidence were there to prove what you say,
why would they simply refuse to use it? Hell, they could have leaked
it to McCain's side if they didn't want to use it themselves.
Why would both Clinton and McCain not use this sort of thing to knock
out Obama as a candidate? They both desperately wanted to be
president, there's no reason to avoid this issue if it really was
there. So why did they? Because it's a non-starter and has no basis
in reality. There's nothing there and there never was, except a lot
of hot air from people who can't think of anything better except to
raise a non-issue.
But the fact remains, you are unable to cite case law that agrees with
your opinion. Or even law review articles.
Also remember this, Mr. Bell. Be careful what you wish for, you might
actually get it. If you actually were right, it might be better to
stick with Obama, did you ever consider that if your side really was
able to knock him out, Joe Biden might be even worse? He might
actually be able to get more agreement from Congress and actually do
more things you don't like than Obama.
Paul Robinson
I refer to your quote:
"'At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the
constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children
born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became
themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or
natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born
within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their
parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the
first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve
these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to
consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the
jurisdiction, are themselves citizens." -- Minor v. Happersett
(1874)
Even if it said something different - which it doesn't - Wong Kim Ark
was decided after Happersett. All the quote from this case says is
that if your parents are citizens then you are too. It does not
specifically say that a person born in the U.S. who is subject to its
jurisdiction is any different from someone whose parents were both
citizens.
Again, I ask you for black-letter law: administrative regulations,
statutes or case law to show that a person born in the United States
and subject to its jurisdiction is not a natural-born citizen. That's
the only issue that is relevant here.
Mr. Bell, I have a suggestion on how to get standing to decide this
issue. Find some state with a republican running the state board of
elections. Have him or her refuse to allow Obama's name to appear on
the ballot for the reasons you claim: that if your parents were not
citizens despite your being born here it is inadequate to make you a
natural-born citizen. While you and the birthers have no standing to
challenge the inauguration, you can challenge someone's placement on
the ballot. Then you can get a court to decide.
And I figure the courts will answer the question that it doesn't
matter what your parents citizenship was, if you were born here,
you're a natural-born citizen unless the government has no
jurisdiction over you. As has been argued, about the only way that
could apply is if the laws said that because your parents have
diplomatic immunity you do too. Then and in that case you could argue
the citizenship of one's parents have some applicability. Not
otherwise.
Charles Bell
> On Apr 13, 6:45 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote
> a U.S. citizen, over 35 and resident 14 years to be President" is a
> lie.
>
> We were not discussing that qualification, Mr. Bell.
We have been the discussing that Obama must be eligible to be
President and for that he must be a natural born citizen, over 35 and
resident 14 years. He fails to meet the first requirement because his
father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama's birth.
We are not discussing the fact all citizens of the U.S. have the same
rights, but that only natural born citizen is eligible to be
President.
We are not discussing whether or not Obama is a citizen -- whether
under the crtierion of having been born within the jurisdiction of the
U.S. he is a citizen under statute.
> I will repeat what I said before. Despite what you think the law is,
> or some birther movement website wants to claim it is, unless you've
> got case law to show otherwise you're blowing smoke.
It is constitutional law that unless a federal court has ruled against
the specifics of a case they cannot be assumed to be otherwise. There
is no affirmative decision with respect to eligibility and thus there
is no case law. Bananas are assumed to be yellow unless SCOTUS says
otherwise and "citing case law" on the yellowness of bananas is an
empty request if there is no case law.
On the other hand, you claim to cite that it is sufficient to meet the
requirements of eligibility by having been born a citizen on U.S. soil
to any parentage via case law in Wong Kim Ark when there was no such
decision in that case on the eligibility requirement. If you wish to
cite Wong Kim Ark as case law for citizenship of persons born in the
U.S. of legally resident aliens, you may do so, but that is an
irrelevant citation with respect to eligibility for the Presidency.
On the matter of the meaning, historical context, and constitutional
intent of the natural-born eligibility requirement I have provided
information in
http://www.mindmelding.com/natural_born.htm
. . . which you continue to ignore while also presenting not a single
argument of your own other than citation of irrelevant case law.
Charles Bell
> On Apr 13, 6:45 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> I refer to your quote:
> "'At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the
> constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children
> born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became
> themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or
> natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
> Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born
> within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their
> parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the
> first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve
> these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to
> consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the
> jurisdiction, are themselves citizens." -- Minor v. Happersett
> (1874)
>
> Even if it said something different - which it doesn't - Wong Kim Ark
> was decided after Happersett. All the quote from this case says is
> that if your parents are citizens then you are too.
It specifically and clearly states the definition of "natural born
citizen" as being a citizen of citizens six years after the 14th
Amendment. Wong Kim Ark never changed that definition but addressed
the status of persons born on U.S. soil, but not of citizens.
As pointed out in
http://www.mindmelding.com/natural_born.htm
The principle author of the 1866 Civil Rights Act and contributor to
the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment giving rights of U.S. citizenship to
freed slaves, with the intent to overturn the 1857 Dred Scott
decision, Senator John Bingham spoke in 1866 about the rights of U.S.
citizens:
[I] find no fault with the introductory clause which is simply
declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human
being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not
owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of
your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...
That is clear enough about what is a natural born citizen, and that
Obama is not a natural born citizen.