OT-Obama birth Cert issues continue....
Gunner Asch
Judge Carter Taking Case Serious:
Sept. 9th, 2009, SANTA ANA, CA. - Just in UP-DATE:
Today, 9th Dist. Federal Judge David O. Carter, gave a boost to the
Lawsuit filed on behalf of many Plaintiffs, including Military personel,
that President Barack H. OBAMA, actually does NOT qualify to be
President, because he actually was born in Kenya, Africa, as his father
before him, and therefore does NOT meet the �Natural Born� requirement
of the U.S.A. Constitution. Clearly, Federal Judge David Carter was
taking this case very seriously, while displaying a sense of humor and
judicial economy, tell Atty. Gary Grief to physically move his chair
next to Dr. & Atty. Orly TAITZ, who is the Lead Attorney to oust legally
Mr. Barack Obama from the White House, based on his failure to meet the
�Natural Born� requirement. He ordered them to 15 minutes recess with
their key plaintiffs to try to resolve their approaches.
Dr. Taitz made it clear that she believed Gary to be working more in the
interest of Obama than the Plaintiff, Pastor Wiley Drake. Clearly the
U.S. Attorneys had made an effort to file last Friday a motion to
dismiss, based on Lack of Subject matter jurisdiction, two fold: 1) that
fraud in eligibility was a �political matter�, and 2) that Plaintiffs
lacked �standing�, and Judge Carter seemed to be hinting that those were
very weak arguements, and that he had not yet seen the filing, so Judge
Carter went ahead and set firm dates for discovery, motions and possible
trial in December of 2009 stressing that it is NOT in the �best
interests� of the People of the United States to not know one way or the
other if Mr. Obama is a ligitimate President, and he pushed the time
table, suggesting that he was going on the assumption that Plaintiffs
would trump the motions for Dismissal and he did NOT want to leave the
country in a quandry. Dates were set, and he suggest that by Sept. 11,,
Friday he would read the motion for dismissal.
Dr. & Atty Orly TAITZ pushed hard to have a witness, Mr. Smith , be
allowed to present his Kenyan
Birth Certificate, and testify under Oath, under penalty of PERJURY,
that he, Mr. Smith had brought back from Mombasa, Kenya an authentic,
original Kenyan Birth Certificate of the now declared usurper President,
Barack Hussein Obama. Judge Carter tried to persuade the Gov. Atty.s
that it could be to their advantage to cross -examine Mr. Smith and get
a head start on the Discovery and be better prepared for the trial. U.S.
Attorney�s representing President Obama, clearly declined and urged
Judge Carter to just read the Dismissal motion and DISMISS without
regard to any evidence.
Clearly, they were worried. In interviews outside the Reagan Federal
Courthouse Mr. Smith displayed and identical Kenyan Birth Certificate
that confirmed that President Obama WAS indeed born in Mombasa,
Provincial Hospital, and it can be seen in Part 2 and 3 of the video
series. This issue of �service� of President Obama has now been
�effectuated� and Judge Carter has granted Dr. Orly Taitz considerable
credibility in this case. This now surpasses all other attempts to bring
the birth certificate issue to Judicial scrutiny. In view of the Kenyan
authentic appearing Birth Certificate,
it would appear, Obama will, if Justice is allowed to happen, be removed
from office. Dr. Taitz added that the mere fact that the many military
officers who have decline to take ORDERS from President Obama and NOT
been courtmarshalled, but had orders rescinded, is a clear indication
that Obama does not relish a court challenge on this issue. It is even
possible that Usurper Obama could move from the White House to the Big
House in a Federal Prison, aka �Club Fed�.
IVe no idea what the status is beyond this article sent to me by a
current military officer.
Should be of interest....
Ed Huntress
"Gunner Asch" <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:8ckra51tkhv01k5an...@4ax.com...
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE HONORABLE MR. SMITH, VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE EXCHEQUER,
REPUBLIC OF KENYA (JAMHURI YA KENYA) to MOST HONORABLE JUDGE DAVID O.
CARTER, 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF THE FEDERAL UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA:
Dear Friend:
I have been informed by mutual acquaintance that you may be trusted to
assist in a very important matter involving the Treasury of Kenya, in which
your generous assistance may be rewarded by a deposit of $1,000,000 (one
million) United States dollars into your personal checking account. All that
is required of you is to hold the secret certificate of Kenyan birth of one
Barrack Hussein Obama, the rightful ascendant to the ancient throne, who was
kidnapped at an early age by operatives of Mr. Biwott and taken to the
island of Hawaii, against his will and to the great sadness and loneliness
of his subjects, the people of Kenya...
>
> Should be of interest....
>
>
Cliff
wrote:
>IVe no idea what the status is
Again you lie endlessly.
And I expect the birthers to pay the full costs, right?
BTW, Obama's Mother was an American.
--
Cliff
"<<<__ Bøb __>>>"
> Obama's Mother was an American.
>
And, if he was born on foreign soil he's NOT .. .. your point is ??
hal
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22=3C=3C=3C=5F=5F_B=F8b_=5F=5F=3E=3E=3E=22?=
<b.wi...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> Obama's Mother was an American.
>>
>
>
>And, if he was born on foreign soil he's NOT .. .. your point is ??
Hawaii is and Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii. It's been proven
beyond any doubt.
Jeff M
Nope, just beyond any rational doubt.
hal
wrote:
Good point. We are, in fact, dealing the with completely irrational.
I stand corrected.
cavelamb
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 18:24:56 -0500, Jeff M <NoS...@NoNoThanks.Org>
> wrote:
>
>> hal wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:55:21 -0400,
>>> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22=3C=3C=3C=5F=5F_B=F8b_=5F=5F=3E=3E=3E=22?=
>>> <b.wi...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Obama's Mother was an American.
>>>>>
>>>> And, if he was born on foreign soil he's NOT .. .. your point is ??
>>> Hawaii is and Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii. It's been proven
>>> beyond any doubt.
>> Nope, just beyond any rational doubt.
>
> Good point. We are, in fact, dealing the with completely irrational.
> I stand corrected.
Welcome to the 21st Century!
Kirk Gordon
> 9/9/2009: Intel News Brief: Obama Trial Moved UP; Discovery Moved Up;
> Judge Carter Taking Case Serious:
> Sept. 9th, 2009, SANTA ANA, CA. - Just in UP-DATE:
>
> Today, 9th Dist. Federal Judge David O. Carter, gave a boost to the
> Lawsuit filed on behalf of many Plaintiffs, including Military personel,
> that President Barack H. OBAMA, actually does NOT qualify to be
> President, because he actually was born in Kenya, Africa, as his father
> of the U.S.A. Constitution.
<snip>
I could be mistaken, but weren't George Washington and Thomas
Jefferson born someplace besides the United States?
KG
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>Gunner Asch wrote:
>> 9/9/2009: Intel News Brief: Obama Trial Moved UP; Discovery Moved Up;
>> Judge Carter Taking Case Serious:
>> Sept. 9th, 2009, SANTA ANA, CA. - Just in UP-DATE:
>>
>> Today, 9th Dist. Federal Judge David O. Carter, gave a boost to the
>> Lawsuit filed on behalf of many Plaintiffs, including Military personel,
>> that President Barack H. OBAMA, actually does NOT qualify to be
>> President, because he actually was born in Kenya, Africa, as his father
>> before him, and therefore does NOT meet the �Natural Born� requirement
>> of the U.S.A. Constitution.
>
><snip>
>
> I could be mistaken, but weren't George Washington and Thomas
>Jefferson born someplace besides the United States?
>
>KG
No..they were both US born.
Gunner
rangerssuck
I doubt it. The "United States" simply did not exist when they (or
John Adams) were born. They may have been born in a location that
later became part of the US, but they were not actually born in the
US.
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>Gunner Asch wrote:
>> 9/9/2009: Intel News Brief: Obama Trial Moved UP; Discovery Moved Up;
>> Judge Carter Taking Case Serious:
>> Sept. 9th, 2009, SANTA ANA, CA. - Just in UP-DATE:
>>
>> Today, 9th Dist. Federal Judge David O. Carter, gave a boost to the
>> Lawsuit filed on behalf of many Plaintiffs, including Military personel,
>> that President Barack H. OBAMA, actually does NOT qualify to be
>> President, because he actually was born in Kenya, Africa, as his father
>> before him, and therefore does NOT meet the �Natural Born� requirement
>> of the U.S.A. Constitution.
>
><snip>
>
> I could be mistaken, but weren't George Washington and Thomas
>Jefferson born someplace besides the United States?
>
>KG
Hummm...there was no United States when they were born. But they were
indeed born "here".
Close enough for me. Think of them as prototype "anchor babies"
Gunner
Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional,
illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an
unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the
proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
pyotr filipivich
<gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> reported Elvis on Mon, 14 Sep 2009
20:32:07 -0700 in misc.survivalism:
Not quite, but they were native born Virginians. It's what
distinguishes "immigrants" from their descendents. You're not an
immigrant if your people came over before there was a US. Or if your
'people' found them selves in the US, and they hadn't moved at all.
Like the ad for a bank in Arizona: Serving the territory, since it
was a Territory.
tschus
pyotr
-
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
D. Stussy
news:86ata5t8h8ush1sn7...@4ax.com...
Obama's mother doesn't qualify him. She was under age 19 and therefore
could not pass her citizenship to him if his birth was outside of the U.S.
Regardless, his father wasn't even a citizen, so he FAILS the "natural
born" clause, which requires citizenship passing from BOTH parents and
place - All 3 factors are required. Obama at most has only 2, and this
suit seeks to show (if true) that he actually has ZERO.
D. Stussy
With a FORGED birth certification that lacks any signature from any
Hawaiian official.
A certificate is a document that contains TWO parts:
1) Identification of a fact (or facts) to be certified.
2) An attestment: A SIGNED declaration of the accuracy of the facts.
Some people have said that it's signed by ink-stamp on the back. That
doesn't qualify the document as valid as any attestment and signature on
the reverse are DISJOINT from the facts on the face, and therefore, if
true, it's improperly prepared and therefore invalid on its face. A manual
signature isn't required - an ink stamped one IN THE PROPER PLACE on the
document is acceptable.
Note that the statements alleged from Hawaiian officials as to the truth of
the document have NOT been made under penalty of perjury, so those
statements are worthless and don't serve to validate the document.
There is also the matter that back in the 1960's, a birth certificate could
be obtained by legal resident parents who have been residents for 1 year
prior to birth even if the actual birth is OUTSIDE of the state, simply by
making a statement of such. This means that a certificate is insufficient
to establish citizenship (by place), let alone "natural born" citizenship
(which also requires the passing of citizenship by blood of BOTH parents).
As his father was a British(Kenyan) subject and NOT a legal resident (but a
temporary visitor as a student), birthplace won't make a difference as to
the Office of President; he doesn't qualify. His father's citizenship
disqualifies him. It will make a difference to determine if Obama is even
a citizen, for if he is not, then he entered this country under false
pretense and is an illegal alien subject to deportation.
D. Stussy
news:4AAEF4F...@gordon-eng2.com...
> Gunner Asch wrote:
> > 9/9/2009: Intel News Brief: Obama Trial Moved UP; Discovery Moved Up;
> > Judge Carter Taking Case Serious:
> > Sept. 9th, 2009, SANTA ANA, CA. - Just in UP-DATE:
> >
> > Today, 9th Dist. Federal Judge David O. Carter, gave a boost to the
> > Lawsuit filed on behalf of many Plaintiffs, including Military
personel,
> > that President Barack H. OBAMA, actually does NOT qualify to be
> > President, because he actually was born in Kenya, Africa, as his father
> > of the U.S.A. Constitution.
>
> <snip>
>
> I could be mistaken, but weren't George Washington and Thomas
> Jefferson born someplace besides the United States?
That doesn't matter - as they were around at the time of the adoption of
the Constitution. There could be no "natural born citizens" until the
country was actually formed by the document, thus the reason for the OTHER
way to qualify.
Obama wasn't born in or before 1787, so that clause is moot.
D. Stussy
news:Xns9C86F0C34FC0Ddu...@nomail.afraid.org...
>
> Even if your deluded fantasy that obama wasn't born in the US were true,
> he's still a US citizen.
>
> Barack Obama's mother was an American citizen. And that alone makes him a
> U.S. citizen by birth, not naturalization. In other words he would be a
> natural born citizen (a citizen from the moment of birth) even if he
hadn't
> been born in Hawaii. This is directly from the U.S. Department of State
web
> site:
>
> Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child
> born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S.
> citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent
> was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the
law
> applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after
> November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after
the
> age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and
> November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen
> are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S.
citizenship
> to the child.
>
> Obama's mother spent her entire childhood in the U.S., satisfying the 10
> year requirement. Barack Obama was born when his mother was 18, before
she
> could possibly have spent five years after the age of fourteen in the
> States, but of course she eventually would spend far more than five years
> after the age of fourteen in the States. And in any event, it is
irrelevant
> because he was born in the U.S. anyway.
Incorrect. S.Ann doesn't qualify Obama under this clause for precisely the
reason you ignored: For her to have the requisite 5 years after the age of
14, she would have had to have reached her 19th birthday before he was
born. She did not - being 18 at the time. Therefore, if he were born
outside of the U.S., she CANNOT pass her citizenship to him. As he
wouldn't have it by place or from his father either, he'd be a non-U.S.
citizen, and if he entered the country saying that he was, such would be
cause for deportation as an illegal alien. Any time she spent in the U.S.
after his birth cannot retroactively qualify him. Such would be "ex post
facto" - which is also forbidden by the Constitution.
It doesn't matter if he was born in Hawaii or not: His citizenship isn't
the primary question. His "natural born citizen" status is. He is
disqualified from that because his father was NOT a U.S. citizen at the
time (and never was at any time). The office of Senator doesn't have that
requirement -- only President does.
A "natural born citizen" is a person who is a citizen by virtue of being
born in a country to parents BOTH of whom are citizens of that same
country.
Look at the suit (Writ of Mandamus) in D.C. (filed August 2009) seeking a
grand jury to indict Obama, Pelosi, and Howard Dean. That suit included an
analysis of the term and its definition.
Cliff
wrote:
>
>> Obama's Mother was an American.
>>
>
>
>And, if he was born on foreign soil he's NOT .. .. your point is ??
So McSame (born in Panama) is not an American.
I see.
Stop drooling. You can short out the keyboard I suspect.
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:59:27 -0400, Kirk Gordon <k...@gordon-eng2.com>
Gummer lies again.
When they were born there was no US so they could not have been
born in the US.
>Gunner
What an idiot.
--
Cliff
Doug Miller
>Gunner Asch wrote:
>> 9/9/2009: Intel News Brief: Obama Trial Moved UP; Discovery Moved Up;
>> Judge Carter Taking Case Serious:
>> Sept. 9th, 2009, SANTA ANA, CA. - Just in UP-DATE:
>>
>> Today, 9th Dist. Federal Judge David O. Carter, gave a boost to the
>> Lawsuit filed on behalf of many Plaintiffs, including Military personel,
>> that President Barack H. OBAMA, actually does NOT qualify to be
>> President, because he actually was born in Kenya, Africa, as his father
>> of the U.S.A. Constitution.
>
><snip>
>
> I could be mistaken, but weren't George Washington and Thomas
>Jefferson born someplace besides the United States?
True, but irrelevant: "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..." [Article II, Section 1, paragraph
5]
Strabo
Jefferson and Washington were born in Virginia.
All the Founders were born and bred in their respective
colonies/states.
RBnDFW
So your point is that all the biggest scammers are African?
Seems to strengthen the argument ;)
Ed Huntress
"RBnDFW" <burkh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:h8om6v$d1g$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Maybe the joke was too subtle.That was supposed to be the birthers trying to
sound like a Kenyan government official, but the best they could do was to
write it as a bribe and come off sounding like a Nigerian scammer.
Naturally, not being a bigot, you see it now that it's been explained to
you. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
Edward A. Falk
Jeff M <NoS...@NoNoThanks.Org> wrote:
>>
>> Hawaii is and Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii. It's been proven
>> beyond any doubt.
>
>Nope, just beyond any rational doubt.
I LOL'ed
--
-Ed Falk, fa...@despams.r.us.com
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
Cliff
>Kirk Gordon wrote:
>> Gunner Asch wrote:
>>> 9/9/2009: Intel News Brief: Obama Trial Moved UP; Discovery Moved Up;
>>> Judge Carter Taking Case Serious:
>>> Sept. 9th, 2009, SANTA ANA, CA. - Just in UP-DATE:
>>>
>>> Today, 9th Dist. Federal Judge David O. Carter, gave a boost to the
>>> Lawsuit filed on behalf of many Plaintiffs, including Military personel,
>>> that President Barack H. OBAMA, actually does NOT qualify to be
>>> President, because he actually was born in Kenya, Africa, as his father
>>> before him, and therefore does NOT meet the �Natural Born� requirement
>>> of the U.S.A. Constitution.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> I could be mistaken, but weren't George Washington and Thomas
>> Jefferson born someplace besides the United States?
>>
>> KG
>>
>
>
>Jefferson and Washington were born in Virginia.
>
>All the Founders were born and bred in their respective
>colonies/states.
Virginia. was not a US State.
--
Cliff
Cliff
So Palin could never be elected as she was not a Citizen
of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.
I see.
She might have been a C-section baby too. Very unnatural.
Show her mother's scars & internals. Dissect as needed.
No winger fakery allowed !!
--
Cliff
age...@justicemail.com
<snip>
> It doesn't matter if he was born in Hawaii or not: His citizenship isn't
> the primary question. His "natural born citizen" status is. He is
> disqualified from that because his father was NOT a U.S. citizen at the
> time (and never was at any time). The office of Senator doesn't have that
> requirement -- only President does.
> A "natural born citizen" is a person who is a citizen by virtue of being
> born in a country to parents BOTH of whom are citizens of that same
> country.
Which is nothing but a birther fabrication. It has no foundation in
fact or history. Chester Arthur's father was a British citizen yet
Arthur served as President without question. The only difference is
that Arthur was white.
age...@justicemail.com
> <hal> wrote in messagenews:4aaecfde...@news.newsguy.com...
> > On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:55:21 -0400,
> > =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22=3C=3C=3C=5F=5F_B=F8b_=5F=5F=3E=3E=3E=22?=
>
> > >> Obama's Mother was an American.
>
> > >And, if he was born on foreign soil he's NOT .. .. your point is ??
>
> > Hawaii is and Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii. It's been proven
> > beyond any doubt.
>
> With a FORGED birth certification that lacks any signature from any
> Hawaiian official.
It not only has a signature, it's been publicly attested to by the
Hawaiian officials.
> A certificate is a document that contains TWO parts:
> 1) Identification of a fact (or facts) to be certified.
> 2) An attestment: A SIGNED declaration of the accuracy of the facts.
>
> Some people have said that it's signed by ink-stamp on the back. That
> doesn't qualify the document as valid as any attestment and signature on
> the reverse are DISJOINT from the facts on the face, and therefore, if
> true, it's improperly prepared and therefore invalid on its face. A manual
> signature isn't required - an ink stamped one IN THE PROPER PLACE on the
> document is acceptable.
And that proper place, by law, is where exactly? Cite the law.
> Note that the statements alleged from Hawaiian officials as to the truth of
> the document have NOT been made under penalty of perjury, so those
> statements are worthless and don't serve to validate the document.
And you just called all the Republican officials in Hawaii liars.
> There is also the matter that back in the 1960's, a birth certificate could
> be obtained by legal resident parents who have been residents for 1 year
> prior to birth even if the actual birth is OUTSIDE of the state, simply by
> making a statement of such.
And such a birth certificate would show where the person was born
outside of Hawaii. Obama's certificate shows that he was born in
Honolulu. As does the newspaper announcements, and the hospital.
> This means that a certificate is insufficient
> to establish citizenship (by place), let alone "natural born" citizenship
> (which also requires the passing of citizenship by blood of BOTH parents).
Which is nothing but a birther fabrication. It has no foundation in
knews4...@yahoo.com
> "sittingduck" <d...@spamherelots.com> wrote in message
Most recent court update:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd467.htm
D. Stussy
news:8495dfde-03e1-4001...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 15, 3:04 am, "D. Stussy" <s...@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
> <hal> wrote in messagenews:4aaecfde...@news.newsguy.com...
> > On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:55:21 -0400,
> > =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22=3C=3C=3C=5F=5F_B=F8b_=5F=5F=3E=3E=3E=22?=
> > <b.wing...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > >> Obama's Mother was an American.
>
> > >And, if he was born on foreign soil he's NOT .. .. your point is ??
>
> > Hawaii is and Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii. It's been proven
> > beyond any doubt.
>
> With a FORGED birth certification that lacks any signature from any
> Hawaiian official.
It not only has a signature, it's been publicly attested to by the
Hawaiian officials.
---
It's clear from all the images that there is no such signature anywhere on
the document's face.
---
> A certificate is a document that contains TWO parts:
> 1) Identification of a fact (or facts) to be certified.
> 2) An attestment: A SIGNED declaration of the accuracy of the facts.
>
> Some people have said that it's signed by ink-stamp on the back. That
> doesn't qualify the document as valid as any attestment and signature on
> the reverse are DISJOINT from the facts on the face, and therefore, if
> true, it's improperly prepared and therefore invalid on its face. A
manual
> signature isn't required - an ink stamped one IN THE PROPER PLACE on the
> document is acceptable.
And that proper place, by law, is where exactly? Cite the law.
-----
See the above definition. The proper place is on the document's face.
A certificate is a SINGLE-SIDED document. That's why people frame them and
hang them on walls, especially true of certificates which convey completion
of a level of education (called a diploma).
-----
> Note that the statements alleged from Hawaiian officials as to the truth
of
> the document have NOT been made under penalty of perjury, so those
> statements are worthless and don't serve to validate the document.
And you just called all the Republican officials in Hawaii liars.
-----
Wrong. I have said that their statements are legally insufficient to stand
as evidence.
-----
> There is also the matter that back in the 1960's, a birth certificate
could
> be obtained by legal resident parents who have been residents for 1 year
> prior to birth even if the actual birth is OUTSIDE of the state, simply
by
> making a statement of such.
And such a birth certificate would show where the person was born
outside of Hawaii. Obama's certificate shows that he was born in
Honolulu. As does the newspaper announcements, and the hospital.
-----
Also wrong. Such certificates show the RESIDENCE address of the parents
within Hawaii, not the actual birthplace.
-----
> This means that a certificate is insufficient
> to establish citizenship (by place), let alone "natural born" citizenship
> (which also requires the passing of citizenship by blood of BOTH
parents).
Which is nothing but a birther fabrication. It has no foundation in
fact or history. Chester Arthur's father was a British citizen yet
Arthur served as President without question. The only difference is
that Arthur was white.
-----
Arthur served because no one challenged his qualification. He was in a
position to (in the 1860's) and did suppress any disqualifying information.
If one failed to compare the date of naturalization of his father, William,
against his birthdate, one would discover the problem. Records were less
accessible then. As Vice-President, he himself doesn't have to meet the
requirement, until promoted by the death (or disability) of the President
to the highest executive office.
Failure to challenge does NOT set a legal precedent.
D. Stussy
news:0ee01066-5874-4877...@r33g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
----------
Read legal journals and documents of the time (circa 1765), and you will
find that such is correct.
Arthur's father did naturalize and become a U.S. citizen, thus on a casual
check, one may think that he did in fact qualify. Only the comparison of
the naturalization date to the birthdate reveals the problem.
Just because no one questioned Arthur's qualification doesn't mean he was
qualified.
D. Stussy
news:d7456d63-1b59-48db...@m3g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
-------
OK, but that's NOT the law suit in D.C. (The District of Columbia). That's
the law suit in California, a DIFFERENT one than to which I referred.
D. Stussy
Patriots Heart Media Network, Inc., vs. Soetoro AKA ..., Nancy Pelosi, and
Howard Dean (plus John Does 1-20).
age...@justicemail.com
> <agen...@justicemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8495dfde-03e1-4001...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 15, 3:04 am, "D. Stussy" <s...@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
>
> > <hal> wrote in messagenews:4aaecfde...@news.newsguy.com...
> > > On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:55:21 -0400,
> > > =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22=3C=3C=3C=5F=5F_B=F8b_=5F=5F=3E=3E=3E=22?=
> > > <b.wing...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > > >> Obama's Mother was an American.
>
> > > >And, if he was born on foreign soil he's NOT .. .. your point is ??
>
> > > Hawaii is and Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii. It's been proven
> > > beyond any doubt.
>
> > With a FORGED birth certification that lacks any signature from any
> > Hawaiian official.
>
> It not only has a signature, it's been publicly attested to by the
> Hawaiian officials.
>
> ---
> It's clear from all the images that there is no such signature anywhere on
> the document's face.
> ---
And you can cite no law that says that the signature must be on the
face of the document.
> > A certificate is a document that contains TWO parts:
> > 1) Identification of a fact (or facts) to be certified.
> > 2) An attestment: A SIGNED declaration of the accuracy of the facts.
>
> > Some people have said that it's signed by ink-stamp on the back. That
> > doesn't qualify the document as valid as any attestment and signature on
> > the reverse are DISJOINT from the facts on the face, and therefore, if
> > true, it's improperly prepared and therefore invalid on its face. A
> manual
> > signature isn't required - an ink stamped one IN THE PROPER PLACE on the
> > document is acceptable.
>
> And that proper place, by law, is where exactly? Cite the law.
> -----
> See the above definition.
Which isn't a law or regulation.
> The proper place is on the document's face.
Only in your fervid imagination. Cite the law that says differently.
> A certificate is a SINGLE-SIDED document. That's why people frame them and
> hang them on walls, especially true of certificates which convey completion
> of a level of education (called a diploma).
> -----
Which no doubt you don't possess.
> > Note that the statements alleged from Hawaiian officials as to the truth
> of
> > the document have NOT been made under penalty of perjury, so those
> > statements are worthless and don't serve to validate the document.
>
> And you just called all the Republican officials in Hawaii liars.
> -----
> Wrong. I have said that their statements are legally insufficient to stand
> as evidence.
You've called them liars.
> > There is also the matter that back in the 1960's, a birth certificate
> could
> > be obtained by legal resident parents who have been residents for 1 year
> > prior to birth even if the actual birth is OUTSIDE of the state, simply
> by
> > making a statement of such.
>
> And such a birth certificate would show where the person was born
> outside of Hawaii. Obama's certificate shows that he was born in
> Honolulu. As does the newspaper announcements, and the hospital.
>
> -----
> Also wrong. Such certificates show the RESIDENCE address of the parents
> within Hawaii, not the actual birthplace.
No, such certificates show the birthplace of the child.
> > This means that a certificate is insufficient
> > to establish citizenship (by place), let alone "natural born" citizenship
> > (which also requires the passing of citizenship by blood of BOTH
>
> parents).
>
> Which is nothing but a birther fabrication. It has no foundation in
> fact or history. Chester Arthur's father was a British citizen yet
> Arthur served as President without question. The only difference is
> that Arthur was white.
>
> -----
> Arthur served because no one challenged his qualification.
Because there was nothing to challenge.
> He was in a
> position to (in the 1860's)
1860's? You're as clueless about history as you are about law.
Arthur was President from 1881-1885.
> and did suppress any disqualifying information.
And you think that no one knew that his father wasn't a United States
citizen?
> If one failed to compare the date of naturalization of his father, William,
> against his birthdate, one would discover the problem. Records were less
> accessible then. As Vice-President, he himself doesn't have to meet the
> requirement, until promoted by the death (or disability) of the President
> to the highest executive office.
What would be the point of having a Vice President who was ineligible
to be President?
> Failure to challenge does NOT set a legal precedent.
And you would be wrong about that too.
This is the law:
Title 8 of the U.S. Code, Section 1401 defines the following as people
who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
* Anyone born inside the United States *
* Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a
citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen
of the tribe
* Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents
are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a
citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other
parent is a U.S. national
* Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen
and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
* Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage
cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not
provided by age 21
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an
alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who
lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and
diplomatic service included in this time)
* A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of
an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to
the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of
a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and
is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions
allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born,
for example.
age...@justicemail.com
> <agen...@justicemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0ee01066-5874-4877...@r33g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 15, 3:25 am, "D. Stussy" <s...@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > It doesn't matter if he was born in Hawaii or not: His citizenship isn't
> > the primary question. His "natural born citizen" status is. He is
> > disqualified from that because his father was NOT a U.S. citizen at the
> > time (and never was at any time). The office of Senator doesn't have that
> > requirement -- only President does.
> > A "natural born citizen" is a person who is a citizen by virtue of being
> > born in a country to parents BOTH of whom are citizens of that same
> > country.
>
> Which is nothing but a birther fabrication. It has no foundation in
> fact or history. Chester Arthur's father was a British citizen yet
> Arthur served as President without question. The only difference is
> that Arthur was white.
>
> ----------
> Read legal journals and documents of the time (circa 1765), and you will
> find that such is correct.
Circa 1765? Do you just throw numbers out helter skelter? You're as
careless with your writing as you are with the law.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401
D. Stussy
news:9ab46b43-06f0-4324...@n2g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
======
It doesn't have to be. Items not defined in the law carry their common
definitions.
======
> The proper place is on the document's face.
Only in your fervid imagination. Cite the law that says differently.
======
You cite the law that permits the attesting signature to be separated from
the facts they attest on a certificate.
======
> A certificate is a SINGLE-SIDED document. That's why people frame them
and
> hang them on walls, especially true of certificates which convey
completion
> of a level of education (called a diploma).
> -----
Which no doubt you don't possess.
======
You will find that I possess several - with my name on it too, and I wasn't
named after anyone else.
You've proven yourself to be an idiot. You should probably stop here.
======
======
He was HEAD of his political party in the 1860's, asswipe.
======
> and did suppress any disqualifying information.
And you think that no one knew that his father wasn't a United States
citizen?
======
That's because when Chester was 14, William naturalized. He actually WAS a
U.S. Citizen; just not at the time when Chester was born.
======
> If one failed to compare the date of naturalization of his father,
William,
> against his birthdate, one would discover the problem. Records were less
> accessible then. As Vice-President, he himself doesn't have to meet the
> requirement, until promoted by the death (or disability) of the President
> to the highest executive office.
What would be the point of having a Vice President who was ineligible
to be President?
======
What's the point of having ANY person in line for succession being
ineligble, yet Nixon had Kissinger.
======
This is the law:
=========
Wrong. That defines a citizen. It doesn't define "natural born citizen."
You need to look up the definition of the entire phrase. You won't find it
in the current U.S.C. Title 8 (or any other title of the Code).
Curly Surmudgeon
> all of the biggest scammers are bankers.
I believe you've hit upon a truth.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like Jesus Would Vote Republican
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RBnDFW
Beware the African Banker!!
age...@justicemail.com
Yes, as a matter of fact it does. That's an excellent example of
birther logic. The law is only what they claim it to be.
> Items not defined in the law carry their common definitions.
Made up by the birthers.
> > The proper place is on the document's face.
>
> Only in your fervid imagination. Cite the law that says differently.
>
> ======
> You cite the law that permits the attesting signature to be separated from
> the facts they attest on a certificate.
It's your claim and therefore your defense. Cite the law that proves
your point. You won't, you can't.
> > A certificate is a SINGLE-SIDED document. That's why people frame them
> and
> > hang them on walls, especially true of certificates which convey
> completion
> > of a level of education (called a diploma).
> > -----
>
> Which no doubt you don't possess.
> ======
> You will find that I possess several - with my name on it too, and I wasn't
> named after anyone else.
So you say. Prove it. Obviously none of them have anything to do
with Constitutional law. My bet is that you're an accounting major.
> You've proven yourself to be an idiot. You should probably stop here.
ROTFLMAO. You like it when people stop beating you to a pulp, don't
you?
> > > Note that the statements alleged from Hawaiian officials as to the
> truth
> > of
> > > the document have NOT been made under penalty of perjury, so those
> > > statements are worthless and don't serve to validate the document.
>
> > And you just called all the Republican officials in Hawaii liars.
> > -----
> > Wrong. I have said that their statements are legally insufficient to
> stand
> > as evidence.
>
> You've called them liars.
And you have no retort.
> > > There is also the matter that back in the 1960's, a birth certificate
> > could
> > > be obtained by legal resident parents who have been residents for 1
> year
> > > prior to birth even if the actual birth is OUTSIDE of the state, simply
> > by
> > > making a statement of such.
>
> > And such a birth certificate would show where the person was born
> > outside of Hawaii. Obama's certificate shows that he was born in
> > Honolulu. As does the newspaper announcements, and the hospital.
>
> > -----
> > Also wrong. Such certificates show the RESIDENCE address of the parents
> > within Hawaii, not the actual birthplace.
>
> No, such certificates show the birthplace of the child.
And I might add, you just legitimized Obama's birth certificate.
> > > This means that a certificate is insufficient
> > > to establish citizenship (by place), let alone "natural born"
> citizenship
> > > (which also requires the passing of citizenship by blood of BOTH
>
> > parents).
>
> > Which is nothing but a birther fabrication. It has no foundation in
> > fact or history. Chester Arthur's father was a British citizen yet
> > Arthur served as President without question. The only difference is
> > that Arthur was white.
>
> > -----
> > Arthur served because no one challenged his qualification.
>
> Because there was nothing to challenge.
>
> > He was in a
> > position to (in the 1860's)
>
> 1860's? You're as clueless about history as you are about law.
> Arthur was President from 1881-1885.
> ======
> He was HEAD of his political party in the 1860's, asswipe.
No, sport he wasn't. Early in the Civil War he served as
Quartermaster General of the State of New York. President Grant in
1871 appointed him Collector of the Port of New York. Arthur
effectively marshalled the thousand Customs House employees under his
supervision on behalf of Roscoe Conkling's Stalwart Republican
machine. He was the compromise candidate for Vice President in 1880.
If he was head of the party, why wasn't he nominated for President?
He wasn't HEAD of any political party in the 1860's. You remain
clueless, making up facts as you need them.
> > and did suppress any disqualifying information.
>
> And you think that no one knew that his father wasn't a United States
> citizen?
> ======
> That's because when Chester was 14, William naturalized. He actually WAS a
> U.S. Citizen; just not at the time when Chester was born.
But isn't that your whole point? Arthur's father wasn't a U. S.
citizen at the time of Arthur's birth. It matters not whether he
later became a citizen.
> > If one failed to compare the date of naturalization of his father,
> William,
> > against his birthdate, one would discover the problem. Records were less
> > accessible then. As Vice-President, he himself doesn't have to meet the
> > requirement, until promoted by the death (or disability) of the President
> > to the highest executive office.
>
> What would be the point of having a Vice President who was ineligible
> to be President?
> ======
> What's the point of having ANY person in line for succession being
> ineligble, yet Nixon had Kissinger.
An event that is covered in the laws governing succession:
TITLE 3 > CHAPTER 1 > § 19
§ 19. Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President;
officers eligible to act
How Current is This?
(e) Subsections (a), (b), and (d) of this section shall apply only to
such officers as are eligible to the office of President under the
Constitution. Subsection (d) of this section shall apply only to
officers appointed, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,
prior to the time of the death, resignation, removal from office,
inability, or failure to qualify, of the President pro tempore, and
only to officers not under impeachment by the House of Representatives
at the time the powers and duties of the office of President devolve
upon them.
By virtue of this law, Kissinger was never in the line of succession
because he wasn't eligible to serve. Again, you prove yourself
clueless.
Again, the question, why would anyone be allowed to run for Vice
President who cannot legally serve as President? Here I'll give you a
hint: It can't happen. The 12th amendment clearly states:
"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President
shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
Again, you are proven clueless about the Constitution and the law.
Actually it does. While there are questions in certain cases, the one
certain event that qualifies one to be a "natural born citizen" is to
be born in the United States of America.
> You need to look up the definition of the entire phrase. You won't find it
> in the current U.S.C. Title 8 (or any other title of the Code).
Like this Supreme Court decision?
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939): The U.S. Supreme Court concluded
that Marie Elizabeth Elg, who was born in the United States of Swedish
parents naturalized in the United States, had not lost her birthright
U.S. citizenship because of her removal during minority to Sweden and
was entitled to all the rights and privileges of that U.S.
citizenship. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decree
that declared Elg "to be a natural born citizen of the United States."
D. Stussy
news:df585293-cc69-4df0...@d21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
Definition of a certificate, idiot.
> > > A certificate is a document that contains TWO parts:
> > > 1) Identification of a fact (or facts) to be certified.
> > > 2) An attestment: A SIGNED declaration of the accuracy of the facts.
>
> > > Some people have said that it's signed by ink-stamp on the back. That
> > > doesn't qualify the document as valid as any attestment and signature
on
> > > the reverse are DISJOINT from the facts on the face, and therefore,
if
> > > true, it's improperly prepared and therefore invalid on its face. A
manual
> > > signature isn't required - an ink stamped one IN THE PROPER PLACE
> > > on the document is acceptable.
>
> > And that proper place, by law, is where exactly? Cite the law.
> > -----
> > See the above definition.
>
> Which isn't a law or regulation.
>
> ======
> It doesn't have to be.
Yes, as a matter of fact it does. That's an excellent example of
birther logic. The law is only what they claim it to be.
======
So, any English word that the law doesn't define is undefined?
======
> Items not defined in the law carry their common definitions.
Made up by the birthers.
=======
Then let's have your definition of a certificate: ....
=======
> > The proper place is on the document's face.
>
> Only in your fervid imagination. Cite the law that says differently.
>
> ======
> You cite the law that permits the attesting signature to be separated
from
> the facts they attest on a certificate.
It's your claim and therefore your defense. Cite the law that proves
your point. You won't, you can't.
=======
Examine ANY certificate (including a diploma). It is a SINGLE-SIDED
DOCUMENT containing a fact or characteristic about something or someone (or
list of facts), followed by an attestment which includes a signature from a
representative of the certifying authority.
This "thing" purporting to be a Hawaiian CoLB is UNSIGNED. It cannot be a
certificate or certification of anything as it's incomplete.
=======
> > A certificate is a SINGLE-SIDED document. That's why people frame them
and
> > hang them on walls, especially true of certificates which convey
> completion
> > of a level of education (called a diploma).
> > -----
>
> Which no doubt you don't possess.
> ======
> You will find that I possess several - with my name on it too, and I
wasn't
> named after anyone else.
So you say. Prove it. Obviously none of them have anything to do
with Constitutional law. My bet is that you're an accounting major.
======
Wrong. If you want proof, make an appointment and show up at my house.
======
> You've proven yourself to be an idiot. You should probably stop here.
ROTFLMAO. You like it when people stop beating you to a pulp, don't
you?
====
Wrong. However, you have proven to be a complete waste of time, and
probably a waste of a human as well.
====
> > > Note that the statements alleged from Hawaiian officials as to the
truth of
> > > the document have NOT been made under penalty of perjury, so those
> > > statements are worthless and don't serve to validate the document.
>
> > And you just called all the Republican officials in Hawaii liars.
> > -----
> > Wrong. I have said that their statements are legally insufficient to
stand
> > as evidence.
>
> You've called them liars.
And you have no retort.
=====
I don't need one. I did NOT call them liars. I stated that their
statements don't validate the invalid document, due to a missing element.
Hawaii can't even manage to do that correctly!
=====
> > > There is also the matter that back in the 1960's, a birth certificate
could
> > > be obtained by legal resident parents who have been residents for 1
year
> > > prior to birth even if the actual birth is OUTSIDE of the state,
simply by
> > > making a statement of such.
>
> > And such a birth certificate would show where the person was born
> > outside of Hawaii. Obama's certificate shows that he was born in
> > Honolulu. As does the newspaper announcements, and the hospital.
>
> > -----
> > Also wrong. Such certificates show the RESIDENCE address of the parents
> > within Hawaii, not the actual birthplace.
>
> No, such certificates show the birthplace of the child.
And I might add, you just legitimized Obama's birth certificate.
========
Only in a manner where it FAILS to even prove citizenship, thus making it
useless to show that he qualifies for the Office. I have shown that Hawaii
permits FOREIGN births, thus invalidating ALL certificates that don't
identify a specific place of birth (e.g. hospital) issued by Hawaii.
Additionally, just because the state issued the document does not mean that
its underlying application wasn't fraudulent. Hawaii may not have ever
investigated the facts of the application.
========
> > > This means that a certificate is insufficient
> > > to establish citizenship (by place), let alone "natural born"
citizenship
> > > (which also requires the passing of citizenship by blood of BOTH
> > > parents).
>
> > Which is nothing but a birther fabrication. It has no foundation in
> > fact or history. Chester Arthur's father was a British citizen yet
> > Arthur served as President without question. The only difference is
> > that Arthur was white.
>
> > -----
> > Arthur served because no one challenged his qualification.
>
> Because there was nothing to challenge.
>
> > He was in a position to (in the 1860's)
>
> 1860's? You're as clueless about history as you are about law.
> Arthur was President from 1881-1885.
> ======
> He was HEAD of his political party in the 1860's, asswipe.
No, sport he wasn't. Early in the Civil War he served as
Quartermaster General of the State of New York. President Grant in
1871 appointed him Collector of the Port of New York. Arthur
effectively marshalled the thousand Customs House employees under his
supervision on behalf of Roscoe Conkling's Stalwart Republican
machine. He was the compromise candidate for Vice President in 1880.
If he was head of the party, why wasn't he nominated for President?
======
The U.S. Civil War didn't last for the entire decade, idiot.
Party heads often are NOT nominated, nor do they have to be.
======
He wasn't HEAD of any political party in the 1860's. You remain
clueless, making up facts as you need them.
> > and did suppress any disqualifying information.
>
> And you think that no one knew that his father wasn't a United States
> citizen?
> ======
> That's because when Chester was 14, William naturalized. He actually WAS
a
> U.S. Citizen; just not at the time when Chester was born.
But isn't that your whole point? Arthur's father wasn't a U. S.
citizen at the time of Arthur's birth. It matters not whether he
later became a citizen.
=======
Yes, that was my point. However, many who might have asked may have
stopped when they learned that he did naturalize without comparing the
dates to realize that he wasn't a U.S. citizen when Chester was born.
=======
=====
I agree that he didn't qualify. However, the office he was appointed to IS
in the line of succession. You asked what was the point of appointing a
non-qualifying person to a position in succession, as if one would never do
such. All I did is provide an example where such was actually done.
That's not being clueless. That's called answering your question: There
is no point, yet it has been done.
=====
=======
Qualifies does not mean equals. Being born within the borders of the U.S.
is only ONE of two elements of citizenship.
Citizen at birth does not EQUAL "natural born citizen." A natural born
citizen is one that begets citizenship by BOTH place and blood (with blood
meaning from BOTH parents).
=======
> You need to look up the definition of the entire phrase. You won't find
it
> in the current U.S.C. Title 8 (or any other title of the Code).
Like this Supreme Court decision?
=====
Court decisions are NOT statutes.
=====
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939): The U.S. Supreme Court concluded
that Marie Elizabeth Elg, who was born in the United States of Swedish
parents naturalized in the United States, had not lost her birthright
U.S. citizenship because of her removal during minority to Sweden and
was entitled to all the rights and privileges of that U.S.
citizenship. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decree
that declared Elg "to be a natural born citizen of the United States."
========
And the issue is what?
She was born within the U.S., thus citizenship by place
Both her parents naturalized before birth, thus citizenship by blood.
She has BOTH qualities, so she is.
Obama's father was NEVER a U.S. Citizen. Citizenship by blood is therefore
lacking, even if he has it by place (assuming Hawaii is his birthplace; a
fact that has NOT been proven). Obama Jr. could be a U.S. citizen at
birth, but NOT a "natural born citizen." Even if his father had been a
U.S. citizen, Obama Jr. overtly changed his citizenship when adopted in
Indonesia and therefore, although U.S. law permits him, as a minor, to keep
U.S. citizenship*, with this action (including that on his behalf by his
parents) in making him a dual-citizen at best, he LOST his "natural born"
status. The requirement is so that the President shall not have divided
loyalties to any foreign land, and having dual-citizenship (or any foreign
citizenship AFTER U.S. citizenship) is a disqualifier.
* - Indonesian law does not permit this. When he swore allegence to his
new country, he renounced all prior citizenships by operation of Indonesian
law. The fact that the U.S. State Dept. did not note his change of status
is not my problem.
age...@justicemail.com
Really? And where does one get such a definition? Certainly not
here:
Home » Webster's New World College Dictionary » certificate
*
Webster's Dictionary
*
Sentence Examples
*
Synonyms Thesaurus
*
Business Definition
*
Legal Definition
*
Quote Examples
*
Mentioned In
o collegebirth certificate
o collegecertificate of deposit
o collegecertificate of incorporation
o collegecertificate of origin
o collegegift certificate
o collegegold certificate
o collegesilver certificate
o lawcertificate of occupancy
o lawcertificate of service
o lawcertificate of title
o about 651 more...
certificate Hear it!
Ads by Google
Online Certification - Flexible Certificate Programs To Fit Your
Schedule. Start Today. Phoenix.edu
Certificate Templates - Create Perfect Certificates Fast See Examples.
Free Trial! www.SmartDraw.com
Want MCSE Certification? - Try Our Online Courses Free Today!
Guaranteed Training. Pass the Exam. www.QuickCert.com
Related Articles
* Amazon Gift Certificate Sweepstakes Official Rules
* Amazon Gift Certificate Sweepstakes Official Rules
certificate definition
cer·tifi·cate (sər tif′i kit; for v., -kāt′)
noun
a written or printed statement by which a fact is formally or
officially certified or attested; specif.,
1. a document certifying that one has met specified requirements,
as for teaching
2. a document certifying ownership, a promise to pay, etc.
Nothing there about having to be signed on the front.
Then there's this legal definition from that site:
certificate definition - legal
1. An official or sworn document that formally attests something to
be true. Also called certification.
2. A formal document certifying some interest, permission, right,
or status granted to its bearer.
Again, nothing there about having to be signed on the front.
How about a business definition:
certificate definition - business
1. Evidence of ownership of a bond or shares of stock. A
certificate contains detailed information relating to the issuer and
the owner, including the issuer's name, particulars of the issue, the
number of shares or the principal amount of the bonds, and the name
and address of the owner. Also called stock certificate. See also book-
entry security.
2. A document attesting to or verifying something. For example, a
certificate may indicate the completion of a course of study.
Again, nothing there about having to be signed on the front.
So where is your evidence that it a certificate has to be signed on
the front?
> > > > A certificate is a document that contains TWO parts:
> > > > 1) Identification of a fact (or facts) to be certified.
> > > > 2) An attestment: A SIGNED declaration of the accuracy of the facts.
>
> > > > Some people have said that it's signed by ink-stamp on the back. That
> > > > doesn't qualify the document as valid as any attestment and signature
> on
> > > > the reverse are DISJOINT from the facts on the face, and therefore,
> if
> > > > true, it's improperly prepared and therefore invalid on its face. A
> manual
> > > > signature isn't required - an ink stamped one IN THE PROPER PLACE
> > > > on the document is acceptable.
>
> > > And that proper place, by law, is where exactly? Cite the law.
> > > -----
> > > See the above definition.
>
> > Which isn't a law or regulation.
>
> > ======
> > It doesn't have to be.
>
> Yes, as a matter of fact it does. That's an excellent example of
> birther logic. The law is only what they claim it to be.
>
> ======
> So, any English word that the law doesn't define is undefined?
Not at all. It just isn't defined the way you want it to be defined.
> > Items not defined in the law carry their common definitions.
>
> Made up by the birthers.
>
> =======
> Then let's have your definition of a certificate: ....
See above with references. It's a lot more than you've provided. But
then there's more:
From a story in the Honolulu Advertiser -
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2008/Nov/01/ln/hawaii811010345.html
“They point to the lack of an official state seal on the document,
although Health Department officials say seals often are placed on the
backs of birth certificates.”
My, my, Hawaii puts seals (and obviously signatures) on the backs of
birth certificates that they issue. How interesting. But there's
more:
Which is a scan of another Hawaiian birth certificate issued in 2002
and guess what kiddies, the seal and the signature appear on the back
of the certificate. You can see both of them reversed and bleeding
through from the back.
Stussy is as clueless as ever.
> > > The proper place is on the document's face.
>
> > Only in your fervid imagination. Cite the law that says differently.
>
> > ======
> > You cite the law that permits the attesting signature to be separated
> from
> > the facts they attest on a certificate.
>
> It's your claim and therefore your defense. Cite the law that proves
> your point. You won't, you can't.
>
> =======
> Examine ANY certificate (including a diploma). It is a SINGLE-SIDED
> DOCUMENT containing a fact or characteristic about something or someone (or
> list of facts), followed by an attestment which includes a signature from a
> representative of the certifying authority.
Hawaiian birth certificate signed on the back.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2008/Nov/01/ln/hawaii811010345.html
“They point to the lack of an official state seal on the document,
although Health Department officials say seals often are placed on the
backs of birth certificates.”
Statement that the certification of Hawaiian birth certificates are on
the back of the document.
> This "thing" purporting to be a Hawaiian CoLB is UNSIGNED. It cannot be a
> certificate or certification of anything as it's incomplete.
Obama's certificate is signed just like the other example I've given
to you. It can be seen, signatures and all here:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
You lose again, Stussy.
> > > A certificate is a SINGLE-SIDED document. That's why people frame them
> and
> > > hang them on walls, especially true of certificates which convey
> > completion
> > > of a level of education (called a diploma).
> > > -----
>
> > Which no doubt you don't possess.
> > ======
> > You will find that I possess several - with my name on it too, and I
> wasn't
> > named after anyone else.
>
> So you say. Prove it. Obviously none of them have anything to do
> with Constitutional law. My bet is that you're an accounting major.
>
> ======
> Wrong. If you want proof, make an appointment and show up at my house.
So what exactly does an enrolled agent study in school, Stussy?
> > You've proven yourself to be an idiot. You should probably stop here.
>
> ROTFLMAO. You like it when people stop beating you to a pulp, don't
> you?
>
> ====
> Wrong. However, you have proven to be a complete waste of time, and
> probably a waste of a human as well.
Yet you keep replying to me, don't you?
> > > > Note that the statements alleged from Hawaiian officials as to the
> truth of
> > > > the document have NOT been made under penalty of perjury, so those
> > > > statements are worthless and don't serve to validate the document.
>
> > > And you just called all the Republican officials in Hawaii liars.
> > > -----
> > > Wrong. I have said that their statements are legally insufficient to
> stand
> > > as evidence.
>
> > You've called them liars.
>
> And you have no retort.
>
> =====
> I don't need one. I did NOT call them liars. I stated that their
> statements don't validate the invalid document, due to a missing element.
> Hawaii can't even manage to do that correctly!
Except that element isn't missing, Stussy. Just because it isn't done
the way you imagine that it should be done, doesn't make it wrong.
> > > > There is also the matter that back in the 1960's, a birth certificate
> could
> > > > be obtained by legal resident parents who have been residents for 1
> year
> > > > prior to birth even if the actual birth is OUTSIDE of the state,
> simply by
> > > > making a statement of such.
>
> > > And such a birth certificate would show where the person was born
> > > outside of Hawaii. Obama's certificate shows that he was born in
> > > Honolulu. As does the newspaper announcements, and the hospital.
>
> > > -----
> > > Also wrong. Such certificates show the RESIDENCE address of the parents
> > > within Hawaii, not the actual birthplace.
>
> > No, such certificates show the birthplace of the child.
>
> And I might add, you just legitimized Obama's birth certificate.
>
> ========
> Only in a manner where it FAILS to even prove citizenship, thus making it
> useless to show that he qualifies for the Office. I have shown that Hawaii
> permits FOREIGN births, thus invalidating ALL certificates that don't
> identify a specific place of birth (e.g. hospital) issued by Hawaii.
Obama certificate does indeed identify that he was born in Honolulu,
Honolulu County, Island of Oahu, Hawaii. There is no requirement that
a birth certificate identify a hospital except the one that you just
made up. Or do you think that people not born in a hospital aren't
citizens?
> Additionally, just because the state issued the document does not mean that
> its underlying application wasn't fraudulent. Hawaii may not have ever
> investigated the facts of the application.
And it could have been forged by Romulans too.
You don't read too well, do you, Stussy? In the 1860's, he was the
Quartermaster General of the State of New York. He began working in
1871 for the New York Republican machine. He wasn't head of it, he
worked for it.
> Party heads often are NOT nominated, nor do they have to be.
Who ever said that they were, Stussy. But how can you be head of the
party if you're working for a party boss' political machine?
> He wasn't HEAD of any political party in the 1860's. You remain
> clueless, making up facts as you need them.
> > > and did suppress any disqualifying information.
>
> > And you think that no one knew that his father wasn't a United States
> > citizen?
> > ======
> > That's because when Chester was 14, William naturalized. He actually WAS
> a
> > U.S. Citizen; just not at the time when Chester was born.
>
> But isn't that your whole point? Arthur's father wasn't a U. S.
> citizen at the time of Arthur's birth. It matters not whether he
> later became a citizen.
>
> =======
> Yes, that was my point. However, many who might have asked may have
> stopped when they learned that he did naturalize without comparing the
> dates to realize that he wasn't a U.S. citizen when Chester was born.
And, of course, you have just as many cites for that allegation as
you've had for all your other allegations, don't you? Meaning, of
course, ZERO.
Not if the person filling the office isn't qualified. Can you not
read plain English? What part of "shall apply only to
such officers as are eligible to the office of President under the
Constitution." is it that you don't understand?
> You asked what was the point of appointing a
> non-qualifying person to a position in succession, as if one would never do
> such. All I did is provide an example where such was actually done.
No, Stussy that wasn't my question. You're the one who brought that
up. My question was:
What would be the point of having a Vice President who was ineligible
to be President?
Which you not only ignored, but cut out the answer that I gave you.
Why did you do that, Stussy? Because it proved that you were a
idiot? Here it is again:
Here I'll give you a hint: It can't happen. The 12th amendment
clearly states:
"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President
shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
Again, you are proven clueless about the Constitution and the law.
> That's not being clueless. That's called answering your question: There
> is no point, yet it has been done.
The point is that you are not only clueless but disingenuous, too.
Yes, Stussy, it does.
> Being born within the borders of the U.S. is only ONE of two elements of citizenship.
Only if one applies birther logic and fabrications.
> Citizen at birth does not EQUAL "natural born citizen."
Yes, it does.
> A natural born
> citizen is one that begets citizenship by BOTH place and blood (with blood
> meaning from BOTH parents).
There's not a bit of law or case law that says any such thing.
> > You need to look up the definition of the entire phrase. You won't find
> it
> > in the current U.S.C. Title 8 (or any other title of the Code).
>
> Like this Supreme Court decision?
>
> =====
> Court decisions are NOT statutes.
But do decide the law.
<snip>
> Obama's father was NEVER a U.S. Citizen. Citizenship by blood is therefore
> lacking, even if he has it by place (assuming Hawaii is his birthplace; a
> fact that has NOT been proven). Obama Jr. could be a U.S. citizen at
> birth, but NOT a "natural born citizen."
We're still waiting for you to prove that unsubstantiated asssertion,
Stussy. Just because you keep saying it, doesn't make it so.
> Even if his father had been a
> U.S. citizen, Obama Jr. overtly changed his citizenship when adopted in
> Indonesia and therefore, although U.S. law permits him, as a minor, to keep
> U.S. citizenship*, with this action (including that on his behalf by his
> parents) in making him a dual-citizen at best, he LOST his "natural born"
> status.
Obama never "overtly" changed his citizenship. He was 6 years old at
the time.
> The requirement is so that the President shall not have divided
> loyalties to any foreign land, and having dual-citizenship (or any foreign
> citizenship AFTER U.S. citizenship) is a disqualifier.
And again, you can't provide a cite that demonstrates such an
assertion.
> * - Indonesian law does not permit this. When he swore allegence to his
> new country, he renounced all prior citizenships by operation of Indonesian
> law. The fact that the U.S. State Dept. did not note his change of status
> is not my problem.
Obama was incapable as a 6 year old to do any such thing, Stussy. And
Indonesian law means nothing in the United States.
D. Stussy
news:d53b666e-e3e3-41ff...@o36g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
certificate Hear it!
Ads by Google
Related Articles
certificate definition
cer�tifi�cate (s?r tif'i kit; for v., -kat')
noun
a written or printed statement by which a fact is formally or
officially certified or attested; specif.,
1. a document certifying that one has met specified requirements,
as for teaching
2. a document certifying ownership, a promise to pay, etc.
Nothing there about having to be signed on the front.
Then there's this legal definition from that site:
certificate definition - legal
1. An official or sworn document that formally attests something to
be true. Also called certification.
2. A formal document certifying some interest, permission, right,
or status granted to its bearer.
Again, nothing there about having to be signed on the front.
========
There doesn't have to be. Legal documents are all single sided. Every
court in the jurisdiction where I live has that in their rules.
For example: U.S. District Court - Central District of California
Local Rule 3: Form of Pleadings ....
3.4.2 Third sentence: "Only one side if the paper will be used."
The rule applies to not only the pleading but to all exhibits as well.
(The rule similarly exists for the entire U.S. 9th Circuit, and the state
courts also conform)
BTW, Hawaii is a state within the 9th circuit, and therefore subject to its
rules.
Regardless of the example (and I leave examples for everywhere else to you
to dig up), separating the fact or facts attested to from the attestment
voids the document as a certificate. It's that simple. The two elements
must co-exist together for validity to attach. By placing them on opposite
sides, they are sufficiently separated to be disassociated. The signature
attests to nothing, and the facts on the other side are not attested.
A certified document is one that is prepared such that it is admissible in
court. As such, this document violates the court's rules for exhibits and
is therefore not admissable. As a non-admissable item, it is not evidence
of anything.
The document is admissable only as a non-certified document, which carries
no weight, so it's an evidentary nullity either way.
========
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2008/Nov/01/ln/hawaii811010345.html
=======
Just because that's their local policy, custom, or usage, it doesn't make
it legally valid.
In California, all vital records bear the signature on the FACE side of the
document. The reverse is blank. In Nevada, the same. IN CA, the
signature is in the lower left. In NV, it's the lower right. These states
know how to do it correctly. Hawaii doesn't.
=======
Stussy is as clueless as ever.
=====
You could try to address me properly. I shall address you properly: Mr.
Asshole.
=====
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2008/Nov/01/ln/hawaii811010345.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
=======
The image of the face clearly shows a large blank area in the lower right
of the document's face. The stamped signature is completely ABSENT as
proven by that image despite there being adequate room to include it. The
image of the stamped signature that is given on that web page could easily
be from another document. There is no image folding the document over in
such a way to reveal some fraction from BOTH sides so that one can
associate that signature with that document.
This is without regard to the court standards imposed on Hawaii above.
As for the state's policy of not releasing information without tangible
interest, the official is wrong: Due to the U.S. Constitutional
requirement, every citizen of the United States has a material, tangible
interest in the information that would prove that this individual qualifies
for the Office of President. Hawaii is subject to the Constitution as of
it's date of statehood. Hawaii's Health Department doesn't need Obama's
permission. He willfully surrendered any right to privacy (or any other
right to suppress its issuance) the moment he accepted the outcome of the
election and became the President-Elect. The U.S. Constitution is the
supreme law of the land and overrides any local Hawaiian statute.
By refusing to release the information, Dr. Chiyome Fukino is part of the
conspiracy to suppress the truth - the truth that we have a President that
doesn't qualify for the office he now allegedly holds. She is a traitor,
as guilty as Biden, Pelosi, and Howard Dean, who are responsible for
placing the non-qualified person on the ballots of the various States.
If Obama in fact did qualify for the office, he would release all the
documentation that PROVES his qualification so as to put the matter to
rest. This document, the CoLB, proves nothing. His refusal to disclose is
proof of intent that he knows he doesn't qualify and must suppress the
information.
[The rest of your drivel has been snipped]
age...@justicemail.com
But you claimed that a "definition of a certificate" would show that
it had to be signed on the front. I gave you several examples of
definitions that said no such thing.
> Legal documents are all single sided. Every
> court in the jurisdiction where I live has that in their rules.
>
> For example: U.S. District Court - Central District of California
> Local Rule 3: Form of Pleadings ....
> 3.4.2 Third sentence: "Only one side if the paper will be used."
> The rule applies to not only the pleading but to all exhibits as well.
> (The rule similarly exists for the entire U.S. 9th Circuit, and the state
> courts also conform)
> BTW, Hawaii is a state within the 9th circuit, and therefore subject to its
> rules.
Too bad that you can't even make a proper citation. Try:
http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/CACD/LocRules.nsf/Local%20Rules?OpenView&Start=1&Count=3000&Expand=1#1
And what you're apparently trying to cite is this:
" L.R. 11-3.2 Paper . All documents shall be submitted on opaque,
unglazed, white paper (including recycled paper) not less than 13-
pound weight. The paper shall be 8 ½ x 11 inches, numbered on the left
margin with not more than 28 lines per page. Only one side of the
paper shall be used. The lines on each page shall be double spaced and
numbered consecutively with line 1 beginning at least one inch below
the top edge of the paper."
The only problem is that the reference is to pleading made by the
lawyers in the case and not to any evidence that might be submitted.
Or do you propose that a lawyer tamper with primary evidence just to
put it in a specified format?
> Regardless of the example (and I leave examples for everywhere else to you
> to dig up), separating the fact or facts attested to from the attestment
> voids the document as a certificate. It's that simple.
Really? How about something that you should be intimately familar
with, a Form 1040. The certification or attestation on that document
appears on the back of the document if you use the official form. If
you print the form from a computer, it could be on an entirely
separate page.
> The two elements
> must co-exist together for validity to attach. By placing them on opposite
> sides, they are sufficiently separated to be disassociated. The signature
> attests to nothing, and the facts on the other side are not attested.
So a Form 1040 is not valid? The facts on the front of a 1040 are not
valid?
> A certified document is one that is prepared such that it is admissible in
> court. As such, this document violates the court's rules for exhibits and
> is therefore not admissable. As a non-admissable item, it is not evidence
> of anything.
Actually, here's what the Central District Court has to say about
that:
" L.R. 11-3.4 Original; Copies . The original of a document shall be
labeled as the original and shall consist entirely of the original
pages, except as otherwise allowed by these rules. All copies are to
be clearly identified as such."
But then you want to confuse the pleadings and writings of the
attorneys with evidence that might be presented. The court can't
demand that evidence fit a preconceived format, Stussybaby.
> The document is admissable only as a non-certified document, which carries
> no weight, so it's an evidentary nullity either way.
And you would be wrong about that again. Remember the Form 1040? By
your logic, it's an inadmissible document in a court proceeding.
> How about a business definition:
>
> certificate definition - business
> 1. Evidence of ownership of a bond or shares of stock. A
> certificate contains detailed information relating to the issuer and
> the owner, including the issuer's name, particulars of the issue, the
> number of shares or the principal amount of the bonds, and the name
> and address of the owner. Also called stock certificate. See also book-
> entry security.
> 2. A document attesting to or verifying something. For example, a
> certificate may indicate the completion of a course of study.
>
> Again, nothing there about having to be signed on the front.
>
> So where is your evidence that it a certificate has to be signed on
> the front?
Still waiting for that definition that a certificate has to be signed
on the front.
> http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2008/Nov/01/ln/hawaii811010...
>
> "They point to the lack of an official state seal on the document,
> although Health Department officials say seals often are placed on the
> backs of birth certificates."
>
> My, my, Hawaii puts seals (and obviously signatures) on the backs of
> birth certificates that they issue. How interesting. But there's
> more:
>
> http://bp1.blogger.com/_orkXxp0bhEA/SGeRIwgtZ2I/AAAAAAAAHGI/RLkO1Ohs2...
>
> Which is a scan of another Hawaiian birth certificate issued in 2002
> and guess what kiddies, the seal and the signature appear on the back
> of the certificate. You can see both of them reversed and bleeding
> through from the back.
>
> =======
> Just because that's their local policy, custom, or usage, it doesn't make
> it legally valid.
Ah, but it does.
> In California, all vital records bear the signature on the FACE side of the
> document. The reverse is blank. In Nevada, the same. IN CA, the
> signature is in the lower left. In NV, it's the lower right. These states
> know how to do it correctly. Hawaii doesn't.
But none of that makes the way Hawaii does it invalid.
> Stussy is as clueless as ever.
>
> =====
> You could try to address me properly. I shall address you properly: Mr.
> Asshole.
Now Stussy is losing so badly that he has to resort to lame insults.
> > > > The proper place is on the document's face.
>
> > > Only in your fervid imagination. Cite the law that says differently.
>
> > > ======
> > > You cite the law that permits the attesting signature to be separated
> > from
> > > the facts they attest on a certificate.
>
> > It's your claim and therefore your defense. Cite the law that proves
> > your point. You won't, you can't.
>
> > =======
> > Examine ANY certificate (including a diploma). It is a SINGLE-SIDED
> > DOCUMENT containing a fact or characteristic about something or someone
> (or
> > list of facts), followed by an attestment which includes a signature from
> a
> > representative of the certifying authority.
>
> http://bp1.blogger.com/_orkXxp0bhEA/SGeRIwgtZ2I/AAAAAAAAHGI/RLkO1Ohs2...
>
> Hawaiian birth certificate signed on the back.
>
> http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2008/Nov/01/ln/hawaii811010...
>
> "They point to the lack of an official state seal on the document,
> although Health Department officials say seals often are placed on the
> backs of birth certificates."
>
> Statement that the certification of Hawaiian birth certificates are on
> the back of the document.
>
> > This "thing" purporting to be a Hawaiian CoLB is UNSIGNED. It cannot be a
> > certificate or certification of anything as it's incomplete.
>
> Obama's certificate is signed just like the other example I've given
> to you. It can be seen, signatures and all here:
>
> http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
>
> =======
> The image of the face clearly shows a large blank area in the lower right
> of the document's face. The stamped signature is completely ABSENT as
> proven by that image despite there being adequate room to include it. The
> image of the stamped signature that is given on that web page could easily
> be from another document. There is no image folding the document over in
> such a way to reveal some fraction from BOTH sides so that one can
> associate that signature with that document.
And it could be a Romulan birth certificate, right. The people taking
the photographs clearly state that the images are photographs from the
front and back of the Obama birth certificate. If you look at other
photographs of the Obama birth certificate, like this one:
http://www.politifact.com/media/img/graphics/birthCertObama.jpg
You can see the date stamp bleeding through from the back of the
document.
> This is without regard to the court standards imposed on Hawaii above.
No, Stussy, it is without regard to your incorrect interpretation of
the court standards.
> As for the state's policy of not releasing information without tangible
> interest, the official is wrong:
No the official is right. Hawaiian law is very clear on the subject.
> Due to the U.S. Constitutional
> requirement, every citizen of the United States has a material, tangible
> interest in the information that would prove that this individual qualifies
> for the Office of President.
Which isn't covered by Hawaiian law, or any other state's privacy laws
for that matter.
> Hawaii is subject to the Constitution as of it's date of statehood.
This has nothing to do with the Constitution, Stussy.
> Hawaii's Health Department doesn't need Obama's permission.
Yes, it does.
> He willfully surrendered any right to privacy (or any other
> right to suppress its issuance) the moment he accepted the outcome of the
> election and became the President-Elect.
No, Stussy, he didn't surrender any of his rights by being elected
President.
> The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land and overrides any local Hawaiian statute.
Except the U. S. Constitution specifically provides:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
> By refusing to release the information, Dr. Chiyome Fukino is part of the
> conspiracy to suppress the truth - the truth that we have a President that
> doesn't qualify for the office he now allegedly holds. She is a traitor,
> as guilty as Biden, Pelosi, and Howard Dean, who are responsible for
> placing the non-qualified person on the ballots of the various States.
Ah, the conspiracy grows. And you just demonstrate that you really
can't stand to have a black man as President, can you?
> If Obama in fact did qualify for the office, he would release all the
> documentation that PROVES his qualification so as to put the matter to
> rest. This document, the CoLB, proves nothing. His refusal to disclose is
> proof of intent that he knows he doesn't qualify and must suppress the
> information.
He released his birth certificate, Stussy.
> [The rest of your drivel has been snipped]
Just can't resist replying, can you, Stussy? And yeah, I was beating
you up pretty bad about the history of Chester Arthur and citizenship,
wasn't I. Guess your only recourse would be to cut and run. BTW,
when are you going to get a decent newsreader that quotes properly?
Iarnrod
> <agen...@justicemail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> Again, nothing there about having to be signed on the front.
>
> ========
> There doesn't have to be.
Yet you claim it exists but cannot find it. Hmmph.
> Legal documents are all single sided.
YOU LIE.
> Every
> court in the jurisdiction where I live has that in their rules.
A birth certificate is not a court filing, KKKook.
> For example: U.S. District Court - Central District of California
> Local Rule 3: Form of Pleadings ....
> 3.4.2 Third sentence: "Only one side if the paper will be used."
> The rule applies to not only the pleading but to all exhibits as well.
> (The rule similarly exists for the entire U.S. 9th Circuit, and the state
> courts also conform)
> BTW, Hawaii is a state within the 9th circuit, and therefore subject to its
> rules.
Bzzzzzzztttt!!! Wrong. State offices are in NO WAY subject to a US
federal court rule on how lawyers must submit their pleadings in a
USDC case. Are you fuckin' MENTAL? Do you think workers in the
Honolulu office of the state health department say to each other "We
have to make our forms look like federal court legal filings?" Do you
even have a brain?
> Regardless of the example (and I leave examples for everywhere else to you
> to dig up), separating the fact or facts attested to from the attestment
> voids the document as a certificate. It's that simple.
It's that wrong. You're lying. The COLB has been attested to publicly
TWICE by Hawaii. It's case closed for you nutbars.
> The two elements
> must co-exist together for validity to attach.
They are on the same document, KKKook. There is no rule requiring the
signature to be on the front. None. You lie. Again.
> By placing them on opposite
> sides, they are sufficiently separated to be disassociated.
Only in your deluded mind. Fotrunately for the clean world, your
delusional fantasies do not work an actual obligation on sane people.
> The signature
> attests to nothing, and the facts on the other side are not attested.
They most certainly are. That's the birth certificate Hawaii issues.
It says so. Case closed.
> A certified document is one that is prepared such that it is admissible in
> court.
Like the Obama COLB.
> As such, this document violates the court's rules for exhibits and
> is therefore not admissable.
Bzzzzzztttt! Wrong.
> As a non-admissable item, it is not evidence
> of anything.
Yes it is. Like it says in plain English. It is evidence of the fact
of birth in the state of Hawaii.
> The document is admissable only as a non-certified document, which carries
> no weight, so it's an evidentary nullity either way.
Bzzzzzzztttt! Wrong. It is fully admissible, if there ever were a
pertinent need for it, which there isn't in this case.
> From a story in the Honolulu Advertiser -
>
> http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2008/Nov/01/ln/hawaii811010...
>
> "They point to the lack of an official state seal on the document,
> although Health Department officials say seals often are placed on the
> backs of birth certificates."
>
> My, my, Hawaii puts seals (and obviously signatures) on the backs of
> birth certificates that they issue. How interesting. But there's
> more:
>
> http://bp1.blogger.com/_orkXxp0bhEA/SGeRIwgtZ2I/AAAAAAAAHGI/RLkO1Ohs2...
>
> Which is a scan of another Hawaiian birth certificate issued in 2002
> and guess what kiddies, the seal and the signature appear on the back
> of the certificate. You can see both of them reversed and bleeding
> through from the back.
>
> =======
> Just because that's their local policy, custom, or usage, it doesn't make
> it legally valid.
Yes, actually it does.
Just because you have your racist fantasy of removing the first black
man to hold the office of POTUS doesn't make it legally valid.
> In California, all vital records bear the signature on the FACE side of the
> document.
In case you have not yet noticed, California is a whole entire
different state than Hawaii. Hawaii is not bound by what someone in
California decides to do.
> In Nevada, the same.
Good for them; they made their own choice. So did Hawaii.
Look, Hawaii has PUBLICLY already TWICE verified it's a real birth
certificate. Game over, dear.
> IN CA, the
> signature is in the lower left. In NV, it's the lower right. These states
> know how to do it correctly. Hawaii doesn't.
Hawaii and only Hawaii decides what is correct in Hawaii, cupcake.
> The image of the face clearly shows a large blank area in the lower right
> of the document's face.
So what. There's a whole lot of empty space all over it without a
signature. Irrelevant.
> The stamped signature is completely ABSENT as
> proven by that image despite there being adequate room to include it.
Holy SHIT, you think because they COULD have put it there because
there's room for it, that means they MUST put it there? Holy CRAP
you're stupid. What kind of thought process do you claim to use to
arrive at this twisted delusion?
> The
> image of the stamped signature that is given on that web page could easily
> be from another document.
No, it could not. It isn't. It's been verified by Hawaii TWICE now.
> There is no image folding the document over in
> such a way to reveal some fraction from BOTH sides so that one can
> associate that signature with that document.
Yes there is.
> This is without regard to the court standards imposed on Hawaii above.
The federal circuit court rules for how lawyers are to type up their
pleadings for submission do not carry ANY obligation on the part of
Hawaiian STATE officials to conform their BIRTH CERTIFICATES to such a
stupid format.
Watch, I'll prove you're a dope:
The 9th Circuit also requires that the pleadings be filed on 8 1/2 x
11 paper with the lines numbered down the left margin. Show us the CA
or NV birth certificates that number the lines in the left margin.
PWNED! You appear to be only selectively applying your delusional
logic, Stuffy.
> As for the state's policy of not releasing information without tangible
> interest, the official is wrong:
No, that is the state's law.
> Due to the U.S. Constitutional
> requirement, every citizen of the United States has a material, tangible
> interest in the information that would prove that this individual qualifies
> for the Office of President.
Then how come no one asked for Bush's? I don't believe he was born in
Connecticut and he refused to release his birth certificate.
Obama is the ONLY president EVER to actually publicly release his
birth certificate and PROVE he is a natural born citizen before the
election.
> Hawaii is subject to the Constitution as of
> it's date of statehood.
So? How does that obligate it to violate its own laws and publicly
release confidential records? Especially when Obama's already released
it?
> Hawaii's Health Department doesn't need Obama's
> permission.
Yes, it would.
> He willfully surrendered any right to privacy (or any other
> right to suppress its issuance) the moment he accepted the outcome of the
> election and became the President-Elect.
YOU LIE!
Cite.
> The U.S. Constitution is the
> supreme law of the land and overrides any local Hawaiian statute.
The US Constitution does not require that states violate their privacy
laws and publicize someone's birth certificate. How come this wasn't
an issue with bush or Clinton or Reagan or Eisenhower. We really don't
know for certain they were born where they claimed. how come just the
black guy gets you all worked up, Nathan Bedford Forrest?
> By refusing to release the information, Dr. Chiyome Fukino is part of the
> conspiracy to suppress the truth
YOU LIE! By refusing to violate the laws she was sworn to uphold, she
is a patriot!
The truth already is known, because Obama already has released the
document containing IPSO FACTO the very same information that you want
Fukino to violate her oath to release. It necessarily says the same
thing.
>- the truth that we have a President that
> doesn't qualify for the office he now allegedly holds.
That was Bush.
Obama is fully qualified. Not only that, he is the ONLY president EVER
to ALSO prove he is constitutionally eligible as a natural born
citizen.
> She is a traitor,
She is a patriot of the highest order and deserves a medal for
tolerating the likes of you delusional nutbags.
> as guilty as Biden, Pelosi, and Howard Dean, who are responsible for
> placing the non-qualified person on the ballots of the various States.
Bzzzzzztttt! Panamanian McCain is the one who couldn't prove his
eligibility; Obama delivered a slam-dunk body-blow proof of his.
> If Obama in fact did qualify for the office, he would release all the
> documentation that PROVES his qualification so as to put the matter to
> rest.
No he wouldn't. Why should he? He's already done MORE than ANY OTHER
president EVER. You get no more than the COLB and you will like it.
> This document, the CoLB, proves nothing.
It proves Obama is a natural born citizen.
> His refusal to disclose is
> proof of intent that he knows he doesn't qualify and must suppress the
> information.
He's already disclosed and it's proof of his transparency, You get no
more, KKKook.
Aren't you late for your cross burning?
sufaud
news:d7456d63-1b59-48db...@m3g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 15, 12:25 am, "D. Stussy" <s...@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
> "sittingduck" <d...@spamherelots.com> wrote in message
...
> A "natural born citizen" is a person who is a citizen by virtue of being
> born in a country to parents BOTH of whom are citizens of that same
> country.
That is lunatic fringe. A "natural born citizen" is whatever the US
Supreme Court says it is, nothing more and nothing less.
If I were arguing the case before the court I would review the meaning
of "citizen" at the time the Constitution was drafted. In those days
Common Law (Anglo-American) jurisdictions did not have any concept of
"nationality" which is a Civil Law and Christian notion. They had
exclusively a notion of "allegiance" (which ironically they share with
Sharia, i.e., Muslim law, in a certain sense).
There's a lot of old material that would be relevant. Google, for
example "the ligeance of the king" (keeping the quotes) and also
"Clive Parry - British Nationality Law"
But Orly is out of court for want of standing. Just wait and see.
Ironically the definition involving "both parents" has been seen
recently. In Ivory Coast where it set off a civil war.
Charles Bell
This merely defines citizenship statutorily in keeping with the Wong
Kim Ark decision; it does not define or deal with what "natural born"
in Article II as a requirement for Presidency means. You contine to
ignore the unique distinction given to "natural born." Even the Wong
Kim Ark decision itself uses the distinction:
<Quote Justice Horace>
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to
these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and
fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the
allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all
children here born of resident aliens…Every citizen or subject of
another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and
the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the
United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and
immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before
quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-
born child of a citizen…’ <unquote>
This does *not* say that such a (born in the U.S.) citizen *is* a
natural-born citizen; it is saying that such a citizen has the same
constitutional rights *as* a natural-born citizen, thereby maintaining
a distinction, not obliterating it. Article II requirement of natural-
born citizen remains intact, unaffected by any federal court decision
including Kim because that was not the Constitutional issue under
review.
> Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and
> is eligible to run for President or Vice President.
Again, no where in your cite is there any reference to "natural
born". You are merely inserting your opinion that a native born
person of whatever parentage is the same as a natural born person who
is, by definition, born to U.S. citizens. The staute merely states
that these born-in-U.S. and other persons are "citizens." The statutes
simply do not mention the status of natural born persons because
Constitutionally no law has to, for the Constitution, as a function of
what it is, always applies to to U.S. natural born citizens which, in
fact, cannot be altered by Congress.
Iarnrod
You're wrong.
Being born in the US makes you a natural born citizen. This is well
settled by SCOTUS, even if it hasn't settled other questions such as
whether McCain is a natural born citizen.
Charles Bell
"Iarnrod" <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a6556313-4d35-4fee...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
> >Again, no where in your cite is there any reference to "natural
> >born". You are merely inserting your opinion that a native born
> >person of whatever parentage is the same as a natural born person who
> >is, by definition, born to U.S. citizens. The staute merely states
> >that these born-in-U.S. and other persons are "citizens." The statutes
> >simply do not mention the status of natural born persons because
> >Constitutionally no law has to, for the Constitution, as a function of
>> what it is, always applies to to U.S. natural born citizens which, in
> >fact, cannot be altered by Congress.
>You're wrong.
> Being born in the US makes you a natural born citizen.
No, it doesn't. Please cite some supporting references for your POV. I can
cite the Consititution itself which only refers to a natural born citizen
once, in contrast to (plain) citizen or naturalized citizen, in the
eligibility requirements for President.
> This is well
> settled by SCOTUS,
SCOTUS has drawn the distinction between natural born citizen and a citizen
that is born in the U.S., contrary to your POV. Elk v Wilkins (1872) [an
Indian born on U.S. soil but on an Indian reservation was not a U.S.
citizen] and Minor v Happerstat (1874) ["The Constitution does not, in
words, say who shall be natural-born citizens . . . 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."] CHILDREN BORN OF CITIZEN
PARENTS. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, (1898) forced Congress to legalize
anchor babies of resident aliens but did not call them "natural born
citizens". Perkins v. Elg (1939): opened up the question of natural born
status to children born in the US of naturalized (not resident alien)
parents, while also confusing the issue of native-born versus natural-born.
Iarnrod
> "Iarnrod" <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a6556313-4d35-4fee...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > >Again, no where in your cite is there any reference to "natural
> > >born". You are merely inserting your opinion that a native born
> > >person of whatever parentage is the same as a natural born person who
> > >is, by definition, born to U.S. citizens. The staute merely states
> > >that these born-in-U.S. and other persons are "citizens." The statutes
> > >simply do not mention the status of natural born persons because
> > >Constitutionally no law has to, for the Constitution, as a function of
> >> what it is, always applies to to U.S. natural born citizens which, in
> > >fact, cannot be altered by Congress.
> >You're wrong.
> > Being born in the US makes you a natural born citizen.
>
> No, it doesn't.
Yes it does.
> Please cite some supporting references for your POV.
The 14th Amendment and common law; SCOTUS in Perkins v Elg.
> I can
> cite the Consititution itself which only refers to a natural born citizen
> once, in contrast to (plain) citizen or naturalized citizen, in the
> eligibility requirements for President.
So what? Are you saying a person who is a citizen of the US by virtue
of his/her birth within the US is not a natural-born citizen? Someone
born with citizenship is a natural-born citizen.
> > This is well
> > settled by SCOTUS,
>
> SCOTUS has drawn the distinction between natural born citizen and a citizen
> that is born in the U.S., contrary to your POV. Elk v Wilkins (1872) [an
> Indian born on U.S. soil but on an Indian reservation was not a U.S.
> citizen]
No it did not. you don't know how to apply that case. Elk v Wilkins
said Indians are NOT US citizens at all. It iddn't speak to my POV at
all. There was no distinction between natural born citizenship vs
citizenship to be drawn. In any case, the Indian citizenship question
-- inapplicable to non-Indians in any case -- was mooted in 1924 when
Congress addressed the problelm in Elk v Wilkins. All Indians are
natural born citizens.
> and Minor v Happerstat (1874) ["The Constitution does not, in
> words, say who shall be natural-born citizens . . . 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."] CHILDREN BORN OF CITIZEN
> PARENTS.
That is not a complete definition of natural born citizen but only one
instance. It did not limit the universe of natural born citizens to
only those with two citizen parents. It is also true that all people
born on US soil NO MATTER WHO THEIR PARENTS ARE are natural born
citizens. While this gives McCain problems, it makes Obama clearly
eligible.
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark, (1898) forced Congress to legalize
> anchor babies of resident aliens but did not call them "natural born
> citizens".
Yet that is what they are. If one acquires something by vitrue of
birth, it is natural-born. Wong Kim Ark could have run for and legally
become president.
> Perkins v. Elg (1939): opened up the question of natural born
> status to children born in the US of naturalized (not resident alien)
> parents, while also confusing the issue of native-born versus natural-born.
Wrong. In Perkins v Elg, SCOTUS specifically UPHELD the lower court
declaration that she was indeed a natural born citizen -- thus making
clear that one does NOT have to be the child of two citizens and born
on US soil to be a natural born US citizen.
As I said, being born in the US makes one a natural born citizen
except in two instances -- offspring of foreign diplomats serving
here, or offspring of occupying armies (because they are not "subject
to the jurisdiction" of the US).
D. Stussy
Yes it does.
======
A person born in the United States (and subject to its jursidiction) is
merely a citizen at birth by place.
A person born outside the U.S. to qualifying U.S. citizen parent(s) is
merely a citizen at birth by blood.
"Natural born" status, within the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, has the
additional requirement that the person is born NOT ONLY within the U.S.,
BUT ALSO to TWO U.S. Citizen parents. A natural born citizen is one who
has citizenship at birth by BOTH PLACE AND BLOOD.
======
========
Those are cases of citizenship at birth which are NOT natural born
citizens. One must have BOTH types of citizenship at birth. Those
examples only have one or the other.
========
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark, (1898) forced Congress to legalize
> anchor babies of resident aliens but did not call them "natural born
> citizens".
Yet that is what they are. If one acquires something by vitrue of
birth, it is natural-born. Wong Kim Ark could have run for and legally
become president.
======
Wrong. That's not the legal definition, per Vattel. Wong Kim Ark was a
citizen but did NOT qualify for President. If he had married a U.S.
citizen and had children within the U.S., their children would qualify.
======
> Perkins v. Elg (1939): opened up the question of natural born
> status to children born in the US of naturalized (not resident alien)
> parents, while also confusing the issue of native-born versus
natural-born.
Wrong. In Perkins v Elg, SCOTUS specifically UPHELD the lower court
declaration that she was indeed a natural born citizen -- thus making
clear that one does NOT have to be the child of two citizens and born
on US soil to be a natural born US citizen.
======
They upheld that she was a citizen at birth and did NOT lose her U.S.
citizenship when she was removed to another country at an early age. She
never naturalized to another country.
======
As I said, being born in the US makes one a natural born citizen
except in two instances -- offspring of foreign diplomats serving
here, or offspring of occupying armies (because they are not "subject
to the jurisdiction" of the US).
=======
Babies of illegal aliens born in the U.S. should therefore not be citizens
at all - as their parents, by illegal entry, never subjected themselves to
the jurisdiction of the U.S. Only lawfully admitted aliens (residents or
not - mere visitors) subject themselves to our country's jurisdiction.
Citizens, by nature of their citizenship, are already subject to the
jurisdiction.
Iarnrod
Uh, Stuffy, could you please learn how to post correctly and stop
making it look like YOU said MY words? Thanks.
That is natural born, dearie.
> A person born outside the U.S. to qualifying U.S. citizen parent(s) is
> merely a citizen at birth by blood.
Like McCain. Now if he had won, there mighta been a legitimate
litigation to be had – in addition to the peril to the nation that
another Redopcian in the White House would have presented.
> "Natural born" status, within the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, has the
> additional requirement that the person is born NOT ONLY within the U.S.,
> BUT ALSO to TWO U.S. Citizen parents.
No, it does not at all. Sorry. Well-settled case law. A person could
be born on the tip of the Aleutian Islands by two Martian parents, and
still be eligible as a natural born citizen. The claim you make has
ZERO basis in law while my position has been upheld.
> A natural born citizen is one who
> has citizenship at birth by BOTH PLACE AND BLOOD.
Bzzzzztttt!! Wrong. Ipso facto.
No, they are not. Elg was DECLARED to be a natural born citizen,
cupcake. YOU LOSE.
> One must have BOTH types of citizenship at birth.
Incorrect.
> Those
> examples only have one or the other.
Immaterial. If you are born in US soil subject to US jurisdiction, you
are a natural born US citizen.
> ========
>
> > United States v. Wong Kim Ark, (1898) forced Congress to legalize
> > anchor babies of resident aliens but did not call them "natural born
> > citizens".
>
> Yet that is what they are. If one acquires something by vitrue of
> birth, it is natural-born. Wong Kim Ark could have run for and legally
> become president.
>
> ======
> Wrong.
Right.
> That's not the legal definition, per Vattel.
Vattel is immaterial. He was a philosopher and he died before there
was a United States of America. We make our own laws.
> Wong Kim Ark was a
> citizen but did NOT qualify for President.
Yes, he did. So did Steinkauler, so did Elg.
> If he had married a U.S.
> citizen and had children within the U.S., their children would qualify.
That’s true too. But so was Wong.
So was Chester Arthur, about whom there is NO disagreement that his
father was not a US citizen.
> ======
>
> > Perkins v. Elg (1939): opened up the question of natural born
> > status to children born in the US of naturalized (not resident alien)
> > parents, while also confusing the issue of native-born versus
>
> natural-born.
>
> Wrong. In Perkins v Elg, SCOTUS specifically UPHELD the lower court
> declaration that she was indeed a natural born citizen -- thus making
> clear that one does NOT have to be the child of two citizens and born
> on US soil to be a natural born US citizen.
>
> ======
> They upheld that she was a citizen at birth and did NOT lose her U.S.
> citizenship when she was removed to another country at an early age. She
> never naturalized to another country.
Correct, but she was a daughter of only one US citizen parent, and
that one naturalized.
Checkmate.
> ======
>
> As I said, being born in the US makes one a natural born citizen
> except in two instances -- offspring of foreign diplomats serving
> here, or offspring of occupying armies (because they are not "subject
> to the jurisdiction" of the US).
>
> =======
> Babies of illegal aliens born in the U.S. should therefore not be citizens
> at all - as their parents, by illegal entry, never subjected themselves to
> the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Too bad. They nevertheless ARE subject to our jurisdiction whether
they submit to it or not. It ain’t up to them, it’s up to US.
> Only lawfully admitted aliens (residents or
> not - mere visitors) subject themselves to our country's jurisdiction.
Nope. Presence is subjection. Are you so stupid as to think that a cop
could not arrest an illegal alien because he hasn’t “subjected
himself” to the cop’s jurisdiction? BWAHAHAHHAHAHAAAA!!!!
> Citizens, by nature of their citizenship, are already subject to the
> jurisdiction.
So is any non-citizen present, lawfully or not, unless a diplomat on
assignment or an invading soldier.
Q.E.D.
Victory is mine!
Charles Bell
> On Sep 20, 12:17 pm, "Charles Bell" <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Iarnrod" <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:a6556313-4d35-4fee...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >Again, no where in your cite is there any reference to "natural
> > > >born". You are merely inserting your opinion that a native born
> > > >person of whatever parentage is the same as a natural born person who
> > > >is, by definition, born to U.S. citizens. The staute merely states
> > > >that these born-in-U.S. and other persons are "citizens." The statutes
> > > >simply do not mention the status of natural born persons because
> > > >Constitutionally no law has to, for the Constitution, as a function of
> > >> what it is, always applies to to U.S. natural born citizens which, in
> > > >fact, cannot be altered by Congress.
> > >You're wrong.
> > > Being born in the US makes you a natural born citizen.
>
> > No, it doesn't.
>
> Yes it does.
>
> > Please cite some supporting references for your POV.
>
> The 14th Amendment and common law; SCOTUS in Perkins v Elg.
>
The 14th did not override Article 2.1.5; Perkins v Elg clarified that
naturalized citizens can produce natural-born citizens, not that
resident aliens can.
> > I can
> > cite the Consititution itself which only refers to a natural born citizen
> > once, in contrast to (plain) citizen or naturalized citizen, in the
> > eligibility requirements for President.
>
> So what? Are you saying a person who is a citizen of the US by virtue
> of his/her birth within the US is not a natural-born citizen?
Yes. Unless that birth is of two U.S. citizens -- or in the case of
bastard birth, of the mother -- then one is a citizen only by Acts of
Congress, not by the Constitution (which gives Congress that power to
its discretion).
> Someone
> born with citizenship is a natural-born citizen.
No.
>
> > > This is well
> > > settled by SCOTUS,
>
> > SCOTUS has drawn the distinction between natural born citizen and a citizen
> > that is born in the U.S., contrary to your POV. Elk v Wilkins (1872) [an
> > Indian born on U.S. soil but on an Indian reservation was not a U.S.
> > citizen]
>
> No it did not. you don't know how to apply that case. Elk v Wilkins
> said Indians are NOT US citizens at all.
. . . just like children of resident aliens were born on U.S. soil
but were not considered citizens. Your sole criterion thus far has
been that in 1789 anyone born on U.S. soil was considered a natural-
born citizen and this is patently false, by both the exclusion of
Indians and through Dred Scott, slaves. The exception clause in
Article II.1.5 specifically had to exempt the first generation from
natural-born qualification because no one could possibly have been
natural-born U.S. citizens, though most would have been born on the
soil what was to be the U.S.A.
>
> > and Minor v Happerstat (1874) ["The Constitution does not, in
> > words, say who shall be natural-born citizens . . . 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."] CHILDREN BORN OF CITIZEN
> > PARENTS.
The point of Minor was that a distinction WAS made between natural-
born and just born on U.S. soil , but that it was an irrelevant point
to settle the case. IOW, You are completely wrong on two counts:
that natural-born is always synonymous with born-in-U.S. and that
SCOTUS has ever actually ruled on that particular issue.
> Yet that is what they are. If one acquires something by vitrue of
> birth, it is natural-born. Wong Kim Ark could have run for and legally
> become president.
>
That was not the meaning of natural-born in 1789. Documents show that
the term was even chosen over "native born". The Wong decision
overturned the Constitution only in respect to the "born in the
jurisdiction" phrase of the 14th to create anchor babies for illegal
immigrants. We'll have to wait for an Obama Court to overturn the
Constitution with respect to the natural born phrase in II.1.5., or as
I would claim, Obama has already overturned the Consitution should his
Presidency survive to a full term.
> > Perkins v. Elg (1939): opened up the question of natural born
> > status to children born in the US of naturalized (not resident alien)
> > parents, while also confusing the issue of native-born versus natural-born.
>
> Wrong. In Perkins v Elg, SCOTUS specifically UPHELD the lower court
> declaration that she was indeed a natural born citizen --
No, it claimed that Elg was a *native born* to parents who were
naturalized thus making her also natural-born, as opposed to the
condition that her parents were resident aliens which would still make
her "native" as someone who was born here but also someone who had
dual citizenship until 21. Such a native can find herself in
circumstances as she found herself as someone coming back from Sweden
but not as a U.S. citizen without application to become one. As a
natural-born citizen, however, she did not have to make special
application as she was automatically one, even without Congressional
legislation.
> thus making
> clear that one does NOT have to be the child of two citizens and born
> on US soil to be a natural born US citizen.
No, it just made it operative by Supreme edict that naturalized
citizens can produce natural-born children. This was at issue with
President Chester Arthur whose father may or may not have been
naturalized (probably not) at the time of little Chester's birth. It
is alleged that is why Arthur declared his age to be one year less
than it actually was.
Iarnrod
> On Sep 20, 2:52 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 20, 12:17 pm, "Charles Bell" <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > "Iarnrod" <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:a6556313-4d35-4fee...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > >Again, no where in your cite is there any reference to "natural
> > > > >born". You are merely inserting your opinion that a native born
> > > > >person of whatever parentage is the same as a natural born person who
> > > > >is, by definition, born to U.S. citizens. The staute merely states
> > > > >that these born-in-U.S. and other persons are "citizens." The statutes
> > > > >simply do not mention the status of natural born persons because
> > > > >Constitutionally no law has to, for the Constitution, as a function of
> > > >> what it is, always applies to to U.S. natural born citizens which, in
> > > > >fact, cannot be altered by Congress.
> > > >You're wrong.
> > > > Being born in the US makes you a natural born citizen.
>
> > > No, it doesn't.
>
> > Yes it does.
>
> > > Please cite some supporting references for your POV.
>
> > The 14th Amendment and common law; SCOTUS in Perkins v Elg.
>
> The 14th did not override Article 2.1.5;
Who claimed it did, dearie?
> Perkins v Elg clarified that
> naturalized citizens can produce natural-born citizens, not that
> resident aliens can.
The mother was not a naturalized citizen; only the father.
Recalculate.
The 14th Amendment settles it.
> > > I can
> > > cite the Consititution itself which only refers to a natural born citizen
> > > once, in contrast to (plain) citizen or naturalized citizen, in the
> > > eligibility requirements for President.
>
> > So what? Are you saying a person who is a citizen of the US by virtue
> > of his/her birth within the US is not a natural-born citizen?
>
> Yes.
Well, then that’s the problem. You’re just wrong. “Natural-born” means
having the attribute through birth. SCOTUS has settled this. Anyone
born on US soil other than those two exceptions I noted – foreign
diplomats or invading army soldiers – is a natural born citizen.
> Unless that birth is of two U.S. citizens -- or in the case of
> bastard birth, of the mother -- then one is a citizen only by Acts of
> Congress, not by the Constitution (which gives Congress that power to
> its discretion).
Nope. There is no such requirement. When Chester Arthur was president,
the debate was whether he was actually born in Canada and not Vermont;
it was well known his father was not a citizen yet that was not a
matter of debate.
> > Someone
> > born with citizenship is a natural-born citizen.
>
> No.
Yes. That’s what it means.
> > > > This is well
> > > > settled by SCOTUS,
>
> > > SCOTUS has drawn the distinction between natural born citizen and a citizen
> > > that is born in the U.S., contrary to your POV. Elk v Wilkins (1872) [an
> > > Indian born on U.S. soil but on an Indian reservation was not a U.S.
> > > citizen]
>
> > No it did not. you don't know how to apply that case. Elk v Wilkins
> > said Indians are NOT US citizens at all.
>
> . . . just like children of resident aliens were born on U.S. soil
> but were not considered citizens.
They were.
You misread Elk. You claimed it “has drawn the distinction between
natural born citizen and a citizen that is born in the U.S., contrary
to [my] POV.” Yet Elk wasn’t about ANY distinction between natural
born citizen and citizen born in the US *at all.* It was about citizen
vs NON-citizen.
> Your sole criterion thus far has
> been that in 1789 anyone born on U.S. soil was considered a natural-
> born citizen and this is patently false, by both the exclusion of
> Indians and through Dred Scott, slaves.
Straw man. That was not my contention. Since they were not considered
citizens at all, then they could not have been natural born citizen.
The 14th Amendment was AFTER 1789.
> The exception clause in
> Article II.1.5 specifically had to exempt the first generation from
> natural-born qualification because no one could possibly have been
> natural-born U.S. citizens, though most would have been born on the
> soil what was to be the U.S.A.
Obviously. Why would you think I would disagree with that?
> > > and Minor v Happerstat (1874) ["The Constitution does not, in
> > > words, say who shall be natural-born citizens . . . 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."] CHILDREN BORN OF CITIZEN
> > > PARENTS.
>
> The point of Minor was that a distinction WAS made between natural-
> born and just born on U.S. soil , but that it was an irrelevant point
> to settle the case.
You’re lying. The case had nothing to do with “natural born”
citizenship but with citizenship generally, naturalized or natural
born, and whether all rights were conferred on all.
> IOW, You are completely wrong on two counts:
> that natural-born is always synonymous with born-in-U.S.
I am right on that point and Minor does not contradict me. It does not
speak to the point you’re trying to make.
> and that
> SCOTUS has ever actually ruled on that particular issue.
SCOTUS has never ruled on how far “natural born” goes, so for instance
it still leaves McCain’s status in the dark; but by virtue of Perkins
v Elg, it is abundantly clear that being born in US soil makes one a
natural born citizen (except in the special circumstances noted) no
matter WHO the parents are. Minor doesn’t say that not everyone born
on US soil is a natural born citizen; it says citizens don’t
necessarily have all the same rights – it was about women voting, fer
cryin’ out loud. It didn’t make women *not* natural born citizens.
They can indeed be.
Your conclusion seems to be that no woman before suffrage could be a
natural born citizen.
> > Yet that is what they are. If one acquires something by vitrue of
> > birth, it is natural-born. Wong Kim Ark could have run for and legally
> > become president.
>
> That was not the meaning of natural-born in 1789.
Immaterial. The Framers chose not to define it.
> Documents show that
> the term was even chosen over "native born".
“Native born” is a nonsense term. It means nothing but redundancy.
“Native” means born. Saying “native born” is like saying “wet rain.”
“Natural born” means one acquires whatever attribute is being
discussed through the act of birth.
> The Wong decision
> overturned the Constitution
SCOTUS decisions do not “overturn” the Constitution; they interpret
it; ipso facto. Sounds like you’re in over your head here.
> only in respect to the "born in the
> jurisdiction" phrase of the 14th to create anchor babies for illegal
> immigrants. We'll have to wait for an Obama Court to overturn the
> Constitution with respect to the natural born phrase in II.1.5., or as
> I would claim, Obama has already overturned the Consitution should his
> Presidency survive to a full term.
Full two terms, then turn over the White House to Hillary.
Your bias is showing.
> > > Perkins v. Elg (1939): opened up the question of natural born
> > > status to children born in the US of naturalized (not resident alien)
> > > parents, while also confusing the issue of native-born versus natural-born.
>
> > Wrong. In Perkins v Elg, SCOTUS specifically UPHELD the lower court
> > declaration that she was indeed a natural born citizen --
>
> No, it claimed that Elg was a *native born* to parents who were
> naturalized thus making her also natural-born, as opposed to the
> condition that her parents were resident aliens which would still make
> her "native" as someone who was born here but also someone who had
> dual citizenship until 21.
That’s a completely fabricated account of Perkins v Elg. No such
account is in the case. Her affirmed “natural born” citizenship did
not hinge on the citizenship of her parents (just the father was
naturalized). It was by virtue of her birth in the US, and the case
held she had the right to elect to retain her natural born US
citizenship when she became 21 even though she had been raised in
Sweden from age four after her mother took her there.
> > thus making
> > clear that one does NOT have to be the child of two citizens and born
> > on US soil to be a natural born US citizen.
>
> No, it just made it operative by Supreme edict that naturalized
> citizens can produce natural-born children.
Completely wrong; at the time of her birth the mother was a resident
alien, the father was naturalized. It was her birth on US soil that
made her a natural born citizen.
> This was at issue with
> President Chester Arthur whose father may or may not have been
> naturalized (probably not) at the time of little Chester's birth.
No, that was not the issue at all. The Chester Arthur issue was the
claim that he was not born in Vermont as claimed but in Canada. It is
undisputed that his father was NOT a US citizen at the time of his
biorth because Arthur Sr.’s date of naturalization is known and it is
when the future president was a teenager.
> It
> is alleged that is why Arthur declared his age to be one year less
> than it actually was.
Then that is alleged by someone who is ignorant of the plain facts.
Arthur’s father was not a US citizen until well after Arthur was born
and this is not in dispute.
Charles Bell
> On Sep 20, 5:25 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 20, 2:52 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 20, 12:17 pm, "Charles Bell" <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > "Iarnrod" <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:a6556313-4d35-4fee...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > >Again, no where in your cite is there any reference to "natural
> > > > > >born". You are merely inserting your opinion that a native born
> > > > > >person of whatever parentage is the same as a natural born person who
> > > > > >is, by definition, born to U.S. citizens. The staute merely states
> > > > > >that these born-in-U.S. and other persons are "citizens." The statutes
> > > > > >simply do not mention the status of natural born persons because
> > > > > >Constitutionally no law has to, for the Constitution, as a function of
> > > > >> what it is, always applies to to U.S. natural born citizens which, in
> > > > > >fact, cannot be altered by Congress.
> > > > >You're wrong.
> > > > > Being born in the US makes you a natural born citizen.
>
> > > > No, it doesn't.
>
> > > Yes it does.
>
> > > > Please cite some supporting references for your POV.
>
> > > The 14th Amendment and common law; SCOTUS in Perkins v Elg.
>
> > The 14th did not override Article 2.1.5;
>
> Who claimed it did, dearie?
>
You and everyone else who is claiming that the 14th settled the issue
of what is the criterion for citizenship. The 14th did not (re)
establish a definition for what is a natural-born citizen.
> > Perkins v Elg clarified that
> > naturalized citizens can produce natural-born citizens, not that
> > resident aliens can.
>
> The mother was not a naturalized citizen; only the father.
> Recalculate.
This does say that SCOTUS was willing to establish natural-born
citizenship through paternity. In that sense it is still relevant to
Obama's situation and counters your proposition that SCOTUS determined
"natural-born" can be established through alien residency alone.
>
> The 14th Amendment settles it.
>
> > > > I can
> > > > cite the Consititution itself which only refers to a natural born citizen
> > > > once, in contrast to (plain) citizen or naturalized citizen, in the
> > > > eligibility requirements for President.
>
> > > So what? Are you saying a person who is a citizen of the US by virtue
> > > of his/her birth within the US is not a natural-born citizen?
>
> > Yes.
>
> Well, then that’s the problem. You’re just wrong.
To correct myself, the meaning of "natural-born" is not the same as
established by the 14th (mere birth on soil within the jurisdiction of
a state). It is possible to be a citizen without being a natural-born
citizen in a variety of ways.
> “Natural-born” means
> having the attribute through birth. SCOTUS has settled this. Anyone
> born on US soil other than those two exceptions I noted – foreign
> diplomats or invading army soldiers – is a natural born citizen.
>
> > Unless that birth is of two U.S. citizens -- or in the case of
> > bastard birth, of the mother -- then one is a citizen only by Acts of
> > Congress, not by the Constitution (which gives Congress that power to
> > its discretion).
>
> Nope. There is no such requirement.
Yes, there is such a requirement, as to the intent of the founders:
(1) John Jay's letter to George Washington and (2) Vattel's definition
of what is "natural born" and (3) English law on jus sanguinis
citizenship.
> When Chester Arthur was president,
> the debate was whether he was actually born in Canada and not Vermont;
No, it was multi-faceted, as is the present one against Obama in a
similar way. The difference is that Arthur was never elected to the
Presidency and chose not to run for a second term when the issue
surely would have been looked at more closely.
> it was well known his father was not a citizen yet that was not a
> matter of debate.
No, the debate was over the fact that Arthur's father was not a U.S.
citizen at the time of Arthur's birth [in Vermont]. His place of
birth was a bit of a red-herring as is the place of Obama's birth.
[ Arthur: born 1829; father's naturalization 1843]. The lie about his
age distracted some people into thinking the matter was over *where*
he might have been born, just as Obama's obfuscation over his birth
certificate is a distraction.
>
> > > Someone
> > > born with citizenship is a natural-born citizen.
>
> > No.
>
> Yes. That’s what it means.
>
No, that is not what it means. Read Vattel, Law of Nations before
stating such an opinion [relevant portion cited below]. The only
misunderstanding is over the fact that "natural born" and "native
born" were used interchangably in English for Vattel's French in the
18th century and "native born" has come to have a different meaning in
the 20th century and "natural born" is no longer used at all. However,
even in 1866-1868 in the drafting of the 14th amendment, the
distinction was still there, as John Bingham defined "natural born" as
having BOTH been born in the U.S. and to U.S. citizens, but again
using "native born" interchangably at times. Neither phrase is used
in the 14th in any case. If there was some issue about changing the
Presidential qualification in Article 2.1.5 it would have been
mentioned somewhere by somebody.
§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this
society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally
participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens,
are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the
society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the
children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the
condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
> > > > > This is well
> > > > > settled by SCOTUS,
>
> > > > SCOTUS has drawn the distinction between natural born citizen and a citizen
> > > > that is born in the U.S., contrary to your POV. Elk v Wilkins (1872) [an
> > > > Indian born on U.S. soil but on an Indian reservation was not a U.S.
> > > > citizen]
>
> > > No it did not. you don't know how to apply that case. Elk v Wilkins
> > > said Indians are NOT US citizens at all.
>
> > . . . just like children of resident aliens were born on U.S. soil
> > but were not considered citizens.
>
> They were.
>
No, they weren't until 1896 Wong decision, and that only forced
Congress to establish citizenship *statutorily* which has nothing to
do with natural-born citizenship which *cannot* be altered by
Congress, except to clarify under what circumstances a natural-born
citizen may rennounce his citizenship.
> You misread Elk. You claimed it “has drawn the distinction between
> natural born citizen and a citizen that is born in the U.S., contrary
> to [my] POV.” Yet Elk wasn’t about ANY distinction between natural
> born citizen and citizen born in the US *at all.* It was about citizen
> vs NON-citizen.
>
That is not true. If her father had not been a naturalized citizen at
the time of her birth, she would have had no case whatsoever.
> > Your sole criterion thus far has
> > been that in 1789 anyone born on U.S. soil was considered a natural-
> > born citizen and this is patently false, by both the exclusion of
> > Indians and through Dred Scott, slaves.
>
> Straw man. That was not my contention. Since they were not considered
> citizens at all, then they could not have been natural born citizen.
>
It establishes that in 1789 there clearly were people BORN ON U.S.
SOIL who were not citizens. You are claiming the sole criterion for
natural-born citizenship is having been born on U.S. soil, and if you
wish to claim that the 14th changed all that, then you would need to
show intent that Article II.1.5 was altered by the 14th.
> > and that
> > SCOTUS has ever actually ruled on that particular issue.
>
> SCOTUS has never ruled on how far “natural born” goes, so for instance
> it still leaves McCain’s status in the dark; but by virtue of Perkins
> v Elg, it is abundantly clear that being born in US soil makes one a
> natural born citizen (except in the special circumstances noted) no
> matter WHO the parents are.
No, it was established by 1789 that citizens of nations born overseas,
when those citizens do not swear allegiance to a foreign power, are
natural born citizens of the home country. You have already acceded to
this by acknowledging that children of diplomats are not by birth
citizens of the countries they were born in.
.
>
> Your conclusion seems to be that no woman before suffrage could be a
> natural born citizen.
>
The right of federal citizenship was never tied to the right to vote.
That was always left to the states until the the 15th (race) and 19th
(gender) amendments.
> > > Yet that is what they are. If one acquires something by vitrue of
> > > birth, it is natural-born. Wong Kim Ark could have run for and legally
> > > become president.
>
> > That was not the meaning of natural-born in 1789.
>
> Immaterial. The Framers chose not to define it.
>
They had no need to define it any more than they did the word
"citizen" or "person". It was understood.
> > Documents show that
> > the term was even chosen over "native born".
>
> “Native born” is a nonsense term. It means nothing but redundancy.
> “Native” means born. Saying “native born” is like saying “wet rain.”
> “Natural born” means one acquires whatever attribute is being
> discussed through the act of birth.
>
Your side uses it as a red-herring all the time. It pops up
confusingly in SCOTUS decisions.
> > The Wong decision
> > overturned the Constitution
>
> SCOTUS decisions do not “overturn” the Constitution; they interpret
> it; ipso facto. Sounds like you’re in over your head here.
>
No, they sometimes overturn/rewrite it. This goes back to Marbury v
Madison when Chief Justice Marshall established a Constitutional right
of SCOTUS judicial review which is nowhere in the Constitution. The
battle rages on now as "activist" versus "strict constructionist"
judiciary. We have now what Jefferson warned against: a judicial
oligarchy-despotism. In the words of activist Justice Ginsberg: "A too-
strict jurisprudence of the framers' intent just seems too
unworkable."
Iarnrod
> On Sep 20, 10:40 pm,Iarnrod<iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 20, 5:25 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > > On Sep 20, 12:17 pm, "Charles Bell" <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > "Iarnrod" <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > >news:a6556313-4d35-4fee...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > > >Again, no where in your cite is there any reference to "natural
> > > > > > >born". You are merely inserting your opinion that a native born
> > > > > > >person of whatever parentage is the same as a natural born person who
> > > > > > >is, by definition, born to U.S. citizens. The staute merely states
> > > > > > >that these born-in-U.S. and other persons are "citizens." The statutes
> > > > > > >simply do not mention the status of natural born persons because
> > > > > > >Constitutionally no law has to, for the Constitution, as a function of
> > > > > >> what it is, always applies to to U.S. natural born citizens which, in
> > > > > > >fact, cannot be altered by Congress.
> > > > > >You're wrong.
> > > > > > Being born in the US makes you a natural born citizen.
>
> > > > > No, it doesn't.
>
> > > > Yes it does.
>
> > > > > Please cite some supporting references for your POV.
>
> > > > The 14th Amendment and common law; SCOTUS in Perkins v Elg.
>
> > > The 14th did not override Article 2.1.5;
>
> > Who claimed it did, dearie?
>
> You and everyone else who is claiming that the 14th settled the issue
> of what is the criterion for citizenship.
That’s completely false. Neither I nor anyone else ever made such a
claim that the 14th *overrode* Article II. The 14th is an integral
part of the entire document. It supplements and augments; it in no way
overrides Article II. There is nothing in Article II that is in any
way overridden by the 14th Amendment
And it most certainly DOES settle the issue of natural-born
citizenship as far as those individuals born on US soil and subject to
US jurisdiction.
> The 14th did not (re)
> establish a definition for what is a natural-born citizen.
Nowhere is that defined in any case. But the most basic agreement is
that a natural born citizen is one who acquires citizenship by virtue
of the circumstances of his/her birth, and once the 14th Amendment
became part of the Constitution, that meant people covered by it.
> > > Perkins v Elg clarified that
> > > naturalized citizens can produce natural-born citizens, not that
> > > resident aliens can.
>
> > The mother was not a naturalized citizen; only the father.
> > Recalculate.
>
> This does say that SCOTUS was willing to establish natural-born
> citizenship through paternity.
Nope, that was not the determinate. It was her birth on US soil that
cinched the case for her; SCOTUS in Perkins v Elg did NOT link her
claim to the fact that her father had been at one point a naturalized
US citizen.
> In that sense it is still relevant to
> Obama's situation and counters your proposition that SCOTUS determined
> "natural-born" can be established through alien residency alone.
Not at all. I never even made such a claim. Obama’s natural born
citizenship has NOTHING AT ALL to do with who his parents were. A baby
born in Hawaii to two Martians would be a natural born US citizen.
Obama’s father’s classification has nothing to do with this.
> > > > > I can
> > > > > cite the Consititution itself which only refers to a natural born citizen
> > > > > once, in contrast to (plain) citizen or naturalized citizen, in the
> > > > > eligibility requirements for President.
>
> > > > So what? Are you saying a person who is a citizen of the US by virtue
> > > > of his/her birth within the US is not a natural-born citizen?
>
> > > Yes.
>
> > Well, then that’s the problem. You’re just wrong.
>
> To correct myself, the meaning of "natural-born" is not the same as
> established by the 14th (mere birth on soil within the jurisdiction of
> a state).
Well, only in the sense that it is not the entire and exclusive
meaning. One can be a natural born citizen WITHOUT being born on US
soil. While it is still legally unsettled, I would maintain for
instance that John McCain would have been eligible to be POTUS despite
his birth in a foreign nation. So in a narrow sense, accidentally, you
are right that the meaning of “natural born” does not *exclusively*
mean those born under the 14th Amendment’s conditions. But the class
of natural born citizens at a minimum includes those established in
the 14th Amendment as citizens by birth on US soil AND jurisdiction.
> It is possible to be a citizen without being a natural-born
> citizen in a variety of ways.
Well, of course. People at this very moment are becoming citizens
through naturalization, or statutorily in other ways. That’s self-
evident and not in dispute.
> > “Natural-born” means
> > having the attribute through birth. SCOTUS has settled this. Anyone
> > born on US soil other than those two exceptions I noted – foreign
> > diplomats or invading army soldiers – is a natural born citizen.
>
> > > Unless that birth is of two U.S. citizens -- or in the case of
> > > bastard birth, of the mother -- then one is a citizen only by Acts of
> > > Congress, not by the Constitution (which gives Congress that power to
> > > its discretion).
>
> > Nope. There is no such requirement.
>
> Yes, there is such a requirement,
No, there actually is not, as Obama is president and so was Chester
Arthur. No serious Constitutional scholar ever in the past four years
since Obama’s name started being mentioned as presidential material
ever raised his father’s well-known lack of US citizenship as an
issue. Not only is it not a requirement, it is not even ambiguous.
> as to the intent of the founders:
> (1) John Jay's letter to George Washington and (2) Vattel's definition
> of what is "natural born" and (3) English law on jus sanguinis
> citizenship.
All immaterial. We are bound only by what is in the document, not what
a Swiss philosopher who never eve lived to know that the United States
even existed, wrote.
> > When Chester Arthur was president,
> > the debate was whether he was actually born in Canada and not Vermont;
>
> No, it was multi-faceted, as is the present one against Obama in a
> similar way.
The debate was whether he was actually born in Canada and not Vermont.
The Democrats hired Hinman to investigate it. Everyone already knew
his father was not a citizen when Arthur was born; it was the location
that was being debated.
> The difference is that Arthur was never elected to the
> Presidency and chose not to run for a second term when the issue
> surely would have been looked at more closely.
The vice president must meet the same eligibility requirements as the
president.
> > it was well known his father was not a citizen yet that was not a
> > matter of debate.
>
> No, the debate was over the fact that Arthur's father was not a U.S.
> citizen at the time of Arthur's birth [in Vermont].
Not according to the historical record; read Hinman.
At the time of the 1880 election when this was all being debated, the
issue was whether he was born in Canada or Vermont. Everyone knew his
father was born in Ireland and was not yet a US citizen at the time
the son was born.
> His place of
> birth was a bit of a red-herring as is the place of Obama's birth.
> [ Arthur: born 1829; father's naturalization 1843]. The lie about his
> age distracted some people into thinking the matter was over *where*
> he might have been born, just as Obama's obfuscation over his birth
> certificate is a distraction.
Not true at all. The controversy about Arthur at the time had to do
with the location, not his father’s well-known non-citizen status.
In fact, if as you claim it is a requirement that both parents be
citizens, then Arthur would have been declared ineligible right off,
as would Obama. Neither happened.
It is ALL about location of birth.
> > > > Someone
> > > > born with citizenship is a natural-born citizen.
>
> > > No.
>
> > Yes. That’s what it means.
>
> No, that is not what it means.
Yes, it is.
> Read Vattel, Law of Nations before
> stating such an opinion [relevant portion cited below].
Vattel has nothing at all to say about the US Constitution. He died
before there was a United States. It is what we say it is.
And Vattel doesn’t disagree with my statement that natural born
citizenship is what you are born with, whatever it is. You are
stretching it beyond that. While Vattel wants both parents to be
citizens, he still agrees with me that natural born citizenship is
that which you acquire by the circumstances of your birth. You cannot
disagree with this. You may disagree, as you and Vattel do, over the
circumstances that might be required at birth, but not over the fact
that what you acquire by virtue of birth is what is meant by “natural
born” attributes.
> The only
> misunderstanding is over the fact that "natural born" and "native
> born" were used interchangably in English for Vattel's French in the
> 18th century and "native born" has come to have a different meaning in
> the 20th century and "natural born" is no longer used at all. However,
> even in 1866-1868 in the drafting of the 14th amendment, the
> distinction was still there, as John Bingham defined "natural born" as
> having BOTH been born in the U.S. and to U.S. citizens, but again
> using "native born" interchangably at times. Neither phrase is used
> in the 14th in any case. If there was some issue about changing the
> Presidential qualification in Article 2.1.5 it would have been
> mentioned somewhere by somebody.
There was no intention to change Article II at all; it did not need
any changing. You only think that because you restrict the meaning of
it. We don’t.
> § 212. Of the citizens and natives.
>
> “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this
> society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally
> participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens,
> are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the
> society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the
> children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the
> condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Irrelevant to our Constitution. Vattel didn’t write it.
> > > > > > This is well
> > > > > > settled by SCOTUS,
>
> > > > > SCOTUS has drawn the distinction between natural born citizen and a citizen
> > > > > that is born in the U.S., contrary to your POV. Elk v Wilkins (1872) [an
> > > > > Indian born on U.S. soil but on an Indian reservation was not a U.S.
> > > > > citizen]
>
> > > > No it did not. you don't know how to apply that case. Elk v Wilkins
> > > > said Indians are NOT US citizens at all.
>
> > > . . . just like children of resident aliens were born on U.S. soil
> > > but were not considered citizens.
>
> > They were.
>
> No, they weren't until 1896 Wong decision,
No, wrong. SCOTUS established that Wong indeed WAS a natural born
citizen. That means he always was. Even prior to his detention, he had
been admitted entry after his travels abroad as a US citizen. It was
only after a second trip and his detention on return that the suit was
filed. In any case, this had to do only with Chinese people under the
Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. It didn’t have to do with the general
class of resident aliens, so your application of it is overbroad.
> and that only forced
> Congress to establish citizenship *statutorily* which has nothing to
> do with natural-born citizenship which *cannot* be altered by
> Congress, except to clarify under what circumstances a natural-born
> citizen may rennounce his citizenship.
Entirely wrong. Wong was found to be a citizen from birth under the
14th Amendment.
> > You misread Elk. You claimed it “has drawn the distinction between
> > natural born citizen and a citizen that is born in the U.S., contrary
> > to [my] POV.” Yet Elk wasn’t about ANY distinction between natural
> > born citizen and citizen born in the US *at all.* It was about citizen
> > vs NON-citizen.
>
> That is not true. If her father had not been a naturalized citizen at
> the time of her birth, she would have had no case whatsoever.
Huh? You’re not even talking about the same case here. Elk was not a
“her,” but a “him.” His father was not a naturalized citizen at all,
but an Indian and under then-law was considered not to be under the
jurisdiction of the US and therefore not a natural born citizen – all
of which of course was later overturned legislatively.
> > > Your sole criterion thus far has
> > > been that in 1789 anyone born on U.S. soil was considered a natural-
> > > born citizen and this is patently false, by both the exclusion of
> > > Indians and through Dred Scott, slaves.
>
> > Straw man. That was not my contention. Since they were not considered
> > citizens at all, then they could not have been natural born citizen.
>
> It establishes that in 1789 there clearly were people BORN ON U.S.
> SOIL who were not citizens.
I repeat: That is not my contention. Under US jurisdiction is also an
element. Stop shoving your straw man down my throat, it is not mine
but yours.
> You are claiming the sole criterion for
> natural-born citizenship is having been born on U.S. soil, and if you
> wish to claim that the 14th changed all that, then you would need to
> show intent that Article II.1.5 was altered by the 14th.
No I don’t at all.
> > > and that
> > > SCOTUS has ever actually ruled on that particular issue.
>
> > SCOTUS has never ruled on how far “natural born” goes, so for instance
> > it still leaves McCain’s status in the dark; but by virtue of Perkins
> > v Elg, it is abundantly clear that being born in US soil makes one a
> > natural born citizen (except in the special circumstances noted) no
> > matter WHO the parents are.
>
> No, it was established by 1789 that citizens of nations born overseas,
> when those citizens do not swear allegiance to a foreign power, are
> natural born citizens of the home country. You have already acceded to
> this by acknowledging that children of diplomats are not by birth
> citizens of the countries they were born in.
McCain’s parents were not diplomats. There was much ambiguity over
children born to US citizens in the Canal Zone such that a statute had
to be passed *after* McCain’s birth retroactively extending them US
citizenship, although not clear whether that meets the natural-born
test.
> > Your conclusion seems to be that no woman before suffrage could be a
> > natural born citizen.
>
> The right of federal citizenship was never tied to the right to vote.
> That was always left to the states until the the 15th (race) and 19th
> (gender) amendments.
Yet by citing the Minor case, the discussion of which you snipped out,
you are the one show seems to be arguing that there is a connection,
not me. Remember me? I am the one *disagreeing* with you.
> > > > Yet that is what they are. If one acquires something by vitrue of
> > > > birth, it is natural-born. Wong Kim Ark could have run for and legally
> > > > become president.
>
> > > That was not the meaning of natural-born in 1789.
>
> > Immaterial. The Framers chose not to define it.
>
> They had no need to define it any more than they did the word
> "citizen" or "person". It was understood.
No it wasn’t. Did it have the English common law meaning of the Vattel
meaning? It is not clear at all. You like Vattel because it agrees
with you but without clear reference, it’s not dispositive at all. It
means what we decide it means, through SCOTUS, which has yet to rule
on Article II. But in Elg, SCOTUS *did* offer one glimpse into the
encompassment of natural born citizen, and it didn’t’ exclude those
without two US citizen parents.
> > > Documents show that
> > > the term was even chosen over "native born".
>
> > “Native born” is a nonsense term. It means nothing but redundancy.
> > “Native” means born. Saying “native born” is like saying “wet rain.”
> > “Natural born” means one acquires whatever attribute is being
> > discussed through the act of birth.
>
> Your side uses it as a red-herring all the time. It pops up
> confusingly in SCOTUS decisions.
Your side dismisses it because you have no rebuttal for it.
“Native” means born. It is redundant to say “native born.”
> > > The Wong decision
> > > overturned the Constitution
>
> > SCOTUS decisions do not “overturn” the Constitution; they interpret
> > it; ipso facto. Sounds like you’re in over your head here.
>
> No, they sometimes overturn/rewrite it.
Changing the goal posts?
No they do neither. They interpret it. They neither overturn nor
rewrite.
They overturn their own interpretations from time to time, as we all
know.
> This goes back to Marbury v
> Madison when Chief Justice Marshall established a Constitutional right
> of SCOTUS judicial review which is nowhere in the Constitution.
Marbury didn’t overturn the Constitution or rewrite it. It advanced an
interpretation of it.
> The
> battle rages on now as "activist" versus "strict constructionist"
> judiciary.
This is a battle over interpretation; no rewriting or overturning is
done. For instance, the current conservative majority has shown
tendency to be activist on overturning precedent, in the recent Ricci
case for instance. But it did not rewrite the Constitution in
overturning precedent.
> We have now what Jefferson warned against: a judicial
> oligarchy-despotism.
Hardly. We might be able to reduce it by reducing the activist
conservative influence now on the court, but I would hardly call the
Roberts court oligarchic or despotic.
> In the words of activist Justice Ginsberg: "A too-
> strict jurisprudence of the framers' intent just seems too
> unworkable."
That is fair. After all, the Framers’ intent isn’t always clear, as we
see here.
OK
Sep 2009 23:40:04 -0700, sittingduck, du...@spamherelots.com wrote:
Thanks for clearing that up.
> ...obama wasn't born in the US...
>
> This is directly from the U.S. Department of State web site:
> ...
> For birth between December 24, 1952 and
> November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen
> are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship
> to the child.
> Barack Obama was born when his mother was 18, before she
> could possibly have spent five years after the age of fourteen in the
> States,
Cliff
>The Orly Taitz "birther soldier" case playing out in U.S. District Court in
>Georgia finally jumped the shark Friday.
>
>The moment came when Army Capt. Connie Rhodes, the client of Birther
>agitator Taitz, sent a letter to the judge renouncing her ex-counsel and
>saying she intends to file a complaint against Taitz with the California
>bar.
>
>Rhodes, who said she was "currently" shipping out to Iraq, reveals in the
>letter that she did not authorize the emergency request for stay of
>deployment -- filed last week purportedly on Rhodes' behalf by Taitz -- and
>in fact first heard about the filing on the local evening news.
>
>She writes:
>
> ... please withdraw the Motion to Stay that Ms. Taitz filed this past
>Thursday. I did not authorize it and do not wish to proceed. Ms. Taitz
>never requested my permission nor did I give it. I would not have been
>aware of this if I did not see it on the late news on Thursday night before
>going to board my plane to Iraq on Friday, September 18, 2009.
>
>The letter also complains that the initial filing for a temporary
>restraining order earlier this month, which objected to serving under
>Barack Obama because he is (allegedly) not legitimately president, was
>"full of political conjecture, which was not my interest. I had no
>intention of refusing orders nor will I. I simply wanted to verify the
>lawfulness of my orders."
>
>Which may not actually make sense, but Rhodes has clearly soured on the
>whole undertaking.
>
>If she makes good on her promise to file a complaint against Taitz for her
>"reprehensible and unprofessional actions," it will be at least the second
>Taitz faces in the California bar.
>
>And Taitz still faces a $10,000 fine from Judge Clay Land for filing the
>very motion Rhodes says Taitz was not authorized to file. Land gave Taitz
>until October 2 to respond and explain why she shouldn't be fined.
>
>Meanwhile, in a sign Taitz may be trying to marshal financial support ahead
>of the hefty fine, she posted a blank entry with a PayPal donate button at
>the top of her blog yesterday.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/09/17/2073514.aspx
"Another 'birther' lawsuit rejected"
[
Another "birther" lawsuit, challenging President Obama's constitutional
qualification to be president, has been rejected in federal court. And in
tossing the case out, the judge said that Congress seems satisfied that Obama is
qualified, based on the unanimous passage of a House resolution dealing with
Hawaii.
On July 27th, the House approved, by a vote of 378-0, a resolution to
commemorate the 50th anniversary of Hawaii's statehood. In extolling the state's
history, the resolution says, "the 44th President of the United States, Barack
Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961."
"Congress is apparently satisfied that the President is qualified to serve,"
says federal judge Clay Land, in dismissing the case. "Congress has not
instituted impeachment proceedings, and in fact, the House of Representatives in
a broad bipartisan manner has rejected the suggestion that the President is not
eligible for office."
.....
The doctor was represented by Orly Taitz, who has filed several lawsuits around
the country challenging Obama's qualifications. Judge Clay's order says if the
lawyer files any more cases like this in his court, she'll be subject to
sanctions.
]
Charles Bell
> On Sep 21, 5:31 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > You and everyone else who is claiming that the 14th settled the issue
> > of what is the criterion for citizenship.
>
> That’s completely false. Neither I nor anyone else ever made such a
> claim that the 14th *overrode* Article II. The 14th is an integral
> part of the entire document. It supplements and augments; it in no way
> overrides Article II. There is nothing in Article II that is in any
> way overridden by the 14th Amendment
>
It is a common argument that the "natural-born" of Article II.1.5 is
delimited by the definition of a citizen that is born "within the
jurisdiction . . . ", etc, in the 14th., and therefore the discussion
turns to whether Obama was someone who was born in the U.S. (and only
that) then therefore a natural-born citizen -- only by virtue of his
place of birth, ignoring the "jurisdiction . . " phrase -- and
therefore qualified to be President. You have made this argument (see
below) only as if constitutionality were a matter of SCOTUS case-law
interpretation of the Constitution which is IMHO invalid. In point of
fact, the Wong Kim Ark decision screwed the pooch on allowing the 14th
to be a clear on the issue of who is or is not a citizen and
effectively created, at least, three classes of citizens, the natural-
born, the naturalized, and the native-born (born in the U.S.
regardless of parentage).
> And it most certainly DOES settle the issue of natural-born
> citizenship as far as those individuals born on US soil and subject to
> US jurisdiction.
>
Well, this makes it easy . . . you just contradicted yourself in the
same paragraph. The 14th does relate to "natural-born" status in
Article II ONLY with the inclusion of the "jurisdiction" phrase to
mean that the parents are U.S. citizens at the time of birth, in spite
of the consequences of the Wong decisions and the phenomenon of anchor
babies. But you have said (below, vid. Elg case)) that ONLY the place
of birth is relevant and the "jurisdiction" phrase does not apply, and
you do the usual hand-waving about children of diplomats. The
principle of natural-born status is that it is true that diplomats
(and by modern extension state department and military personnel)
subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign power can have natural-born
children of their native land born within another (the host or
occupied) country, but also pointing to the true interpretation of the
"jurisdiction" phrase in the 14th is that *anyone* who owes allegiance
to a foreign power will have natural-born children *only* of their
native land, not of the host land. The 14th can apply to Article II.
1.5 *only*if the application of the "jurisdiction" phrase is thus.
> > The 14th did not (re)
> > establish a definition for what is a natural-born citizen.
>
> Nowhere is that defined in any case. But the most basic agreement is
> that a natural born citizen is one who acquires citizenship by virtue
> of the circumstances of his/her birth, and once the 14th Amendment
> became part of the Constitution, that meant people covered by it.
>
Again, you denied that "you and everyone else who is claiming that the
14th settled the issue of what is the criterion for citizenship," and
yet here you are saying just that. And again I say that the 14th
amendment did not settle or change the meaning of the qualification
for the Presidency UNLESS by "circumstance" of his birth you mean that
a candidate for the Presidency must be born in the U.S. and be born of
U.S. citizens and then you would be half-right, in that it is possible
in some circumstances for a natural-born citizen to be born overseas,
at least, in the case of military or diplomatic deployment.
> > > > Perkins v Elg clarified that
> > > > naturalized citizens can produce natural-born citizens, not that
> > > > resident aliens can.
>
> > > The mother was not a naturalized citizen; only the father.
> > > Recalculate.
>
> > This does say that SCOTUS was willing to establish natural-born
> > citizenship through paternity.
>
> Nope, that was not the determinate.
I believe the way it worked in 1939 was that a wife inferred
citizenship from her husband's citizenship, but not the other way
around (the country being sexist and all), and, unfortunately for
Obama, this was still true in 1961.
Any claim by you that somehow SCOTUS through the Elg decision
determined that "natural-born" can be applied to the child of
unnaturalized foreigners is false. If anything, it confirmed that U.S.
citizenship of parents at the time of birth of someone who is also
born in the U.S. is the main issue.
> It was her birth on US soil that
> cinched the case for her; SCOTUS in Perkins v Elg did NOT link her
> claim to the fact that her father had been at one point a naturalized
> US citizen.
>
Yes, it did. It is in the majority opinion. The Wong decision makes
this all a muddle in that another category of citizen, the native
citizen who is not a natural-born citizen, has rights but obviously
not clearly so in the Elg case. It was the fact that the father was a
naturalized citizen at the time of birth was the deciding factor in
treating the child exactly as a natural-born citizen away from whom
Congress or any State cannot take any rights through the
Naturalization and Immigration powers clause of the Constitution. It
must also be noted that the Supreme Court is not actually empowered to
create or alter any law in Naturalization and Immigration, but only
decide conflicts, case by case, *without* constitutional
repercussions. I say this also applies to War Powers of the President
and Congress, and the SCOTUS constant micro-management meddling in the
2002-2009 GWOT treatment of detainees, for example, is
unconstitutional, and in no uncertain terms is SCOTUS ever empowered
to give citizenship rights to nonresident (or even resident) aliens as
it has been doing.
> > In that sense it is still relevant to
> > Obama's situation and counters your proposition that SCOTUS determined
> > "natural-born" can be established through alien residency alone.
>
> Not at all. I never even made such a claim. Obama’s natural born
> citizenship has NOTHING AT ALL to do with who his parents were.
It must be, by the definition of "natural-born". On the one hand, you
deny that the 14th has anything to do with Article 2.1.5, and yet you
must use (the invalid) SCOTUS case-law interpretation of the 14th to
declare that native-born is the same as natural-born.
> A baby
> born in Hawaii to two Martians would be a natural born US citizen.
Not at all. And in the valid interpretation of the 14th, only a
citizen by act(s) of Congress. IOW Obama is a citizen by virtue of
all three, not just one of: (1) his mother's natural-born U.S.
citizenship, (2) place of birth (assuming Hawaii), and (3) the fact
that he gave up the possibility of being a Kenyan (and Indonesian?)
citizen, but he is in no way a natural-born citizen, but rather by
statute, a native citizen by (2), where "native" and "natural-born"
have different meanings diverging from the 18th century usage.
>
> No, there actually is not, as Obama is president and so was Chester
> Arthur. No serious Constitutional scholar ever in the past four years
> since Obama’s name started being mentioned as presidential material
> ever raised his father’s well-known lack of US citizenship as an
> issue. Not only is it not a requirement, it is not even ambiguous.
>
This is simply not true. All through the process, starting, I
believe, with a lawsuit brought by a Democrat in the primaries, and
continuing to today, his disqualification to be President by his not
being a natural-born citizen has been called into question by many
"serious Constitutional scholars."
It can only begin to end if he displays to anyone asking to see his
full original birth certificate. This is what makes the so-called
Birther movement *not* a kook-conspiracy allegation because everyone
on all sides acknowledge that discoverable facts can end the dispute,
but only one side, the judiciary, refuses discovery. It would end at
this point to my satisfaction if Obama (1) was born in Hawaii, and (2)
born a bastard or (3) born to a natural-born or naturalized father.
> > as to the intent of the founders:
> > (1) John Jay's letter to George Washington and (2) Vattel's definition
> > of what is "natural born" and (3) English law on jus sanguinis
> > citizenship.
>
> All immaterial. We are bound only by what is in the document, not what
> a Swiss philosopher who never eve lived to know that the United States
> even existed, wrote.
No, we are bound not only by the words, but in the meaning behind the
words. It is clear that the words "natural born" has fallen out of
common English usage and requires clarification. This is also true,
for example, in the words and grammar of the 2nd Amendment
surrounding the "a militia being necessary. . . " Judicial activists
are only literalists when it suits their purpose. Moreover, the
Constitutional is actually a very simple and mostly unambiguous
document, and it is the case-law Constitutional mystics (like Obama's
mentor at Harvard, Prof. Laurence Tribe) that pretend that the
document is some mysterious, hard-to-interpret relic from the past.
Little of your revisionist history of the President Arthur controversy
is true. [Wikipedia is a rotten source on this.] It was well
documented at the time that he was born in Vermont and the main focus
was on when he was born and on his father's nationality.
Also, Vattel's definition of "natural born" citizen is clear, and it
is clear that Obama does not fit in that definition. The only area for
discussion is the degree to which the Founders really wanted native
American citizenship to be defined only in that that way, and the War
of 1812 was fought partly over English Common Law interpretation that
once a British national born under the Crown, aways a British subject
as a natural, unalterable condition of one's being -- though, quite
frankly, I think that was just an excuse to fill British navy ranks
with Americans and for Americans to annex Canada.
> Vattel has nothing at all to say about the US Constitution. He died
> before there was a United States. It is what we say it is.
>
No. No. No. The Constitution is always what the Founders meant it to
be, not what "we", the oligarchic-despotic judiciary, says it is.
> > § 212. Of the citizens and natives.
>
> > “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this
> > society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally
> > participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens,
> > are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the
> > society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the
> > children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the
> > condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
>
> Irrelevant to our Constitution. Vattel didn’t write it.
>
Provide any proof that the Founders meant "natural born" to mean
something else.
Iarnrod
> On Sep 21, 5:07 pm,Iarnrod<iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 21, 5:31 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > You and everyone else who is claiming that the 14th settled the issue
> > > of what is the criterion for citizenship.
>
> > That’s completely false. Neither I nor anyone else ever made such a
> > claim that the 14th *overrode* Article II. The 14th is an integral
> > part of the entire document. It supplements and augments; it in no way
> > overrides Article II. There is nothing in Article II that is in any
> > way overridden by the 14th Amendment
>
> It is a common argument that the "natural-born" of Article II.1.5 is
> delimited by the definition of a citizen that is born "within the
> jurisdiction . . . ", etc, in the 14th., and therefore the discussion
> turns to whether Obama was someone who was born in the U.S. (and only
> that) then therefore a natural-born citizen -- only by virtue of his
> place of birth, ignoring the "jurisdiction . . " phrase -- and
> therefore qualified to be President.
On what basis would you falsely presume I or anyone else is ignoring
the “jurisdiction” phrase? On the contrary, I have brought it up and
relied on it several times already. Are you listening?
Obama was both. He was born in and under the jurisdiction of the US.
If it were as clear-cut and required as you claim, that both parents
need to be citizens, then Obama would never have been permitted to be
elected, just as he could not have if he were only 34 years old. There
simply would have been no question over it.
> You have made this argument (see
> below) only as if constitutionality were a matter of SCOTUS case-law
> interpretation of the Constitution which is IMHO invalid.
Your O, then, is H for a good reason. It’s wrong. The Constitution
gives SCOTUS this authority.
> In point of
> fact, the Wong Kim Ark decision screwed the pooch on allowing the 14th
> to be a clear on the issue of who is or is not a citizen and
> effectively created, at least, three classes of citizens, the natural-
> born, the naturalized, and the native-born (born in the U.S.
> regardless of parentage).
Sorry but that is not screwing the pooch. You’re only saying that
because it does not support your position.
> > And it most certainly DOES settle the issue of natural-born
> > citizenship as far as those individuals born on US soil and subject to
> > US jurisdiction.
>
> Well, this makes it easy . . . you just contradicted yourself in the
> same paragraph.
No, I did not.
> The 14th does relate to "natural-born" status in
> Article II ONLY with the inclusion of the "jurisdiction" phrase to
> mean that the parents are U.S. citizens at the time of birth,
No, it does no such thing. Neither parent needs to be a US citizen at
the time of birth.
> in spite
> of the consequences of the Wong decisions and the phenomenon of anchor
> babies.
IOW, in spite of the fact that you are wrong,
> But you have said (below, vid. Elg case)) that ONLY the place
> of birth is relevant and the "jurisdiction" phrase does not apply,
No I did not. Where do you get that nonsense from? I’ve neither said
nor believe such a thing.
> and
> you do the usual hand-waving about children of diplomats.
Hand waving? It’s the law.
> The
> principle of natural-born status is that it is true that diplomats
> (and by modern extension state department and military personnel)
> subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign power can have natural-born
> children of their native land born within another (the host or
> occupied) country, but also pointing to the true interpretation of the
> "jurisdiction" phrase in the 14th is that *anyone* who owes allegiance
> to a foreign power will have natural-born children *only* of their
> native land, not of the host land.
That is not what “within the jurisdiction” means. See Wong.
> The 14th can apply to Article II.
> 1.5 *only*if the application of the "jurisdiction" phrase is thus.
Not as you explain it. See Wong. He was a citizen by virtue of his
birth (a natural born citizen who could have been president) even
though neither parent was a citizen. He met both conditions, as it is
recognized that he was born under the jurisdiction of the US.
> > > The 14th did not (re)
> > > establish a definition for what is a natural-born citizen.
>
> > Nowhere is that defined in any case. But the most basic agreement is
> > that a natural born citizen is one who acquires citizenship by virtue
> > of the circumstances of his/her birth, and once the 14th Amendment
> > became part of the Constitution, that meant people covered by it.
>
> Again, you denied that "you and everyone else who is claiming that the
> 14th settled the issue of what is the criterion for citizenship," and
> yet here you are saying just that.
Is English your first language? I ask that in all seriousness, not as
a hand-wave. That’s not what my statement means at all, and you seem
prone to drawing incorrect inferences from many things I’ve said.
I never said the 14th Amendment settled the issue; what I said above
is that with the actual definition of “natural born” attributes being
those that are acquired by virtue of the circumstances of birth, the
14th Amendment settles it that those born on US soil and within its
jurisdiction are natural born citizens. That does not mean there
cannot also be other natural born, or other types, of citizens of that
he 14th addresses them all. Quite clearly.
I think the problem may stem from your seeing things through your
conclusion, and misinterpreting what I write because you’ve already
accepted your conclusion as correct, rather than letting the facts
lead to the conclusion.
> And again I say that the 14th
> amendment did not settle or change the meaning of the qualification
> for the Presidency UNLESS by "circumstance" of his birth you mean that
> a candidate for the Presidency must be born in the U.S. and be born of
> U.S. citizens and then you would be half-right, in that it is possible
> in some circumstances for a natural-born citizen to be born overseas,
> at least, in the case of military or diplomatic deployment.
See? That’s false.
The meaning of Article II isn’t in any way affected by the 14th
Amendment. Nothing about it changed. What changed is the recognition
that there are many who are natural born citizens and eligible under
the meaning of Article II than previously admitted.
You only think we are claiming the meaning of Article II was changed
because your locked into your premise that Vattel, a Swiss philosopher
who died before the US existed, has the right to dictate to us in the
21st Century, when the founders made no such instruction at all.
> > > > > Perkins v Elg clarified that
> > > > > naturalized citizens can produce natural-born citizens, not that
> > > > > resident aliens can.
>
> > > > The mother was not a naturalized citizen; only the father.
> > > > Recalculate.
>
> > > This does say that SCOTUS was willing to establish natural-born
> > > citizenship through paternity.
>
> > Nope, that was not the determinate.
>
> I believe the way it worked in 1939 was that a wife inferred
> citizenship from her husband's citizenship, but not the other way
> around (the country being sexist and all), and, unfortunately for
> Obama, this was still true in 1961.
Immaterial for several reasons, but for Elg, immaterial because the
citizenship of either parent was not at issue. The determinate was the
Elg was born on US soil within the jurisdiction of the US and was
therefore a natural born citizen, stated explicitly as “natural born.”
So if you want to be correct that the father’s naturalized US status
conferred her natural born citizenship, you merely contradict yourself
that both parents must be citizens. SCOTUS has held differently.
> Any claim by you that somehow SCOTUS through the Elg decision
> determined that "natural-born" can be applied to the child of
> unnaturalized foreigners is false.
Where did I claim that? I couldn’t possibly claim Elg shows that
because one parent WAS naturalized, which I pointed out. How could I
claim what you stated through Elg? You’re being obtuse.
> If anything, it confirmed that U.S.
> citizenship of parents at the time of birth of someone who is also
> born in the U.S. is the main issue.
It plainly does no such thing. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the
14th Amendment took the parents’ status out of the equation. The child
of two Martians would be a natural born citizen if born in the US as
long as this wasn’t HG Wells’ scenario of an invading Martian army and
they weren’t members of the Mars legation.
> > It was her birth on US soil that
> > cinched the case for her; SCOTUS in Perkins v Elg did NOT link her
> > claim to the fact that her father had been at one point a naturalized
> > US citizen.
>
> Yes, it did. It is in the majority opinion.
It does not such thing, obviously.
> The Wong decision makes
> this all a muddle in that another category of citizen, the native
> citizen who is not a natural-born citizen, has rights but obviously
> not clearly so in the Elg case.
Wong does no such thing either. Wong was a natural born citizen.
Your reliance on Vattel is not the court’s position. SCOTUS has relied
on English common law, which long recognized that the children of two
alien parents is in fact a natural born citizen of the land in which
the child is born. Wong makes this clear. Wong could have run for
president as an eligible natural born citizen, regardless of who his
parents were.
> It was the fact that the father was a
> naturalized citizen at the time of birth was the deciding factor in
> treating the child exactly as a natural-born citizen away from whom
> Congress or any State cannot take any rights through the
> Naturalization and Immigration powers clause of the Constitution.
Sorry but that is not the factor in Elg. Her father’s status was
immaterial to the ruling,a s Wong clearly establishes. The Elg ruling
even cites Wong to that extent: “United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.
S. 649. In a comprehensive review of the principles and authorities
governing the decision in that case -- that a child born here of alien
parentage becomes a citizen of the United States -- the Court adverted
to the ‘inherent right of every independent nation to determine for
itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes
of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.’”
> It
> must also be noted that the Supreme Court is not actually empowered to
> create or alter any law in Naturalization and Immigration, but only
> decide conflicts, case by case, *without* constitutional
> repercussions.
As it did. Congressional intent is pretty clear.
> > > In that sense it is still relevant to
> > > Obama's situation and counters your proposition that SCOTUS determined
> > > "natural-born" can be established through alien residency alone.
>
> > Not at all. I never even made such a claim. Obama’s natural born
> > citizenship has NOTHING AT ALL to do with who his parents were.
>
> It must be, by the definition of "natural-born".
Incorrect. The definition of “natural born” doesn’t rely on the status
of the parents but on the location and/or jurisdiction of the US. The
child born on US soil of two Mexican illegal immigrants is a natural
born citizen.
> On the one hand, you
> deny that the 14th has anything to do with Article 2.1.5, and yet you
> must use (the invalid) SCOTUS case-law interpretation of the 14th to
> declare that native-born is the same as natural-born.
SCOTUS rulings are valid, not invalid. That’s just how it is.
> > A baby
> > born in Hawaii to two Martians would be a natural born US citizen.
>
> Not at all.
You’re wrong, of course.
> And in the valid interpretation of the 14th, only a
> citizen by act(s) of Congress.
So you are ready to declare that John McCain is not a natural born
citizen? It took an act of Congress after his birth to retroactively
declare him a citizen at birth.
> IOW Obama is a citizen by virtue of
> all three, not just one of: (1) his mother's natural-born U.S.
> citizenship, (2) place of birth (assuming Hawaii), and (3) the fact
> that he gave up the possibility of being a Kenyan (and Indonesian?)
> citizen, but he is in no way a natural-born citizen, but rather by
> statute, a native citizen by (2), where "native" and "natural-born"
> have different meanings diverging from the 18th century usage.
Wrong, of course. By common law tradition and the Constitution, Obama
is a natural born citizen.
How could he have been an Indonesian citizen?
He is a natural born citizen of the US by virtue solely of his birth
in Hawaii, where he was under the jurisdiction of the US. Nothing else
matters and nothing can take that away from him.
> > No, there actually is not, as Obama is president and so was Chester
> > Arthur. No serious Constitutional scholar ever in the past four years
> > since Obama’s name started being mentioned as presidential material
> > ever raised his father’s well-known lack of US citizenship as an
> > issue. Not only is it not a requirement, it is not even ambiguous.
>
> This is simply not true.
You’re wrong, of course.
> All through the process, starting, I
> believe, with a lawsuit brought by a Democrat in the primaries, and
> continuing to today, his disqualification to be President by his not
> being a natural-born citizen has been called into question by many
> "serious Constitutional scholars."
No it hasn’t.
Kook lawsuits by obsessed opponents do not constitute a body of
serious Constitutional scholars. As I said, if it were a recognized
requirement as you want us to believe, Obama would have been barred at
the start just as if he would have been barred if he were only 34
years old, and not simply have this cadre of kooks trying to nip at
his heels over their misinterpretations of the law.
> It can only begin to end if he displays to anyone asking to see his
> full original birth certificate.
That is prima facie incorrect. The birth certificate he has released
is a full and complete original state of Hawaii document that is
ruling and controlling and firmly establishes that he is a natural
born citizen. Nothing else is needed.
He is in fact the ONLY president ever to actually so prove his natural
born eligibility. No one ever demanded Bush’s birth certificate; we
just took his word for it that he was born in Connecticut. Given how
he was such a liar, maybe we should have investigated further.
> This is what makes the so-called
> Birther movement *not* a kook-conspiracy allegation
I’m sorry but there is *nothing* that can make the birther kooks
anything *but* a kook-conspiracy allegation. The proof is in, and
Obama has gone further than ANY previous candidate for president in so
proving his eligibility, yet he birthers pretend he has done less.
It’s absolutely crazy.
> because everyone
> on all sides acknowledge that discoverable facts can end the dispute,
There is no dispute and if there were an attempt to make one, it’s
already mooted by the fact that the state of Hawaii has settled the
question by affirming the birth certificate that is released already.
> but only one side, the judiciary, refuses discovery.
As it must. There is no basis for it. The court rightly is prohibiting
a fishing expedition into private documents and records that are
irrelevant.
> It would end at
> this point to my satisfaction if Obama (1) was born in Hawaii,
He was. That’s been proven beyond all doubt.
> and (2)
> born a bastard or (3) born to a natural-born or naturalized father.
Immaterial. Your 2) and 3) are irrelevant to the question of
presidential eligibility.
> > > as to the intent of the founders:
> > > (1) John Jay's letter to George Washington and (2) Vattel's definition
> > > of what is "natural born" and (3) English law on jus sanguinis
> > > citizenship.
>
> > All immaterial. We are bound only by what is in the document, not what
> > a Swiss philosopher who never eve lived to know that the United States
> > even existed, wrote.
>
> No, we are bound not only by the words, but in the meaning behind the
> words. It is clear that the words "natural born" has fallen out of
> common English usage and requires clarification.
Incorrect. That natural born necessarily includes anyone born on US
soil within the jurisdiction of the US is not in dispute; SCOTUS has
consistently held this since Wong and it has been common law from
colonial days. This isn’t a meaning lost to the ages. It is inherent
in the very debate over illegal immigration and anchor babies.
> This is also true,
> for example, in the words and grammar of the 2nd Amendment
> surrounding the "a militia being necessary. . . " Judicial activists
> are only literalists when it suits their purpose.
So you believe you can only possess firearms if you are a member of a
well-regulated militia? I disagree.
> Moreover, the
> Constitutional is actually a very simple and mostly unambiguous
> document, and it is the case-law Constitutional mystics (like Obama's
> mentor at Harvard, Prof. Laurence Tribe) that pretend that the
> document is some mysterious, hard-to-interpret relic from the past.
You’re wrong. My position relies on easy-to interpret tradition and
case law that flows from it that is not unclear or ambiguous at all.
While the founders didn’t give a clear definition to the eligibility
limitation of natural born, we know that English common law on which
they relied was clear for centuries.
> Little of your revisionist history of the President Arthur controversy
> is true.
I’m sorry but it is your version that is revisionist. My account is
true, ipso facto. The historical record is quite clear. That Arthur’s
father was NOT a citizen at Arthur’s birth was a well-known fact in
1880 and the debate over his natural born eligibility had nothing to
do with that at the foundation, but with the location, allegedly in
Quebec rather than Vermont. That I am proven correct in this is shown
by the fact that there would not have been a controversy at all if
there were no question about his birthplace being Vermont, despite his
father’s known lack of citizenship. I can prove this is the case: The
effort was all toward investigating whether he was born in Canada
rather than Vermont, which would have established his ineligibility.
If his father’s status alone would have been sufficient to disqualify
Arthur, as your position maintains, then there would have been no
debate at all and he would have been disqualified with no further
effort. Q.E.D.
> [Wikipedia is a rotten source on this.]
Who is using Wikipedia? I’ve done a lot of research on Arthur
including reading the online Brooklyn Eagle archives.
> It was well
> documented at the time that he was born in Vermont and the main focus
> was on when he was born and on his father's nationality.
Completely incorrect and contradicted by all the facts. His father’s
alien status at Arthur’s birth was known; all the effort (see Hinman,
again) went into showing that he was not born in Vermont byut in
Canada, which combined with his father’s status would make him
ineligible. Democrats knew the latter; they needed to match it up with
the former to disqualify him.
> Also, Vattel's definition of "natural born" citizen is clear,
And it is irrelevant. SCOTUS has for two centuries interpreted through
English common law, which backs up my position.
> and it is clear that Obama does not fit in that definition.
Irrelevant. If it were as clear as you say that Vattel, who died
before the US existed, controls who can be US president, then Obama
would have been ruled out officially as much as he would have been if
her were only 34 years old. There simply would have been no debate on
it. It would have been automatic.
> The only area for
> discussion is the degree to which the Founders really wanted native
> American citizenship to be defined only in that that way,
That’s been long settled. Courts have rejected the Vattel position.
> > Vattel has nothing at all to say about the US Constitution. He died
> > before there was a United States. It is what we say it is.
>
> No. No. No.
Yes. Yes. Yes.
> The Constitution is always what the Founders meant it to
> be,
And that is for us to determine. We’re the ones here, not them. They
gave us a document that anticipates and authorizes us to interpret it.
We are following their instructions in doing so. They amended it 10
times even prior to ratification, and set up the procedure for us to
interpret and amend. Q.E.D. Because the founders are no longer here to
talk to us, it necessarily falls to us as their successors and heirs.
> not what "we", the oligarchic-despotic judiciary, says it is.
Polemic. One man’s oligarchic-despotic judiciary is another woman’s
bulwark of preserving freedom under the Constitution. You’re only
saying that because you disagree with the rulings.
> > > § 212. Of the citizens and natives.
>
> > > “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this
> > > society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally
> > > participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens,
> > > are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the
> > > society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the
> > > children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the
> > > condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
>
> > Irrelevant to our Constitution. Vattel didn’t write it.
>
> Provide any proof that the Founders meant "natural born" to mean
> something else.
Bullshit. First, it's up to you to prove your own proposition, not for
me to disprove anything you might choose to say.
Secondly, I have proven what I say. English common law. The British
empire at the time considered ANY person born within even the
colonies, whether the child of British citizens or not, to be
themselves "natural born British subjects." End of story. Some Swiss
author who died before 1776 doesn't get to set our laws. SCOTUS agrees
with me.
Charles Bell
> On Sep 22, 5:14 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 21, 5:07 pm,Iarnrod<iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 21, 5:31 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > You and everyone else who is claiming that the 14th settled the
> > > > issue
> > > > of what is the criterion for citizenship.
>
> > > That�s completely false. Neither I nor anyone else ever made such a
> > > claim that the 14th *overrode* Article II. The 14th is an integral
> > > part of the entire document. It supplements and augments; it in no way
> > > overrides Article II. There is nothing in Article II that is in any
> > > way overridden by the 14th Amendment
>
Yes, you are following the Constitution-is-whatever-SCOTUS-says-it-is
case-law route, paying little heed to what the Constitution says and what
the framers intended it to say. Namely, that the "jurisdiction" clause in
the 14th is a triviality and could only possibly apply to diplomats instead
of considering that the drafters of the 14th were entirely aware of the
Founders' intent and wished to hold to the meaning of Article 2.1.5 wherein
the words "natural-born" are used. John Bingham, of the trio of radical
Republicans who drafted the 14th said: "[E]very 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." There are such indications from other radical
Republicans such as Sen. Howard. It is there as plain as day: the
association of "jurisdiction" to foreign powers regardless of their reason
to be a resident alien in the U.S. (not just as diplomats) until such time
they have sworn off allegiance to a foreign power by naturalization.
At issue in the Vattel rendering *and* English common law is always the
distinction between a person born in the realm but of foreign parents (who
at his majority may choose to then swear allegiance to the realm) and a
person born of parents who owe allegiance only to the Crown -- persons who
then of *their nature*, rather than by swearing an oath, are subjects to the
Crown. The American philosophical-legal difference was at the Founding
that such natural-born ties could be sworn off. This was also at issue in
the Elg case in that Miss Elg, as a natural born citizen born in the U.S.
*and*of naturalized parentage of the time of her birth could not have her
citizenship revoked by anyone or any State without her permission. How the
American definition of natural-born citizen was to set itself as distinct
from English common law was that U.S. citizens *cannot* have duel
allegiances: A natural-born Englishman is always a natural-born Englishman
even though he may swear an allegiance to another nation in duel
citizenship. In the U.S. it is always either-or, and anyone born with a dual
nationality (not solely in the U.S. jurisdiction with respect to
nationality) is *not* a natural-born citizen though he may choose
citizenship at his majority
> > It is a common argument that the "natural-born" of Article II.1.5 is
> > delimited by the definition of a citizen that is born "within the
> > jurisdiction . . . ", etc, in the 14th., and therefore the discussion
> > turns to whether Obama was someone who was born in the U.S. (and only
> > that) then therefore a natural-born citizen -- only by virtue of his
> > place of birth, ignoring the "jurisdiction . . " phrase -- and
> > therefore qualified to be President.
>
> On what basis would you falsely presume I or anyone else is ignoring
> the �jurisdiction� phrase? On the contrary, I have brought it up and
> relied on it several times already. Are you listening?
>
> Obama was both. He was born in and under the jurisdiction of the US.
>
It is not that Hawaii was "in the jurisdiction" of the U.S., but it is that
his father's status was that of a resident alien owing allegiance to a
foreign power -- not that he promised as a condition to stay in the U.S. to
obey U.S. and Hawaiian laws, but that he actually held no allegiance to the
U.S. and that the ulitmate jurisdiction over him was that of the land in
which he was a natural born citizen (excusing the chaotic legal nature of
his particular citizenship). It is also a fact that Barry, Jr. held Kenyan
citizenship until 1984 and that IN ITSELF shows, that though still in his
minority (+2), he was held in some degree BY HIS BIRTH within the
jurisdiction of a foreign power, though the jurisdiction was shared with the
U.S through his mother. Also, throw in the uncertainties of his adoption by
an Indonesian -- little Barry was anything but within the sole jurisdiction
of the U.S.. He had to *choose* his citizenship at 21 (+2). Natural-born
citizens never have to choose their citizenship..
Fact: Adult Barry Obama had Kenyan citizenship up to 1984 when it expired.
> If it were as clear-cut and required as you claim, that both parents
> need to be citizens, then Obama would never have been permitted to be
> elected, just as he could not have if he were only 34 years old. There
> simply would have been no question over it.
>
I agree with you the U.S. political system, in particular the functions of
the Electoral College and the Senate, failed.
> > You have made this argument (see
> > below) only as if constitutionality were a matter of SCOTUS case-law
> > interpretation of the Constitution which is IMHO invalid.
>
> Your O, then, is H for a good reason. It�s wrong. The Constitution
> gives SCOTUS this authority.
>
How? In the words of the Constitution or in the words of Chief Justice
Marshall? If the former (in Article III, in the likely case you have not
read the Constitution), please cite them here.
>
> Immaterial for several reasons, but for Elg, immaterial because the
> citizenship of either parent was not at issue. The determinate was the
> Elg was born on US soil within the jurisdiction of the US and was
> therefore a natural born citizen, stated explicitly as �natural born.�
> So if you want to be correct that the father�s naturalized US status
> conferred her natural born citizenship, you merely contradict yourself
> that both parents must be citizens. SCOTUS has held differently.
>
For one thing, I believe the husband's status transferred by marriage to his
wife. And if that was not the case, then I have no problem saying SCOTUS
erred again, if constitutionality was to be inferred by the decision, as it
does not have to be. Nevertheless, his status was germaine to the case and
was cited in the majority opinion in contradiction to your claim that it was
considered irrelevant and dismissed.
> It plainly does no such thing. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the
> 14th Amendment took the parents� status out of the equation. The child
> of two Martians would be a natural born citizen if born in the US as
> long as this wasn�t HG Wells� scenario of an invading Martian army and
> they weren�t members of the Mars legation.
>
No, the Wong decision altered the Constitution by changing the contextual
meaning of the "jurisdiction" phrase of the 14th in order to solve a social
problem, one of many to follow, which is not the function of the judiciary.
The social problem was the long-term intractability of generations of
illegals born and working in the U.S., possibly while also holding
allegiances to foreign powers, and the Supreme Court, as in the Dred Scott
decision, just decided to ignore the full meaning and context of the
Constitution to satisfy a political-social agenda. And you wonder why the
federal political system collapsed in failure in 2008? The Constitution
simply no longer matters to over half the people in power, because, as
Justices Blackmun and Ginsberg and several others have explicity said that
it just is unworkable.
> Sorry but that is not the factor in Elg. Her father�s status was
> immaterial to the ruling,a s Wong clearly establishes. The Elg ruling
> even cites Wong to that extent: �United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.
> S. 649. In a comprehensive review of the principles and authorities
> governing the decision in that case -- that a child born here of alien
> parentage becomes a citizen of the United States -- the Court adverted
> to the �inherent right of every independent nation to determine for
> itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes
> of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.��
Well, that's the misunderstanding and/or distortion that the Wong decision
introduced: a nation's laws (and therefore its judges) do *not* determine
the citizenship status of natural-born citizens at any time until that
citizen commits to an act of swearing allegiance to a foreign power, such as
joining a foreign army. Even treason or any criminal act does not withdraw
citizenship, merely creates the loss of some legal rights, loss of liberty,
etc. There is no such thing as banishment for crimes, even that of treason.
Not the Supreme Court, nor the President nor Congress can tell the class of
natural-born citizens whether it shall be citizens or not. [The 9th and
10th amendments]. The essence of Elg, on the other side of Wong, however,
was just that: Congress could not through immigration laws deny Elg
citizenship rights because she was a natural-born citizen (and those words
were used) by issue from a naturalized, not foreign, parentage.
> > not what "we", the oligarchic-despotic judiciary, says it is.
>
> Polemic. One man�s oligarchic-despotic judiciary is another woman�s
> bulwark of preserving freedom under the Constitution. You�re only
> saying that because you disagree with the rulings.
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional
questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place
us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other
men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for
power, and the privilege of their corps. . . The Constitution has erected no
such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the
corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more
wisely made all the departments coequal and co-sovereign within
themselves."--Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820.
> You�re wrong. My position relies on easy-to interpret tradition and
> case law that flows from it
Yes, that is the problem. At least you will admit to it.
.
> While the founders didn�t give a clear definition to the eligibility
> limitation of natural born, we know that English common law on which
> they relied was clear for centuries.
It is just as important to know when U.S. law differs from English common
law. Americans do not live in England. Common Law is an alternative when
there is no statutory or Constitutional alternative, and it certainly is not
to be used as a replacement as you are so eager to do. {Another rot that has
set in is the importation of foreign law, bypassing Congress and states'
legislatures.] As it has been pointed to you twice, American citizenship
differs from (ancient) English common law in that English natural-born
citizenship is not something that can be renounced (today's U.K. may be
different) but can be paired in dual citizenship in adulthood. It is
important to note that dual adult citizenship is never recognized in the
U.S. unlike in most countries.
> > This is also true,
> > for example, in the words and grammar of the 2nd Amendment
> > surrounding the "a militia being necessary. . . " Judicial activists
> > are only literalists when it suits their purpose.
>
> So you believe you can only possess firearms if you are a member of a
> well-regulated militia? I disagree.
Sometimes one's own words must stand as testament to his moral depravity.
Charles Bell
Mason
Iarnrod
> “The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” —George
> Mason
Too bad he was wrong; it was.
"Natrual born citizen" in England and in the colonies at the time of
the Constitution meant ANYONE born on the soil of those places. Even
if they were just passing through, citizen or not. Case closed.
Iarnrod
> On Sep 22, 11:59 am,Iarnrod<iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 22, 5:14 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > It is a common argument that the "natural-born" of Article II.1.5 is
> > > delimited by the definition of a citizen that is born "within the
> > > jurisdiction . . . ", etc, in the 14th., and therefore the discussion
> > > turns to whether Obama was someone who was born in the U.S. (and only
> > > that) then therefore a natural-born citizen -- only by virtue of his
> > > place of birth, ignoring the "jurisdiction . . " phrase -- and
> > > therefore qualified to be President.
>
> > On what basis would you falsely presume I or anyone else is ignoring
> > the “jurisdiction” phrase? On the contrary, I have brought it up and
> > relied on it several times already. Are you listening?
>
> > Obama was both. He was born in and under the jurisdiction of the US.
>
> It is not that Hawaii was "in the jurisdiction" of the U.S., but it is that
> his father's status was that of a resident alien owing allegiance to a
> foreign power -- not that he promised as a condition to stay in the U.S. to
> obey U.S. and Hawaiian laws, but that he actually held no allegiance to the
> U.S. and that the ulitmate jurisdiction over him was that of the land in
> which he was a natural born citizen (excusing the chaotic legal nature of
> his particular citizenship).
All of course completely immaterial.
Obama’s father could have been from Mars and it would not matter. His
Kenyan citizenship and British status has *no standing whatsoever* on
this completely separate individual, Barack Obama Jr. None. Zippo,
Nada. Born in Hawaii=natural born citizen. SCOTUS has held this
consistently at least since the 14th amendment. Case closed.
> It is also a fact that Barry, Jr. held Kenyan
> citizenship until 1984
YOU LIE!
> and that IN ITSELF shows, that though still in his
> minority (+2), he was held in some degree BY HIS BIRTH within the
> jurisdiction of a foreign power…
Wrong. It was his choice, not anyone else’s.
> though the jurisdiction was shared with the
> U.S through his mother. Also, throw in the uncertainties of his adoption by
> an Indonesian
There is no uncertainty whatsoever in anyway about his at all.
He was not adopted and even if he had been, it could not possible,
every at all, take away his birthright US natural born citizenship.
The law does not work that way.
> -- little Barry was anything but within the sole jurisdiction
> of the U.S..
Immaterial, ipso facto.
> He had to *choose* his citizenship at 21 (+2). Natural-born
> citizens never have to choose their citizenship..
Another lie. He didn’t have to do any such thing. The possibility of
his acceptance of Kenyan citizenship expired without any action on his
part. He didn’t have to choose a thing. As SCOTUS determined, Kim Wong
Ark, Marie Elizabeth Elg, Herr Steinkauler… all were eligible to be
elected POTUS as natural born citizens. You lost discussion this more
than a century ago.
> Fact: Adult Barry Obama had Kenyan citizenship up to 1984 when it expired.
Immaterial to his natural born US citizenship, which is a given legal
fact.
> > If it were as clear-cut and required as you claim, that both parents
> > need to be citizens, then Obama would never have been permitted to be
> > elected, just as he could not have if he were only 34 years old. There
> > simply would have been no question over it.
>
> I agree with you the U.S. political system, in particular the functions of
> the Electoral College and the Senate, failed.
It succeeded. It failed in 2000 when SCOTUS prevented vote counting
from being completed in Florida.
> > > You have made this argument (see
> > > below) only as if constitutionality were a matter of SCOTUS case-law
> > > interpretation of the Constitution which is IMHO invalid.
>
> > Your O, then, is H for a good reason. It’s wrong. The Constitution
> > gives SCOTUS this authority.
>
> How? In the words of the Constitution or in the words of Chief Justice
> Marshall? If the former (in Article III, in the likely case you have not
> read the Constitution), please cite them here.
Art. III Sect. 1, dearie. Plain as day.
> > Immaterial for several reasons, but for Elg, immaterial because the
> > citizenship of either parent was not at issue. The determinate was the
> > Elg was born on US soil within the jurisdiction of the US and was
> > therefore a natural born citizen, stated explicitly as “natural born.”
> > So if you want to be correct that the father’s naturalized US status
> > conferred her natural born citizenship, you merely contradict yourself
> > that both parents must be citizens. SCOTUS has held differently.
>
> For one thing, I believe the husband's status transferred by marriage to his
> wife.
It didn’t.
> And if that was not the case, then I have no problem saying SCOTUS
> erred again, if constitutionality was to be inferred by the decision, as it
> does not have to be.
Of course you believe that, because otherwise you’re proven wrong and
you’d have to admit endgame.
Fortunately for us, though, I am right, not you.
> Nevertheless, his status was germaine to the case and
> was cited in the majority opinion in contradiction to your claim that it was
> considered irrelevant and dismissed.
Not contrary at all. I am completely correct, of course. The decision
in no way at all turned on the father’s naturalization. It was dicta
only. Did you even *read* the decision? Seems not.
> > It plainly does no such thing. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the
> > 14th Amendment took the parents’ status out of the equation. The child
> > of two Martians would be a natural born citizen if born in the US as
> > long as this wasn’t HG Wells’ scenario of an invading Martian army and
> > they weren’t members of the Mars legation.
>
> No, the Wong decision altered the Constitution
No it did not, ipso facto. SCOTUS does not ever “change” the
Constitution at all, ever. This is merely your polemic, necessitated
by the plain fact that you’re wrong, thus requiring you to come up
with phony arguments to disguise the fact that you lost.
> by changing the contextual
> meaning of the "jurisdiction" phrase of the 14th in order to solve a social
> problem, one of many to follow, which is not the function of the judiciary.
That’s not at all what happened, of course.
> > You’re wrong. My position relies on easy-to interpret tradition and
> > case law that flows from it
>
> Yes, that is the problem. At least you will admit to it.
Yes, I admit to being inerrantly correct.
> > While the founders didn’t give a clear definition to the eligibility
> > limitation of natural born, we know that English common law on which
> > they relied was clear for centuries.
>
> It is just as important to know when U.S. law differs from English common
> law. Americans do not live in England. Common Law is an alternative when
> there is no statutory or Constitutional alternative, and it certainly is not
> to be used as a replacement as you are so eager to do.
Immaterial here, of course. “Natural born citizen” left further
undefined means what the common law usage was.
> As it has been pointed to you twice, American citizenship
> differs from (ancient) English common law in that English natural-born
> citizenship is not something that can be renounced (today's U.K. may be
> different) but can be paired in dual citizenship in adulthood. It is
> important to note that dual adult citizenship is never recognized in the
> U.S. unlike in most countries.
Immaterial of course.
> > > This is also true,
> > > for example, in the words and grammar of the 2nd Amendment
> > > surrounding the "a militia being necessary. . . " Judicial activists
> > > are only literalists when it suits their purpose.
>
> > So you believe you can only possess firearms if you are a member of a
> > well-regulated militia? I disagree.
>
> Sometimes one's own words must stand as testament to his moral depravity.
You confess to moral depravity?
Charles Bell
> On Sep 22, 5:13 pm, "Charles Bell" <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 22, 11:59 am,Iarnrod<iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 22, 5:14 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > It is a common argument that the "natural-born" of Article II.1.5 is
> > > > delimited by the definition of a citizen that is born "within the
> > > > jurisdiction . . . ", etc, in the 14th., and therefore the discussion
> > > > turns to whether Obama was someone who was born in the U.S. (and only
> > > > that) then therefore a natural-born citizen -- only by virtue of his
> > > > place of birth, ignoring the "jurisdiction . . " phrase -- and
> > > > therefore qualified to be President.
>
> > > On what basis would you falsely presume I or anyone else is ignoring
> > > the “jurisdiction” phrase? On the contrary, I have brought it up and
> > > relied on it several times already. Are you listening?
>
> > > Obama was both. He was born in and under the jurisdiction of the US.
>
> > It is not that Hawaii was "in the jurisdiction" of the U.S., but it is that
> > his father's status was that of a resident alien owing allegiance to a
> > foreign power -- not that he promised as a condition to stay in the U.S. to
> > obey U.S. and Hawaiian laws, but that he actually held no allegiance to the
> > U.S. and that the ulitmate jurisdiction over him was that of the land in
> > which he was a natural born citizen (excusing the chaotic legal nature of
> > his particular citizenship).
>
> All of course completely immaterial.
>
Natural-born citizen in Article II 1.5 means having been born on U.S.
soil to two U.S. citizens, or to two U.S. citizens abroad but still
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. (as in diplomatic or miltary
stationing).
> Obama’s father could have been from Mars and it would not matter. His
> Kenyan citizenship and British status has *no standing whatsoever* on
> this completely separate individual, Barack Obama Jr. None. Zippo,
> Nada. Born in Hawaii=natural born citizen. SCOTUS has held this
> consistently at least since the 14th amendment. Case closed.
>
> > It is also a fact that Barry, Jr. held Kenyan
> > citizenship until 1984
>
> YOU LIE!
>
When you can prove that you are someone who can have a passing notion
of what is or is not true, then get back. You can even check
Factcheck.org on this matter and I will agree to that as a third-party
verification.
Charles Bell
English common law is overwritten in the matter of citizenship after
U.S. independence. What was the issue in 1789 was the exception phrase
in Article II 1.5 as (1) applying to *any* foreigner who was a citizen
in 1789 or (2) to all citizens born under the British crown but not on
U.S. soil as, for example, Alexander Hamilton. In any case, the
exception clause itself is proof that "natural-born" had a meaning
beyond just having been born on native soil, for no one, foreigner or
not, in the new U.S.A. was technically born on U.S. soil prior to 1789
but rather on British soil. Without the exception clause, George
Washington, born in Virginia but possesing British citizenship at his
birth, could not be President. English common law demanded that all
U.S. citizens after 1789 but born before 1789 were indeed *forever*
British citizens, and that was the justification given for the
impressing of Americans to fight against France in 1812. That fact
alone, besides just not wanting Americans forcibly conscripted into
the British navy, is proof that American conception of "natural born"
was different than the English common-law one because U.S. natural
born citizenship can be renounced, but not taken away, and can never
be doubled up into dual citizenship with any other nation. Obama was
born with dual citizenship until he was 23 when he allowed his Kenyan
citizenship to expire. A natural born U.S. citizenship from birth
never has dual citizenship at any time -- which was the purpose in
restricting the Presidency to natural borns because it was thought
dual "natural" allegiance was impossible for natural borns.
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> Natural-born citizen in Article II 1.5 means having been born on U.S.
> soil to two U.S. citizens, or to two U.S. citizens abroad but still
> under the jurisdiction of the U.S. (as in diplomatic or miltary
> stationing).
No, "Natural Born" doesn't mean that the child must be "born on U.S. soil
to two U.S. citizens" nor to "two U.S. citizens abroad..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen
--------snip---------
There is no record of a debate on the "natural born Citizen"
qualification during the Constitutional Convention. This clause was
introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without
discussion by the Convention as a whole. One possible source of the
clause can be traced to a July 25, 1787 letter from John Jay to George
Washington, presiding officer of the Convention. Jay wrote:
Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide
a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of
our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in
Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but
a natural born Citizen.[1]
Another possible source, worded differently, comes from Alexander
Hamilton, a delegate to the Convention. On June 18, 1787, Hamilton
submitted to the Convention a sketch of a plan of government. Article IX,
section 1 of Hamilton's plan provided:
No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United
States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be
born a Citizen of the United States."[2]
----------unsnip---------
The issue is unsettled, pay particular attention to the legal opinions
cited. Especially that of Supreme Court Justice Benjamin R. Curtis.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Las Palmeras: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_f9Vduko1U
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Bell
> On Sep 22, 5:13 pm, "Charles Bell" <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > How? In the words of the Constitution or in the words of Chief Justice
> > Marshall? If the former (in Article III, in the likely case you have not
> > read the Constitution), please cite them here.
>
> Art. III Sect. 1, dearie. Plain as day.
>
There are no words there that give the Supreme Court the power of
judicial review to strike down Congressional legislation as
unconstutitional.
Article III
Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in
one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may
from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the
supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good
Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a
Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance
in Office.
In theory, Congress can retrict the self-abrogated power of judical
review by writing law that contracts federal courts' jurisdiction to
review the law, but the latest in the Gitmo decisions, the Supreme
Court has said that the Supreme Court will decide jurisdiction
regardless of how a law is written, giving ultimate power over
everything to the Supreme Court, save Congress' power to pack the
court, since the number of Justices is not specified in the
Constitution or the start the Amendment process. The States could
also call for a Constitutional Convention that could abolish the
Supreme Court or at least its self-abrogated power of judical review,
but we can only dream of that perfection.
Charles Bell
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:22:29 -0700, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Natural-born citizen in Article II 1.5 means having been born on U.S.
> > soil to two U.S. citizens, or to two U.S. citizens abroad but still
> > under the jurisdiction of the U.S. (as in diplomatic or miltary
> > stationing).
>
> No, "Natural Born" doesn't mean that the child must be "born on U.S. soil
> to two U.S. citizens" nor to "two U.S. citizens abroad..."
>
Yes, it does. Check the defintion of "natural born" or "indigenous"
as it was understood in the 18th century through Vattel's Law of
Nations:
CHAP. XIX.
OF OUR NATIVE COUNTRY, AND SEVERAL THINGS THAT RELATE TO IT.
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this
society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally
participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens,
are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
And in 1866 in the drafting of the Civil Rights Act which would become
the basis for the 14th amendment (allegedly conferring natural-born
status on people like Obama), Sen Bingham said:
"{E}very 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."
In 1961, Obama's father owed allegiance to the British crown through
his birth in the Kenyan colony,and Obama had dual citizenship with
Kenya until his majority. Natural-borns never have dual citizenship
> Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide
> a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of
> our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in
> Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but
> a natural born Citizen.[1]
>
Yes, good idea. Send Obama packing to his other country, and $1
trillion can pay for a lot of one-way tickets for his whining
constituents with their sense of unearned entitlement.
Charles Bell
> wrote:
>
> > Natural-born citizen in Article II 1.5 means having been born on U.S.
> > soil to two U.S. citizens, or to two U.S. citizens abroad but still
> > under the jurisdiction of the U.S. (as in diplomatic or miltary
> > stationing).
>
> No, "Natural Born" doesn't mean that the child must be "born on U.S. soil
> to two U.S. citizens" nor to "two U.S. citizens abroad..."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen
>
Please note that reading the "Discussion" Area of a Wikipedia entry
allows one to gauge the degree to which an entry may be biased. I
noticed no mention in the Wikipedia entry referenced above of the
Vattel citation or of the irrelevancy of the 14th Amendment to the
special meaning of natural-born citizen in Article II section 1
paragraph 5 as opposed to mere citizen.
<quote>
Censorship of facts is being engaged in within this article about
"natural born citizenship" and the basic facts as to why Obama's has
been challenged. No factual information as to the reason Obama's
natural born citizenship is being allowed into the paragraph about the
fact that Obama's natural born citizenship has been challenged. The
following lines have been repeatedly deleted, "Various charges have
been made in the last year that he is not a natural born citizen of
the U.S. including disputes as to his actual location of birth and
that he is not a natural born citizen since his father was not a
citizen. He was born to a U.S. citizen mother and a father from Kenya
who was not a U.S. citizen." There is nothing factually inaccurate in
those lines and they are not disputed by Obama himself or his
campaign. They are the basis for most of the charges that his is not a
natural born citizen of the U.S. To only allow Obama's campaign's
responses to some charges, i.e., the birth certificate issue, as being
the only or main reason his name rightfully is listed here with
Presidents and Presidential candidates who have had their natural born
citizenship status challenged is pure one-sided censorship. Mtngoat63
(talk) 21:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> On Sep 27, 6:02 pm, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:22:29 -0700, Charles Bell
>> <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Natural-born citizen in Article II 1.5 means having been born on U.S.
>> > soil to two U.S. citizens, or to two U.S. citizens abroad but still
>> > under the jurisdiction of the U.S. (as in diplomatic or miltary
>> > stationing).
>>
>> No, "Natural Born" doesn't mean that the child must be "born on U.S.
>> soil to two U.S. citizens" nor to "two U.S. citizens abroad..."
>>
>>
> Yes, it does. Check the defintion of "natural born" or "indigenous" as
> it was understood in the 18th century through Vattel's Law of Nations:
No, it doesn't. Your cite isn't law. The cites I provided are and
include Supreme Court rational.
> CHAP. XIX.
> OF OUR NATIVE COUNTRY, AND SEVERAL THINGS THAT RELATE TO IT. § 212.
> Citizens and natives.
> The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society
> by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally
> participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens,
> are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
>
> And in 1866 in the drafting of the Civil Rights Act which would become
> the basis for the 14th amendment (allegedly conferring natural-born
> status on people like Obama), Sen Bingham said:
>
> "{E}very 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."
>
> In 1961, Obama's father owed allegiance to the British crown through his
> birth in the Kenyan colony,and Obama had dual citizenship with Kenya
> until his majority. Natural-borns never have dual citizenship
If you are admitting that Obama was born in Hawaii then you've submarined
your argument.
>> Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to
>> provide
>> a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration
>> of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander
>> in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any
>> but a natural born Citizen.[1]
>>
>>
> Yes, good idea. Send Obama packing to his other country, and $1 trillion
> can pay for a lot of one-way tickets for his whining constituents with
> their sense of unearned entitlement.
Heh, ain't gonna happen. He is as much a natural born citizen as you are
so if you want that much separation then it is your duty to move...
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> On Sep 27, 6:02 pm, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:22:29 -0700, Charles Bell
>> <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Natural-born citizen in Article II 1.5 means having been born on U.S.
>> > soil to two U.S. citizens, or to two U.S. citizens abroad but still
>> > under the jurisdiction of the U.S. (as in diplomatic or miltary
>> > stationing).
>>
>> No, "Natural Born" doesn't mean that the child must be "born on U.S.
>> soil to two U.S. citizens" nor to "two U.S. citizens abroad..."
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen
>>
>>
> Please note that reading the "Discussion" Area of a Wikipedia entry
> allows one to gauge the degree to which an entry may be biased. I
> noticed no mention in the Wikipedia entry referenced above of the Vattel
> citation or of the irrelevancy of the 14th Amendment to the special
> meaning of natural-born citizen in Article II section 1 paragraph 5 as
> opposed to mere citizen.
Learn how to drive wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Talk:Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States
Talk:Natural born citizen of the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Natural born
citizen of the United States article.
* This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's
subject.
* Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
* Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
* New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.
* Be polite
* Assume good faith
* Avoid personal attacks
* Be welcoming
Article policies
* No original research
* Neutral point of view
* Verifiability
Crystal Clear app file-manager.png This talk page is automatically
archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 120 days are automatically
moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
WikiProject Law [hide](Rated B-Class, High-importance)
LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlegal articles
Scale of justice 2.svg
Law portal
v • d • e
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at
providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-
date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
B-Class article B This article has been rated as B-Class on the
project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's
importance scale.
Imbox content.png This is not a forum for general discussion of
Natural born citizen of the United States. Any such messages will be
deleted or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this
article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Natural born citizen
of the United States at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia
policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Unclarity regarding meaning of "natural-born"; need for further
research
* 2 Cross-references; Also for further research: 14th Amendment
* 3 Obama
* 4 Merger proposal
* 5 Irrevocability of natural citizenship
* 6 Material removed from article
* 7 "Consular reports of birth abroad ..."
* 8 Historical References
* 9 Quote from Emmerich de Vattel is misleading.
* 10 Verification needed
* 11 The certainty over whether Chester Arthur and Barack Obama were
born in Vermont & Hawaii, respectively
* 12 Archiving
* 13 US citizenship derived through State citizenship
* 14 The Insular Cases
* 15 Róger Calero
* 16 Redirect
[edit] Unclarity regarding meaning of "natural-born"; need for further
research
The interpretation of Art. II "natural-born citizen" clause seems to need
further research. It appears that the statute cited in the existing
Wikipedia article does not purport to define "natural-born citizen" for
purposes of Article II presidential qualifications.
There is at least one law review article that tries to shed light on this
(and seems to argue for a fairly liberal interpretation): Jill A. Pryor,
The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach
for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L. J. 881 (1988).
Pryor's article (footnote 2) in turn cites the following: Freedman,
Presidential Timber: Foreign Born Children of American Parents, 35
CORNELL L.Q. 357 (1950); Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United
States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 MD. L. REV. 1 (1968); Means, Is
Presidency Barred to Americans Born Abroad?, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REP., Dec.
23, 1955, at 26; Morse, Natural-Born Citizen of the United States--
Eligibility for the Office of President, 66 ALB. L.J. 99 (1904); McElwee,
unpublished article reprinted in 113 CONG. REC. 15,875 (1967).
An interesting United States Supreme Court case that discusses and
analyzes various related issues is the following:
* United States v. Won Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (holding that a
person born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. but to noncitizens is
thereby automatically a "natural-born" citizen, but citing reasons
indicating that a person born abroad, even to parents of U.S. citizens,
does not constitue a "natural-born" citizen).
Below is some of the discussion from United States vs. Won Kim Ark, 169
U.S. 649 (1898), beginning at page 655: " . . . . In Minor v. Happersett,
Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very
provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: 'The
constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.' And he proceeded to
resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.
21 Wall. 167.
In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the
court, said: 'There is no common law of the United States, in the sense
of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as
adopted by the several states each for itself, applied as its local law,
and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes.'
'There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no
national common law. The interpretation of the constitution of the United
States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are
framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in
the light of its history.' 124 U.S. 478 , 8 Sup. Ct. 569.
II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English
nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called 'ligealty,'
'obedience,' 'faith,' or 'power'-of the king. The principle embraced all
persons born within the king's allegiance, and subject to his protection.
Such allegiance and protection were mutual,-as expressed in the maxim,
'Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,'-and were not
restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those
who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in
amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in
England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the
children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children
of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part
of the king's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born
within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said
at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.
This fundamental principle, with these qualifications or or [169 U.S.
649, 656] explanations of it, was clearly. though quaintly, stated in the
leading case known as 'Calvin's Case,' or the 'Case of the Postnati,'
decided in 1608, after a hearing in the exchequer chamber before the lord
chancellor and all the judges of England, and reported by Lord Coke and
by Lord Ellesmere. Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 1, 4b-6a, 18a, 18b; Ellesmere,
Postnati, 62-64; s. c. 2 How. St. Tr. 559, 607, 613-617, 639, 640, 659,
679.
The English authorities ever since are to the like effect. Co. Litt. 8a,
128b; Lord Hale, in Harg. Law Tracts, 210, and in 1 Hale, P. C. 61, 62; 1
Bl. Comm. 366, 369, 370, 374; 4 Bl. Comm. 74, 92; Lord Kenyon, in Doe v.
Jones, 4 Term R. 300, 308; Cockb. Nat. 7; Dicey, Confl. Laws, pp.
173-177, 741.
In Udny v. Udny (1869) L. R. 1 H. L. Sc. 441, the point decided was one
of inheritance, depending upon the question whether the domicile of the
father was in England or in Scotland, he being in either alternative a
British subject. Lord Chancellor Hatherley said: 'The question of
naturalization and of allegiance is distinct from that of domicile.' Page
452. Lord Westbury, in the passage rei ed on by the counsel for the
United States, began by saying: 'The law of England, and of almost all
civilized countries, ascribes to each individual at his birth two
distinct legal states or conditions,-one by virtue of which he becomes
the subject of some particular country, binding him by the tie of natural
allegiance, and which may be called his political status; another by
virtue of which he has ascribed to him the character of a citizen of some
particular country, and as such is possessed of certain municipal rights,
and subject to certain obligations, which latter character is the civil
status or condition of the individual, and may be quite different from
his political status.' And then, while maintaining that the civil status
is universally governed by the single principle of domicile (domicilium),
the criterion established by international law for the purpose of
determining civil status, and the basis on which 'the personal rights of
the party-that is to say, the law which determines his majority or
minority, his marriage, succession, testacy, or intestacy- [169 U.S. 649,
657] must depend,' he yet distinctly recognized that a man's political
status, his country (patria), and his 'nationality,-that is, natural
allegiance,'- 'may depend on different laws in different countries.'
Pages 457, 460. He evidently used the word 'citizen,' not as equivalent
to 'subject,' but rather to 'inhabitant'; and had no thought of
impeaching the established rule that all persons born under British
dominion are natural-born subjects.
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole
matter, said: 'By the common law of England, every person born within the
dominions of the crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign
parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or
merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject,
save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because
their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born
to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the
territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent
as a source of nationality.' Cockb. Nat. 7.
Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England
with Reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the
following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in
italics : "British subject' means any person who owes permanent
allegiance to the crown. 'Permanent' allegiance is used to distinguish
the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien, who,
because he is within the British dominions, owes 'temporary' allegiance
to the crown. 'Natural- born British subject' means a British subject who
has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.' 'Subject to the
exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the
nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a
natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of
English law on the subject of British nationality.' The exceptions
afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two: '(1) Any person who
(his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British
dominions, which at the time of such [169 U.S. 649, 658] person's birth
is in hostile occupation, is an alien.' '(2) Any person whose father
(being an alien) is at the time of such person's birth an ambassador or
other diplomatic agent accredited to the crown by the sovereign of a
foreign state is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.'
And he adds: 'The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth
within the British dominions does not of itself confer British
nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or
allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person's birth, it in
theory at least depended, not upon the locality of a man's birth, but
upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the king of
Enl and; and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within
the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other
words, under the protection and control of the crown.' Dicey, Confl.
Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.
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, and 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.
NOTE: The opinion is rather long and can be read in full, at http://
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=169&invol=649
[edit] Cross-references; Also for further research: 14th Amendment
More cross-references from this article might be in order, in addition to
the existing two:
* citizenship
* nationality
And any cross-referenced link-out articles (including the two noted
above) should be checked for consistency.
Let's invite a constitutional scholar to weigh in on the relevance (if
any) to this discussion, of Amendment XIV, section 1, concerning
citizenship.
[edit] Obama
There is no controversy about the fact that President-Elect Obama had a
father who was never a U.S. citizen. In my opinion, this absolutely does
not jeopardize Obama's eligibility to be President. However, the fact
remains that, at the time the Constitution was written, the prevailing
sexist opinion was expressed by Vattel: "The natives, or natural-born
citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As
the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the
children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition
of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
I think it's fairly clear that the Fourteenth Amendment overturned the
previous prevailing view expressed by Vattel. Either the Citizenship
Clause overturned it, or the Equal Protection Clause overturned it. But
in any event, I think Obama ought to be added to our list, after McCain.
Obama may be the first U.S. president ever born with dual citizenship.
Any one else have an opinion about it?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:18, 10
December 2008 (UTC)
Since Obama was born in the US, and at least one of his parents was a
US citizen, there is no reason to add him to the list. He does not
satisfy either criterion. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
According to Vattel, he would "follow the condition" of his
father. Sexist? Yes. Archaic? Yes. But still, it's pertinent. Obama would
be the first president born with dual citizenship. See the discussion of
Obama in the Michigan Law Review: Spiro, Peter. “McCain’s Citizenship and
Constitutional Method”, Michigan Law Review, Volume 107, page 208
(2008).Ferrylodge (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
How is what one editor describes as the prevailing view of
citizenship in the 18th century pertinent to whether Barack Obama is a
natural born citizen in the 21st century? It'd make more sense, rather
than discussing his father's citizenship, to discuss the fact that in the
18th century people of African heritage were not considered citizens at
all, regardless of where they or their parents were born. Under modern
law, in place for over a hundred years, there is no question that Obama
is a natural-born citizen. The laws of two hundred years ago were quite
different in many respects. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:10, 11 December 2008
(UTC)
The prevailing view of citizenship in the 18th century is
pertinent today for people who interpret the Constitution in a particular
way. Additionally, the list of presidential candidates in the article is
not a list of candidates who were ineligible when they ran, much less a
list of candidates who would be ineligible today.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:05,
11 December 2008 (UTC)
What was the prevailing view in the 18th century
about the citizenship of African Americans born in Hawaii, or even
Virginia? What is the "particular way" of viewing the Constitution which
makes the 18th century view (pre-14th Amendment) applicable to the 21st
century? While a general discussion of how parentage affects citizenship
is relevant to this article, it has nothing to do with Obama and the
presidency. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy to leave this article as-is for now. I
don't think this is a good time to have this discussion. After Obama is
securely sworn into office, I think everyone (including you and me) will
be a bit more relaxed and less skeptical of motives.
The 14th Amendment arguably amended the meaning
of the original Constitution's "Natural Born Citizen Clause." For
example, the Equal Protection Clause obviously required that the Natural
Born Citizen Clause must not be used in a racially discriminatory manner
(and possibly likewise for a gender-discriminatory manner). At the same
time, many of the framers of the 14th Amendment explicitly said that they
did not intend to automatically give birthright citizenship to children
of foreigners. It's all in the dissent by Justice John Marshall Harlan in
the leading case (Wong Kim Ark). Look, I'm not saying that Harlan's
dissent is controlling today, or that stuff congressmen and senators said
in 1866 overrides the actual language of the 14th Amendment. The meaning
of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment
is still a subject of immense dispute today (especially as regards so-
called anchor babies), and even if it were not in dispute I still feel
that the undisputed birth of President-Elect Obama as a "dual citizen" is
notable for this article. No president has ever been born with dual
citizenship, AFAIK, and it's notable. That's all. Doesn't mean I'm trying
to undermine Obama, or criticize him, or anything like that. I was for
McCain, but I'll be for my President too. Period.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:47,
11 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has an article on dual citizen,
which is mostly unrelated to being a "natural-born citizen". For example,
U.S. citizens of Irish heritage are eligible to apply for Irish
citizenship, making them dual citizens. Likewise for people of Japanese
descent. Obama's mother was a U.S. citizen, and he was born on U.S. soil,
so he is a natural-born citizen under any possible construction of the
14th Amendment. Nothing about Obama's citizenship seems relevant to this
article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Whether people can apply for dual
citizenship is not relevant to this article. Obama had dual citizenship
at birth, which is very different from applying long after birth. I agree
with you 1000000% that it is frivolous to argue that Obama's dual
citizenship at birth means he is not a Natural-Born Citizen. This article
is not contending that Barry Goldwater was not a natural born citizen, or
that George Romney was not a natural born citizen. We can mention Obama
without suggesting that he is not a Natural Born Citizen. The simple fact
remains that Obama would not be a Natural Born Citizen under the
Slaughterhouse decision quoted in the present article, or under the
dissenting opinion of Harlan in Wong Kim Ark that's quoted in this
article. And there's also been a minor kerfuffle about Obama's dual
citizenship at birth, it's gone to the Supreme Court twice (in the
Denofrio and Wrotnowski cases), and it's mentioned a billion times in
reliable sources. It's fringy, but notable.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:03, 11
December 2008 (UTC)
This is only a guess but given that
George Washington was born prior to US independence in what would then
have been a British dominion, he was a British subject by birth. I'm
pretty it wasn't possible to renounce being a subject at the time no he
was a dual national when he became president. So too were John Adams,
Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams and
Andrew Jackson.
Obama was born in the United States and
is undeniably a Natural-Born Citizen. You are entitled to your own
opinion but not your own facts. Blue-Haired Lawyer 00:35, 12 December
2008 (UTC)
There is a grandfather clause in the
Natural Born Citizen Clause that covered those first several presidents.
And I agree with you that Obama is undeniably a Natural-Born Citizen.
Have I said otherwise? I also believe that Barry Goldwater and George
Romney and John McCain have undeniably been Natural Born Citizens. But
there are reasonable people who disagree, there is conflicting hstorical
evidence about the Constitution's meaning on this point, and the
information we have is incomplete.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:15, 12 December
2008 (UTC)
President Chester A. Arthur's father was a
British Citizen when Chester was born. Obama is the 2nd president born
with dual citizenship.74.249.43.117 Kevin (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2009
(UTC)
Censorship of facts is being engaged in within this article about
"natural born citizenship" and the basic facts as to why Obama's has been
challenged. No factual information as to the reason Obama's natural born
citizenship is being allowed into the paragraph about the fact that
Obama's natural born citizenship has been challenged. The following lines
have been repeated deleted, "Various charges have been made in the last
year that he is not a natural born citizen of the U.S. including disputes
as to his actual location of birth and that he is not a natural born
citizen since his father was not a citizen. He was born to a U.S. citizen
mother and a father from Kenya who was not a U.S. citizen." There is
nothing factually inaccurate in those lines and they are not disputed by
Obama himself or his campaign. They are the basis for most of the charges
that his is not a natural born citizen of the U.S. To only allow Obama's
campaign's responses to some charges, i.e., the birth certificate issue,
as being the only or main reason his name rightfully is listed here with
Presidents and Presidential candidates who have had their natural born
citizenship status challenged is pure one-sided censorship. Mtngoat63
(talk) 21:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
It's not censorship for us to keep articles on topic. This article is
to explain the concept and Constitutional requirement of "natural-born
citizen". You're propounding the theory that, in 1961, a particular
American college student flew from Hawaii to Kenya, gave birth there,
brought the infant back to Hawaii, and registered the birth in Hawaii.
Whether this event occurred or not doesn't shed much light on the general
Constitutional issue. The facts concerning this one particular birth
belong in the more specific article about Barack Obama citizenship
conspiracy theories. Those facts belong in this article only to the
extent that they help the reader understand the general concept, which
for the most part they don't. The reader who wants to know more about
President-Elect Obama's circumstances can follow the wikilink to that
article. JamesMLane t c 22:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Addendum. I've rewritten the Obama paragraph to try to fit it better
to the entire article. From the point of view of understanding "natural-
born citizen", whether Ann Dunham gave birth in Kenya is unimportant.
What's really added in the Obama case is Donofrio's argument that Obama
was a citizen at birth but nevertheless wasn't a natural-born citizen, so
we should mention that. Also, because the controversy is ongoing (at
least in the sense that Berg, Keyes, and other litigants continue to tilt
at this windmill), we should note its current status (that so far the
challenges have failed). JamesMLane t c 22:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
"Obama may be the first U.S. president ever born with dual
citizenship." I very much doubt this. Chester A. Arthur's father was an
Irish subject when Chester was born. I'm told that one can claim Irish
citizenship from a grandparent.Kevin (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Note, also, that Spiro Agnew (Nixon's VP, for those who might be
too young to remember) had a Greek immigrant father, and may very
possibly have been considered a Greek citizen/subject under Greek law,
regardless of whether Agnew himself ever thought of himself as such.
Similarly, Michael Dukakis (the 1988 Democratic Presidential nominee) was
born of Greek immigrant parents. I don't recall even the small minority
who put forth ultra-strict definitions of "natural born" objecting to
either of these men's eligibility at the time. Basing presidential
eligibility on dual citizenship could be tricky at best, and hazardous at
worst, given that other countries can declare someone to be one of their
citizens based on their own laws (!), and without any care or regard for
US law. Richwales (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The only real issue is "What did "natural born citizen" mean when the
Constitution was ratified?" Resort to Supreme Court cases interpreting it
afterwards and statutes passed afterwards are irrelevant. Vattel does
provide the best source for understanding the term. But, the crux of it
is this: The purpose of the clause is to prevent a president who has any
possibility of split loyalties and responsibilities from being elected
president. With that in mind, the day Obama was born, wherever he was
born, he owed as much loyalty to the country of his father as he did to
that of his mother. He is not a "natural born citizen" with loyalty owed
only to the US, he is a dual citizen who is just as subject to the
jurisidiction of his father's country as to his mother's. JPStrikes
(talk) 19:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC) JPStrikes (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2009
(UTC)
An interesting (and decidely fringe) theory, but one which is not
supported by any court or, for the purposes of this article, any reliable
source. - --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Merger proposal
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the merger
proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in
a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this
section.
The result of the merger proposal was not merged. Jafeluv (talk) 11:45, 7
July 2009 (UTC)
The overlap between this article and Birthright citizenship in the United
States of America is immense. The fact that there are interesting
Constitutional issues attached to the specific phrasing does not, in my
opinion, require a separate article. Keeping the facts and citations
accurate in both requires double work (and twice the amount of
discussion) that consolidating the two would entail.Roregan (talk) 21:10,
22 February 2009 (UTC)
* Oppose - I would not support merging the two articles. They involve
different clauses in the Constitution, and those clauses were put into
the Constitution a century apart. The Natural Born Citizen Clause is in
Article II of the original Constitution, and the Citizenship Clause is in
the Fourteenth Amendment. They are undoubtedly related, but they also
have very different aims, different implications, and different
histories.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
* Oppose - For the same reasons Ferrylodge put forth. Foofighter20x
(talk) 22:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
* Oppose - The issues relating to these two articles are, for the
most part, very different. If a merger is needed, I would propose merging
both of these articles into the United States citizenship article.
Richwales (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
* Oppose - As stated above the specific issues relating to this
subject are very different and this separate article on natural born
citizen is needed as the clause is unique in our Constitution and should
be retained as a separate and unique article and not merged into any
other general article. Mtngoat63 (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
* Oppose - Same reasons. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:59, 7 March 2009
(UTC)
* Oppose - I agree with the above. Plus, Natural Born Citizen is only
used in the Constitution as a qualification for President or Vice
President. The 14th Amendment only mentions "citizen" and does not use
the term "natural born citizen." Thus, "natural born citizen" does not
necessarily mean the same thing as citizen at birth. "Natural born
citizen" could be a legal term of art that means something other than
just citizen at time of birth. The citizenship cases when using the term
"natural born citizen" are being sloppy with terminology or are providing
obiter dicta. Only a presidential qualification challenge case could
provide precedent on the meaning of the term. Tommylotto (talk) 19:34, 12
March 2009 (UTC)
* Oppose - I agree with all of the above. There is a profound
difference between natural and naturalized citizenship, as the article
clearly states. I support leaving them unmerged and separate.
Themoodyblue (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
* Oppose - There is a big difference between natural and naturalized.
Do not merge these articles. T3chl0v3r (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.
Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new
section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this
section.
[edit] Irrevocability of natural citizenship
I have moved the article section quoted below here
{{quotation|
[edit] Material removed from article
This edit removed the following snippet from the end of the Various other
opinions section.
In Marbury vs Madison, Chief Justice Marshall stated:
“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is
intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is
inadmissible, unless the words require it.”
Therefore the term "natural born citizen" must have some effect other
than the effect of the term "citizen" as found in the 14th Ammendment.
with an edit summary saying, rv; see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH; this comment
could be OK if a reliable secondary source is found which discusses
Marshall's comment and tries to apply it to the issue at hand.
Googling around, I see an article titled SCOTUS Has No Original
Jurisdiction To Issue A Writ of Quo Warranto re Obama; Legal presumption
in favor of natural born citizen clause and effect on http://
naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com, a website operated by Leo Donofrio.
Donofrio is a former lawyer, and was the plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells.
The washingtonpost.com article Supreme Court Declines to Hear Obama
Nationality Case has some info about that case and about Donofrio.
WP:RS says that self-published sources may be used only in limited
circumstances, with caution, when produced by an established expert on
the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously
been published by reliable third-party publications. I'm located on a
small island in the Philippines and it's not easy for me to check for
info on Donofrio's established expertise or on his publication history,
but I thought I would mention this here. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:07, 10
May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] "Consular reports of birth abroad ..."
I moved the following here from the end of the Legislation and executive
branch policy section:
Consular reports of birth abroad state that citizenship is granted by
law, 22 USC 2705. This is true even when one parent is not a citizen.
Also, the language on the report states that the child "acquired United
States citizenship at birth." The report merely recognizes the
citizenship that inheres in the child of a citizen at the moment of
birth. It is reasonable to assume that anyone who automatically becomes a
citizen at birth would be a "natural born citizen." Such a person is not
a "foreigner," but has a direct link to the United States through the
American citizen parent, especially so if that parent is a natural born
citizen.
The initial sentence or two probably are statement of fact, but
supporting sources should be cited. The remainder seems to be presenting
an argument (see WP:SOAP). Such an argument does not belong in Wikipedia
unless it is reported as the position of a notable outside party,
supported by citations of reliable secondary sources. -- Boracay Bill
(talk) 22:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Historical References
For the classic and historic definition of “natural born citizen”, I will
cite three sources of the many possible. But first I will provide the
real definition of “natural born citizen”
A natural born citizen is a person born on United States soil or
territory to parents both of whom are at the time of that birth,
themselves citizens of the United States.
For the sources of this information please read the following :
Source One : Emmerich de Vattel’s “Laws of Nations” 1758
That Vattel’s book “Laws of Nations” was in the hands and minds of those
who wrote the Constitution was attested to by none other than Benjamin
Franklin in a letter to Charles W.F. Dumas dated Dec. 9, 1775 in which
Franklin wrote :
'“I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition
of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a
rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations.
Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of
the members of our congress, now sitting ...”'
For verification of the substantial use of Vattel by the writers of the
Declaration of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence
please refer to the following websites :
http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id3.html
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htm
And now to Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen” . In Chapter 19
(XIX) Section 212 Mr. Vattel stated the following :
“ The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country,
of parents who are citizens “
And later in that same section these words :
“ I say that in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person
be born of a father who is a citizen, for if he is born of a foreigner,
it will be only the place of his birth and not his country. “
Please keep these words in mind when you read Source Three hereafter.
Source Two : Senator John A. Bingham
Senator John A. Bingham was the principle author of the 14th Amendment of
the Constitution (also known as the Citizens Rights Amendment).
Senator Bingham said while speaking about the rights of citizens in the
U.S. House of Representatives on March 6, 1866 the following :
[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], 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…. . . ”- John Bingham in
the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess.,
1291 (1866))
Pleases note the words “ … of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign
sovereignty, is in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural
born citizen. “
For reference to this statement please refer to the following website :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bingham
Source Three : The United States Constitution
Article 2 Section 1, paragraph 5 of the Constitution states the following
specific qualifications for President of the United States :
“ 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. “
Please note the words “ natural born citizen” .
Please note that elsewhere in the Constitution, the qualifications for
Senator and Representative provide that they be only a “citizen” of the
United States.
Whereas, the more stringent “ natural born citizen” was placed upon those
seeking to be President.
It was duly reported that during the drafting of the Constitution, the
original clause for qualification of President required only “citizen” of
the United States. But, serious discussion of this matter ensued and it
was finally agreed upon, and recorded that “citizen” was redacted and
that the new words “natural born citizen” were inserted.
The writer’s of the Constitution at the time were “citizens” but were NOT
themselves “natural born citizens” being born on the land of this nation
when it was the Brittish colonies, or born to parents who were not
citizens of the United States at the time of their birth. So they also
wrote the exception clause :
“ … or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of
this Constitution…”
…specifically to allow men like themselves to seek and hold the office of
President, but to order ever after their generation passed away, that
only “natural born citizens” and not just “citizens” would hold the
office of President of the United States.
George Washington was born in Virginia to parents both born in Virginia
(at the time a Brittish colony). James Madison, the 3rd President was
also born in Virginia to parents who were also born in Virginia. Since
Virginia just became American soil.... why did these men consider
themselves only citizens... and not "natural born citizens" ? That is if
place of birth mattered. Could it be the allegiance of their parents to
Brittian ?
No these men were thinking about their own progeny. Those who thereafter
would be born on U.S. soil to parents BOTH of whom were citizens.
Thus from the Constitution itself, you can see that it is possible to be
a “citizen” of the United States but not a “natural born citizen” of the
United States and therefore not be eligible to run for the office of
President.
Under the 14th Amendment and many references cited in discussion articles
above, birth on U.S. soil to parents (one or both) that are not citizens
of the United States granst one "citizenship" but never "natural born
citizenship".
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment begins :
" All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside."
Therefore one can readily see from the 14th Amendment that citizenship is
granted by birth or naturalization. That this is ONLY citizenship and not
the more stringent natural born citizenship is evident.
As others have said, birth on foreign soil to parents who are citizens,
grants the child "citizenship" but never "natural born citizenship".
Natural born citizenship is a tripod requirement like a three legged
stool Leg one = born on U.S. soil, Leg two = father is a citizen Leg
three = mother is also a citizen.
Failure of any one leg of the tripod.... causes the argument to fail, and
therefore the failure to confer "natural born" citizenship.
Conclusion
It becomes apparent from the historical documents thus cited, and the
political situation of the founders of our Constitution, that they
intended that UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES would a President of the United
states be beholden to any foreign soverignty either through birth or
through either parent.
Therefore a person born in the United States of a parent or parents who
are not U.S. citizens at the time of birth..... should not be a "natural
born citizen".
Wordwaryor (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for this material. If any of it is to be included in the
article, it may (in my opinion) be used only to show that some people
have argued for this view. This material must NOT be used in such a way
as to say, "This is the true definition of 'natural born citizen', as
proven by the following statements." If you do not understand why someone
might take such a stance, please re-read WP:PSTS, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV.
Richwales (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id3.html is not a
reliable source. First, it is a one person website. Second, the
introduction on the home page starts, "While preparing a presentation on
the economic policies of Alexander Hamilton for chapter meetings of the
LaRouche movement, I realized how badly Americans have been misled on
their own nation's history." I suggest sticking with uninterpreted
quotations for Vattel, or using the views of recognized historians.
Will Beback talk 17:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Quote from Emmerich de Vattel is misleading.
The way Emmerich de Vattel is quoted here is a clear example of novel
synthesis and soapboxing.
"Les Naturels, ou Indigènes, sont ceux qui sont nés dans le pays, de
Parens Citoyens."
The translation quoted here is from 1883. Surely, looking at the timeline
of this debate, that version was not written "in tempore non suspecto".
And no, it does not help that this gets quoted in a dissent part, because
the exact phrasing here "cited the preeminent treatise on international
law by Emerich de Vattel entitled “The Law of Nations” which was known to
have influenced the drafters of the original constitution".
1) Cited. If they indeed quoted the text as mentioned here, they did not
cite Vattel's work, they used a translation, a non-neutral one. We are
getting very close to a hoax here, people. "Referred to" would have been
better.
2) Preeminent = "greatest in importance or degree or significance or
achievement". Sorry, POV and peacock language.
3) was known to? Are we sure? Some may say that the use of the past tense
implies that it was merely the dissent saying that, but of course they
are saying that, since they are using it. Basically, if you have a good
source for that "known to", you will find that it does not refer
specifically to this part of the constitution, and so you must ensure
that if you are using it, you are not implying that Vattel indeed
specifically influenced this particular passage in the US constitution
(the impression the passage as written now is trying to create)
The two translations which existed at the time of the writing of the US
constitution said: "The natives, or indigenes, are those who are born in
the country of parents who are citizens." In other words, even if we
believe that de Vattel influenced the drafters of the constitution, he
could not possible have influenced this part of it, since "Les Naturels,
ou Indigènes, ..." was not known to the drafters as "natural born
citizens".
Note that later in the paragraph, de Vattel refers to fathers - making it
clear that this French sentence is in a "universal plural". De Vattel
never considered the citizen status of the mother - "Je dis que pour être
d'un pays, il fait être né d'un pére Citoyen" in opposition to "car si
vous êtes né d'un Etranger" (=and not "d'une etrangère").
Note that Canadian nationality laws distinguish between
- "citoyens de naissance" meaning both a) all those born in Canada (with
the usual exception of children of foreign embassy personnel) and b)
those born abroad with at least one Canadian citizen parent who is not an
adoptive parent
- "citoyens naturalisés".
Obviously "citoyens de naissance" is equivalent to "natural born
citizens". Compare these two Canadian government websites:
[English version]
[French version]
How can you get from "Naturels" or "Indigènes" - a term which suggests
Native Americans and does not even use the word "citoyen(s)" to "Natural
born citizen"? This is now novel synthesis on my part, but it seems
obvious that that translation is based on the US constitution. So, this
is not Vattel influencing the US constitution, it is actually the other
way around: the US constitution influencing the translation of Vattel.
So how to restore accountability and non-POV? "Preeminent" must go, of
course. The phrase quoted form Vattel should be his exact words in
French , and both translations, the one available to the drafters of the
constitution and the one available to the makers of the dissent motion
one century later should be quoted between brackets, with their
respective dates. Anything else is purely misleading.
We also need to use the original French title of Vattel's book and not,
or not only, the shortened English translation which is used by birfers
to make the work seem more googly-important than it really is, because
"Law of Nations" is simply the English translation of the continental
European legal term "Völkerrecht", ius gentium, droit des gens.
Sources: [Vattel hoax exposed], [Various translations]
If, as I hope not, Vattel eventually gets more attention here (because
birfers continue pushing Obama conspiracy theories) then Canadian
nationality terminology will need to be mentioned. And the fact that
Vattel never thought that BOTH parents had to be citizens should also be
included. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
How pathetic. "Les Naturels" = "the naturals". French = global
diplomatic language. Period. Natural citizens = citizens born natural/
natural born. In any case, you should read the proceedings: They used the
term "native" as well, for them meaning the same as "natural". So yeah,
please wind it back to the French original… do whatever you like… it
doesn't change the fact that "naturales" means "naturals". (And by the
way: Vattel is not part of a conspiracy theory. Those dimwits asking for
the birth certificate are conspiracy theorists. Vattel is not part of the
BC BS. It's "only" part of a valid legal question: Can a person subject
to UK jurisdiction at birth be a "natural" US citizen? 85.178.118.61
(talk) 01:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Then you agree that Native, as it's translated in the Original
English and American Translations, is the same as Natural-Born. My
question to you is why the founding fathers, who were all lawyers and
very familiar with English Common Law, would abandon the fact that
English Common Law, which everybody would be already familiar with,
already defined Natural-Born, and take their definition from a
translation that didn't even have the words "Natural-Born" in it? The De
Vattel people are just as much of conspiracy theorists as others.
Furthermore, to believe that this is a valid legal question that hasn't
already been decided with Chester A. Arthur, you also must believe that
the Entire U.S. Nation was duped into believing that Chester A. Arthur
was a Natural-Born Citizen, when it was known by at least some people
that his father was not a U.S. Citizen when Chester A. Arthur was born.
It at best is an extreme minority view, that has already been rejected
over 100 years ago by the precedent of Chester A. Arthur. Just as
citizens who were born in a U.S. Territory which later became a state is
decided by the precedent of Charles Curtis, and citizens who were born in
the District of Columbia was decided by the precedent of Al Gore.
Dunstvangeet (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I've fixed broken links under "Sources:" above. I've also edited the
text in the article to insert a missing comma which is present in the
quoted-from source (your requote above from the article probably ought to
be similarly edited, but I have not done that). Also, re your point that
the quoted translation is from 1883, I see that this source (cited in the
article, but not on this point) quotes the preface to the 1852 edition as
saying, "The text of the present translation of Vattel has been carefully
compared with that of the original work, in the first edition which
appeared, (Londres, 1758, 2 vol. in quarto,) published at Neufchatel; in
that of Amsterdam, (Van Harrevelt, 1775, 2 vol. in quarto,) the best
known till recently; and in that of M. de Hoffmans, (Paris, 1839, 2 vol.
in octavo,) the last and best edition. ...". I don't have the time (or
the expertise) to go into this much deeper than that. -- Boracay Bill
(talk) 04:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Verification needed
The statement I tagged FV claims a minority view. The cited reference
does not (currently) support the claim that the statement made is a
minority view. Further, the referenced source seems to contradict the
statement made. From the cited source: "A non-citizen may apply to become
a citizen of the United States. At no time will such a person ever be
considered natural-born (unless the U.S. Code is changed in some way).
The process to become a citizen involves several steps, including
applying to become and becoming a permanent resident (previously known as
a resident alien), applying to become and becoming naturalized, and
finally taking the Oath of Allegiance to the United States."
While I believe that the idea that a naturalized citizen could be
considered a "natural born citizen" as mentioned in the Constitution is
wrong and would certainly represent a minority view, I do not have any
sources to provide to back that up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by
Seth Wilson (talk • contribs) 03:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] The certainty over whether Chester Arthur and Barack Obama were
born in Vermont & Hawaii, respectively
I don't think stating that Chester Arthur & Barack Obama were
"apparently" born in Vermont & Hawaii, respectively, constitutes the use
of "weasel words." The whole section in question is about a controversy
as to where they were born; if there is no question as to where they were
born, then why does the section exist at all? By simple virtue of the
section's existence, we're acknowledging that the location of their birth
remains an issue yet to be definitively settled by history. Stating they
were "apparently"" born in Vermont & Hawaii respectively, seems to merely
acknowledge that a controversy exists, while still favouring the
dominant, mainstream view that they were born in Vermont and Hawaii (as
the case may be).
My understanding is that Barack Obama was born on August 4th, 1961, and
that his mother was in Mombassa, Kenya at least as recently as late July
of 1961 (and that no records exist which provide the definite date of her
arrival back to the USA). And more importantly, his birth was not
registered with the authorities in Hawaii until several weeks after his
birth, while eyewitnesses in Mombassa, who were acquainted with the
President's late father, have come forward to claim he was born there.
Consequently, the validity of his Hawaiian Birth Certificate is
legitimately in question. And interestingly, the Governor of Hawaii
issued an executive order to prevent any journalists, or other people,
from viewing the original copy of his Birth Certificate at the state
archives, which within the larger context of this whole, convoluted
political narrative, would be considered very suspicious...ordinarily.
Because I have noted these facts, via the use of the term "apparently,"
it has been strongly implied I am a "birther" (which I didn't really
appreciate, since I've never seen the term used when it wasn't being
implied that the person in question was also some sort of stupid,
ignorant yokel), which is apparently some derogatory term concocted by
Democratic Party activists at MSNBC and/or The Huffington Post, used to
deride people who don't just automatically assume that any claim by a
Democrat should be taken at face value, or something like that.
Politicians in both major U.S. political parties lie all the time
(there's also some question as to whether Barack Obama may have been born
in Kenya, yet sincerely believes he was born in Hawaii; the only person
who certainly knew for a fact, his mother, is deceased), and if a woman
who was in Kenya at least as recently as late July of 1961, comes forward
in late August of 1961, and claims her son was born in Hawaii on August
4th, then I suppose some people believe we should do as the state of
Hawaii did in 1961 (and which I doubt they would do today), and simply
take her at her word without any documentation. I think, however, that a
proper respect for WP:NPOV requires that some degree of skepticism be
applied to Stanley Obama's unsubstantiated claim that she was in Honolulu
at the time of her son's birth (in light of the fact we know for certain
she was in Kenya a few days earlier, and we are uncertain what date she
arrived back in the USA).
I don't claim to know whether Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, or in
Kenya. I doubt the issue will ever be proven definitively, and will
probably linger for decades, and even centuries (much like the question
over whether Chester Arthur was born in Canada or Vermont, or whether
James Buchanan was a homosexual, or whether Warren G. Harding had Black
African ancestry). To state that Barack Obama was "apparently" born in
Hawaii actually strikes me as a compromise that is rather favourable to
the orthodox view, since the notion that he was born in Hawaii is not
apparent to me at all. He may or may not have been born there, but since
all criticism of Barack Obama is apparently tabu in our society, or
whatever, we can state he was "apparently" born there, irrespective of
there not really being any strong evidence indicating that he was. But
most people prefer to believe so anyway. Fine. So he was "apparently"
born in Hawaii. Weasel wording? Or merely a refusal to take at face value
a self-serving, unsubstantiated assertion from the world's most powerful
politician?
As to the Chester Arthur angle, which I suspect no one else really cares
about (but since I am more-or-less obsessed with Presidential historical
trivia, and have been all my life, I actually do care about it), its also
not clear there exists much in the way of actual evidence that Arthur was
born in Vermont, but he claims he was, and there is no conclusive
evidence he wasn't, hence he "apparently" was born in Vermont. But at
this late stage in history, its probably unlikely the issue will ever be
definitively settled. The Barack Obama issue generates much greater
interest, presumably because it has the potential to lead to a Federal
court case wherein the sitting President might be removed from office due
to Constitutional ineligibility, but that is really not my concern. I
have a keen interest in Presidential history (and for the record, stated
many times during the 2008 election that I regarded Barack Obama as
preferable to John McCain, although I actually voted for Ralph Nader),
and believe the wording of this article should reflect the historical
data we presently have at our disposal, not the partisan passions aroused
by the political conflicts of the day. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 01:20, 4
August 2009 (UTC)
No, that's the very definition of weasel words. Saying "apparently"
gives undue weight to a fringe theory and obfuscates the fact that Obama
actually was born in Hawaii (as has been established by reliable
sources). Also, you seem to be mistaken on a number of facts, most
notably the urban legend that Obama's mother was in Kenya a few days
before his birth. Don't believe everything you read in a chain email. --
Loonymonkey (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
When there is significant doubt and concerns in reliable sources that
something is true, it can be appropriate to use language that includes
weasel words. That's especially true if that same language is used in
many of the sources for that topic. When you're talking about that topic
on Wikipedia, you use the same language that most sources (consensus) are
using. WP:NPOV does not mean giving every viewpoint - it means covering
the significant viewpoints without preference. WP:UNDUE further clarifies
that while differing views should be covered in relative detail - this
means that a minority viewpoint doesn't mean the article should be shaded
to include the possibility of the viewpoint. Articles should cover such
views in less detail than the main view, even ignoring very small
minority views (UNDUE uses the example that the Earth article doesn't
refer to the flat earth theory at all). I'd also suggest reading some on
the WP:FRINGE page about including such views in articles.
For this article, most sources do refer to the birthplace of Obama
and Arthur as being a fact. They might reference a conspiracy theory, but
it's quickly dismissed. The majority view is that they were born in
Hawaii and Vermont. Given that, the article needs to state that without
equivocation. It can (and should) mention that there are some that think
otherwise, but the article needs to reflect the view used by the majority
of sources.
By including the word "apparently", we'd be given too much weight to
a minority/fringe viewpoint. If strong evidence appears, and the views
change, then we'd probably need to revisit this, but until then, the
article needs to represent the majority view. Using weasel words serves
to weaken statements, and are subtle POV shifts on their own. They just
don't belong in those places in this article. Ravensfire2002 (talk)
04:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
"Saying "apparently" gives undue weight to a fringe theory and
obfuscates the fact that Obama actually was born in Hawaii (as has been
established by reliable sources)."
Reliable sources have not "established" that Barack Obama was
born in Hawaii. Sources generally considered reliable have asserted it,
but have yet to provide anything akin to definitive evidence to back up
their assertions. If The New York Times asserts something without
providing proper evidentiary citations, that doesn't necessarily make it
true (nor does it disallow for the possibility it may be true, regardless
of their inability and/or unwillingness to provide substantiation for
their assertion, admittedly). While its true that Barack Obama has a
Hawaiian Birth Certificate (issued in 1961 ie., two years after Hawaii
achieved full statehood), and thus enjoys the legal rights & privileges
of a natural citizen (as is proper), the question is concerning the
validity of the issuance of that document, with particular reference to
the lack of any apparent basis to believe any of the data transcribed
upon it, other than faith in the honesty of Stanley Obama (and of course,
within the decidedly relevant context of the Democratic Party-controlled
government of Hawaii having taken the very unusual step of refusing to
allow journalists, academics, and private citizens to view the original
document, which rests in their archives, despite numerous requests - how
can that peculiar fact not be taken as a very key aspect of the
narrative?).
The so-called "birthers" must prove that Barack Obama's
Hawaiian Birth Certificate was issued fradulently (they often make the
mistake of assuming Barack Obama is required to prove the validity of his
own Birth Certificate; no person with even a modicum of understanding of
how the American system of civil justice actually operates could ever
find themselves under a similar delusion), if they are to ever press
their case that he is Constitutionally ineligible for office. But we are
not bound by the strictures of the Federal court system; we are able to
acknowledge a degree of amibguity ie., that Barack Obama has a Birth
Certificate issued from Hawaii, and is thus legally regarded as a natural
citizen, but to simultaneously acknowledge that very real and legitimate
questions never-the-less surround the unorthodox manner by which that
document was issued, and thus it seems merely apparent that Barack Obama
Jr. was born in Hawaii. It is simply not a fact of history, even if it
is, for at least the time being (and realistically, likely to remain so
in the future) a fact of law.
"Articles should cover such views in less detail than the main
view, even ignoring very small minority views (UNDUE uses the example
that the Earth article doesn't refer to the flat earth theory at all)."
An exceedingly poor analogy. There exists copious evidence
that the Earth is spherical in shape. The evidence that Stanley Obama was
in Honolulu on August 4th, 1961 is nonexistent. There is a Hawaiian Birth
Certificate that says she was, but it wasn't issued on that day, and the
clerk merely transcribed whatever Mrs. Obama related. So the only
evidence that Mrs. Obama was in Honolulu on August 4th is her claim that
she was, X number of days after the fact. That is no evidence at all.
"By including the word "apparently", we'd be given too much
weight to a minority/fringe viewpoint."
While it is surely true that most reliable sources assert
that Barack Obama Jr. was born in Honolulu on August 4th, 1961, and while
it is certainly true that most people agree with those assertions, the
truth is never-the-less not a popularity contest. Mainstream sources
claim Barack Obama Jr. was born in Honolulu on August 4th, 1961, BUT THEY
PROVIDE NOTHING AKIN TO DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSERTION IS
ACCURATE! If The New York Times stated the Earth was flat, would we cease
to regard the Earth as spherical? It takes more than an assertion from a
reliable source; the reliable source must demonstrate its ongoing
reliability by providing substantiation for its assertions. The
mainstream media states very clearly that Barack Obama was born in
Honolulu, and then criticizes very harshly anyone who disagrees (which
wouldn't really seem to be necessary, unless perhaps they are motivated
in their criticism by some fundamental insecurity), but that is all they
do. They don't then provide the proof that Barack Obama Jr. was born in
Honolulu; they merely laugh at those who request proof. The mainstream
media is not a priesthood; we do not have to take their pronouncements on
faith. And yet, that is excactly what you are asking us to do with
respect to this article. The only reason being uncertain about where
Obama was born appears to be a fringe perspective (although it seems to
be a fringe with tens of millions of domestic adherents, and growing
rapidly) is because the very same dominant media outlets which refuse to
publish any definitive proof that Barack Obama Jr. was born in Honolulu
(presumably because they can not, although I suppose its remotely
possible they merely don't wish to), have declared it to be a fringe
view. Can you not see the inherently faulty nature of such a circular
model of information dissemination?
He was born in Honolulu because the dominant media say he
was. They do not provide any proof for this assertion. Failing to believe
this unproven assertion marks one as a "fringe" character, who's views
can, and ought to be, actively discounted. How is that not insane?
KevinOKeeffe (talk) 06:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll echo the comments above ... Please read WP:FRINGE as
it specifically addresses the concerns you have laid out. Per WP:V, we
don't make editorial decisions behind what the RS's are stating without
qualification. In short, the RS's don't say "apparantly", so neither do
we. thanks, --guyzero | talk 06:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
KevinOKeeffe, you're touching on something that has
caused difficulties on WP, and probably always will. What's "proof" for
something? When is something "proved"? Relative to this particular case,
that's not something easily defined, and it absolutely depends on the
person. Some people take the word of the Hawaiian govt employee, others
want to physically see and touch a document before they'd be convinced,
and even then still have questions. So what's the level for Wikipedia?
The answer is that WP ducks the question totally - WP:V.
It's not about "truth", but verifiable, reliable sources. If the majority
of such sources accept something, that's what should be included in WP.
The example I've seen from another editor was that back in Galileo's day,
WP would have said the sun revolved around the earth, because that's what
most reliable sources said at that time. We have to follow the same idea
here - even if we personally disagree or don't believe something, if most
sources say black is actually white, the article on black would describe
it as white in color. That's also why nothing is fixed in WP - based on
new evidence, that mainstream view can (and has) change. Ravensfire2002
(talk) 14:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Just to add a little grist for the mill... The vital records for Mr.
Obama certainly indicate an Hawaiian birth. Those vital records create a
prima facie case for the truth of the facts asserted therein. A prima
facie case is not conclusive, but rather may still be rebutted by other
evidence. However, the vital record serves to shift the burden of proving
otherwise to the party challenging the fact asserted in the vital record.
Thus, Mr. Obama has proven he was born in Hawaii, until and unless the
"birthers" present evidence to overcome the presumption of a Hawaiian
birth. Without commenting on whether I believe there is any reliable
rebutting evidence (which would be irrelevant anyway), suffice it to say
that according to a recent poll [1], 11% believe Obama was not born in
Hawaii and 12% say that they are not sure (23% skeptical). Among
Republicans 28% say he was not born in Hawaii and 30% are not sure (58%
skeptical). So, although the evidence rebutting the presumption may be
thin, those at least skeptical are not a tiny fringe, but a significant
segment of the population.Tommylotto (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The lack of documentation is not an argument. The foremost
authority on Births in Hawaii has stated publicly that Barack Obama was
born in Hawaii and provided legal documentation to prove this. That
"birthers" claim a lack of documentation does nothing to question the
actual birth of Obama. They cannot overturn his legal citizenship. It is
totally established by Government Authorities. Citizenship is not
retroactive, even if people would hope so. I would add that had a baby
Obama been smuggled into the USA without citizenship, that would have
been duly noted by authorities. As would have been any minor child
accompanying his parents. That people believe Obama is born in Kenya, on
Mars, or never existed at all does not bear on his citizenship. That is
about some people's misunderstandings of how American citizenship
actually works (and would better be place on an article about citizenship
misconcepts than Natural born. —Preceding unsigned comment added by
85.179.64.192 (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Obama has produced a copy of his COLB. It states that he was born in
Honolulu. This logically means that the so-called "long form" birth
certificate will also say that he was born there. There is no law that
allows Hawaiian authorities to issue a COLB to foreign-born people. There
is only a small loophole: Foreign-born people could acquire a Hawaiian
long-form birth certificate and US citizenship by producing fake
witnesses of their birth in Hawaii. That's what Sun Yat-sen did. That's
what Obama's family might have done for him, but we'll never know,
because if Obama's long-form birth certificate is actually a "witness-
certificate", it would probably raise some additional doubts, but it
still wouldn't be proof that he wasn't born in Hawaii. After all and for
real: Obama could still have been born somewhere in Honolulu and his
birth registered based on witness testimony. The only way (so the
birthers believe!) to refute that Obama was born in Hawaii is to present
records of a foreign birth, e.g. a Kenyan birth certificate—a valid one!
And just for the sake of the argument: If they really find such foreign
documents, there would still be the completely official Hawaiian
documents, which means: evidence vs. evidence, testimony vs. testimony,
official document vs. official document. How do you prove or refute
something, when both sides produce documents that are legit? YOU CAN'T!
This is what none of the birthers realize. THEY HAVE NO CASE… NO
ARGUMENT… NOTHING… IT'S JUST HOT AIR… no matter how they twist and turn
the issues. It's all just a conspiracy theory. BECAUSE: Even if Obama was
really born in Kenya, it will remain an OFFICIAL FACT that he was born in
Hawaii. There is NO WAY to change that, even if there are official
documents on a foreign birth. Impossible. The only thing that really
matters is what's not a conspiracy theory, but a valid legal and
constitutional question that has to this date not been answered by any
federal court: Obama's birth status was governed by the British
Nationality Act… he was a dual/multiple citizen, and especially a natural-
born British subject like his father (cf. Blackstone I.10)… Can a natural-
born subject of the British monarch like Obama also be (at the same time)
a natural born citizen of the U.S.? That's the real question everyone
should ask. BUT NOOOOO… we all love the ruse, the hoax, all those Orly
freaks, that huge smokescreen called "foreign birth"/"BC"/"COLB", don't
we?! And we just love to forget what really matters here. Bullshit. The
world is so full of shit. You are ALL so full of shit… here in your
little sandbox… —85.178.76.160 (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Archiving
The talk page has been getting longer and longer (over 300k), so I've
gone ahead and setup an archive for the page. I've put the initial length
to 120 days. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] US citizenship derived through State citizenship
The article as of 17-Aug-09 concludes that the States determine what
persons, born within their jurisdiction, are citizens of the State and
thereby derive US citizenship. The article cites Dred Scott decision.
However, Dread Scott antedates the 14th Amendment which expressly
provides US citizenship for anyone born in the US. "All persons born or
naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they
reside." The States have no authority to deny citizenship to anyone born
within their respective jurisdictions.
Of the four alternatives listed, the fourth, stated above, rather than
obvious, is obviously false. Consistent with the fourteenth Amendment is
answer three: "That all free persons, born within the several States, are
citizens of the United States".
Ppetrel (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
You're misinterpreting the article - it quotes the dissent as one
relevant legal opinion, it doesn't endorse it as the last word on the
subject. It is worth mentioning that this opinion predates the fourteenth
ammendment, though, so I'll add that.VoluntarySlave (talk) 17:05, 17
August 2009 (UTC)
As Will BeBack noted in the edit summary, please be careful when
changing quoted material. Your edit also removed not just some of the
quote, but the reference to that quote as well. That can make it harder
to track down where the quote was from. Also, please be cautious of
adding original research. Something along the lines of what you added
needs to be backed up by a verifiable, reliable source. There's probably
some good areas of improvement in this article - the only legal opinion
with it's own section is outdated? Ravensfire2002 (talk) 17:26, 17 August
2009 (UTC)
The article as it currently stands contains a blatant error. The article
states that, "The Constitution has left to the States the determination
what person, born within their respective limits, shall acquire by birth
citizenship of the United States", is correct. The statement is
categorically false, and obviously so as it is clearly inconsistent with
the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution essentially requires that
all persons born in the United States are US citizens. It further
requires that all US citizens are citizens in States in which they
reside, leaving no discretion to the States. The Fourteenth Amendment
does not permit any State to revoke citizenship to a US citizen residing
within the State's borders. A State has absolutely no discretion
whatsoever in the determination of citizenship within its borders.
Indeed, State constitutions e.g., Connecticut, defer to the Fourteenth
Amendment of the US Constitution in matters of citizenship.
It should be evident on its face that "all free persons, born within the
several States, are citizens of the United States" is a true and correct
statement.
Furthermore, it should be facially evident that the Fourteenth Amendment
supersedes any preexisting case law and negates any precedent so
superseded.
The article as it currently stands, is an embarrassment. I hope I do not
have to point out this egregious error to my colleagues in the legal
field. I'm not interested in re-editing the article. I'm not interested
in children's games.Ppetrel (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes there is US Supreme Court precedent on that point. Post Civil War
decisions that hold that the 14 th amendment means what it says. If you
are born in the USA you are a citizen. That makes you natural born
because you need not be naturalized. The 14th amend also states that if
you are naturalized, you are a citizen of the USA. Also if you are born
to US citizens abroad, you are a citizen as per Federal Statute. Thus you
don't need to be naturalized. This happened to John McCain. He was born
abroad on a US Naval base, but his parents are US citizens so McCain was
a citizen at the moment of birth. Natuarl born means what it says, born a
citizen. If you are not a citizen at birth, you are natural born. LaidOff
(talk) 22:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
John Mccain's citizenship is not debatable, however his natural
born status I think might be. the insular cases raise some doubts in my
mind about his status as a natural born citizen and therefore his right
to run for president. If i read these cases correctly there's a
difference betwen being BORN A CITIZEN and being NATURALY BORN a citizen.
Mccain was born a citizen by law. I have doubts about his NATURAL born
status. Alienburrito (talk) 07:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)alienburrito
LaidOff, If you have authority for the proposition that the
phrase "natural born citizen" is the same as "citizen at birth" let us
know what it is and we will include it. However, that assumption does not
merely flow from the words itself. That would be merely your opinion.
Tommylotto (talk) 12:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The decision, United States v Rhodes was cited in the SCOTUS case United
Stated v Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649, which states in part: "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."
Also cited in Ark, Ex parte Chin King, (Circuit Court D. Oregon. June 25,
1888), in part: "By the common law, a child born within the allegiance—
the jurisdiction—of the United States, is born a subject or citizen
thereof, without reference to the political status or condition of its
parents."
From United Stated v Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649: “The interpretation of
the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the
fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the **English
common law**, and are to be read in the light of its history.”
The Supreme Court of New York in Lynch v. Clarke (1844): "The only
standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of
the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose
a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien
parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under
the constitution? I think not."
SCOTUS on the common law, Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465 (1888) “There
is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no
national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United
States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are
framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in
the light of its history. The code of constitutional and statutory
construction which therefore is gradually formed by the judgments of this
Court, in the application of the Constitution and the laws.”
SCOTUS in Ark, citing Mr. Justice Story in Dred Scott v Sanford: "The
first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the
language, "a natural-born citizen." It thus assumes that citizenship may
be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was
used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in
this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which
referred citizenship to the place of birth."
Common law was established in US law. The Northwest Ordinance (1787)
"There shall also be appointed a court to consist of three judges, any
two of whom to form a court, who shall have a common law jurisdiction."
The First Session of Congress, Statute I, Chapter XX, Section 11 (1789):
"And be it further enacted That the circuit courts shall have original
cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several States, of all
suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity." 99.179.154.72 (talk)
01:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
It is noted above that the SCOTUS in Ark cited Lynch v Clarke, 1 Sand. Ch
583, interpretation of provisions of the Constitution in light of the
common law. One may also consult Lynch regarding another issue: "The
right of citizenship, as distinguished from alienage, is a national right
or condition. It pertains to the confederated sovereignty, the United
States; and not to the individual states.” Lynch v Clarke 1 Sand. Ch.
583" Ppetrel (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
References:
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86756.pdf
--74.213.70.230 (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] The Insular Cases
Any thoughts on including discussion of the Insular Cases in this
"natural born citizen" article? From what I've read about these cases, my
understanding is that in these cases, the Supreme Court ruled that the US
Constitution applies only in the United States, and since territories are
not states, people born and/or living in a territory have no
constitutional protections. That would seem to imply that people born in
territories are not granted citizenship by birth by the Constitution.
This of course goes to John McCain's qualifications. he was born in the
Panama Canal zone, a territory, not a state, to military parents. It is
my understanding that the Insular cases are the reason Congress passed
laws giving citizenship to people like McCain, people born overseas to
active duty military, and to people born in territories such as Puerto
Rico, Panama Canal Zone, Guam, etc. So, are such people citizens by Law,
or citizens by Birth? Not gonna answer this question - I just feel it
needs to be raised.
Alienburrito (talk) 06:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)alienburrito
Only the "fundamental rights" under the federal constitution apply to
Puerto Rico like the Privileges and Immunities Clause (U.S. Constitution,
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, also known as the Comity Clause), that
prevents a state from treating citizens of other states in a
discriminatory manner with regard to basic civil rights. The clause also
embraces a right to travel, so that a citizen of one state can go and
enjoy privileges and immunities in any other state; this clause apply to
Puerto Rico due to federal law 48 U.S.C. § 737.[1][2][3].
The U.S. Congress expressly extended the U.S. Constitution clause to
Puerto Rico through U.S. Law 48 U.S.C. § 737 in 1947.
Torres v. Puerto Rico, 442 U.S. 465 (1979), was a United States Supreme
Court case holding that the Fourth Amendment guarantee against
unreasonable search and seizure applies to Puerto Rico.
In a brief concurrence in the judgment of Torres v. Puerto Rico, U.S.
Supreme Court Justice Brennan, argued that any implicit limits from the
Insular Cases on the basic rights granted by the Constitution (including
especially the Bill of Rights) were anachronistic in the 1970s.
Puerto Rico v. Branstad, 483 U.S. 219 (1987), was a case decided by the
Supreme Court of the United States that ruled unanimously that Federal
Courts have the power to enforce extraditions based on the Extradition
Clause of Article Four of the United States Constitution.
Puerto Rico v. Shell Co. (P. R.), Ltd. 302 U.S. 253 (1937) was a notable
Supreme Court of the United States case. The issue was whether a local
("insular") law could be pre-empted by the Commerce clause of the United
States Constitution.
The Natural Born U.S. Citizen status was expressly extended through 8
U.S.C. § 1402.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
The U.S. Law was expressly extended through U.S. Law 48 U.S.C. § 734.
The U.S. Citizens in the U.S. Territories has constitutional rights
expressly extended by the U.S. Congress by Law and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Island was expressly inserted on the United
State definition for geography and Nationality purpose by the Nationality
Act of 1940.
Guam, American Samoa was inserted on the definition by the Inmigration
and Nationality Act of 1952.
Finally Mariana Island was extended on the definition on 1986.
--74.213.70.230 (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The definition of the "United States", for nationality purposes, was
expanded in 1952 to add Guam, and in 1986 it was expanded again to
include the Northern Mariana Islands. Persons born in these territories
(in addition to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands) currently
acquire U.S. citizenship at birth on the same terms as persons born in
other parts of the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by
74.213.70.230 (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
U.S. Supreme Court quote on Torres v. Puerto Rico (First, Fourth, Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendment expressly extended to Puerto Rico by the U.S.
Supreme Court):
On the other hand, this Court has held or otherwise indicated that Puerto
Rico is subject to the First Amendment Speech Clause, id. at 258 U. S.
314; the Due Process Clause of either the Fifth or the Fourteenth
Amendment, Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U. S. 663, 416
U. S. 668-669, n. 5 (1974); and the equal protection guarantee of either
the Fifth or the
Page 442 U. S. 470
Fourteenth Amendment, Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426 U. S. 572,
426 U. S. 599-601 (1976). In Califano v. Torres, 435 U. S. 1, 435 U. S. 4
n. 6 (1978) (per curiam), we assumed without deciding that the
constitutional right to travel extends to the Commonwealth.
We conclude that the constitutional requirements of the Fourth Amendment
apply to the Commonwealth. [Footnote 3] As in Examining Board v. Flores
de Otero, supra at 435 U. S. 601, we have no occasion to determine
whether the Fourth Amendment applies to Puerto Rico directly or by
operation of the Fourteenth Amendment. —Preceding unsigned comment added
by 74.213.70.230 (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Róger Calero
Anyone familiar with how his candidacy worked? Did the party not submit
him for the ballot in certain states, knowing he would be excluded, or
was he submitted and rejected? If rejected, how did they learn of his
foreign birth and what was the process for rejecting him? Шизомби (talk)
17:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Redirect
Natural-born citizen redirects here, but there is no explanation or
definition on what a natural-born citizen actually is. There are all
these paragraphs on becoming the President of the United States, which is
nice, but what the hell is a NBC? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 11:53,
27 September 2009 (UTC)
You know, that's a bit harder than a simple answer. The term is
introduced in the Constitution, but isn't defined. It's defined somewhat
in common law (see the Wong case), and article does touch on that.
Basically, if you're born in the US, and not the child of foreign agents
(ambassadors, etc), you're an NBC. There's also conditions if you're born
outside the US, but to US parent(s). Ravensfire (talk) 14:00, 27
September 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that there isn't any universal agreement on
exactly what a "natural born citizen" is in US law. Some people believe
the term simply means someone who has been a US citizen (through whatever
means) since the moment of their birth (no matter where they were born).
Other people believe it can only encompass people born on US soil. Still
others say it includes only people who were born on US soil and whose
parents were born US citizens at the time. And there are additional
variations, each with its group of adherents who insist their view is
obviously right and all others are obviously wrong. This article attempts
to describe the controversy, but it can never do this to everyone's
satisfaction because the differing positions are so different and
irreconcilable. Richwales (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Talk:Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States"
Categories: B-Class legal articles | High-importance legal articles
---------end quote-------------
Furthermore, if you believe your position is inadequately covered you are
free to join the discussion above and/or edit the article. However
realize that the position you've put forth has been considered and
dismissed.
Iarnrod
Sorry, Chuck, but I have already proved that wrong.
Natural born citizen means no such thing. Never did.
Obama is undeniably a natural born citizen.
So were Elg, KiM Wong Ark and Steinkauler, as the courts have noted.
You are on the losing side of this argument. Enjoy.
> > Obama’s father could have been from Mars and it would not matter. His
> > Kenyan citizenship and British status has *no standing whatsoever* on
> > this completely separate individual, Barack Obama Jr. None. Zippo,
> > Nada. Born in Hawaii=natural born citizen. SCOTUS has held this
> > consistently at least since the 14th amendment. Case closed.
>
> > > It is also a fact that Barry, Jr. held Kenyan
> > > citizenship until 1984
>
> > YOU LIE!
>
> When you can prove that you are someone who can have a passing notion
> of what is or is not true, then get back.
Everything I have said is proven truth; you have lied, and I have
proven that you lied.
> You can even check
> Factcheck.org on this matter and I will agree to that as a third-party
> verification.
They say you lied.
Iarnrod
> On Sep 27, 4:22 pm,Iarnrod<iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 22, 5:34 pm, "Charles Bell" <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > “The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” —George
> > > Mason
>
> > Too bad he was wrong; it was.
>
> > "Natrual born citizen" in England and in the colonies at the time of
> > the Constitution meant ANYONE born on the soil of those places. Even
> > if they were just passing through, citizen or not. Case closed.
>
> English common law is overwritten in the matter of citizenship after
> U.S. independence.
Nope.
> What was the issue in 1789 was the exception phrase
> in Article II 1.5 as (1) applying to *any* foreigner who was a citizen
> in 1789 or (2) to all citizens born under the British crown but not on
> U.S. soil as, for example, Alexander Hamilton. In any case, the
> exception clause itself is proof that "natural-born" had a meaning
> beyond just having been born on native soil, for no one, foreigner or
> not, in the new U.S.A. was technically born on U.S. soil prior to 1789
> but rather on British soil.
You're wrong.
> Without the exception clause, George
> Washington, born in Virginia but possesing British citizenship at his
> birth, could not be President.
Immaterial.
> English common law demanded that all
> U.S. citizens after 1789 but born before 1789 were indeed *forever*
> British citizens, and that was the justification given for the
> impressing of Americans to fight against France in 1812.
Too bad for them.
Obama is still a natural born citizen.
> That fact
> alone, besides just not wanting Americans forcibly conscripted into
> the British navy, is proof that American conception of "natural born"
> was different than the English common-law one.
No it isn't. It's proof that you are grasping for non-existent straws
after I have wiped the floor with you.
> because U.S. natural
> born citizenship can be renounced, but not taken away, and can never
> be doubled up into dual citizenship with any other nation.
Immaterial.
> Obama was
> born with dual citizenship until he was 23 when he allowed his Kenyan
> citizenship to expire.
Immaterial.
> A natural born U.S. citizenship from birth
> never has dual citizenship at any time
YOU LIE. SCOTUS has been clear. Sorry, you'll just have to find
something else to be nutty about now.
Iarnrod
> On Sep 27, 4:43 pm,Iarnrod<iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 22, 5:13 pm, "Charles Bell" <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > How? In the words of the Constitution or in the words of Chief Justice
> > > Marshall? If the former (in Article III, in the likely case you have not
> > > read the Constitution), please cite them here.
>
> > Art. III Sect. 1, dearie. Plain as day.
>
> There are no words there that give the Supreme Court the power of
> judicial review to strike down Congressional legislation as
> unconstutitional.
Read it again, dearie. This time read for comprehension.
> Article III
> Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in
> one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may
> from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the
> supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good
> Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a
> Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance
> in Office.
>
> In theory, Congress can retrict the self-abrogated power of judical
> review by writing law that contracts federal courts' jurisdiction to
> review the law, but the latest in the Gitmo decisions, the Supreme
> Court has said that the Supreme Court will decide jurisdiction
> regardless of how a law is written, giving ultimate power over
> everything to the Supreme Court, save Congress' power to pack the
> court, since the number of Justices is not specified in the
> Constitution or the start the Amendment process. The States could
> also call for a Constitutional Convention that could abolish the
> Supreme Court or at least its self-abrogated power of judical review,
> but we can only dream of that perfection.
BWAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!! You've really guzzled the Kook Aid!
Charles Bell
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:28:56 -0700, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 27, 6:02 pm, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:22:29 -0700, Charles Bell
> >> <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> > Natural-born citizen in Article II 1.5 means having been born on U.S.
> >> > soil to two U.S. citizens, or to two U.S. citizens abroad but still
> >> > under the jurisdiction of the U.S. (as in diplomatic or miltary
> >> > stationing).
>
> >> No, "Natural Born" doesn't mean that the child must be "born on U.S.
> >> soil to two U.S. citizens" nor to "two U.S. citizens abroad..."
>
> > Yes, it does. Check the defintion of "natural born" or "indigenous" as
> > it was understood in the 18th century through Vattel's Law of Nations:
>
> No, it doesn't. Your cite isn't law. The cites I provided are and
> include Supreme Court rational.
>
It goes to the meaning of the phrase as intended by the writers in
1789, for Artilce II and 1868, for the 14th. There is no SCOTUS
decision on Article II.1.5, only that people born in the U.S. are
entitled to citizenship (not "natural born" citizenship, a phrase
never used in the 14th if it were relevant) or that such people thus
be qualified to be President.
> > "{E}very 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."
>
> > In 1961, Obama's father owed allegiance to the British crown through his
> > birth in the Kenyan colony,and Obama had dual citizenship with Kenya
> > until his majority. Natural-borns never have dual citizenship
>
> If you are admitting that Obama was born in Hawaii then you've submarined
> your argument.
>
The importance of the birth certificate goes to treason engaged in by
Obama and others, not to whether he is a natural born citizen. Obama
has admitted to the facts already that do not make him a natural born
citizen. That the federal courts have not ruled on the facts (only on
standing) does not make it a decision one way or another.
> >> Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to
> >> provide
> >> a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration
> >> of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander
> >> in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any
> >> but a natural born Citizen.[1]
>
> > Yes, good idea. Send Obama packing to his other country, and $1 trillion
> > can pay for a lot of one-way tickets for his whining constituents with
> > their sense of unearned entitlement.
>
> Heh, ain't gonna happen. He is as much a natural born citizen as you are
No he is not. You cannot cite the Constitution or SCOTUS decision
that Obama qualifies under Article II, only that Obama is entitled to
citizenship through his mother, and that *only* by SCOTUS decision and
statute forced by SCOTUS, not by his nature of having been been on
U.S. soil and to American citizen.
Your attitude is such that it does not matter what the Constitution
says as the framers intended, only what may be inferred from Supreme
Court decisions not tied the the actual issue.
Charles Bell
<wasteful cut and paste>
The point is in the Wiki article there is no mention of the intent of
the framers of the Consititution through Vattel, and Benjamin
Franklin's reference at the time of Vattel's definition, for the
menaing of the phrase "natural born citizen" and that entries pointing
to that are repeatedly deleted.
Charles Bell
You can "prove it wrong" in such a way as to contradict the meaning as
intended in 1789 by citation of anyone using the phrase
contemporaneously in a way other than Vattel.
> Natural born citizen means no such thing. Never did.
>
> Obama is undeniably a natural born citizen.
>
> So were Elg, KiM Wong Ark and Steinkauler, as the courts have noted.
Elg was presumed to be a natural-born citizen through her father's
U.S. citizenship (also consistent with Vattel). Wong and anyone else
born on U.S. soil but to resident aliens are presumed to be "citizens"
statutorily, not naturally. The words "natural born" was used in
nether the decisions, except to confer citizenship on Miss Elg through
the naturalized citizenship of her father, or in the 14th Amendment
which does not apply to Article II in any case either literally or by
SCOTUS decision.
>
> You are on the losing side of this argument. Enjoy.
>
> > > Obama’s father could have been from Mars and it would not matter. His
> > > Kenyan citizenship and British status has *no standing whatsoever* on
> > > this completely separate individual, Barack Obama Jr. None. Zippo,
> > > Nada. Born in Hawaii=natural born citizen. SCOTUS has held this
> > > consistently at least since the 14th amendment. Case closed.
>
> > > > It is also a fact that Barry, Jr. held Kenyan
> > > > citizenship until 1984
>
> > > YOU LIE!
>
> > When you can prove that you are someone who can have a passing notion
> > of what is or is not true, then get back.
>
> Everything I have said is proven truth; you have lied, and I have
> proven that you lied.
>
> > You can even check
> > Factcheck.org on this matter and I will agree to that as a third-party
> > verification.
>
<quote>
As a citizen of the UKC who was born in Kenya, Obama's father
automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given
that Obama qualified for citizen of the UKC status at birth and given
that Obama's father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), it
follows that Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship after 1963.
[T]he Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya
recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya's Constitution
specifies that at age 23, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in
more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship
unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an
oath of allegiance to Kenya.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn
an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically
expired on Aug. 4,1984
<unquote>
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html
Charles Bell
> BWAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!! You've really guzzled the Kook Aid!
As is customary in any rational debate, the one who resorts to ad-hom
and insult loses the debate. In the so-called birther debate, it is
always the Obama supporter who does eventually end the debate by
insult, though often he will begin with an insult, disqualifying
himself as even worthy to debate.
Iarnrod
> On Sep 28, 1:24 am, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > BWAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!! You've really guzzled the Kook Aid!
>
> As is customary in any rational debate, the one who resorts to ad-hom
> and insult loses the debate.
Guess again. I won.
Also, you have no idea what an ad hominem argument is, as you
misapply the term here.
> In the so-called birther debate, it is
> always the Obama supporter who does eventually end the debate by
> insult,
Insult is not ad hominem. And by regurgutating your kookspew, you
indict yourself on kooktard charges, dearie.
> though often he will begin with an insult, disqualifying
> himself as even worthy to debate.
You are wrong, of course. There is nothing about insulting your
opponent that causes you to lose on the merits. That's just your
"neener-neener" throwaway statement. I already won on the merits, ipso
facto.
Iarnrod
The Founders used common law meanings. They didn't give a flying fuck
about Vattel. Natural born citizen at the time meant anyone -- ANYONE
-- born on the land and within the jurisdiction of that land.
Q.E.D.
> > Natural born citizen means no such thing. Never did.
>
> > Obama is undeniably a natural born citizen.
>
> > So were Elg, KiM Wong Ark and Steinkauler, as the courts have noted.
>
> Elg was presumed to be a natural-born citizen through her father's
> U.S. citizenship (also consistent with Vattel).
Wrong. It was due to her birth in the US. Her father could have been a
Martian, it would not have mattered. Note Wong Kim Ark -- neither
parent was a citizen and in fact under then-existing law they were
PROHIBITED form becoming US citizens. Yet Wong was a natural born US
citizen.
I win.
Plus, you contradict yourself. You now claim Elg was a natural born
citizen only through her fathers status, when your precious little
Vattel maintained both parents had to be citizens.
I win twice.
> Wong and anyone else
> born on U.S. soil but to resident aliens are presumed to be "citizens"
> statutorily, not naturally.
Wrong. You ignore the plain words of SCOTUS once again.
> The words "natural born" was used in
> nether the decisions,
you're lying, of course. They are in fact used.
> except to confer citizenship on Miss Elg through
> the naturalized citizenship of her father,
Bzzzzzztttt!!! Wrong, Try reading the case, this time for
comprehension instead of sherry picking for your own affirmation in
your wrongness,
> or in the 14th Amendment
> which does not apply to Article II in any case either literally or by
> SCOTUS decision.
It does apply, of course. The Constitution is one document. Of course
the 14th applies to Article II.
> http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_c...
Um, Chuckie, FactCheck proves me right. What's your point?
Iarnrod
> On Sep 27, 9:14 pm, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:28:56 -0700, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 27, 6:02 pm, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:
> > >> Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to
> > >> provide
> > >> a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration
> > >> of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander
> > >> in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any
> > >> but a natural born Citizen.[1]
>
> > > Yes, good idea. Send Obama packing to his other country, and $1 trillion
> > > can pay for a lot of one-way tickets for his whining constituents with
> > > their sense of unearned entitlement.
>
> > Heh, ain't gonna happen. He is as much a natural born citizen as you are
>
> No he is not.
Yes he is.
> You cannot cite the Constitution or SCOTUS decision
> that Obama qualifies under Article II,
He was born in the US. End Of Story.
> only that Obama is entitled to
> citizenship through his mother,
Bzzzzztttt!! Wrong. Entitled to citizenship by virtue of birth in the
US. Mother could have been an illegal and father a Martian, wouldn't
matter one little bit.
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> On Sep 27, 9:27 pm, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:
Snipping the very text you complained wasn't in the article doesn't rebut
the actual dialog among experts. Vattel was dismissed for reason.
Strabo
You're responding to a bot.
Iarnrod
ESAD, KKKook. I win the debate with pure fact and truth. In the words
of your latest Klan hero: YOU LIE!
Charles Bell
> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 02:49:58 -0700, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 27, 9:27 pm, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > <wasteful cut and paste>
>
> > The point is in the Wiki article there is no mention of the intent of
> > the framers of the Consititution through Vattel, and Benjamin Franklin's
> > reference at the time of Vattel's definition, for the menaing of the
> > phrase "natural born citizen" and that entries pointing to that are
> > repeatedly deleted.
>
> Snipping the very text you complained wasn't in the article doesn't rebut
> the actual dialog among experts. Vattel was dismissed for reason.
The reason I brought this up as against *any* Wiki entry is that
sometimes the bias is so bad that the entry is worthless. The first
clue on the "Natural Born Citizen" entry was that the article was an
incoherent hodge-podge with no direction at all. It is only when one
investigates that some of the tying threads, such as any that might
explain the origin of the phrase "natural born citizen" in or before
the 18th century, are missing and have been repeatedly deleted only
for the biased and intellectually dishonest reason that the meaning of
the phrase in any context except as that might apply to anchor babies
or Obama is presumed to be meaningless. {Yes, I mean that redundant
phrasing.) That is absurd. Just because one does not like the
direction into which knowledge of such fact(s) may lead one, does not
make it irrelevant. Vattel was brought up in the dissent on the Wong
Kim Ark case. and if for that reason alone, it is relevant.
Charles Bell
Or to someone suffering a total disintergration into insanity.
Iarnrod
Oh the fuckin' IRONY!!!
Iarnrod
Dissent=losing side. Q.E.D. Wong settled it. Wong could have been
eligible to be president.
Common law at the time of the Founders was that a natural born
citizen, UNLIKE VATTEL'S DEFINITION, was anyone born on the soil in
the jurisdiction of the country. End of story. Obama is a natural born
citizen as envisioned by the Founders.
Charles Bell
Obama cannot use your insanity as a defense against his pretension to
natural born citizenship.
Charles Bell
> Common law at the time of the Founders was that a natural born
> citizen, UNLIKE VATTEL'S DEFINITION, was anyone born on the soil in
> the jurisdiction of the country.
Anyone wishing to live under English common law rather than under the
U.S. Constitution should live in England. No one born on American
soil in the jurisdiction of Great Britain, the condition in British
North America prior to 1776, could be a natural born citizen of the
U.S. and thus the reason for the exception clause in Article II. The
fact that any one of the Founders was born on American soil (save
Hamilton) but still not eligible, making the exception necessary,
demonstrates that being born on American soil was not the sole
criterion for natural born status as it was used in Article II.
Anyone supposing the exception clause was for the sole benefit of
Hamilton, and for no other reason, cannot view the exception clause as
the generality that it was in that, by it, everyone was covered, as
they all were, by English common law, natural born British citizens.
Moreover, in the even less likihood that the exception clause was
written to benefit foreigners of any birth, the exception clause still
holds as a generality to *escape* English common law meaning of
natural born citizenship wherein anybody born English was *forever*
English, making U.S. citizenhip impossible for those born prior to
1776 (or 1789 in the exception clause), all foreigners and British
alike having to be made citizens in 1789, rather than having been
natural born U.S. citizens.
Charles Bell
> On Sep 28, 7:46 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Common law at the time of the Founders was that a natural born
> > citizen, UNLIKE VATTEL'S DEFINITION, was anyone born on the soil in
> > the jurisdiction of the country.
>
> Anyone wishing to live under English common law rather than under the
> U.S. Constitution should live in England. No one born on American
> soil in the jurisdiction of Great Britain, the condition in British
> North America prior to 1776, could be a natural born citizen of the
............................................. ^^^^^ (should be: "could
not be") ....