Newsletter subscribe

Features, Politics, Top Stories

“Birtherism” and the Tyranny of Ignorance

ted-cruz-conservative
Posted: March 23, 2013 at 1:20 pm   /   by   /   comments (426)

Senator Ted Cruz has inspired something of a resurgence of the “Birther” phenomenon over the past week or two.  I continue to be amazed at depth of ignorance on the definition of the term natural born citizen and the certainty with which people continue to repeat false assertions about the meaning of this term.  A small sampling of the sort of thing you can find on this topic around the Internet:

Acquiring US citizenship at birth is not the same thing as being a natural born citizen.
The constitution is NOT vague about this, as the article implies.
Natural born means you were passed through a woman’s birth canal within the physical borders of this country…”

“The simple fact is if his [Ted Cruz’] mother wasn’t serving for the armed forces or some international organization that is accepted he is not going to qualify to run for president.”

“[Name Witheld], you are woefully mistaken. To be natural born, both parents of a person must be born in the US.”

“Actually, just being born to US Citizen-parents is NOT enough to make a person a “natural born citizen”. They must be born on “US soil…”

“Ah, but ‘citizen’, ‘native-born citizen’ and ‘natural-born citizen’ are 3 distinctly separate categories…”

The one thing all these remarks have in common is they are all completely wrong.  Much of this nonsense is due to the fervent desire of many people on the right to “prove” Obama is not qualified to hold the office of president, and their willingness to twist themselves into knots in pursuit of this belief.  The truth of the matter is actually really easy to find if anyone bothers to take a few minutes to do a quick Internet search, and then read what they find.

There are a couple of common arguments cited in support of some of these fanciful definitions of natural born citizen.  One such argument is that English Common Law is actually the controlling authority, another is that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the constitution somehow does the trick.  Not quite. 

While it was the source and inspiration for much of the code law in the United States, English Common Law is not any sort of legal controlling authority, and bears no weight whatsoever in determining what is and is not “legal” in the United States.  The 14th Amendment was a part of the flurry of legislation following the Civil War and the abolition of slavery, and the purpose of section 1 was to prevent the former slave states from denying citizenship to one-time slaves, and to cut the legs out from under the onerous Dred Scott ruling of 1857.  Apart from establishing that EVERYONE born on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen, it does not address with any specificity the meaning or definition of the term.

The constitution, in Article II, section 1 lays-out the qualifications required to serve as President thusly:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

The illusion of ambiguity created by this lack of a constitutional definition is what leads to so many crack-pot theories as to what exactly a natural born citizen really is, but in reality the matter is not ambiguous at all.  The definition can in fact be found in U.S. Code law, specifically Title 8, Subchapter III, section 1401.  You can follow the link I’ve included and read the entire section if you wish at the U.S. House.gov site.  It is not too long or difficult to read, and covers a variety of different circumstances under which a person is legally defined to be considered a citizen at birth.  I have only included the sections which bear upon Rubio and Cruz for the sake of brevity:

Sec. 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

-STATUTE-

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United

States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the

jurisdiction thereof;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying

possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United

States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States

or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such

person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying

possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United

States who has been physically present in the United States or

one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one

year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is

a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United

States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an

alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to

the birth of such person, was physically present in the United

States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods

totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were

after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any

periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United

States, or periods of employment with the United States

Government or with an international organization as that term is

defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any

periods during which such citizen parent is physically present

abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of

the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed

Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States

Government or an international organization as defined in section

288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-

presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be

applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the

same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on

that date; and

A few points about section 1401 – The term citizen at birth is a synonym for natural born citizen.  They are not two different terms, with different meanings.  Either you acquire citizenship status as a consequence of your birth, or you do not, period.  If you do NOT acquire citizenship through birth, the only other way to become a citizen is to be naturalized.  A naturalized citizen is entitled to ALL of the privileges, rights & responsibilities that come with citizenship save one: being qualified to serve as president.

If you are born on U.S. soil, under the jurisdiction of the United States, you are a citizen, regardless of the citizenship status of your parents.  The qualification “under the jurisdiction of the United States” is included to except children of foreign diplomats for example, should they be born here while their parents are serving as representatives of foreign powers.  Every time I hear someone spout-off about how Marco Rubio cannot be president because his parents were not citizens, I roll my eyes.

It is also worth paying attention to section (g) listed above, because it is often misread or misunderstood.  The part of section (g) that begins “Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States..”  is often interpreted to mean that the one parent who is a citizen must ALSO be a member of the armed forces, a government official, etc.  This is not what the section says at all!  This part of the section states that time spent outside U.S. soil  as a member of the military, or serving in some other government sanctioned service will count toward the “time physically present in the United States” requirement of the section.  The bottom-line of section (g) is this: if you were born outside the U.S. but one of your parents is a citizen, and that parent spent at least five years living in the U.S., two of which were after the age of 14, you are a natural born citizen, period.

So what does all this mean?  For starters, it means those who insist Marco Rubio is not qualified to serve as president because he is not a natural born citizen have no clue what they are talking about.  The same goes for Ted Cruz, provided his mother meets the “time living in the U.S.” provision of section (g) above.  The correct, controlling legal definition for this qualification is clearly laid-out in the section of U.S. code law I have linked to above.
One final observation: when you try to read-up on topics like this, sources do matter.  Some guy with a blog, or some attorney with some bizarre sounding legal theory are NOT authoritative sources.  When it comes to law, the ONLY valid source is the published local, state or federal code on the topic.

Comments (426)

write a comment

Comment
Name E-mail Website

  • March 24, 2013 at 4:58 pm DrConspiracy

    “A few points about section 1401 – The term citizen at birth is a synonym for natural born citizen.  They are not two different terms, with different meanings.”
     
    You can say that, and you would probably be right, but there is not 100% agreement in the legal community. A number of scholarly articles have been written about the question of whether a foreign-born citizen can be President, going back at least as far as the time of Mexican-born candidate George Romney, and they generally say that the stronger argument is in favor of “yes” but that there is not 100% agreement on the question.
     
    A 2011 report from the Congressional Research Service puts it clearly:
     
    “Although the eligibility of native born U.S. citizens has been settled law for more than a century,there have been legitimate legal issues raised concerning those born outside of the country to U.S.citizens. From historical material and case law, it appears that the common understanding of the term “natural born” in England and in the American colonies in the 1700s may have included both the strict common law meaning as born in the territory (  jus soli ), as well as the  statutory  laws adopted in England since at least 1350, which included children born abroad to British fathers (  jus sanguinis , the law of descent).”
     
    I agree that sources do matter, and Mr. Conterio’s article cites none of the scholarly discussion on the question, nor justifies the applicability of the US Code to the question.
     
    Here’s a link to the CRS report and a start on an authoritative understanding of the question:
     
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/74176180/Qualifications-for-President-and-the-%E2%80%9CNatural-Born%E2%80%9D-Citizenship-Eligibility-Requirement

    Reply
    • March 24, 2013 at 9:37 pm GregoryConterio

      @DrConspiracy “You can say that, and you would probably be right, but there is not 100% agreement in the legal community.”
      So Dr. Conspiracy, how many issues do you seriously think DO generate 100% agreement in the legal community?
      I have read through many of the arguments on this topic, and tried to apply the thinking and practices of the “originalism” approach, which I do personally favor. As you might imagine, I find them unpersuasive. Actually, I think it goes even a step further than that, I find it to have a “grasping at straws” quality to it. To put it as concisely as I can, the constitution is mum on the definition of the term “natural born,” and an honest assessment of the legal meaning of the term from the time of the founders does not establish a clear, unambiguous definition. The general principle may be clear, but as with many other issues, the world has evolved in ways the founders could not possibly have anticipated, creating the need for a much more clear and precise definition than they could reasonably have crafted at the time. Let me make myself clear, I am not talking about a “living, breathing” interpretation of the constitution, I am talking about a “they may have only had muskets in 1776, but that doesn’t mean the founders only wanted the 2nd amendment to ever apply to those specific weapons” way of interpreting things. For example, the constitution did not address how to treat children of diplomats born on foreign soil. At the time, it was uncommon for diplomats to take wives or families with them when posted overseas. Clearly the times and the circumstances have changed, and the founders wisely accommodated this eventuality by NOT specifically defining the criteria for “natural born” in the constitution itself, and allowing the definition of the term to be tailored via code law as circumstances changed. The founders actually did this in many different ways when they crafted our constitution, this is a great part of its genius.
      So when we come to code law, we find that the term is indeed very clearly defined, and has actually evolved in that definition over time. Trying to argue for overturning or dismissing the statute in favor of a particular, but by no means unique interpretation of the term from the 18th century, an interpretation that is NOT implied or mentioned in any sort of detail by the founders, is a bit of a stretch, don’t you think?

      Reply
      • March 25, 2013 at 6:53 am DrConspiracy

        @GregoryConterio  @DrConspiracy 
         
        While I personally think it quite reasonable that what you said, equating “citizen at birth” with “natural born citizen,” is correct, I cannot cite any legal authority that agrees with that position, and I have searched for it.  It is definitely not the certain, any fool knows, consensus position that you make it out to be.
         
        My second reservation about your article comes from your off-hand rejection of the English common law. It is clear from several Supreme Court decisions (e.g. Smith v. Alabama and Ex Parte Grossman) that terms not otherwise defined in the Constitution derive their meaning from the English Common Law. Personally, I would just as soon define “natural born” according to the Oxford English Dictionary (which would agree with you that natural born means a quality from birth), however, that is not the argument that legal scholars make.
         
        Legal scholars who argue for the eligibility of the foreign-born generally base that argument on the Common Law, saying that the statute of 1300 is so ancient that it is so basic to the English concepts of subjectship as to be essentially part of the Common Law definition.
         
        So let me repeat that I agree with your conclusions, but your argument to arrive at them is in no way a main stream or consensus one. You are providing misinformation by asserting minority opinions as definitions.

        Reply
        • March 25, 2013 at 12:27 pm GregoryConterio

          1. Actually, I have not made it out to be a consensus position. I have not even addressed whether it is a consensus, because my contention is this point is irrelevant. What the law says depends not one bit on what any greater or lesser group of legal acedemics might say it what it is based-on. Academics do not interpret the constitution or the legal code, the courts do. There does not have to be an explicit statement anywhere to the effect that “native born” = “natural born” in order for it still to be true. If you visit the link I provided to Title 8, section 1401, you will see it quite clearly it is entitled “Nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” To attempt to argue that this is NOT a codification of the framer’s term “natural born” or that congress meant something different than that term when they wrote the code is a losing-battle, as you yourself imply.
          2. Where have I “rejected” English Common Law? I refer to it directly in the original post, and explain in detail its role in interpreting in my previous response. I would point-out that your exmaple of Supreme Court decisions recognizing Common Law errs in one particular and important detail: When a term is not defined by the constitution, the court may give deference to its Common Law meaning if that term is NOT defined elsewhere more contemporarily in U.S. law. The role of the SCOTUS is to interpret the intent of congress, and when congress spells-out that intent it matters not one bit whether it is consistent with meanings attributable to Common Law. In other words, the SCOTUS does not overturn laws because they think congress employed the wrong word in a definition. In the case of the term “natural born,” I have demonstrated that it clearly is.
          With all due respect, to state that citing unambiguous, controlling legal authority spelled-out within the U.S. code is not “main-stream”, or “reflective of consensus” (which is irrelevent) or that it constitutes “misinformation” is absurd.

          Reply
        • March 25, 2013 at 4:35 pm biblio

          The point, sir, is that there IS no “unambiguous, controlling legal authority spelled-out within the U.S. code” that says for sure and certain that citizen-at-birth and natural-born citizen are equivalent. I think most folks agree that they are, but until either Congress clarifies the law or there is actually a court decision covering a Ted Cruz or George Romney or John McCain situation (born abroad with U.S. citizenship), there’s simply no controlling legal authority for the proposition. That’s what the Congressional Research Service and Doc C are getting at and you are overlooking.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 7:17 am MarkGillar

          @DrConspiracy  @GregoryConterio
           So now you’re a lawer too C?  Simply Amazing.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 7:34 am GregoryConterio

          @MarkGillar @DrConspiracy
          You imply that only a lawyer can understand or discuss the law. I thought civics was still required in high school!

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 7:43 am MarkGillar

          @GregoryConterio  @MarkGillar  @DrConspiracy
           Oh so taking a high school civics class qualifies one to discuss what even legal experts agree is a bit of tricky legal issue?  Sure, why not?  Next we’ll have kids who took a high school biology class discussing brain transplants.  C is an self-appointed expert on everything.  Our history goes back a way.  I’ll thank you to stay out of it.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 7:46 am GregoryConterio

          @biblio
          Do you seriously mean to say that there are two deliberate, distinct meanings, because nowhere does it say THAT either.
          If the general contention that Cruz & Rubio are NOT “natural-born” within the meaning of Article II, then it seems to me the burden of proof is on those so claiming, because Title 8, 1401 U.S. Code clearly lays forth the criteria defining the two classifications of citizen, and does NOT make an explicit exception for Article II.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 7:51 am GregoryConterio

          @MarkGillar
          So only those who are “qualified” should be permitted to read and comment upon history and the law, and all the rest of us need to just keep-quite, and allow our betters to hold forth on topics which are clearly way over our heads.
          Seems to me that is rather why we wrote a constitution in the first place.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 7:54 am MarkGillar

          @GregoryConterio  @MarkGillar
           My history with C and his boys goes way back.  C is a self appointed expert on everything from clipping masks, layer construction, and postal stamps to constitutional law.  Get’s a bit old at times.  Sorry to bring our fight on to your page.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 8:10 am GregoryConterio

          @MarkGillar
          I’m sorry Mr. Gillar, you have me at a loss. If we really go “way back,” I have no recollection of it. In fact, I have no idea at all who you are.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 8:37 am SunlightDisinfectant

          @GregoryConterio  @biblio I apologize for the cut and paste..Every President and Vice-President born after the ratification of the Constitution, was born to citizen parents(plural), with the exception of Chester Alan Arthur, who was not elected and burned his records.  Coinky-dink?Your thoughts Greg?

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 9:58 pm DrConspiracy

          @MarkGillar  @GregoryConterio 
          No, I’m just a guy with a blog, but I can spell “lawyer.”

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 10:00 pm DrConspiracy

          @MarkGillar  @GregoryConterio 
          At least I never faked Vital Statistics manuals, like some folks I know.

          Reply
        • March 27, 2013 at 8:46 pm AlCum

          @SunlightDisinfectant @GregoryConterio @biblio

          Reply
        • March 27, 2013 at 8:48 pm AlCum

          @SunlightDisinfectant @GregoryConterio @biblio There is no relationship between the prior presidents having citizen parents, other than Arthur, and any notion that this is a requirement. There is zero historical support for any such notion.

          Reply
    • March 26, 2013 at 7:12 am MarkGillar

      @DrConspiracy
       Mr. Furgeson how are you?

      Reply
  • March 25, 2013 at 10:21 pm SunlightDisinfectant

    Why Obama Is an Illegal Usurper For IDIOTS.http://youtu.be/gijkHBSs8gILies of omission and intentional obfuscation by cherrypickers…You CANNOT debunk Sheriff Arpaios investigation into Soetoro’s POORLY forged BC and Selective Service Card.

    Reply
    • March 26, 2013 at 3:43 am WesternFreePress

      @SunlightDisinfectant I don’t believe the author was addressing Obama’s situation; rather, he was attempting to sort out some legal definitions. In terms of people, his focus appears to be on establishing Ted Cruz’s and Marco Rubio’s eligibility rather than Barack Obama’s ineligibility.

      Reply
      • March 26, 2013 at 6:22 am dleeper47

        @WesternFreePress@SunlightDisinfectant
        Crudely stated by Sunlight perhaps, but correct on one salient point: Barack Obama’s White House posted two documents on the White House website that have been proven to be forgeries with 100% certainty.
         
        What does it say about the character of Barack Obama to have foisted forgeries on We-the-People?  He has defiled and debased both the White House and the Office of the Presidency.  Why do so few people care about just that and that alone?  Forgery on a grand scale is not sufficient for just a little righteous anger from the electorate?  Watergate was more important? Clinton’s dalliances?
         
        What does it say about the Press, even Fox, that not one journalist will ask the President or his spokespersons this one simple question:  Does Barack Obama stand by those documents as genuine?  Yes, or no?

        Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 6:28 am WesternFreePress

          @dleeper47  @SunlightDisinfectant The big thing that has always freaked me out in this whole category of inquiry is his Social Security number. It starts with 042, which is the number you get when your SS # is issued in Connecticut. But was never living in CT . . . .

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 7:14 am HistorianDude

          @WesternFreePress  @dleeper47  @SunlightDisinfectant SSNs have never been issued based upon where a person lived. When Obama received his, they were based on the zip-code from where the application was mailed. A single digit typo by a data entry clerk completely accounts for Obama’s Honolulu zip-code (96810) being mistaken for Danbury, Connecticut (06810). There is roughly a 1 in 10,000 chance of it having any other explanation.Not that Obama has filed his income and payroll taxes with this number for more than 35 years. Nether the SSA or the IRS appears to have objected.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 7:18 am MarkGillar

          @HistorianDude  @WesternFreePress  @dleeper47  @SunlightDisinfectant
           Accept for the fact that being over the age of twelve he would have had to apply for it in person.  How did it get mailed back to him if he the SSA had the wrong ZIP?

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 7:33 am dleeper47

          @HistorianDude  @WesternFreePress  @SunlightDisinfectant Clearly SSNs *have* been issued in blocks assigned to locations at some point in time.  
           
          My SSN begins with 0 because I got it as a teenager in Western Massachusetts.  My friends all got similar numbers. Twice, identity thieves have offered my SSN when trying to open a cell phone account with Verizon.  Where were the thieves from?  Western Massachusetts. They chose a number that would look like one commonly found in that area.
           
          Whether it was deliberate or not for the SSA to tie SSNs to certain parts of the country, the procedure for handing out numbers did create a correlation with location.
           
          This is just one of the points raising suspicion about Obama’s version of his past.  Others are stronger.
           
          But at this point I don’t care so much about the identity fraud he committed *before* he was president as I do the identity fraud he has perpetrated *while* he’s been president.
           
          History will judge us as fools not to called out Obama for committing identity fraud as a sitting president.  Shame on all of us for our collective silence.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 7:35 am HistorianDude

          @MarkGillar  @WesternFreePress  @dleeper47  @SunlightDisinfectant Nonsense. I applied for my SSN at the age of 17 in 1973. I applied by mail.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 7:38 am HistorianDude

          @MarkGillar  @WesternFreePress  @dleeper47  @SunlightDisinfectant Re: “How did it get mailed back to him if he (sic) the SSA had the wrong zip?”Answer: Even today, the USPS has no problem delivering mail with a wrong or completely missing zip-code. An otherwise correct street address with “Honolulu, Hawaii” would eventually get to the right address regardless of what zip-code was appended.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 7:44 am MarkGillar

          @HistorianDude  @WesternFreePress  @dleeper47  @SunlightDisinfectant
           So it’s just another one of those paperwork snafus that just seems to follow Barck Obama around on every single piece of paperwork important to supporting the fake story in Dreams from my father.  Let’s save the rest for the show.  Again, I look forward to it.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 7:47 am MarkGillar

          @HistorianDude  @WesternFreePress  @dleeper47  @SunlightDisinfectant
           You would think the SSA would be as good at that as the post office.  Noting the Hawaiian return address, they would have given him a Hawaiian number.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 7:48 am MarkGillar

          @HistorianDude  @WesternFreePress  @dleeper47  @SunlightDisinfectant
           If you didn’t apply in 77 what’s your point.  That SSN application rules never change?  At this point let’s save it for the show.  I can’t wait to hear your BS regarding the computer anomalies.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 8:05 am HistorianDude

          @MarkGillar  @WesternFreePress  @dleeper47  @SunlightDisinfectant Paperwork “snafus” follow all of us. That’s what the “n” in “snafu” stands for. My father’s birth certificate has at least three mistakes on it to include a wrong first name. My mother’s has both her Christian and family name misspelled. Anyone who has spent any time doing family history (as an aside, that’s the origin of my screen name) is painfully familiar with the errors that riddle paperwork. And anyone whose records have been combed with teeth as fine as Obama’s has will find a comparable number of them. Welcome to the human condition.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 8:05 am dleeper47

          @HistorianDude  @MarkGillar  @WesternFreePress  @SunlightDisinfectant So what?  I applied at age 15 in 1962.  The only way to get a number then was to go to the SSA office in person and show a birth certificate.
           
          How do you think the SSA avoided accidentally issuing duplicate numbers in those days?  The internet?  They assigned numbers to various offices in blocks, and the administrators chose the next number in sequence from that block.  Simple.  It worked.
           
          Your statement that “SSNs have never been issued based upon where a person lived” is blatantly false.  Plain and simple.  Never is a long time.  Defacto, they have been assigned that way. Do you think history began on your birthday?  Do you think that because you got your number by mail that everybody did?
           
          Now, do you care to correct or amend your claim regarding “never”?  Or do you wish to go on being the billboard of your own buffoonery?

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 8:06 am HistorianDude

          @MarkGillar  @WesternFreePress  @dleeper47  @SunlightDisinfectant You apparently have had little exposure to high volume data entry operations.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 8:07 am HistorianDude

          @MarkGillar  @WesternFreePress  @dleeper47  @SunlightDisinfectant My point is that your claim that someone had to apply in person for a SSN after age 12 is (as far as I can tell) a complete fabrication.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 8:52 am cehughes

          @MarkGillar  @HistorianDude  @WesternFreePress  @dleeper47  @SunlightDisinfectant
           How did it get mailed back to him?
           
          You really have no confidence in the Post Office do you?
           
          Ok, how would the Post office handle a letter with this address:
           
          Barack Obama
          1016 Beretania Street
          Honolulu, Hawaii 06814
           
          In the 1970s the optical character readers used in the Post Office went by CITY, STATE, ZIP.  The reader would have kicked out this mismatched zip code and a human Post Office Employee would look up the address and see that it existed in Honolulu, Hawaii.  He/she would have corrected it and sent it on.
           
          IIRC, in the 1970’s, he would not have had to appear in person.  I believe that started in 1978 or later.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 9:08 am SunlightDisinfectant

          @cehughes  @MarkGillar  @HistorianDude  @WesternFreePress  @dleeper47 Oh…well that explains the forged BC and Selective Service Card. Knock them straw men down!

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 9:12 am HistorianDude

          @dleeper47  @MarkGillar  @WesternFreePress  @SunlightDisinfectant First, check the SSA website. The laws for application changed in 1972. What you experienced in 1962 was not the same as what Obama (and I) experienced more than ten years later.Second. read further and notice what the SSA actually says about both 1962 and 1972. When you applied, numbers were issued based on where you applied, not where you lived. Of course, those circumstances would usually correlate… but not always. After 1972, applications were made by mail to the single office in Baltimore, and numbers were issued based on the zip-code from where the registration was mailed. Again, those circumstances would usually correlate, but not always.To sum: Prior to 1972, numbers were assigned based on “where the card was applied for.” After 1973, they were assigned based on “the zip-code from where the registration was mailed.” At no time was the number ever assigned based on “where a person lived.” The SSA never even asked that question.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 9:13 am cehughes

          @SunlightDisinfectant  @MarkGillar  @HistorianDude  @WesternFreePress  @dleeper47
           
          His Selective Service registration was verified by the Selective Service  Administration in February and August of 2008. An image of his SSR card was  released to the public in October, 2008. That’s during the Bush Administration.
           
          President Obama’s SSR card has a 10 digit Document Locator Number (DLN) stamped  on it. Other SSR cards from the same Post Office, from the same time period  (July/August, 1980) have similar 10 digit DLNs.
           
          Date – JUL 31 1980 DLN –  0897 080 653 (Darrel Oniwa)
          Date – JUL 29 1980 DLN – 0897 080 632 (Barack  Obama)
          Date – AUG 02 1980 DLN – 0897 080 613 (Bruce Henderson)
           
          So for  the theory to be correct – the forger would have had to do the  following:
           
          1) Obtain a 1980 era SSR card.
          2) Obtain a obsolete, round  Makiki Station Post Office hand stamp.
          3) Obtain a 1980s era DLN.
          4) Make  two microfilm images of the document.
          5) Break into the Selective Service  System’s computer database and insert President Obama’s info.
          6) Break into  two Federal Data Centers and splice their microfilm image onto the rolls of  microfilm.
           
          But his same group could not find a 19xx date plug????? Think  about it, they would not even have to find a 1980 plug. A 1970 plug or a 1975  plug or a 19anything plug would do as they would just cut off the first two  digits.
           
          But if you really think about it since they only needed two microfilm  images to splice onto the original microfilm rolls, they wouldn’t even need a  real SSR card or hand stamp or date plug, they could have just photoshopped an  image and made a microfilm image of that.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 9:17 am cehughes

          @HistorianDude  @dleeper47  @MarkGillar  @WesternFreePress  @SunlightDisinfectant
           
          “The 1972 Amendments to the Social Security Act also tightened the issuance procedure by requiring that applicants provide evidence of age, identity, and citizenship or alien status when applying for an original SSN. This legislation authorized the issuance of SSN’s to children below school age at the request of their parents or guardian and to children of school age at the time of their first enrollment. At the beginning of the program, persons under age 17 did not have to meet these requirements. In 1978, however, instructions were given to the field offices requiring all persons applying for an original SSN, regardless of age, to submit satisfactory proof of age, identity, and citizenship or alien status. For persons aged 17 or older, a personal interview was required.”
           
          “Social Security Numbers Issued: A 20-Year Review” Social Security Bulletin, Volume 56, no 1, Spring 1993

          Reply
        • March 29, 2013 at 3:38 pm Dr Kenneth Noisewater

          @MarkGillar  No it’s just marky boy lying again about what happened.  It just speaks to your literal lack of character Mark.  Let us know when you’re free of the bonds that is Jerome Corsi

          Reply
        • March 30, 2013 at 12:18 am Monkey Boy

          @dleeper47  @WesternFreePress  @SunlightDisinfectant 
          <i>What does it say about the Press, even Fox, that not one journalist will ask the President or his spokespersons this one simple question:  Does Barack Obama stand by those documents as genuine?</i>
           
          What does it say about your intelligence that a network that made and is making fortunes by hating on President Obama won’t touch these ridiculous allegations? 
           
          Answer:  That you are either an abject fool, or a shameless liar.

          Reply
        • March 30, 2013 at 12:20 am Monkey Boy

          @WesternFreePress  @dleeper47  @SunlightDisinfectant 
          Rocket Scientist…Connecticut doesn’t issue SS#s.  They are issued from a central office in Baltimore.
           
          Try to keep up.

          Reply
        • March 30, 2013 at 6:22 am dleeper47

          @Monkey Boy  @WesternFreePress  @SunlightDisinfectant 
          So do *you* maintain that the documents posted on the White House website in April, 2011, are scans of genuine paper documents?  Yes or no?
           
          A better “defense” of Obama than anything you’ve written here is the defense offered by the President’s own attorney.  She said, in court, approximately:   ‘So what if it isn’t genuine?  He didn’t offer it to fulfill any requirements for obtaining office.  So it’s moot.”
           
          Do you agree with her?  I do.  At least as far as running for office.  But if they’re fakes constructed on a computer, as has been shown by document forensics teams far more qualified than you or I, then at least it goes to impeach the character of the president you worship, no?
           
          To me, character in a president is important.  To you, evidently, it is not.  So be it. I can live with that if you can.

          Reply
        • March 30, 2013 at 2:07 pm HistorianDude

          @dleeper47  @Monkey Boy  @WesternFreePress  @SunlightDisinfectant 1. Yes. I maintain that the documents posted on the Whitehouse website are scans of genuine paper documents.  2. You are lying about what the President’s lawyer said in court. She never asked “So what if it isn’t genuine.” I do agree with what she actually said, that the fake expert Apuzzo wanted to testify would not be testifying about anything having to do with the actual case. The judge agreed with her. So, apparently, did Apuzzo.

          Reply
        • March 30, 2013 at 5:53 pm AlCum

          @dleeper47   No “document forensics team” has ever determined the WH documents are fakes or forgeries. Indeed, it is not even possible that the BC on the White House site is forged. Hawaii has publicly authenticated it. That very act makes your claim ludicrous.

          Reply
        • March 30, 2013 at 5:56 pm AlCum

          @dleeper47   It is not even possible for the BC to be a forgery. Hawaii has publicly authenticated it; that act makes your claim ludicrous on its face. Do you not even understand this fact?

          Reply
      • March 26, 2013 at 7:49 am SunlightDisinfectant

        @WesternFreePress Conterio’s blather is heavily laced with ridicule. Why does he need to use it?So much for “straight news and strong opinion”….

        Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 9:14 am HistorianDude

          @SunlightDisinfectant  @WesternFreePress As Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.”

          Reply
        • March 29, 2013 at 9:27 am gshevlin

          @SunlightDisinfectant  @WesternFreePress When a proposition is utterly ridiculous and without any redeeming merit, ridicule is, by defiinition, the correct response.

          Reply
    • March 26, 2013 at 7:09 am HistorianDude

      @SunlightDisinfectant To debunk Sheriff Arpaio’s :investigation” has never been a particularly difficult task. This stems primarily from the fact that it has always been a transparent farce, merely a veneer over the regurgitation of long debunked birther theories going back more than four years. The “investigation” is little more than an extended marketing campaign for World Net Daily.http://www.scribd.com/doc/116752480/The-Annotated-Zullo

      Reply
      • March 26, 2013 at 7:21 am MarkGillar

        @HistorianDude  @SunlightDisinfectant
         History dude, you are welcome to provide me with your real name and come on my show and debate me on any of the evidence videos shown at Arpaio’s March 1, 2012 and July 17th 2012 press conferences.   http://www.teapartypowerhour.com  I’m not sure what is with Obots using fake names.  Dr. C, RC, P.J. Foggy etc…  It’s almost like your all so ashamed of what your’e saying that you want to hide behind an internet nick.  Here’s my email address, mark@teapartypowerhour.com .  I can’t wait for your correspondence.

        Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 7:44 am HistorianDude

          @MarkGillar  @SunlightDisinfectant USerIDs on internet forums have been traditional since the pre-web days of UseNet. Both Obots and birthers use them regardless of whether or not they desire anonimity. Neither Doc C, nor Foggy, nor I have ever used them to hide our identities. Your complaint here is a tad petulant.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 7:45 am MarkGillar

          @HistorianDude  @SunlightDisinfectant
          I know most of the major OBOTs true identities.  Not the names they say are their real names, but their actual real names.  So what’s your name Mr. I’m not hiding my real name?

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 7:53 am HistorianDude

          @MarkGillar  @SunlightDisinfectant Frank Arduini.

          Reply
        • March 29, 2013 at 7:41 am HistorianDude

          @MarkGillar  @SunlightDisinfectant Mark Gillar has now formally rescinded the invitation and cancelled the debate, ostensibly at the request of the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse. The challenge was made here and accepted here, and formalized over s number of emails earlier this week. The challenger appears to have gotten cold feet.

          Reply
        • March 29, 2013 at 10:07 am cehughes

          @HistorianDude  @MarkGillar  @SunlightDisinfectant
           As butterdezillion might say, “Mark Gillar has now indirectly confirmed that the MCCP knows that their investigation is a pile of crap.”

          Reply
        • March 29, 2013 at 11:38 am realitycheck1776

          @cehughes  @HistorianDude  @MarkGillar  @SunlightDisinfectant lol

          Reply
        • March 29, 2013 at 11:51 am realitycheck1776

          @HistorianDude  @MarkGillar  @SunlightDisinfectant Gillar has claimed that his only connection with the CCP investigation was that he was asked to do narration on a few videos. He said that when Zullo got caught trying to pass the 1968-69 race codes as valid for 1961. If that is the case why is Gillar allowing Zullo to call the shots on who he has on his Blog Talk show?

          Reply
      • March 26, 2013 at 7:30 am SunlightDisinfectant

        @HistorianDude There is nothing in that Scribd doc. that actually  debunks Arpaio’s findings. In fact, it doesn’t even address the POORLY forged Selective Service Card.

        Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 7:42 am HistorianDude

          @SunlightDisinfectant That’s simply because it addresses Zullo’s affidavit which never mentions the Selective Service Registration.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 7:52 am SunlightDisinfectant

          @HistorianDude Cherry picking…

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 7:54 am HistorianDude

          @SunlightDisinfectant Every single paragraph in Zullo’s affidavit is addressed. If I have “cherry picked” then I have stripped the tree bare.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 8:05 am SunlightDisinfectant

          The Selective Service forgery is the most damning of them all.Let me be clear…1. Soetoro’s BC is forged.2.  Soetoro’s Selective Service Card is forged.3. Soetoro’s SSN is fraudulent.And you say….hmmm…. or rather hide behind…1. Newspaper birth announcement2. Hawaii  Department of Health has verified3. Full Faith and Credit Clause

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 8:12 am SunlightDisinfectant

          There are hundreds of affidavits from experts including Mara Zebest, Paul Irey and Doug Vogt.Your Scrib doc does not address the almost 200 anomalies in the forged BC.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 8:14 am HistorianDude

          @SunlightDisinfectant The President’s Selective Service Registration was released (to a birther) in October 2008, directly from the SSS and during the Bush administration.  It has been repeatedly verified as authentic by the SSS themselves. This includes in responses to the MCCCP.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 8:18 am HistorianDude

          @SunlightDisinfectant Ignoring for just one moment that neither Zebest, Irey nor Vogt have any claim to being “experts” in digital document forensics, the “almost 200 anomalies” of which you speak are the functional equivalent of being stoned to death with popcorn. How many of them need to be debunked before the generally credibility and competence of the critic has been fully impeached?

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 8:30 am SunlightDisinfectant

          @HistorianDude The Soetoro Selective Service Card is the ONLY one with a two-digit year stamp. Stop.Let that resonate.Repeat.The Soetoro Selective Service Card is the ONLY one with a two-digit year stamp.Address this please…

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 8:57 am cehughes

          @SunlightDisinfectant  @HistorianDude
           
          His Selective Service registration was verified by the Selective Service Administration in February and August of 2008. An image of his SSR card was released to the public in October, 2008. That’s during the Bush Administration.
           
          President Obama’s SSR card has a 10 digit Document Locator Number (DLN) stamped on it. Other SSR cards from the same Post Office, from the same time period (July/August, 1980) have similar 10 digit DLNs.
           
          Date – JUL 31 1980 DLN – 0897 080 653 (Darrel Oniwa)
          Date – JUL 29 1980 DLN – 0897 080 632 (Barack Obama)
          Date – AUG 02 1980 DLN – 0897 080 613 (Bruce Henderson)
           
          So for the theory to be correct – the forger would have had to do the following:
           
          1) Obtain a 1980 era SSR card.
          2) Obtain a obsolete, round Makiki Station Post Office hand stamp.
          3) Obtain a 1980s era DLN.
          4) Make two microfilm images of the document.
          5) Break into the Selective Service System’s computer database and insert President Obama’s info.
          6) Break into two Federal Data Centers and splice their microfilm image onto the rolls of microfilm.
           
          But his same group could not find a 19xx date plug????? Think about it, they would not even have to find a 1980 plug. A 1970 plug or a 1975 plug or a 19anything plug would do as they would just cut off the first two digits.
           
          But if you really think about it since they only needed two microfilm images to splice onto the original microfilm rolls, they wouldn’t even need a real SSR card or hand stamp or date plug, they could have just photoshopped an image and made a microfilm image of that.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 9:17 am HistorianDude

          @SunlightDisinfectant Unless you are omniscient, you are in no position to claim that it is “the ONLY one with a two-digit year stamp.” It is at best the only one you know about, but it’s probably also safe to assume you have seen only a very small sample of the hundreds of millions of SSN registrations that have been made over the last century.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 9:18 am SunlightDisinfectant

          @cehughes  @HistorianDude Barry Soetoro’s is still the ONLY one with a two digit stamp. Which part of ONLY do you not understand..Keep knocking them straw men down!

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 9:18 am HistorianDude

          @SunlightDisinfectant  @cehughes Again, it is the only one you know about. That’s the full extent of any claim you can make.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 9:20 am SunlightDisinfectant

          @cehughes  @HistorianDude Find me one in Hawaii and then get back to me…You’d think a well paid government Obot would’ve found one by now…dontcha think?

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 9:25 am HistorianDude

          @SunlightDisinfectant  @cehughes Whether you believe it or not, the “well paid government Obots” are not wasted on debunking the birther movement. That job is left to us motivated amateurs. I’m happy to go to Hawaii and find one for you, but you’ll have to pony up for the travel expenses.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 9:26 am cehughes

          @SunlightDisinfectant  @HistorianDude
           
          How do you know it is missing the first two digits.  You are seeing a copy of a microfilm image.  The Post Office Stamp on President Obama’s SSR card is missing the first “O” and second “L” in Honolulu.
           
          Couldn’t the forger find them either?
           
          Hand ink stamps can easily leave some letters or numbers faint or missing, poor ink transfer could result in missing letters or numbers.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 9:27 am SunlightDisinfectant

          Zullo looked …couldn’t  find one. Good luck.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 9:28 am SunlightDisinfectant

          @cehughes  @HistorianDude “Hand ink stamps can easily leave some letters or numbers faint or missing, poor ink transfer could result in missing letters or numbers.”LOL!!!Alright now…

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 9:29 am SunlightDisinfectant

          @cehughes  @HistorianDude Better let CE handle it newbie…

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 9:29 am MarkGillar

          @cehughes  @SunlightDisinfectant  @HistorianDude
          Frank and I will be debating all of this in a couple of weeks.  I have an answer for that, but I’ll share it with Frank then.  BTW, I’m not a huge Bush fan.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 9:31 am cehughes

          @SunlightDisinfectant
           
          Zullo also said that Charles Bennett wrote an article about Hawaii’s issuance of birth certificates and the article was written 10 years ago and backs up his theories how certificate numbers are added to the BC.
           
          Zullo also said that Federal codes in 1961 for race of father are “not stated”.
           
          Zullo also said that President Obama’s BC certification number is out of order.
           
          All of those have been shown to be false.
           
          HWy would anyone believe anything he says?

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 9:34 am cehughes

          @SunlightDisinfectant  @HistorianDude
           
          And yet you still haven’t explained how President Obama obtained a 10digit DLN number from the 1980s.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 9:37 am HistorianDude

          @SunlightDisinfectant There is no evidence (at least public evidence) that Zullo looked very hard.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 9:37 am cehughes

          @HistorianDude  @SunlightDisinfectant
           
          Zullo’s affidavit doesn’t address Johann Ah’Nee’s August 23rd birth certificate either

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 9:46 am SunlightDisinfectant

          @cehughes Soetoro’s Marxist thugs would LOVE to take down Sheriff Arpaio anyway they could and this “info” would be their ticket.But they won’t…Go figger…Forged BC + Forged Selective  Service+ Fraudulent SSN + Soetoro’s pathological lies + Alinskyite ridicule + etc/ Apply Occam’s Razor=Orange jumpsuits for everyone involved.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 9:50 am SunlightDisinfectant

          @cehughes  @HistorianDude It doesn’t have too..The photoshopped BC and backdated forged Selective Service is enough. Did you vote for the dude that said his parents met in Selma?Remember that one CE?

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 9:51 am cehughes

          @SunlightDisinfectant  @cehughes
           
          None of the Sheriff’s findings will ever be submitted to any court. 
           
          The previous Maricopa DA told the Sheriff that he doesn’t have enough evidence to get a conviction.
           
          President Obama will finish his term, write books, go on the lecture circuit and make millions of dollars.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 9:53 am cehughes

          @SunlightDisinfectant  @HistorianDude
           
          “The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious.” Dr. Neal Krawetz (PhD in computer science).
           
           “In summary I can only say I see much stronger signs of common MRC algorithmic processing of the image rather than some intentional manipulation.” Professor Ricardo L. de Queiroz (Xerox imaging expert, professor of computer science)

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 9:57 am SunlightDisinfectant

          @cehughes  @HistorianDude Oh now the projection starts….You’ve ceded the field.Go back and study up more CE…You’ve chosen ideology, political partisanship and perhaps even skin color over the truth.Good luck with your grandchildren. I’m sure they’ll love to hear your reasons as you look them in the eye, eh?It’s been real..Dr. Neal Krawetz  Professor Ricardo L. de Queiroz…Who are these people?  Get their sign affidavits over to MSNBC and CNN right away!

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 9:59 am cehughes

          @SunlightDisinfectant  @HistorianDude
           
          Who are Zebest, Vogt, Irey and the rest of the pretend experts.
           
          By the why – Irey and Vogt testified in two different courts and the judges said they are not experts

          Reply
        • March 29, 2013 at 7:43 am HistorianDude

          @MarkGillar  @cehughes  @SunlightDisinfectant This is no loner true. MArk Gillar and I will not be debating this. Mark Gillar has formally backed out at the request of the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse. Too bad. It would have been interesting.

          Reply
        • March 29, 2013 at 9:32 am gshevlin

          @cehughes  @SunlightDisinfectant  @HistorianDude There are “hundreds of affidavits” from the claimed experts, yet the lawsuit result count, the last time I looked, was 0-198. Time to either get better lawyers and experts, or try different tactics. A lot of people rowing this boat are more than meeting the classic definition of madness.

          Reply
        • March 29, 2013 at 11:40 am realitycheck1776

          @SunlightDisinfectant  @HistorianDude It is obvious from your comments that you didn’t read it.

          Reply
        • March 29, 2013 at 11:43 am realitycheck1776

          @cehughes  @SunlightDisinfectant  @HistorianDude Irey’s “testimony” in Indiana in Orly’s case was completely tossed.

          Reply
        • March 30, 2013 at 8:40 am DrConspiracy

          @realitycheck1776  @cehughes  @SunlightDisinfectant  @HistorianDude 
          The transcript of that hearing is very instructive. When Taitz put on one of her expert witnesses, the defense challenged pretty much everything they said as being incompetent, and challenged the expertise of the witness. That is would happen in any trial with a self-credentialed expert, unrecognized as an expert by anybody else. The judge didn’t rule on those objections, but instead vacated the entire proceeding.
           
          In Georgia, Taitz got in similar testimony for two reasons: no defense attorney showed up, and the rules allow administrative law judges in Georgia to hear inexpert testimony. In that case the judge, in his decision, called them unqualified.
           
          What one observes is that birthers have no expert testimony. The reason is not the Zullo excuse (which is by the way a lie) that no expert will touch the subject. The reason is that no expert agrees with the birthers.
           
          In fact, birther image analysis is basically: look at the document in more and more detail until they reach something they don’t know enough to explain–then call it proof of forgery, when it is actually proof of their own incompetence.

          Reply
    • March 26, 2013 at 9:59 am MarkGillar

      @SunlightDisinfectant

      Reply
      • March 26, 2013 at 10:01 am cehughes

        @MarkGillar  @SunlightDisinfectant

        Reply
      • March 26, 2013 at 10:03 am cehughes

        @MarkGillar  @SunlightDisinfectant
         
        “The 1972 Amendments to the Social Security Act also tightened the issuance procedure by requiring that applicants provide evidence of age, identity, and citizenship or alien status when applying for an original SSN. This legislation authorized the issuance of SSN’s to children below school age at the request of their parents or guardian and to children of school age at the time of their first enrollment. At the beginning of the program, persons under age 17 did not have to meet these requirements. In 1978, however, instructions were given to the field offices requiring all persons applying for an original SSN, regardless of age, to submit satisfactory proof of age, identity, and citizenship or alien status. For persons aged 17 or older, a personal interview was required.”
         
        “Social Security Numbers Issued: A 20-Year Review” Social Security Bulletin, Volume 56, no 1, Spring 1993

        Reply
  • March 26, 2013 at 6:11 am TellTheTruth1

    A VERY GOOD REBUTTAL:  (snip)
    Mr. Conterio’s sole source for his definition of a “natural born Citizen” is Congressional statutes (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401 et seq.). He cites and quotes those statutes and while conceding that they at most only declare persons to be “citizens of the United States” at birth, he says that Congress’s expression has the equivalent constitutional meaning as a “natural born Citizen.” There are several problems with Mr. Conterio’s argument.  
     
    First, given that the Founders and Framers inserted the “natural born Citizen” clause into the Constitution and they must have had a purpose for doing so, the clause had to have a specific meaning. As we shall see below, that meaning was a child born in a country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. The fact that there was in the Constitutional Convention no debate on the meaning of the clause gives us more evidence that the clause must have had a settled meaning. We also know that the Founders and Framers relied upon the clause to keep foreign influence and royalty out of the office of President and Commander in Chief. The historical record shows that the Founders and Framers were most concerned about foreign influence invading the administration of our new government. So, while they did have a concern with royalty occupying the office of President, the purpose for using the “natural born Citizen” clause was broader. As John Jay stated in his famous July 25, 1787 letter to then-General George Washington, he proposed that the Commander in Chief of the Military be a “natural born Citizen” so as to provide a “strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government.” The historical record contains statements from other Founders, Framers, and commentators as to the need to keep foreign influence out of the Office of President and Commander in Chief. Moreover, even assuming that the purpose was only to keep royalty out of the White House, the Founders and Framers would have required that a child be born to parents who were U.S. citizens to make sure that their child at the moment of birth did not inherit from either one of his parents titles of royalty or nobility.   
     
    More: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/03/senator-ted-cruz-is-not-natural-born.html

    Reply
    • March 26, 2013 at 6:49 am GregoryConterio

      @TellTheTruth1
      I am actually quite familiar with the material you have referenced here, yet this all renders down to a single, very simple question: is there an objective distinction between the term “natural born citizen” as employed in Article II of the constitution, and the term “citizen at birth” as employed by congress when it wrote section 1401 of Title 8 of the U.S. Code?
      The fact is, despite the implied intent of the founders & framers, they did not give us a clear, specific definition of the citizenship requirement for the office of president. Instead, they used a term that even in common law had an evolving definition. As you say, they must have had a purpose for doing this. It would have been a simple matter to include a couple more lines in Article II in order to make clear any specific requirements they had in mind, but they did not, instead employing a term whose meaning was known to have evolved, and which had different meaning in different contexts.
      In order for the law to be interpreted in a way that would disqualify people like Cruz and Rubio from the presidency, you would have to accept that :
      1. The founders wanted a fixed, unchanging definition of the citizenship requirement, despite employing a general, non-specific term to describe it.
      2. That in writing section 1401, congress intended to create a completely new and separate definition for a class of citizenship with a meaning distinctly different from “natural born” yet consistent with the general meaning of that term in every material and objective way, and without explicitly saying that was its purpose and intent for the section.
      How likely does that really seem to you?

      Reply
      • March 26, 2013 at 7:29 am HistorianDude

        @GregoryConterio  @TellTheTruth1 Regarding the Framer’s intention in terms of the meaning of the common law term-of-art “natural-born citizen,” when passing their first uniform rule of naturalization in 1790, the Congress (which consisted at the time overwhelmingly of men who had written the Constitution just three years earlier) asserted that “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.” It is rather patently proved that they would have considered Ted Cruz o be NBC.

        Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 8:19 am SunlightDisinfectant

          @HistorianDude  @GregoryConterio  @TellTheTruth1 Here’s one for ya…Every President and Vice-President born after the ratificaton of the Constitution, was born to citizen parents(plural), with the exception of Chester Alan Arthur, who was not elected and burned his records.Coinky-dink?

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 8:44 am SunlightDisinfectant

          @HistorianDude  @GregoryConterio  @TellTheTruth1 Hello? Is this thing on? Anyone?….Bueller?

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 9:04 am HistorianDude

          @SunlightDisinfectant  @GregoryConterio  @TellTheTruth1 Somehow though, he failed to burn the records that would have concealed anything having to do with the citizenship of his parents. Those still exist and are public record. So yes, as far as the birther theories go, it was clearly just a coinky-dink.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 9:06 am cehughes

          @SunlightDisinfectant  @HistorianDude  @GregoryConterio  @TellTheTruth1
           
          By that same logic we would have to assume that women are not eligible to be President. 
           
          Considering that up until very recently the Presidency has been exclusively male, white and protestant, it is not that surprising.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 10:26 am SunlightDisinfectant

          @HistorianDude@GregoryConterio@TellTheTruth1The truth is he deliberately burned his records.
          “He had all of his papers burned which was very odd for a President.
          Arthur lied about his mother’s time in Canada.  He lied about his father’s time in Canada.  He lied about his father’s age plus where and when he got off the boat from Ireland.  By obscuring his parents’ personal history he curtailed the possibility that anybody might discover he was born many years before his father had naturalized.
          When Chester runs for VP, Hinman comes along essentially demanding to see Chester’s birth certificate to prove he was born in the United States.  This causes a minor scandal easily thwarted by Chester, because Chester was born in Vermont…but at the same time, the fake scandal provides cover for the real scandal.”
          http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/william-arthur-naturalization.pdf

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 10:37 am SunlightDisinfectant

          @HistorianDude  @GregoryConterio  @TellTheTruth1 Wow…So 65 men with the exception of Arthur’s bonafide murky past…all born in the US with two citizen parents…Coinky-dink…That’s rich…

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 10:39 am SunlightDisinfectant

          @cehughes  @HistorianDude  @GregoryConterio  @TellTheTruth1 Sorry I don’t get the logic behind this comment…Apples and oranges…

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 10:50 am HistorianDude

          @SunlightDisinfectant  @GregoryConterio  @TellTheTruth1 So many errors in that account, SD. First, how could Hinman have demanded to see Arthur’s birth certificate when there were essentially no such thing as birth certificates in the 1880s? Of our 43s Presidents at least 35 never had them. Second, there were no “lies” (more probably “garbled family legends”) that Arthur told that can have in anyway concealed or obfuscated his father’s citizenship status. His father’s age or parent’s time in Canada have no relevance to his father’s citizenship status. Finally, the only relevant record of that status that has ever existed is his father’s naturalization record. It was not burned, and it always was and still is publicly available.

          Reply
        • March 27, 2013 at 8:52 pm AlCum

          @SunlightDisinfectant @HistorianDude @GregoryConterio @TellTheTruth1 It was well known at the time of the 1880 election that Arthur’s father was not a US citizen at the time of Arthur’s birth. It was not a secret. Nor was it an issue. In fact, Hinman’s claim of Arthur’s ineligibility due to alleged birth in Canada hinged on the widespread knowledge that Arthur’s father was an alien at the time. If Arthur’s dad was believed to have been a US citizen at the time, under then-existing law Arthur would have been a citizen at birth, and eligible to the presidency, even if he had been born in Canada. Hinman’s attack was based on the knowledge of the British citizenship of Arthur’s father.

          Reply
        • March 29, 2013 at 3:36 pm Dr Kenneth Noisewater

          @SunlightDisinfectant  @HistorianDude  @GregoryConterio  @TellTheTruth1 Essentially demanding to see his birth certificate?  Um no those didn’t exist in arthur’s day.  They only were standardized in this country around the 1900s.  The first president to have a birth certificate issued when he was born was Jimmy Carter.  The majority of our presidents didn’t have a birth certificate.  And once again Hinman focused on where Arthur was born.  The citizenship of the parents was never a factor in his investigation as it simply did not matter.

          Reply
        • March 30, 2013 at 12:09 am Monkey Boy

          @SunlightDisinfectant  @HistorianDude  @GregoryConterio  @TellTheTruth1 Every American President before Barack Obama was considered white.  Does that mean that Red, Black, and Yellow Americans are barred from the office–or, did it just happen like that.

          Reply
        • April 3, 2013 at 10:54 am smrstrauss

          @SunlightDisinfectant  @HistorianDude  @GregoryConterio  @TellTheTruth1 
           
          There is another. There has never been any evidence that President James Buchanan’s father was nationalized before his birth, or ever. The first presidential candidate of the Republican party, James C. Fremont, admitted in his campaign biography that his father was a citizen of France who had never been nationalized and was planning to return to France at the time of his death.
           
          And Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover had mothers who only became citizens due to laws making them automatically citizens on marrying US men. They were not naturalized in today’s terms, in which they would have sworn allegiance to the USA and formally renounced their foreign citizenship. And because Wilson’s mother did not renounce her British subject status, Woodrow Wilson was a dual citizen of the USA and Britain when he was born.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 4:24 pm chillydogg1

          @HistorianDude  @GregoryConterio  @TellTheTruth1 Why would they have to say “be considered as” if they originally intended everyone born a citizen to be a natural born citizen? What is that person missing? They are missing birth in the country. So this clearly shows that birth in the country is a requirement to be a natural born citizen.

          Reply
    • March 26, 2013 at 7:00 am HistorianDude

      @TellTheTruth1 Mario Apuzzo has now written essentially the same article for at least the tenth time in his campaign to establish via his blog what he has proved unable to establish in court… an anomalous definition of “natural born citizen” that serves the sole purpose of satisfying his personal prejudice. Make no mistake that Apuzzo could not actually care less about the eligibility of Ted Cruz. This newest version of his complaint is merely a proxy for his flaccid and futile argument regarding President Barack Obama.  Apuzzo has been a dyed in the wool birther for many years.And the bottom line is that Apuzzo is wrong. This is not mere opinion, but the explicit and actual verdict of our legal system. Birthism has had its day in court… more than 200 of them to be precise. Most were tossed because of lack of standing or (like Mario’s) because they were deemed frivolous. But more than a dozen have actually been judged on the merits of the birther arguments.All have lost.
       
      One of the many unforeseen consequences of the Internet is the opportunity for otherwise ordinary people to publicly record their personal and professional implosions. By all other indications, Apuzzo was at one point a perfectly adequate ambulance chaser. But then he woke up one day to find Barack Obama steaming towards a first term, and something within him broke. Attempting to recast himself as a “Constitutional Lawyer,” a branch of jurisprudence for which he possesses neither competence nor a congenial character, Apuzzo  has lost every every single decision… in fact almost every single motion in which he has attempted to promote his absurd Constitutional theories. His blog records his repeated return to the scene of his defeat, railing against the darkness when everyone else around him has noticed it is already daylight.

      Reply
      • March 30, 2013 at 12:14 am Monkey Boy

        @HistorianDude  @TellTheTruth1 
        <blockquote>This newest version of his complaint is merely a proxy for his flaccid and futile argument regarding President Barack Obama.  Apuzzo has been a dyed in the wool birther for many years.</blockquote>
         
        Apuzzo is a mercenary.  Representing and lying for birthers pays better than getting drunks off–and the invoices are honored more reliably.

        Reply
  • March 26, 2013 at 7:11 am MarkGillar

    This article pretty much says it all. 
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/03/senator-ted-cruz-is-not-natural-born.html

    Reply
    • March 26, 2013 at 7:23 am HistorianDude

      @MarkGillar Too bad it says nothing that is either new or has survived exposure in a court of law.

      Reply
      • March 26, 2013 at 7:29 am MarkGillar

        @HistorianDude  @MarkGillar    I fully expect that it will introduced in a court of law again.  Furthermore, you dismissed all of Sheriff Joe’s findings.  Feel free to come on my program and we’ll take the computer anomalies in the LFBC as well as the problems with the selective service card registration and the CT SSN one at a time.  You can show us how easily they are explained away.

        Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 7:33 am HistorianDude

          @MarkGillar Happy to do so.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 7:38 am SunlightDisinfectant

          @HistorianDude  @MarkGillar LOL!! Have fun in the dust-bin with Woodman and Doc Con! Bub-bye now…

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 7:40 am MarkGillar

          @HistorianDude  @MarkGillar You have my contact information.  I look forward to it.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 7:48 am MarkGillar

          @HistorianDude  @MarkGillar You have my contact information.  I look forward to it.

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 5:59 pm realitycheck1776

          @MarkGillar  @HistorianDude

          Reply
        • March 26, 2013 at 6:15 pm realitycheck1776

          @MarkGillar  @HistorianDude Mario Apuzzo reminds me a lot of Baghdad Bob. He has lost consistently in multiple venues and judges have said several times his arguments are not persuasive (that is legalese for full of crap). He nearly had to pay monetary sanctions for trying to ignore that Phil Berg lost an appeal in a similar case in the Third Circuit.
           
          He thinks that if he copies an pastes the same 20 page arguments time after time it somehow makes them correct and he can declare victory yet Barack Obama sits in the White House as a symbol of his abject failure.
           
          Mark Gillar guaranteed that people would do jail time for forging Obama’s birth certificate but was too chicken to take my wager of $1000 dollars that would not  happen by any given date. I would offer a similar wager that SCOTUS will never declare President Obama is ineligible based on the fact his father was a British subject.

          Reply
        • March 29, 2013 at 7:37 am HistorianDude

          @MarkGillar Mark Gillar has now formally backed out of this debate, which had been scheduled for taping on April 5, for an April 6th broadcast. I formally accepted the debate offer, but once Mike Zullo of the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse got wind of the debate he asked GIllar to rescind the invitation and cancel the debate.For those interested in the likely reasons for Zullo’s squeamishness, you can start here:
           
          http://www.scribd.com/doc/11675248-/The-Annotated-Zullo

          Reply
        • March 29, 2013 at 7:44 am realitycheck1776

          @HistorianDude So Gillar is Zullo’s pupppet who in turn is Corsi’s puppet? Got it.

          Reply
        • March 29, 2013 at 9:22 am HistorianDude

          @MarkGillar 
          Fixing the broken link:www.scribd.com/doc/11675248/The-Annotated-Zullo

          Reply
        • March 29, 2013 at 9:23 am HistorianDude

          @MarkGillar 
          Fixing the broken link:
           
          http://www.scribd.com/doc/11675248/The-Annotated-Zullo

          Reply
        • March 29, 2013 at 9:25 am HistorianDude

          @MarkGillar The link is broken and apparently unfixable.Just google, “The Annotated Zullo.”

          Reply
        • March 29, 2013 at 10:50 am The Annotated Arduini

          @HistorianDude  @MarkGillar
           What are your credentials in law enforcement investigations pertaining to forged documents?

          Reply
        • March 29, 2013 at 10:51 am The Annotated Arduini

          @HistorianDude  @MarkGillar
           What are your background credentials in law enforcement investigations of forged documents?

          Reply
        • March 29, 2013 at 11:10 am HistorianDude

          @The Annotated Arduini  @MarkGillar 
          Had Gillar not backed out of the debate, you would have gotten my whole resume. As it is, all I will share is that my technical background regarding digital images is superior to Zullo’s (damning with faint praise, I know), and comparable to if not objectively stronger than any of the “experts” that have been publicly involved in the MCCCP “investigation.”

          Reply
        • March 29, 2013 at 3:31 pm Dr Kenneth Noisewater

          @HistorianDude  What do you expect Zullo’s only experience is he knows how to sell you a broken down old Chevy?

          Reply
        • March 30, 2013 at 10:30 am The Annotated Arduini

          @HistorianDude  @MarkGillar
           Again, what are your credentials pertaining to forged document investigations? Spare us the narcissistic delusions of grandeur that you are having about your resume.

          Reply
        • March 30, 2013 at 2:02 pm HistorianDude

          @The Annotated Arduini  @MarkGillar 
          Apparently enough to spook Gillar and Zullo.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 7:59 am realitycheck1776

          @HistorianDude  @The Annotated Arduini  @MarkGillar Poor Mark Gillar. He ran away from the debate and this forum and lost his suction on Zullo to Carl Gallups.

          Reply
  • March 30, 2013 at 10:00 pm Jimi

    I am one of the quotes listed at the beginning and that was a gross misquote taken from the middle of a conversation. Though, as I pointed out before, with no challenge this is just another opinion as is all the people you quoted. You saying you know if a challenge against him would fail or prevail is the same as anyone else saying since, again, there has been no challenge like this one.

    Reply
    • March 30, 2013 at 10:31 pm AlCum

      We do know with certainty that no challenge to Obama’s eligibility could ever succeed since it is a proven fact that Obama is a natural born citizen, and the first sitting president in US history to document that fact.

      Reply
      • March 31, 2013 at 9:12 am Jimi

        @AlCum I know this. That’s why I responded to the article. I agree both Obama and McCain qualify. But Ted Cruz is a completely different story. There has never been a challenge like his. And, I don’t believe he qualifies. And even if it is decided that he does qualify, someone born outside the US will never win the Presidency, unless of course they run Sarah Palin against him.

        Reply
        • May 26, 2013 at 11:21 pm chillydogg1

          @AlCum So the children of citizens born overseas can’t be President but the children of foreigners born here can be?

          Reply
        • May 27, 2013 at 6:51 am smrstrauss1

          @chillydogg1  @AlCum 
           
          Answer: The children of foreigners born here certainly can be. That simply means that the children of foreigners born on US soil have the same chance to be president as the roughly 300 million children of US citizens born on US soil.
           
          As for the children of US citizens born abroad, they may be eligible also. But maybe not. There is disagreement. The Heritage Foundation’s guide to the Constitution notes the disagreement:
           
          “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
           
          But there is no disagreement whatever that every child born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born Citizen regardless of the citizenship of one or even two parents. Neither of them have to be US citizens so long as the child was born on US soil.
           
          “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”—Senator Lindsay Graham (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)
           
          “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

          Reply
        • May 27, 2013 at 7:35 am chillydogg1

          @smrstrauss1  @AlCum So a child born overseas to two citizen parents who’s families landed on Plymouth Rock might not be eligible to be President but the child of two foreigners who fly here for the birth and then return home can be? That doesn’t seem fair. Seems a bit schizophrenic. Also there is definitely disagreement as to whether the latter are natural born citizens. You’re quotes are from sources that are no more authoritative than your or my own opinion. The fact that you say there are doubts about anyone just proves that the phrase is ambiguous. So until the SC hears a case and decides no one can say what it means. It’s all opinion at this point.

          Reply
        • May 27, 2013 at 8:33 am SMRSTRAUSS2

          @chillydogg1  @smrstrauss1  @AlCum 
           
          Re: ” Also there is definitely disagreement as to whether the latter are natural born citizens.”
           
          Sure there is. People who held the view that two citizen parents are required had a letter-writing campaign to the members of the US Electoral College in 2008 and 2012, and not one single member of the 356 Electoral Votes Obama won in 2008 or the 332 that he won in 2012 switched their votes from Obama to McCain or from Obama to Mitt Romey or did not vote, meaning that not one of them in the total of about 690 Electors believed that two citizen parents were required. And the same for the US Congress. Again birthers and two-fers asked members of Congress to vote against Obamas’ confirmation—but not a single one did.
           
          There have so far been TEN appeals court cases on the subject of presidential eligibility, and every single one of them ruled that the US Supreme Court has already ruled on the meaning of Natural Born Citizen, in the Wong Kim Ark case. And every single one of them said that the Wong Kim Ark case is the key ruling (not Minor v. Happersett). And every single one of them said that the US Supreme Court had ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case that every single child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen, except for the children of foreign diplomats.
           
          Re: “So until the SC hears a case and decides no one can say what it means. It’s all opinion at this point.”
           
          Answer: Following those TEN appeals court rulings, in October of last year, one of them was appealed to the US Supreme Court, which turned down the appeal. The effect of the US Supreme Court turning down the appeal is that the ruling of the appeals court—–which had held that EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen—–STANDS.

          Reply
        • May 27, 2013 at 8:57 am chillydogg1

          @smrstrauss1  @AlCum Since you failed to cite your evidence you’ve proven nothing. As for the Electors for all you know they just didn’t know enough to make a decision. Did you talk to every single one of them to ask what they had in mind? No? I didn’t think so. That’s some weak sauce.  And you still haven’t dealt with the case of child born overseas to citizen parents which means the definition is still ambiguous.

          Reply
        • May 27, 2013 at 9:46 am SMRSTRAUSS3

          @chillydogg1  @smrstrauss1  @AlCum 
           
          Re: “you still haven’t dealt with the case of child born overseas to citizen parents which means the definition is still ambiguous.”
           
          That is because the definition of a child born overseas to citizen parents IS ambiguous. But the definition of a child born in the USA either to US parents or to foreign parents is not ambiguous at all. The US Supreme Court has said that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen includes EVERY child born in the USA, and that is not ambiguous at all.
           
          Here are the exact words:
           
          “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
           
          III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
           
          That quite clearly says that the meaning of NBC comes from the common law ‘by the law of England for the last three centuries.” And it says that the same rules were applied in England, and in the 13 colonies, and in the early states and UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. And it says that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born US Citizen.
           
          Now, in ten cases birthers have claimed that the US Supreme Court did not say those words. But they lost every single case. Here are some of the rulings:
           
          Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.” 
           
          Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”As noted, October 1, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of one of the ten cases. In fact, it was the Farrar case, cited above. That case had ruled that “children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” By rejecting the appeal, the US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court to STAND.
           
          Re: ” Did you talk to every single one of them to ask what they had in mind? No? I didn’t think so.”
           
          Answer. Obama won 356 electoral votes in the 2008 election and received the votes of 356 electors. IF even one of the 356 had thought that Obama was not a Natural Born Citizen and hence not eligible, that elector had the right to vote against Obama—but not one in the 356 did. And  the same for the 332 electoral votes that Obama won in the 2012 election. Not one of the 332 changed her or his vote. We know that because Obama received the same number of votes by electors as the 332 that he won in the general election.
           
          So, in addition to Meese and Hatch and Graham and the ten appeals courts and the US Supreme Court turning down the appeal of one of them, there is also the US Electoral College, none of whose members changed their votes, and the US Congress, which voted to confirm Obama’s election unanimously.

          Reply
        • May 27, 2013 at 10:40 am chillydogg1

          @smrstrauss1  @AlCum Your first quote is dicta and holds no more force than the dicta from the Minor case which states an nbC is someone born in a country to citizen parents.
           
          All of your other cases are state cases and meaningless.
           
          Contrary to what you think most Electors are required under State law to vote however the popular vote goes. So that is also meaningless.
           
          I guess you’re talking about the Kreep case being turned down by the SC. You failed once again to provide cites so I’ll go with that. in that case the lower court threw the case out on standing so there was NO DECISION. So the SC did NOT let the lower courts decision stand because there was none.
           
          Your arguments are pathetic in the extreme. All you do is obfuscate or make shit up that isn’t there.

          Reply
        • May 27, 2013 at 9:08 pm AlCum

          @chillydogg1 Huh? Who said this? Children born overseas can certainly be natural born US citizens under certain circumstances defined from time to time in US citizenship law.

          Reply
        • May 27, 2013 at 9:11 pm AlCum

          @chillydogg1  @smrstrauss1 Sorry but no, there is not disagreement about the latter being natural born citizens. They are. This is long settled law.

          Reply
        • May 27, 2013 at 9:14 pm AlCum

          @chillydogg1 Incorrect. It is well settled law. Wong Kim Ark case by the Supreme Court stated explicitly what had been stated by the Founders and which had been the practice here since Colonial times. Sorry., but you are the most uninformed person I’ve seen on this.
           
          And I’ve answered you on your second point of confusion. Yes, a child born overseas to at least one US citizen parent can be a natural born citizen depending on what the law said at the time of the birth. Today, it is certainly the case.

          Reply
        • May 27, 2013 at 9:18 pm AlCum

          @chillydogg1You are extremely confused. Minor v Happersett most certainly did NOT say that a NBC is someone born in a country to citizen parents. Please learn to read with comprehension. The quote said  the converse, that someone born in a country to citizen parents is without doubt a NBC, and that those born to alien parents may also be. The statement was inclusive, not exclusive. You simply do not know how to read properly.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 7:24 am SMRSTRAUSS4

          @chillydogg1  @smrstrauss1  @AlCum 
           
          Re: “most Electors are required under State law to vote however the popular vote goes.”
           
          Answer: Most, but by no means all. And of the nearly 690 electors that Obama won in 2008 and 2012 put together, not a single one changed her or his vote or decided not to vote. ALL of them voted for Obama. And ALL of the members of Congress (535 members) in 2008 and 2012 voted to confirm, a total of more than 1,000—and not one of them voted against.
           
          This is a FEDERAL COURT ruling:
           
          Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
           
           
          This is the Farrar court ruling in Georgia, which is the one that was appealed to the US Supreme Court and which appeal the US Supreme Court turned down:
           
          Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
           
          And, as noted, the Farrar court ruling was only one of TEN appeals court cases (nine state, one federal) ALL of which ruled that the Wong Kim Ark ruling was NOT DICTA, and when the US Supreme Court turned down the appeal of one of them, it allowed its ruling, that the Wong Kim Ark case ruling was NOT DICTA and that EVERY CHILD born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen (except for the children of foreign diplomats) to stand.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 9:14 am SMRSTRAUSS5

          @AlCum  @chillydogg1  @smrstrauss1 
           
          There are disagreements about whether a child born to US citizens abroad is a Natural Born Citizen. She or he MAY be a Natural Born Citizen, but some say that is not the meaning. The US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case referred to every child born IN the USA being a Natural Born Citizen, but there is no US Supreme Court ruling that says that children born outside of the USA to US citizens are ALSO Natural Born Citizens.
           
          It is true that MANY legal experts include the children born abroad to US citizens, but some do not, such as Meese:
           
          “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
           
           
          However, Meese and Hatch and Graham and TEN appeals courts all agree that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 9:44 am HistorianDude

          @chillydogg1  @smrstrauss1  @AlCum 
          It’s certainly not ALL opinion at this point. Different aspects of natural-born citizenship are better settled than others… chief among those the status of children born on US soil. Be their parents citizens or aliens it does not matter… as long as they are not the children of foreign diplomats or alien armies in hostile occupation, they are NBC. There are no other relevant criteria. Not residency, not permanent domicile, not legal v. illegal entry status… none.Citizenship for the children of citizens born overseas is more problematic… but only slightly so. The Naturalization Act of 1790 (passed by a Congress composed of many framers of the Constitution, and while George Washington was President)) tells us explicitly that at that time, they WERE considered NBC. I am highly doubtful that any later court is likely to contradict them.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 9:50 am HistorianDude

          @chillydogg1  @smrstrauss1  @AlCum 
          Nonsense. Smr’s citation to Wong is absolutely NOT dicta. It is ratio decidendi without which the final decision of the court cannot be reached. It is fundamental to the entire outcome of the case, and so bears precedential value that franklu nothing in the Minor case can pretend.
           
          As to SCOTUS review… few birthers seem to recall that the very first birther case to reach SCOTUS was Donofrio v. Wells, a case that was not dismissed for standing, but decided on the merits at the State level. This was the first case to argue the “two citizen parent” theory, and it lost. So SCOTUS did in fact allow a lower court decision to stand on specifically this issue more than five years ago.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 11:13 am SMRSTRAUSS6

          @HistorianDude  @chillydogg1  @smrstrauss1  @AlCum 
           
          Re children born outside the USA being NBC if their parents are. Heck, i agree with you. I only say that that NBC status for the children of US parents born outside  the USA is less certain than that of the children of ANYONE (except foreign diplomats) born in the USA.
           
          The problem with the Naturalization Act of 1790 is that it was repealed. Some argue that NBC status cannot come and go with legislation but must be what was referred to by the writers of the Constitution. The evidence that they included ALL children born in the USA is overwhelming. The evidence that they included the children of US citizens born abroad is less certain. Yes, the Naturalization Act appears to be evidence, but then it was repealed.
           
          Therefore Rubio and Jindal, both of whose parents were not citizens when they were born, are certainly eligible. Senator Cruz, who was born in Canada with one US citizen parents MAY be eligible. Obama in 2016 will be one of only two living Natural Born US citizens who are not eligible—Bush and Obama—who have served two terms and cannot serve any more.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 11:16 am SMRSTRAUSS6

          @HistorianDude  @chillydogg1  @smrstrauss1  @AlCum 
           
          And they did the same thing on the Farrar case in Georgia last October, and the Farrar case had ruled that the key decision on Natural Born Citizen status was the Wong Kim Ark decision.
           
          Thus by not accepting the appeal of the Farrar case (which had ruled that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen), the current US Supreme Court once again said that the Wong Kim Ark ruling was absolutely NOT DICTA.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 1:27 pm HistorianDude

          @chillydogg1  @smrstrauss1  @AlCum 
          Actually… the Naturalization Act of 1790 was not “repealed” per se. It was replaced and the replacement used different wording, but it was not a “repeal” in the sense of having been consciously determined to be offensive or in error. As it is the only US law (other than the Constitution itself) to have ever used the phrase “natural born citizen” it bears not merely above average authority based on the population of legislators that passed it, but it has no rebuttal or contradiction in any other Federal law.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 2:54 pm smrstrauss5

          I’m sorry I used the word “repealed.” The right word would be “amended.” But the effect of the amendment was take away the “Natural Born.”
           
          NOW, if current law literally reads that a child born outside the USA to a US citizen or two US citizens is a Natural Born citizen, then that is clearly the law. But, as you have said, no law other than the Naturalization Act of 1790 did that, so current law cannot do it either. Current law says that the children of US Citizens born abroad are CITIZENS.
           
          To take the other side, your side, if the meaning of Natural Born Citizen is a US citizen at birth, then of course you are right. But it seems to me that that is not by any means certain.
           
          The parents of former Senator Lowell Wiecker of Connecticut took the mother to a US Embassy when she was expecting so that baby Lowell could be born on “US Soil”—for exactly the fact that they did not believe that their being US citizens was sufficient.  Now maybe they worried too much, but the fact is that they worried about it. They were not certain.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 3:43 pm chillydogg1

          @AlCum  @chillydogg1 Wrong. The definition of nbC is set in stone. It is whatever it was at the time it was written. The Constitution can only be modified by amendment. C’mon dude that’s basic civics.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 3:44 pm chillydogg1

          @AlCum  @smrstrauss1 I disagree.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 3:45 pm chillydogg1

          @AlCum The definition of nbC is not up to the whim of the Congress. You’re just flat out wrong about that.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 3:46 pm chillydogg1

          @AlCum You;re the one who can’t read. The quote says that the children of non citizens might be CITIZENS!

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 3:47 pm GregoryConterio

          @chillydogg1  @AlCum
           “The definition of nbC is set in stone. It is whatever it was at the time it was written. The Constitution can only be modified by amendment. C’mon dude that’s basic civics.”Chillydogg1 – The Constitution does NOT define the term “NBC.”  It leaves that to code law.  Which is written by Congress.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 3:48 pm chillydogg1

          @smrstrauss1  @AlCum You’re full of shit. Tisdale was dismissed due to the failure by the plaintiff to state a claim. Everything you quote is dicta and completely meaningless.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 3:49 pm chillydogg1

          @GregoryConterio  @AlCum Please cite ANY law which states “An nbC is …” You’re confusing born a citizen with natural born citizen.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 3:52 pm chillydogg1

          @AlCum  @smrstrauss1 You’re full of shit again. The Wong case says that anyone who falls under the 14th is a CITIZEN. You and your ilk just want to confuse born a citizen with natural born citizen. Anyone who gains citizenship by law is naturalized at birth and is not a nbC.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 3:54 pm chillydogg1

          @HistorianDude  @smrstrauss1  @AlCum Were exactly in the 14th are the words “natural born”? Were exactly in the immigration laws does it say ‘natural born”? Born a citizen does not necessarily mean one is a nbC.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 3:56 pm chillydogg1

          @HistorianDude  @smrstrauss1  @AlCum Then why did the court in Wong only call him a citizen even thought the lower court had called him a natural born citizen? In the Minor case the court had to decide if Minor was even a citizen first so if the wording in Wong is ratio decidendi then so is the wording in Minor.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 3:57 pm GregoryConterio

          @chillydogg1  @AlCum
           Chillydogg1 – Repeating what I have posted previously on this very thread, Title 8, Section 1401 of the U.S. Code:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401The relevant portions are actually quoted above, in the original article.:)

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 4:04 pm chillydogg1

          @HistorianDude  @smrstrauss1  @AlCum Your ignorance is astounding. In 1789 no child born to a foreign father was even a US citizen much less a natural born one. What’s it like living in fairy land?

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 4:06 pm chillydogg1

          The idea that a child of two foreigners can be the President but not the child of two citizens is absurd in the extreme and proves you don’t know shit about the subject.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 4:16 pm chillydogg1

          @GregoryConterio  @AlCum No where in the code do the words “natural born” appear. You are trying to make natural born citizen mean born a citizen. It doesn’t. This is easily proven.
           
          The first draft of the eligibility requirement read as follows:
           
          “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.”
           
          John Jay then wrote this to George Washington:
           
          “”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. ”
           
          The final eligibility wording is of course;
           
          “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.”

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 5:00 pm HistorianDude

          The rewording “took away” nothing. What that statute tells us about the intention of the Framers does not magically disappear because later legislation uses different language.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 5:02 pm HistorianDude

          @chillydogg1  @AlCum Who cares? Whatever doubts were expressed in the dicta of the Minor case was resolved by the ratio decidendi of the Wong case. Children of non citizens are natural born citizens if born on US soil, and not to foreign diplomats or alien armies in hostile occupation.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 5:03 pm HistorianDude

          @chillydogg1  @AlCum  @smrstrauss1 The Wong case provides a clear and explicit definition of natural born citizen… declaring it to predate the 14th Amendment by centuries.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 5:07 pm HistorianDude

          @chillydogg1  @smrstrauss1  @AlCum 
          Because that was all they needed to call him. If however you were to read both the brief of the losing attorney George D. Collins and the dissent by Justice Fuller, you will discover that everybody involved with the case knew explicitly that its decision declared Wong eligible for the Presidency… ergo that he was NBC.. Collins got it. Fuller got it. 23 subsequent courts get it.What’s you’re excuse?

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 5:12 pm GregoryConterio

          @chillydogg1  @AlCum
          You try to argue a distinction where none exists.  The term “natural born citizen” is legally synonymous with “citizen at birth” as used in the U.S. Code.  It has been interpreted that way with complete consistency each time it has been challenged.Trying to argue some subtle distinction is beyond silly, and even if such a distinction did exist (which has NEVER been successfully argued..) it would be immaterial.Seriously.  Please do try to explain the difference between “natural born citizen” and “citizen at birth” and how the distinction would bear upon any of the people in question.  (Obama, Rubio and Cruz)

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 6:15 pm chillydogg1

          @GregoryConterio  @chillydogg1  @AlCum Seriously? Natural born citizen means born in a country to citizen parents. None of them fit that profile and are therefore ineligible. Just look at it grammatically. If natural born citizen means born a citizen then the word natural is completely meaningless.  I’ve already shown you that the Framers changed the wording from baC to nbC. So, assuming nbC equals baC, tell me the definition of the word “natural” in natural born citizen?

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 6:19 pm chillydogg1

          @HistorianDude  @smrstrauss1  @AlCum They were wrong. At one time millions of people KNEW the Universe revolved around the Earth. And then there was Galileo.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 6:25 pm chillydogg1

          @HistorianDude That’s ridiculous. If you have the phrase “born citizen” and you put the word “natural” in front of it of course the meaning changes. That’s basic grammar. So assuming nbC means baC what then is the definition of “natural” in natural born citizen?

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 6:29 pm chillydogg1

          @HistorianDude Not to mention Jay’s letter clearly states the intention of the change was to keep foreign influence out the the presidency.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 6:36 pm chillydogg1

          @GregoryConterio  @AlCum You do realize that under your definition Kate Middleton could have her baby here and we could have a President who was the King of England, right? Do you really think that’s what the Framers had in mind? It’s exactly to guard against such a possibility that they only made eligible people who were wholly, solely and only American.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 7:25 pm AlCum

          @chillydogg1 Sorry but no, I am entirely correct and proven so by the US Supreme Court. You’ll just have to settle with being wrong. The definition of NBC has always been known, it is citizenship acquired at birth. There is no dispute over this. And there has never been disagreement that anyone born on US soil, other than children of foreign diplomats and invading armies, is a NBC and eligible to be president.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 7:25 pm AlCum

          @chillydogg1  @smrstrauss1 Fine, disagree all you like but you are still wrong. You can disagree that the sun rises in the east but you will still be wrong.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 7:28 pm AlCum

          @chillydogg1 Umm, earth to chilidog, someone who is BORN a citizen is a natural born citizen. The Minor court noted that the children of aliens might also be NATURAL BORN CITIZENS but the court was not settling that question. It did later in the Wong Kim Ark case. But I notice you avoided acknowledgement of your reading error from Minor… the court did NOT state that a NBC is the child of citizens, but the converse.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 7:33 pm AlCum

          @chillydogg1  You are so terribly confused because you have your false belief that you are trying to shore up against all evidence, so you’re not thinking clearly, which is a characteristic of conservatives. There are citizens. And of those, the Supreme Court has held, there are but two types — natural born and naturalized. If you acquire your citizenship through virtue of your birth, you are a natural born citizen. If you take on US citizenship later, you are naturalized. Thus, ANY citizen can be a congress person or senator, but only the class of citizens who are “natural born” can be president. Thus Obama can be president but Arnold Schwarzenegger cannot.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 7:35 pm AlCum

          @chillydogg1  @HistorianDude  @smrstrauss1 Bzzzzztt! WRONG! Being born a citizen precisely makes you a natural born citizen, and ONLY being born a citizen can make you a natural born citizen. Supreme Court said so. I understand you think you know better than the Supreme Court, but you really don’t.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 7:38 pm AlCum

          @chillydogg1  @HistorianDude  @smrstrauss1 It called Wong a citizen at birth, which is natural born citizenship. read the case, chum. Read the government’s appeal brief, in which it argued the appeals court should be overturned otherwise Wong could be eligible to be president, how come everyone knows this but you birthers?
           
          And once more, Minor did NOT state that you had to have to citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. It said the converse, that this is but one way and there may be others, which now we know there are.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 7:39 pm AlCum

          @chillydogg1  @HistorianDude  @smrstrauss1 You are incorrect. All children born on US soil were natural born citizens regardless of who the parents were, except for diplomats. This is not even remotely subject to dispute, it’s simply a historical fact.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 7:47 pm AlCum

          @chillydogg1  I guess you don’t even read your own posts! Nowhere in your ranting does it disagree with what we’re telling you. A child born on US soil to alien parents is NOT A FOREIGNER. He or she is a natural born US citizen. This is how it was then and how it always has been. This is simply a fact of history that you are choosing to ignore.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 7:50 pm AlCum

          @chillydogg1  Please do try to produce one single citation that says natural born citizen means born in a country to citizen parents. You will fail because there are none, not a one.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 7:53 pm AlCum

          @chillydogg1  You make no sense. Kate Middleton has diplomatic status. Even so, the voters have say. You behave as though Kate Middleton’s child would automatically become our president, even without an election. You sound like a very crazy person.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 8:02 pm AlCum

          US embassies in foreign lands are not US soil.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 8:05 pm AlCum

          @chillydogg1 You know nothing of civics at all. I never said the definition of natural born citizen changes. It doesn’t. It means “born as a citizen” rather than being naturalized later. The Minor court so stated and this has historically be immutably true. What CAN and HAS changed from time to time is the circumstances decided by Congress that convey citizenship at birth. At one time, children born to US citizen parents overseas were NOT considered NBC but now they are. That’s what can sometimes change, but not the definition of NBC which is “citizenship at birth.”.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 8:57 pm chillydogg1

          @AlCum  @chillydogg1 No. It said children of foreigners might be citizens. It’s right there in black and white. Your interpretation is just flat out incorrect. If you think this :
           
          “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
           
          does not say that a nbC is someone born in a country to citizen parents you are beyond all reason and logic.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 9:00 pm chillydogg1

          @AlCum It’s really your contention that the Framers had “born a citizen” on the first draft, changed it to “natural born citizen” and intended for that to mean “born a citizen”. You sir are insane.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 9:01 pm chillydogg1

          @AlCum She’s an ambassador? She’s not a diplomat you moron she’s an aristocrat.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 9:05 pm chillydogg1

          @AlCum You know what your fucking delusional. I hope they let you out of the institution soon

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 9:21 pm AlCum

          @chillydogg1  Unfortunately for you, the US Supreme Court, all of recorded history and the Founding Fathers say you’re full of baloney. The fact is, I am right and you are wrong. This is not open to dispute, it is settled law.

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 9:22 pm AlCum

          @chillydogg1 Well, the Supreme Court says you’re wrong and I’m right, so whaddaya gonna do about it?

          Reply
        • May 28, 2013 at 9:27 pm chillydogg1

          @AlCum LOL, you’re funny! Wait I meant to say you’re a joke! The idea that the Framers used “natural born citizen” when they could have just used “born a citizen”, which was the first draft btw,  is so insane it’s laughable.

          Reply
        • May 29, 2013 at 12:13 am smrstrauss1

          Re: “The Wong case says that anyone who falls under the 14th is a CITIZEN.”
           
          In that you are quite wrong. Here are the words of the Wong Kim Ark case:
           
          “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
           
          III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
           
           
          As you can see, it says that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law (“by the law of England for the last three centuries.”) And it says that the same rule applied in England and in the 13 colonies and in the early states, and “continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.” And it says that EVERY child, repeat, EVERY CHILD, who is born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen.

          Reply
        • May 29, 2013 at 12:22 am smrstrauss1

          If the Constitution uses a legal term that the US Congress redefines and that re-definition is NOT in violation of the intend of the original use of the term then the new legal definition MAY be constitutional. And, in 1790 the first US Nationalization Act ADDED the ability of children born outside the USA to US parents (apparently two parents, but it is not clear) to the existing definition which came from the common law and referred to the place of birth. The Naturalization Act of 1790 did not remove the ability of every single child born in the USA to become president under the common law definition. It did add the abilitity of other children, those born outside the USA to US citizen parents, to ALSO become president.
           
          But, some argue that a mere law cannot change the original meaning. Nobody but a few birther lawyers argues that the original meaning referred to parents. It comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth.

          Reply
        • May 29, 2013 at 12:26 am SMRSTRAUSS6

          @chillydogg1  @AlCum 
           
          If the Constitution uses a legal term that the US Congress redefines and that re-definition is NOT in violation of the intend of the original use of the term then the new legal definition MAY be constitutional. And, in 1790 the first US Nationalization Act ADDED the ability of children born outside the USA to US parents (apparently two parents, but it is not clear) to the existing definition which came from the common law and referred to the place of birth. The Naturalization Act of 1790 did not remove the ability of every single child born in the USA to become president under the common law definition. It did add the ability of other children, those born outside the USA to US citizen parents, to ALSO become president.But, some argue that a mere law cannot change the original meaning. Nobody but a few birther lawyers argues that the original meaning referred to parents. It comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth.

          Reply
        • May 29, 2013 at 12:27 am SMRSTRAUSS6

          @GregoryConterio  @chillydogg1  @AlCum 
           
          If the Constitution uses a legal term that the US Congress redefines and that re-definition is NOT in violation of the intend of the original use of the term then the new legal definition MAY be constitutional. And, in 1790 the first US Nationalization Act ADDED the ability of children born outside the USA to US parents (apparently two parents, but it is not clear) to the existing definition which came from the common law and referred to the place of birth. The Naturalization Act of 1790 did not remove the ability of every single child born in the USA to become president under the common law definition. It did add the ability of other children, those born outside the USA to US citizen parents, to ALSO become president.But, some argue that a mere law cannot change the original meaning. Nobody but a few birther lawyers argues that the original meaning referred to parents. It comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth.

          Reply
        • May 29, 2013 at 12:30 am SMRSTRAUSS6

          @chillydogg1  @GregoryConterio  @AlCum 
           
          John Jay was using the meaning of Natural Born Citizen the way that he was familiar with, which was as a lawyer and justice, meaning that he used the term the way that it was used in the common law. If he had intended to use the term any way other than the way that it was used in the common law, he would have said so.
           
          And the meaning of the term Natural Born in the common law referred to the PLACE of birth.

          Reply
        • May 29, 2013 at 6:55 am HistorianDude

          @chillydogg1  @AlCum 
          And at the time of the Constitution’s framing, NBC had both a common law meaning (based entirely on jus soli) and a statutory extension under British law to the children of British subjects born overseas. So… if you insist that it was “set in stone” and is not subject to any subsequent interpretation then all is settled.

          Reply
        • May 29, 2013 at 6:59 am HistorianDude

          @chillydogg1  @GregoryConterio  @AlCum 
          Too bad John Jay proved as unwilling as everybody else at the time to actually offer us a definition of NBC. That (combined with the fact that he was not a Framer) pretty much renders his note to Washington a trfiling curiosity that offers no guidance on this discussion whatsoever.

          Reply
        • May 29, 2013 at 7:16 am HistorianDude

          @chillydogg1  @GregoryConterio  @AlCum 
          First off… the framers did NOT change the words from “born a citizen” to “natural born citizen” because Hamilton’s draft was never even presented to the Constitutional convention. He gave an oral briefing of his ideas on June 18, 1787 but it included no special citizenship requirement for the presidency at all. He later prepared the more extensive written draft that you reference, but it was never seen by the other members of the convention.The NBC clause was added by the Committee of Eleven to the September 4 draft where it was accepted without debate or discussion. The choice of the Framers to use a well known term of common law art hardly warrants the sort of tendentious and anachronistic hair splitting you insist on performing. The Constitution is load with otherwise undefined common law language specifically  because it was well and commonly understood. It is idiotic to assert (as birthers do) that the Framers chose to completely redefine a centuries old term of common law art to mean something completely different from what it had always meant… and then they forgot to tell anybody.

          Reply
        • May 29, 2013 at 7:17 am HistorianDude

          @chillydogg1  @smrstrauss1  @AlCum 
          Actually, and then there was Copernicus. Not Galileo.

          Reply
        • May 29, 2013 at 7:20 am HistorianDude

          @chillydogg1 Jay’s letter never mentions foreign influence once. It instead specifically mentions “foreigners” and is pretty well understood to be in opposition to the monarchist’s effort (led by Hamilton) to solicit a European prince to be the new nation’s king.When addressing the issue of preventing foreign influence in the Federalist Papers, he NBC clause is never mentioned. The mechanism Hamilton insisted was emplaced to prevent that problem is the Electoral College.

          Reply
        • May 29, 2013 at 7:22 am HistorianDude

          @chillydogg1  @GregoryConterio  @AlCum 
          Were Kate Middleton to travel to the US, she would be under diplomatic priviledge. Hence, her child would be subject to one of the two ancient exceptions to natural born citizenship.

          Reply
        • May 29, 2013 at 7:24 am HistorianDude

          @chillydogg1  @AlCum 
          There was never a draft of the Constitution in front of the convention that ever bore the phrase “born a citizen.”

          Reply
        • July 5, 2013 at 6:17 am DrConspiracy

          @AlCum I don’t agree with Jimi that Cruz and McCain are different cases. The Panama Canal Zone was an unincorporated US territory and such places under law do not have the same status as regular US territory, Indeed, persons born in the Canal Zone in 1936 (the year McCain was born) were NOT US citizens by virtue of being born there. In 1937, a law was passed making them citizens at birth retroactively. So McCain’s citizenship at birth rested on his parents’ citizenship, as does that of Sen. Cruz.

          Reply
  • June 19, 2013 at 11:41 am R C Jackman

    U.S. Code is irrelevant.  The question is what did the Framers mean at the time the Constitution was written.
     
    “A natural born citizen of the United States is a child born of two citizen parents.  It matters not where the child was born.  In order to confirm NBC status, a father must also have been a prior resident of the U.S.    In order to retain NBC status, a natural born citizen must retain an exclusive U.S. citizenship.”
    http://wweethepeople.patriotactionnetwork.com/2011/09/08/natural-born-citizen-2/

    Reply
    • July 3, 2013 at 6:15 pm DrConspiracy

      @R C Jackman  The Framers themselves said very little about the natural born citizenship clause. Mr. Pinckney later remarked that it was there to insure “attachment to the country.” Most authorities take it as a term of art from English Common Law (natural born subject) which makes sense given that every lawyer in the new country used to practice the English common law until 1776, and every state had adopted it one way or another.

      Reply
      • July 4, 2013 at 10:22 am R C Jackman

        @DrConspiracy
         
        The Framers used “The Law of Nations” by Emmerich de Vattel as their primary reference and left other clues as mentioned in the link above.  A careful reading will show that the English “natural born subject” is not the same as our “natural born citizen”; the war of 1812 had much to do with that difference.

        Reply
        • July 4, 2013 at 3:23 pm realitycheck1776

          @R C Jackman  @DrConspiracy

          Reply
        • July 4, 2013 at 9:41 pm AlCum

          @R C Jackman Sorry but you are historically and factually incorrect. They did not use The Law of Nations. Natural born citizen means what it always has meant, someone born on the soil of the nation regardless of parents other than those born to foreign diplomats.

          Reply
        • July 5, 2013 at 6:11 am DrConspiracy

          @R C Jackman Having personally reviewed the extensive notes of Madison and the official minutes of the 1887 Federal Convention, I can inform you that Vattel was mentioned on one occasion, and that is all. To suggest that this one minor instance constitutes their “primary reference” is utterly absurd. Your claims are simply unsupported by the historical record and inconsistent with the court decisions on the subject. This is why such claims as yours got no recognition by the public, the media, the Congress and the courts during the election.

          Reply
        • July 5, 2013 at 6:12 am DrConspiracy

          @R C Jackman Having personally reviewed the extensive notes of Madison and the official minutes of the 1787 Federal Convention, I can inform you that Vattel was mentioned on one occasion, and that is all. To suggest that this one minor instance constitutes their “primary reference” is utterly absurd. Your claims are simply unsupported by the historical record and inconsistent with the court decisions on the subject. This is why such claims as yours got no recognition by the public, the media, the Congress and the courts during the election.

          Reply
        • July 5, 2013 at 9:01 am chillydogg1

          @AlCum  @R C Jackman And how do you support that definition when there are 170+ countries, including England, that do not give citizenship to children born on their soil to non resident aliens?

          Reply
        • July 5, 2013 at 11:35 am smrstrauss

          Re: “And how do you support that definition when there are 170+ countries, including England, that do not give citizenship to children born on their soil to non resident aliens?”
           
          Answer: Under the excellent CONSERVATIVE principle that the USA is EXCEPTIONAL and does not have to follow the lead of 170+ other countries.
           
          And, since the US Constitution is not a living document, hence the meaning of terms refers to the meaning at the time that the Constitution was written. And the historical evidence (not to mention the court rulings) shows that the way that the Americans (not Swiss) at the time used the term Natural Born Citizen was the way that it was used in the common law.
           
          Here are some examples of how the  term Natural Born Citizen was used in America (not Switzerland) at about the time that the Constitution was written. As you can see, they both use the term the same way that it is used in the common law:
           
          “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)
           
          “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

          Reply
        • July 5, 2013 at 12:41 pm chillydogg1

          @smrstrauss So you’re saying the definition of nbC is not universal and varies by country? It that case your assertion that nbC had to mean the same in America as nbS meant in England falls by the wayside. Alcum states “Natural born citizen means what it ALWAYS has meant,…” Are you right or is he? Also Tucker and Rawle are expressing their personal opinions and are no more authoritative than you or I.

          Reply
        • July 5, 2013 at 1:14 pm R C Jackman

          @DrConspiracy
           
          “[Benjamin] Franklin also said that this book by Vattel, ‘has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting’.”
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Law_of_Nations

          Reply
        • July 5, 2013 at 1:15 pm R C Jackman

          @chillydogg1  @AlCum
           
          The requirement that a U.S. natural-born-citizen must be born in the United States is highly debated.  There is evidence of residency not being required; for example, the Naturalization act of 1790  included a provision that “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens”.  That being said, I think we cannot deny natural-born-citizenship on the basis of residency, unless a strong case is presented for such a denial.

          Reply
        • July 5, 2013 at 1:45 pm R C Jackman

          @DrConspiracy
           
          “[Benjamin] Franklin also said that this book by Vattel, ‘has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting’.”
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Law_of_Nations

          Reply
        • July 6, 2013 at 8:37 am DrConspiracy

          @chillydogg1  @AlCum  @R C Jackman And how do I know that “there are 170+ countries, including England, that do not give citizenship to children born on their soil to non resident aliens?”
           
          Before 1983, birth in Britain was in and of itself was sufficient to confer British Nationality regardless of the status of the parents. Now it’s complicated. Even today a child who remains in Britain for 10 years born to non-residents in Britain is considered a British national.

          Reply
        • July 6, 2013 at 8:39 am DrConspiracy

          @chillydogg1  @smrstrauss Rawle was a friend of Franklin and Washington. He was Washington’s attorney general for Pennsylvania and a founder of the Pennsylvania Historical Society. His book, A View of the Constitution, was a textbook at West Point. I think is is a lot more authoritative than you or I.

          Reply
        • July 6, 2013 at 8:45 am DrConspiracy

          @R C Jackman Despite Franklin’s hyperbole, the records of the Convention contradict. Vattel was important where other sources were lacking. The English Common Law was what the Framers practiced for a living and sufficed for this question.

          Reply
        • July 6, 2013 at 12:45 pm chillydogg1

          @DrConspiracy  @chillydogg1  @AlCum  @R C Jackman How do you know? Look it up on Google dumbass.

          Reply
        • July 6, 2013 at 12:50 pm chillydogg1

          @DrConspiracy  @smrstrauss It’s still only personal opinion. Einstein didn’t believe in quantum mechanics. Even the smartest people can be wrong.

          Reply
        • July 6, 2013 at 12:52 pm smrstrauss

          First Tucker and Rawle are examples of people at the time of the writing of the Constitution using the term Natural Born Citizen. They are examples of how the term was used. There are NO examples of it being used at the time, none whatever, that referred to parents. Repeat NONE. So, we have two examples of the use of Natural Born Citizen the way that it was used in the common law, and NO examples of it being used to refer to parents.
           
          Re:”Alcum states “Natural born citizen means what it ALWAYS has meant,…
           
          He is right, what it always meant IN AMERICA. As you point out, in France or Switizerland, where they considered that citizenship came from jus sanguinus, a natural born citizen was one born of ONE citizen paren—and in some cases maybe two, but usually one.
           
          There is, duh ,evidence that the writers of the US Constitution—who were mainly lawyers and jurists–used the term Natural Born Citizen just the way that they had used Natural Born Subject. If they had intended to change the meaning of Natural Born when we switched from being subjects to citizens, they would have told us, and they didn’t, and the examples of Rawle and Tucker and the lack of any example of any writer of the Constitution referring to parents in the meaning of NBC confirms that.

          Reply
        • July 6, 2013 at 12:53 pm smrstrauss

          Sure, they read Vattel. But, duh, they read a lot of other books too.

          Reply
        • July 6, 2013 at 1:05 pm smrstrauss

          I find it is more effective to simply point out that the members of the Constitutional Covention read other books besides Vattel. Of course, one of the books that most of them read, since they were lawyers, is Blackstone, and his definition of Natural Born refers to the place of birth.

          Reply
        • July 6, 2013 at 4:00 pm realitycheck1776

          @chillydogg1  @DrConspiracy  @smrstrauss It is simplistic and incorrect to say Einstein didn’t believe in quantum mechanics. He could not deny that quantum mechanics provided correct explanations for many phenomena that could not be explained in classical physics. He was just uncomfortable  with the underlying statistical reality the QM implied and believed that a deeper underlying reality to the psi wave function would eventually be found that would do away with uncertainty.
           
          Ironically, Einstein won his Nobel prize for his paper on the photoelectric effect which was very important in the discovery that light existed in quanta and played a large pert in the development of quantum mechanics.

          Reply
        • July 6, 2013 at 8:44 pm R C Jackman

          @DrConspiracy
           
          The term “natural born citizen” came to the Convention via John Jay.
          On 1787 July 25, John Jay (who would become the first Chief Justice of the first Supreme Court) wrote to George Washington (then President of the Constitutional Convention), “Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government, and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born citizen.”  Thus, the purpose of the ‘natural born citizen’ clause was to limit the presidency to persons with an established loyalty.

          Reply
        • July 6, 2013 at 8:46 pm R C Jackman

          @DrConspiracy
           
          Specific references to Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” have been associated with John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, John Marshall, George Washington, and James Wilson, and in general with the delegates to the Continental Congress, with the Philadelphia Library, and with the Harvard University. 
           
          Vattel provides a definition for “natural born citizens”: 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”.  Thus, according to Vattel, a “natural born citizen” would be a child born in the United States of two citizen parents, or a child born anywhere of a natural born father (assuming the father has not forsaken his citizenship).
           
          In 1857, the Supreme Court considered the Dred Scott v. Standford case.  Included within the final majority opinion, Vattel’s work was cited, indeed the same definition of natural born citizen as quoted above.

          Reply
        • July 7, 2013 at 5:45 am DrConspiracy

          @R C Jackman George Washington’s father was born and died an Englishman (before the Revolution). Are you saying that Jay questioned the loyalty of Washington and thought him unfit to be President? (Remember, there’s no “grandfather clause” mentioned in Jay’s letter.)
           
          Jay was trained in the English Common Law and he would have understood the term “natural born” as a term of art. Under English Common Law anyone born in the country (except children of ambassadors and invading armies) were natural born subjects. What Jay said was “not a foreigner.” No one in 1787 or today considers someone born the the US a “foreigner.”
           
          In several states, including Jay’s New York, legislation before and after the Constitution uses the terms “natural born citizen” and “natural born subject” interchangeably. And 30-something years later the Chancery Court of New York decided the case of Lynch v. Clarke, in which the court explicitly said that the children of aliens could be President.

          Reply
        • July 7, 2013 at 5:49 am DrConspiracy

          @R C Jackman You are mistaken. The reference to Vattel was in the opinion of a single justice in Dred Scott, not the majority. Even if it were in the majority opinion, pretty much everybody considers Dred Scott to be one of the Court’s greatest blunders, a racist decision, and one that misstates history.

          Reply
        • July 7, 2013 at 1:07 pm chillydogg1

          @realitycheck1776  @DrConspiracy  @smrstrauss Of course it’s simplistic. It’s a stupid blog not a college lecture.

          Reply
        • July 7, 2013 at 1:16 pm chillydogg1

          @smrstrauss So according to you the definition of nbC is not universal but varies by country and also a child born outside the US to two citizen parents is not eligible but a child born in the US to two transient or illegal aliens is eligible.

          Reply
        • July 7, 2013 at 11:53 pm R C Jackman

          @DrConspiracy
           
          Jay was concerned with future presidents.  At the time of the writing of the Constitution all natural-born-citizens were less than eight years old.  So there had to be a grandfather clause.
           
          In 1787 the child of a foreigner was a foreigner.  Jay deemed it wise that the presidency should be restricted to a children of a citizens.
           
           
          In the case of Lynch v. Clarke, it is true that the terms “natural born citizen” and “natural born subject” are used interchangeably.  But the consider the following quote:
          “It is an indisputable proposition, that by the rule of the common law of England, if applied to these facts, Julia Lynch was a natural born citizen of the United States.  And this rule was established and inflexible in the common law, long anterior to the first settlement of the United States, and, indeed, before the discovery of America by Columbus. By the common law, all persons born within the ligeance of the crown of England, were natural born subjects, without reference to the status or condition of their parents.”
          Herein it is clear that the court rendered its decision based upon a rule formulated even before the discovery of America.  Thus clearly, that decision was not based on our Constitution.  Hence, it was unconstitutional.
          http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/Lynch_v_Clarke_1844_ocr.pdf

          Reply
        • July 8, 2013 at 4:52 am smrstrauss1

          @R C Jackman  @DrConspiracy 
           
          Re: “In 1787 the child of a foreigner was a foreigner.  Jay deemed it wise that the presidency should be restricted to a children of a citizens.”
           
          Answer: That is not true. At the time, and until the 14th Amendment, the STATES had the right to decide who were citizens of those states at birth, and every citizen of a state was also a citizen of the USA. And by far most states considered that jus soli applied and that EVERY child born in the state was a citizen at birth, including the children of foreign citizens.
           
          That was the law as Blackstone described the common law, and if the states had citizenship laws different from the common law, they surely would have told us—and they didn’t.

          Reply
        • July 8, 2013 at 5:14 am smrstrauss

          There is absolutely no evidence that John Jay—a lawyer and justice who would become the first US Chief Justice—was using the term Natural Born in any way differently than in the common law. In fact, since he did not know that Washington had read Vattel (and perhaps he had not, the Vattel book Washington took out was from a New York Library, meaning it was when Washington was president, not before the Constitution was written)”–all that Jay could assume is that Washington would know that he, a lawyer, was using the legal term from the common law. If Jay had said “the meaning from Vattel” or “two citizen parents”—that would be different, but a lawyer and expert on the common law using Natural Born is highly unlikely to be using Natural Born in any other way than in the common law.

          Reply
        • July 8, 2013 at 5:17 am smrstrauss

          Re: “Specific references to Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” have been associated with John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, John Marshall, George Washington, and James Wilson…”
           
          All of them used Vattel as an expert on INTERNATIONAL law, and not one of them ever said that he was using Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen, and not one of them ever said that two citizen parents are required.

          Reply
        • July 8, 2013 at 7:48 am DrConspiracy

          @R C Jackman Mr. Jackman said: “In 1787 the child of a foreigner was a foreigner.  Jay deemed it wise that the presidency should be restricted to a children of a citizens.”
           
          If Mr. Jay wanted the presidency to be restricted to the children of citizens, when why did he not say so? The Historian George Bancroft writing in the 19th century in his history of the United States said, referring to the time under the Articles of Confederation, “Every one who first saw the light on American soil was a natural-born American citizen.”
           
          Each of the 13 original states included the English Common Law into their state laws either by Constitution, Statute or judicial fiat. By those laws, persons born in the State were its citizens without regard to the status of their parents. Take Virginia, for example. In a law drafted by Jefferson in 1783: “That all free persons, born within the territory of this commonwealth; all persons not being natives, who have obtained a right to citizenship under the act intitled “An act declaring who shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth;” and also all children wheresoever born, whose fathers or mothers are or were citizens at the time of the birth of such children, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth.” That is “citizens” not “foreigners.”
           
          You are entitled to your own notions as to what a “foreigner” is, but you are not entitled to misrepresent the views of the Framers of the Constitution.

          Reply
        • July 9, 2013 at 3:38 pm R C Jackman

          @smrstrauss
           
          The reference was simply to establish that the Founders were acquainted with and respected Vattel’s work.  There were many words and phrases, in addition to Natural Born Citizen, which were not defined by the Founders.  Basic vocabulary is generally not defined except in dictionaries.

          Reply
        • July 9, 2013 at 6:06 pm R C Jackman

          @smrstrauss
           
          Vattel’s “Law of Nations” was so much the new ‘common law’ that it is even mentioned in our Constitution itself.  “The Congress shall have Power to “define and punish … Offenses against the “Law of Nations”.

          Reply
        • July 9, 2013 at 6:35 pm R C Jackman

          @DrConspiracy
           
          Mr. Jay did say he wanted the presidency to be so restricted when he said it should be restricted to “natural born citizens”.  That was the term of the day. 
           
          In 1896, there was a very understandable explanation published by “The People’s Lawyer” in the Boston Daily Globe:  “A natural born citizen would be one who by nature, that is by inheritance, so to speak, was a citizen as distinguished from one who was by nativity or locality of birth a citizen.”
           
          The fact that our first separate “states” were dominated by English law prior to our War of Independence against England and were bullied prior to the war of 1812 which denied the English definition of citizenship, that fact did not command our nation’s Founders to use England’s definition of “citizenship”.  They used Vattel’s definition.

          Reply
        • July 9, 2013 at 8:30 pm smrstrauss

          Yes, some of them did read Vattel—but they read a lot of other books too. In particular, they read BLACKSTONE, and he said that the meaning of Natural Born refers to the place of birth.

          Reply
        • July 9, 2013 at 8:37 pm DrConspiracy

          @R C Jackman  @smrstrauss Surely you aren’t serious. There are many books called the Law of Nations. Besides, there is “Offenses Against the Law of Nations” by Blackstone.

          Reply
        • July 9, 2013 at 8:39 pm smrstrauss

          Re: ” Offenses against the “Law of Nations”.
           
          And you, credulous soul, think that refers to Vattel’s book. Well, Vattel’s book was called THE Law of Nations–the The has to be capitalized. And, notice how the Constitution capitalizes words:
           
          “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution,,,”
           
          Posterity is not capitalized because it is a book, nor is Welfare, nor is “Blessings of Liberty” a book.
           
          Oh, and Vattel recommended that every country should have a state religion, and we did not adopt that, and so there is no evidence that “Law of Nations” refers to Vattel. And, if it had referred to Vattel, they would have TOLD us—and they didn’t.

          Reply
        • July 9, 2013 at 8:40 pm DrConspiracy

          @R C Jackman You lost that argument in 1898 when the Supreme Court ruled in US v. Wong.

          Reply
        • July 10, 2013 at 5:46 pm smrstrauss

          If they used Vattel’s definition they would have had to have translated his French word “indignes” themselves, and translated it as Natural Born Citizen, since that phrase did not appear in any English-language copy of Vattel until ten years after the Constitution. And, if they had translated “indignes” as Natural Born Citizen and used it instead of the commonly used common law THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US—and they didn’t.
           
          John Jay, who used the term in his letter, was a lawyer and a justice, and if he were using the term as it was used by Vattel and not as it was used in the common law, he would have told Washington in that letter.
           
          Vattel was not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers while the common law was referred to about twenty times. And the examples of Tucker and Rawle show how the Americas at the time actually used the term—and both of them used it the way that it was used in the common law. And there is NO example by any of the men who were at the Constitutional Convention or any other American leader at the time using Natural Born or Natural Born Citizen to refer to parents.

          Reply
        • July 10, 2013 at 8:37 pm R C Jackman

          @chillydogg1  @smrstrauss
           
          As used by the Founders, a Natural Born Citizen is a child of two citizen parents.  A Natural Born Citizen of country XYZ is a child of two citizen parents of country XYZ.   There are conditions; more specifically “a natural born citizen of the United States is a child born of two citizen parents.  It matters not where the child was born.  In order to confirm NBC status, a father must also have been a prior resident of the U.S.    In order to retain NBC status, a natural born citizen must retain an exclusive U.S. citizenship.”  The argument for these conditions is beyond the scope of what I wish to deal with in our current discussion.  The child born to two transients is an ordinary citizen, a naturalized citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment.  A child born to illegal aliens is not a citizen – so say I, by virtue of the residency requirement of the 14th.

          Reply
        • July 10, 2013 at 9:38 pm R C Jackman

          @smrstrauss1  @DrConspiracy
           
          Individual states are as much sovereign as the constitutional United States.  They each had and still has its own natural and naturalized citizens.  The Naturalization Act of 1790 provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship” (Wikipedia).  Thus if the rules were followed (and they were), the naturalized state citizen would also be a national citizen.  Naturalization was then defined by uniform federal requirement and no longer by assorted state requirements.

          Reply
        • July 11, 2013 at 1:07 am smrstrauss

          Re: “As used by the Founders, a Natural Born Citizen is a child of two citizen parents,”
           
          There is not a single example of any of them ever saying this. Not one.
           
          Re: ” A child born to illegal aliens is not a citizen – so say I, by virtue of the residency requirement of the 14th.”
           
          Answer: But you are incorrect.
           
          Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):
           
          “Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”
           
          Re: ‘The child born to two transients is an ordinary citizen, a naturalized citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment. ”
           
          Again, you are incorrect.
           
          Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):“
           
          Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”
           
          Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency…”
           
          Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
           
          Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”

          Reply
        • July 11, 2013 at 1:13 am smrstrauss

          Naturalization applies to foreigners, people born outside of the USA. People born inside the USA are not considered foreigners, and do not have to be naturalized, and they are not naturalized citizens—-they are Natural Born Citizens.
           
          “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

          Reply
      • July 5, 2013 at 8:08 am smrstrauss

        Well said.
         
        And there are the examples of Tucker and Rawle, both of whom wrote at about the date of the Constitution and knew the founders, and both of whom used the term Natural Born Citizen just the way that it was used in the common law.

        Reply
        • July 5, 2013 at 8:35 pm R C Jackman

          @smrstrauss
           
          Tucker wrote “that the natural born citizen clause is “a happy means of security against foreign influence.'”  The clause would not be “a happy means of security” if it provided nothing more than just ordinary citizen status.
           
          Rawle said children born in the U.S. of citizen parents became at the moment of birth citizens of the U.S., which is true.  Unfortunately he went on to refer to such children as “natural born citizens”.  Had he been right, there would have been no need for the 14th Amendment to make children born in the U.S. to be ordinary citizens.  Rawle was also corrected by James Wilson regarding children of temporary visitors.

          Reply
        • July 6, 2013 at 12:56 pm smrstrauss

          Re: “The clause would not be “a happy means of security” if it provided nothing more than just ordinary citizen status.”
           
          But it does not provide ordinary citizen status. Who told you that it did? Ordinary citizens include naturalized citizens. Natural Born Citizens EXCLUDE naturalized citizens.

          Reply
        • July 6, 2013 at 1:02 pm smrstrauss

          Rawle and Tucker and Meese and Senator Hatch and Senator Graham and the Wall Street Journal, which said:
           
          “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”—The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett)
           
          Are right, and you are wrong.
           
          More reading on the subject:
           
          http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/vattel-and-natural-born-citizen/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitutionhttp://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html

          Reply
        • July 6, 2013 at 8:42 pm R C Jackman

          @smrstrauss
           
          Natural born citizens are not naturalized citizens.  Naturalized U.S. citizens did not exist until the 14th Amendment (1868).

          Reply
        • July 6, 2013 at 8:42 pm R C Jackman

          @smrstrauss
           
          That Wall Street Journal reference was published July 31, 2009.  One might imagine they were rather biased in their opinion.

          Reply
        • July 7, 2013 at 5:36 am DrConspiracy

          @R C Jackman  @smrstrauss Of course naturalized citizens existed before the 14th Amendment. The Constitution gave Congress the power to enact a uniform system of naturalization, and they did so in the Naturalization Act of 1790.

          Reply
        • July 7, 2013 at 1:05 pm chillydogg1

          @smrstrauss So you’re saying nbC means citizen at birth under any circumstances? You don’t have to be born in the country. That means nbC is not the same as common law nbS.

          Reply
        • July 7, 2013 at 1:21 pm chillydogg1

          @smrstrauss Wait a minute you said earlier that nbC meant the same as nbS which requires birth in the country. Now you say it means citizen at birth. Which one is it?

          Reply
        • July 7, 2013 at 9:48 pm R C Jackman

          @DrConspiracy  @smrstrauss
           You are correct.  Sorry about that.

          Reply
        • July 8, 2013 at 4:55 am smrstrauss1

          @smrstrauss 
           
          The “Well said” was in response to DrConspiracy’s:
           
          ” Despite Franklin’s hyperbole, the records of the Convention contradict. Vattel was important where other sources were lacking. The English Common Law was what the Framers practiced for a living and sufficed for this question.”
           
          And, as I noted, the quotations from Tucker and Rawle indicate that these legal scholars, who knew the writers of the US Constitution, were certain that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen came from the Common Law, and not from Vattel.

          Reply
        • July 8, 2013 at 4:56 am smrstrauss1

          @R C Jackman  @smrstrauss 
           
          Indeed, natural born citizens are not naturalized citizens. That is why they used the term Natural Born Citizens because they wanted to exclude naturalized citizens—but that is the only kind of a US citizen that they excluded.

          Reply
        • July 8, 2013 at 4:59 am smrstrauss1

          @chillydogg1  @smrstrauss 
           
          Re: “so you’re saying nbC means citizen at birth under any circumstances?”
           
          Answer: No I’m not, but some others do hold that. I say that a US citizen born on foreign soil is not FOR SURE a NBC (though she or he may be). But what is for sure is that every child born on US soil—Yes, including “Anchor babie”—but excluding the childrn of foreign diplomats, is a NBC.

          Reply
        • July 8, 2013 at 4:59 am smrstrauss1

          @chillydogg1  @smrstrauss 
           
          See above.

          Reply
        • July 8, 2013 at 5:00 am smrstrauss1

          @chillydogg1  @smrstrauss 
           
          See my comment above.

          Reply
        • July 8, 2013 at 7:53 am DrConspiracy

          @R C Jackman  @smrstrauss It is clear from the debates over foreign influence (largely in the context of qualifications for Congress) that the Framers measured foreign influence by place of birth and tenure as a citizen, not by parentage. While many proposals appeared for the qualifications for federal office, some accepted, some rejected, the subject of parentage appeared in none of them.
           
          It is abundantly clear from the Framers own words that parentage was not a consideration. Madison himself, speaking before Congress, said:
           
          “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to examine any other.”

          Reply
        • July 8, 2013 at 8:02 am DrConspiracy

          @chillydogg1  @smrstrauss Under English statutes existing in 1776, persons born outside the British Empire to English parents were also natural born subjects. The English Common Law made persons born in the realm natural born subjects, and subsequent statutes conferred that status to persons born outside the realm.
           
          This distinction is why there’s no question that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States, but why there is a legitimate debate about someone born overseas to US parents (like John McCain, George Romney, FDR Jr., and Ted Cruz).

          Reply
        • July 9, 2013 at 10:06 am R C Jackman

          @DrConspiracy  @smrstrauss
           
          Foreign Influence:  Certainly place of birth and tenure as a citizen are considerations when thinking of ‘foreign influence’.  But home life and parentage certainly cannot be dismissed.  Indeed, they are probably the most important and obvious considerations.  It is ridiculous to even speculate that home life and parentage were not considered by our Founders.  Indeed, the president is required to be a second generation American.

          Reply
        • July 9, 2013 at 10:24 am R C Jackman

          @smrstrauss1  @chillydogg1  @smrstrauss
           
          Now the way I read the 14th Amendment, anchor babies are not entitled to even ordinary citizenship.  The 14th says they would become citizens “of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”.  If they do not legally reside, then they would not qualify.

          Reply
        • July 9, 2013 at 1:56 pm smrstrauss

          But you are wrong. Some examples:
           
          Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”
           
          Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.
           
          ”Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):“The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”
           
          Those children, including the child of the illegal immigrant, are all Natural Born Citizens and will be elegible to become president on their 35th birthday. You have the right not to vote for them, of course, but they are eliglble.

          Reply
        • July 9, 2013 at 3:08 pm DrConspiracy

          @R C Jackman  @smrstrauss This not a shred of historical record to support your opinions of how the Framers though. You seem to forget that in addition to the constitutional eligibility requirements, President also have to be elected.

          Reply
        • July 9, 2013 at 3:12 pm DrConspiracy

          @R C Jackman  @smrstrauss1  @chillydogg1  @smrstrauss Any person born in the United States is legally residing here from their birth. This doesn’t rely on the status of their parents. That’s what the 14th Amendment says. The word “become” that you used is not in the 14th Amendment.

          Reply
        • July 9, 2013 at 3:25 pm R C Jackman

          @smrstrauss1  @smrstrauss
           
          That seems to be the basic core of it.  Citizens, not naturalized, are second generation citizens.

          Reply
        • July 9, 2013 at 5:48 pm R C Jackman

          @DrConspiracy  @chillydogg1  @smrstrauss
           
          By the logic of England, Barack Obama would have been a subject of England.  And indeed, there are records apparently confirming that relationship.

          Reply
        • July 9, 2013 at 8:19 pm smrstrauss

          Re: “Indeed, the president is required to be a second generation American.”
           
          Where did you get that nutty idea from? Since Natural Born comes from the common law and includes EVERY child born on US soil, there is no requirement that even one of the parents be US citizens. Not even one.
           
          Re: “But home life and parentage certainly cannot be dismissed. ”
           
          Are you saying that a child born in the USA to two Italian parents is likely to be less loyal to the USA than a child born in the USA of parents who were three generations American? (If so, tell that stupid idea to Justices Scalia and Alioto.)
           
          Re: “It is ridiculous to even speculate that home life and parentage were not considered by our Founders.”
           
          Answer: According to Strict Construction legal interpretation, if the law or the Constitution does not refer to “home life and parentage” you are not allowed to put it in because of your interpretation, and in this case the Constitution does not mention it, and neither does any of the writings of the men who were at the Constituitonal Convention. Not any. Not one of them ever wrote that two citizen parents are required or that the child born on US soil to two Italians, or Irish or Mexicans was any less of a Natural Born Citizen than a child born on US soil to two American citizens.
           
          NOT ONE!

          Reply
        • July 9, 2013 at 8:25 pm smrstrauss

          You are right, he would have been–and in fact was–a dual citizen of Britian and the USA. And that has absolutely no effect on his natural Born Citizen status whatever. (And, in fact, we have already had several presidents who were dual citizens before Obama. Woodrow Wilson and Dwight Eisenhower for two.) More importantly, there is no mention of dual citizenship affecting Natural Born status in the common law, so it doesn’t.

          Reply
        • July 9, 2013 at 8:27 pm smrstrauss

          A child born on US soil to two foreign parents is a first generation US citizen. She or he is a citizen at birth, a Natural Born Citizen, not a naturalized citizen.

          Reply
        • July 9, 2013 at 8:33 pm DrConspiracy

          @R C Jackman  @chillydogg1  @smrstrauss By the British Nationality Act of 1948, President Obama was born a Citizen of the UK and Colonies. When Kenya gained its independence in 64, Obama was no longer CUKC, but became a “Commonwealth Citizen” as well as a citizen of Kenya. Those citizenships ended when he reached age 23. I don’t know anything about any records. That’s just what the British statutes and the Constitution of Kenya say.

          Reply
        • July 9, 2013 at 8:43 pm smrstrauss

          Re: ” One might imagine they were rather biased in their opinion.”
           
          And you apparently are not biased at all.
           
          The Wall Street Journal and Senators Hatch and Graham and former senator Fred Thompson and Black’s Law Dictionary and ten appeals courts and the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case are not biased and are correct. And YOU are biased, and wrong.

          Reply
        • July 10, 2013 at 8:11 pm R C Jackman

          @chillydogg1  @smrstrauss
           For NBC, parents have to be citizens.  NBS is a term for Subjects of England.  We are a government with “citizens”, not “subjects”.

          Reply
        • July 10, 2013 at 9:59 pm AlCum

          @R C Jackman  That is incorrect. There is no such requirement to be “second generation American.” There is no such rule nor any hint at any such rule. Your claim is a fabrication.

          Reply
        • July 11, 2013 at 1:09 am smrstrauss

          Answer: IF the writers of the Constitution intended to change the Natural Born requirements for citizens and make them different from subjects, they would have told us about the change—and they didn’t.

          Reply
        • July 11, 2013 at 5:22 am DrConspiracy

          @R C Jackman  @chillydogg1  @smrstrauss And “Citoyens” (the word Vattel used) is for the people of Switzerland. Have you read the decision in Lynch v. Clarke?

          Reply
  • July 9, 2013 at 10:34 am realitycheck1776

    I love Birthers. They can blissfully ignore page after page of solid contrary evidence and just say “this is how I define ‘foreign influence’ therefore I am correct.” Of course the answer to whether you are correct or not is currently residing comfortably at 1600 PA Ave, Washington, D. C. .

    Reply
  • July 11, 2013 at 6:31 pm R C Jackman

    smrstrauss
    Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice:
    “The relevant facts WHICH HAVE BEEN PLACED BEFORE the
    INS, BIA, and THIS COURT can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a
    wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are
    natural-born citizens of the United States.”
    According to the above statement (which is all I have found thus
    far), the court did not rule the children to be natural-born citizens.That information is simply what was presented
    to the court.

    Reply
  • July 11, 2013 at 6:42 pm R C Jackman

    DrConspiracy
    R C Jackman
     smrstrauss1
     chillydogg1
     smrstrauss
    14th – “… are citizens of the United
    States and of the state wherein they reside.”
    The right of residency is a state function. Suppose a person
    moves to a new state, he then faces residency requirements for all sorts of
    things: getting a car license, applying for public sector employment, welfare,
    voting, purchasing guns, in-state tuition, etc. Residency requirements are set
    by local authorities including the state government.A state may deny residency status to whomever
    it wants to.

    Reply
  • July 11, 2013 at 6:52 pm R C Jackman

    DrConspiracy R C Jackman smrstrauss Are you saying that Blackstone also recognized the “Law of Nations”?

    Reply
  • July 11, 2013 at 6:57 pm R C Jackman

    smrstrauss
    Once one loses his ‘natural born citizenship’, he cannot
    regain it by being born again.

    Reply
  • July 11, 2013 at 7:11 pm R C Jackman

    smrstrauss
    Congress was given the constitutional power “to
    establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization”.It was under that authority that the 14th was
    established.Thus, the child of
    foreigners is a naturalized citizen, not a ‘jus sanguine’ (by the blood) child.

    Reply
  • July 11, 2013 at 7:28 pm R C Jackman

    smrstrauss
    In Wong Kim
    Ark, a Chinese U.S. resident family gave birth to a child, and it was
    critically to be determined whether that child should be considered as a U.S.
    citizen.The court correctly decided he
    was a citizen.But in the process, the
    court made one error and a faux pas.By
    stare decisis (aka. scary decease-ed) these indiscretions led to a fatal errors
    in subsequent cases.
    The Wong Kim
    Ark error was that it gave primary credence to “English common law” rather than
    the “Law of Nations common law”.Regarding citizenship, the difference is that the English law bases
    citizenship on place of birth (jus soli, of the soil), whereas the Law of
    Nations law bases citizenship on family (jus sanguinis, of the blood).We have a mix: jus soli with regard to 14th
    Amendment birth naturalizations; but jus sanguinis with regard to natural born
    citizenship.This did not go unnoticed
    by the dissenters.“The dissenters
    argued that the history of U.S. citizenship law had broken with English common
    law tradition after independence—citing as an example the embracing in the U.S.
    of the right of expatriation (giving up of one’s native citizenship) and the
    rejection of the contrary British doctrine of perpetual allegiance.”(Wikipedia)In the War of 1812, America seamen were issued Semen’s Protection
    Certificates in order to try to protect them from British impressment because
    of suggested birth on British soil.This
    error did not affect the Wong outcome, but it was a wrong think that would
    carry forward.
    The Wong Kim
    Ark faux pas was a good and technically correct statement in majority summary,
    but one which was stupidly misinterpreted by a later court: “Every citizen or
    subject of another country, while domiciled here, … if he hath issue here, that
    issue is a ‘natural-born subject’; and his child … If born in the country, is
    as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.”(Note: The British “natural-born subject” is
    not the same as our “natural born citizen”.)The later court equated the ordinary citizen, a child born in the
    country, to a “natural born citizen”.But the summary states only that the quality of the child’s citizenship
    is every bit as good as that of the “natural born citizen”.It does not say that the child is a “natural born
    citizen”.

    Reply
  • July 11, 2013 at 9:01 pm AlCum

    R C Jackman It is a legal impossibility for Obama to have lost his natural born citizenship. Please do actual research before embarrassing yourself with such lies.

    Reply
  • July 11, 2013 at 9:02 pm AlCum

    R C Jackman That is legally incorrect.

    Reply
  • July 12, 2013 at 6:54 am smrstrauss

    What are you trying to say????
    A person can lose or give up the citizenship part of a Natural Born Citizen—by, for example, renouncing citizenship. But how does this appply to anything at all? (If you have the nutty idea that Obama renounced or “lost” his US citizenship—he did not . He was never, BTW, a citizen of Indonesia.)

    Reply
  • July 12, 2013 at 7:01 am smrstrauss

    Re: “Thus, the child of foreigners is a naturalized citizen, not a ‘jus sanguine’ (by the blood) child.”
    Answer: We use Jus Soli, the law of the soil, and it applies to every child (except the children of foreign diplomats). Every child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen, as the numerous cases I have shown you all have ruled. (And if you’d like to be hit by some truly nasty language, why not tell justices Scalia and Alito that you think that the US-born children of foreigners are not just as good for Natural Born Citizen purposes as the US-born children of US citizens.

    Reply
  • July 12, 2013 at 7:06 am smrstrauss

    Re: The allegation that the Wong Kim Ark case, which was decided Six justices to Two justices (one justice did not vote) made an error.
    You have a right to that opinion, but it is not the law. As noted, the ten appeals courts have all cited the Wong Kim Ark case as the law, and the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of one of those ten cases, leaving its ruling standing. That is the law unless and until you can get the US Supreme Court to take a case and reverse the Wong Kim Ark ruling (which is extremely unlikely) or until you can get the US to pass a Constitutional amendment revising the US Supreme Court’s ruling (which is even more unlikely).
    Don’t like the situation? Too bad for you.

    Reply
  • July 12, 2013 at 9:51 am smrstrauss

    Re: “The right of residency is a state function.”
    What does that have to do with anything?

    Reply
  • July 12, 2013 at 10:20 am DrConspiracy

    smrstrauss Mr. Jackman is putting forward the argument that only the children of persons who have established residence in the United States are born its citizens. He clouds the issue by saying that residence is hard to determine because the rules vary state to state.

    In US v. Wong, there is mention of the concept of “domicile” and that word is tied to the concept of “intention to remain.” Certainly Wong Kim Ark’s parents were long-standing residents of the United States. However, while the court talks about it, domicile was not a necessary part of the chain or reasoning that made Wong a citizen at birth by the 14th Amendment. One might argue that Barack Obama Sr. was not “domiciled” in the United States, but that doesn’t matter. His son was born in the United States and under its jurisdiction, and so was born a citizen.
    Mr. Jackman has some obvious anti-immigrant attitudes, but they are not supported by the law.

    Reply
  • July 12, 2013 at 11:18 am smrstrauss

    “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”
    If all men are created equal, then there is no legal difference, and can be no legal difference, between a child born in the USA of foreign parents and a child born in the USA of US parents.

    Reply
  • July 12, 2013 at 11:40 am smrstrauss

    Re: “the court did not rule the children to be natural-born citizens.That information is simply what was presented to the court.”
    Not in that case. However, the court SUMMARIZED the facts, and the court’s summary was that the children were Natural Born Citizens.
    In the TEN appeals courts rulings about Obama (nine cases) and McCain (one case), the courts did rule, and in every single case they ruled that every child born in the USA (except for the children of foreign diplomats) is a Natural Born US Citizen.

    Reply
  • July 12, 2013 at 10:16 pm R C Jackman

    smrstrauss
    Your ‘common law’ is the old English law prior to our
    Declaration of Independence.Our
    Founders wrote a new document, our Constitution, wherein the term ‘natural born
    citizen’ was taken from Vattel’s book which was a model used by our Framers.
    Yes, I’m saying “that a child born in the USA to two
    Italian parents is likely to be less loyal to the USA than a child born in the
    USA of parents who were three generations American”.I have nothing against Italians or any other
    foreign parents, but a child nurtured in an American home is more likely to respect
    American traditions and values.Our
    founder specified a ‘natural born citizen’ in order to be more certain of the loyalty
    of one to be appointed President of the United States.

    Reply
  • July 12, 2013 at 10:58 pm R C Jackman

    DrConspiracy
    R C Jackman
    In Wong Kim Ark, a
    Chinese U.S. resident family gave birth to a child, and it was critically to be
    determined whether that child should be considered as a U.S. citizen.The court correctly decided he was a citizen.I have previously replied about this case with
    ‘smrstrauss’, you might look for that posting.There were two points of particular interest: (1) The court confused
    ‘natural born subject’ with ‘natural born citizen’.That point was emphasized in Minority.The dissenters argued that the history of
    U.S. citizenship law had broken with English common law tradition after
    independence.(2) The Court also said that a child, a
    ‘natural-born subject’, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a
    citizen.So clearly the subject is not
    the same as the citizen.Only the
    quality of the child’s citizenship is every bit as good as that of the “natural
    born citizen”.It does not say that the
    child is a “natural born citizen”.

    Reply
  • July 12, 2013 at 11:15 pm R C Jackman

    smrstrauss
    If “the Law of
    Nations” wasn’t “The Law of Nations”, I wonder what “the
    Law of Nations” was.The Framers
    used the common language; they didn’t define everything as lawyers might do or
    as the Congress does today with its thousand page bills.The Constitution was meant to be understood
    by the common man.

    Reply
  • July 13, 2013 at 5:36 am smrstrauss

    Re: “Are you saying that Blackstone also recognized the “Law of Nations”?”
    Answer:
    This is what Blackstone said:
    “The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is alien.” http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/
    (And the minor exceptions referred to in “generally speaking” refers to the children of foreign diplomats.)

    Reply
  • July 13, 2013 at 5:40 am smrstrauss

    Re: “The Constitution was meant to be understood by the common ma.”
    Answer: Yes, and so if they had meant the book The Law of Nations and not the generic idea of a las of nations, they would have said: “The book The Law of Nations” or they would have said: “Vattel’s book”—but they did not, and neither did the Federalist Papers, which mentioned the common law about twenty times and did not mention Vattel at all.

    Reply
  • July 13, 2013 at 5:41 am DrConspiracy

    R C Jackman smrstrauss “the Law of Nations” means “international laws”. It’s a common term. To suggest that Constitution gave Congress the power to punish offenses against Vattel’s 3-voluime book is so patently absurd that it boggles the mind that anyone would assert such a thing. But why in your twisted literalism don’t you read it “punish ‘Offenses against the Law of Nations'” the latter a chapter in Blackstone’s commentaries, a much more influential book for the founders than Vattel.

    Reply
  • July 13, 2013 at 5:46 am smrstrauss

    Yes, I’m saying “that a child born in the USA to two Italian parents is likely to be less loyal to the USA than a child born in the USA of parents who were three generations American”.
    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal….”
    All men, the children of three generations of Americans and the children of Italian immigrants, are created equal.
    And the writers of the US Constitution used a lot of terms from the common law, including Habeas Corpus and ex post facto, and if they had intended to switch from the common law to Vattel in the meaning of Natural  Born, they would have told us—and they didn’t.

    Reply
  • July 13, 2013 at 10:40 am R C Jackman

    smrstrauss
    § 212. Of
    the citizens and [naturals (original 1758 French), incorrectly translated 1759
    to 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 [naturals ou indigines], are those born in the country, of
    parents who are citizens.[‘naturals are
    ‘natural born citizens; ‘indigines’ are natives or originals]
    The Framers
    were using the French version of Vattel’s Law of Nations as supplied by
    Benjamin Franklin.

    Reply
  • July 13, 2013 at 10:48 am DrConspiracy

    R C JackmansmrstraussYeah, those Framers were all over Vattel’s Law of Nations including:§ 129. Public establishment of religion.
    But we should take care not to extend this liberty beyond its just
    bounds. In religious affairs a citizen has only a right to be free from
    compulsion, but can by no means claim that of openly doing what he pleases,
    without regard to the consequences it may produce on society. The
    establishment of religion by law, and its public exercise, are matters
    of state, and are necessarily under the jurisdiction of the political
    authority.

    Reply
  • July 13, 2013 at 10:52 am DrConspiracy

    How about this one, from Vattel’s Law of Nations:§ 176. Means of putting a stop to this disorder.
    …Since it is an established custom that the nobility and military men
    should appear armed, even in time of peace, care should be taken to
    enforce a rigid observance of the laws which allow the privilege of
    wearing swords to these two orders of men only.
    Vattel’s gonna take away your guns!

    Reply
  • July 13, 2013 at 10:54 am DrConspiracy

    My favorite from Vattel’s Law of nations:§ 122. Right of carrying off women.
    … A nation cannot preserve and perpetuate itself, except by
    propagation. A nation of men has, therefore, a right to procure women,
    who are absolutely necessary to its preservation; and if its
    neighbours, who have a redundancy of females, refuse to give some of
    them in marriage to those men, the latter may justly have recourse to force.

    Reply
  • July 13, 2013 at 10:59 am DrConspiracy

    Vattel on Taxes:
    § 240. Taxes.
    If the income of the public property, or of the domain, is not
    sufficient for the public wants, the state supplies the deficiency by
    taxes. These ought to be regulated in such a manner, that all the
    citizens may pay their quota in proportion to their abilities, and the
    advantages they reap from the society.
    No budget cuts, just more taxes. And no special considerations for billionaires. Vattel is growing on me.

    Reply
  • July 13, 2013 at 2:08 pm AlCum

    R C Jackman You are incorrect. The Framers of course did NOT use Vattel for the definition of natural born citizen. They simply did no such thing. They used the definition that always had been in use. Vattel in fact never used the term “natural born citizen” anyway so you are lying about something that cannot possibly be true in the first place.

    Reply
  • July 13, 2013 at 2:11 pm AlCum

    R C Jackman You are of course wrong and the proof of that is in the very quote you cite from Wong. The court did NOT say that Wong’s citizenship is every bit as good as that of the “natural born citizen” but, as you cite in the quote you provided, “is as much a citizen as the NATURAL BORN CHILD of a citizen.”
    That is not the same thing. Please learn to read.

    Reply
  • July 14, 2013 at 4:53 pm R C Jackman

    smrstrauss
    In 1875, the Supreme Court considered the Minor v.
    Happersett case.Mrs. Minor was noted to
    have been born in the U.S. to parents who were citizens.The court stated in accord with “nomenclature
    of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar” [e.g. Vattel] that such
    persons were “natural born citizens”.Then since Mrs. Minor was a natural born citizen, she was also a citizen
    (an issue of the case).Whereupon it is
    declared a legal precedent that a sufficient condition for being a natural born
    citizen is to be born in the U.S. to citizen parents.

    Reply
  • July 14, 2013 at 5:05 pm R C Jackman

    smrstrauss
    Some people are born short, others tall.They are equal before the law, but they’re
    not equally qualified to play professional basketball.

    Reply
  • July 14, 2013 at 5:15 pm R C Jackman

    smrstrauss
    Obama was born an ordinary citizen (perhaps of Kenya, maybe
    England, maybe U.S. via Hawaii).He was
    registered as a citizen of Indonesia when he went to school there.In any event he was not a natural born
    citizen of the United States by virtue of his father not being a citizen of the
    United States.

    Reply
  • July 14, 2013 at 5:28 pm R C Jackman

    smrstrauss
    We use ‘jus soli’ for ordinary citizenship as defined by the
    14th Amendment.If ‘jus soli’
    citizenship were natural born citizenship, then there would have been no need
    for the 14th Amendment.

    Reply
  • July 14, 2013 at 7:57 pm AlCum

    R C Jackman You’re lying again, as the Minor decision says no such thing. There is zero support for any of your ludicrous claims that citizen parents are required to be a natural born citizen. None.

    Reply
  • July 14, 2013 at 7:57 pm AlCum

    R C Jackman This is factually incorrect.

    Reply
  • July 15, 2013 at 12:42 am smrstrauss

    Re: “Some people are born short, others tall.”
    Answer: Your own words show how you are wrong: “They are equal before the law.”
    That is what counts. The US-born children of immigrants and the children of US citizen are legally equal. The US-born children of immigrants and the children of three generations of Americans are precisely the same Natural Born Citizens. And if the writers of the US Constitution had meant that the US-born children of immigrants were lower in the law than the US-born children of US citizens or that they were not Natural Born Citizens, they would have told us. Instead the AMERICAN (not Swiss) writers of the time already knew that the US-born children of foreigners and the US-born children of US citizens were all Natural Born Citizens—as the Tucker quotation makes clear.

    Reply
  • July 15, 2013 at 12:45 am smrstrauss

    Obama certainly was not born in Kenya. That is truly nutty. And he was never a citizen of Indonesia—as a telephone call to the Embassy of that country will confirm.
    He was indeed a dual citizen of the USA and Britain when he was born (as was Woodrow Wilson), but dual citizenship has no effect on Natural Born Citizen status. Nor does the citizenship of the father (or of the mother, or both). ALL children born on US soil (and Obama was born on US soil, in Hawaii) are Natural Born US Citizens.

    Reply
  • July 15, 2013 at 12:49 am smrstrauss

    The meaning of Natrual Born did not change with the 14th Amendment, only the fact that citizenship was now defined by Federal law. The need for the 14th Amendment was, duh, that some states made exceptions in jus soli, and those exceptions were slaves. The 14th Amendment said that states could not make those exceptions anymore, and that the rule of jus soli applies to everyone.
    That takes care of the citizenship portion of Natural Born Citizen. It does not affect the Natural Born portion of that term, and that—as the quotations from Tucker and Rawle show—has always included every child born in the USA .If the writers of the US Constitution had intended to make a change from the common law meaning of Natural Born, they would have told us.

    Reply
  • July 15, 2013 at 12:54 am smrstrauss

    Re: “The Framers were using the French version of Vattel’s Law of Nations as supplied by Benjamin Franklin.”
    Answer: Baloney. If they had translated Vattel’s word “indigines” as “Natural Born Citizen” and use that instead of the common law that every lawyer was familiar with, they would have told us.

    Reply
  • July 16, 2013 at 5:35 pm R C Jackman

    smrstrauss
    Residency plays into the 14th Amendment.It’s a point generally overlooked.But it is one way to argue against the
    citizenship of anchor babies.The
    Constitution says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States
    … are citizens of the United States and OF THE STATE WHEREIN THEY RESIDE.”If an anchor baby is not legally in state residence,
    then the 14th cannot be applied; and hence the anchor baby would not be a
    citizen.

    Reply
  • July 16, 2013 at 6:57 pm R C Jackman

    AlCum
    R C Jackman
    Search for “CHAP. XIX”.
    http://birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html

    Reply
  • July 16, 2013 at 7:22 pm R C Jackman

    smrstrauss
    George Mason, one of Virginia’s delegates to the
    Constitutional Convention, in “The Debates in the Convention of the
    Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution”
    said “The common law of England is not the common law of these
    States.” [in link, go to Thursday
    June 19]
    http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va.htm

    Reply
  • July 16, 2013 at 9:13 pm AlCum

    R C Jackman No need. As proven earlier, Vattel has zero relevance to the issue.
    Are you aware that Vattel never used the phrase “natural born citizen?” OOOPS for you!

    Reply
  • July 16, 2013 at 9:15 pm AlCum

    R C Jackman That is factually erroneous. Anchor babies of course are natural born citizens and eligible to be president. That’s just a fact.

    Reply
  • July 17, 2013 at 4:54 am DrConspiracy

    R C Jackmansmrstrauss The Supreme Court said inSmith v. Alabama (1888) http://supreme.justia.com/us/124/465/case.html: “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.”
     Chief Justice Taft, writing for the majority in the Supreme Court’s decision in http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/267/87/case.html:
    “The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by
    reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were
    when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of
    the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Conventions
    of the thirteen States were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the
    common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar
    with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in
    their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them, but
    when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law
    in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law,
    confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.”

    Reply
  • July 17, 2013 at 4:59 am DrConspiracy

    R C Jackman smrstrauss “and of the state wherein they reside” is an additional state citizenship, and not a qualification of citizenship in the United States. And “legally” is something you made up–not in the Constitution. And all the courts disagree with you, making you a crank, and me right.

    Reply
  • July 17, 2013 at 9:32 am smrstrauss

    Supposing that we stipulate that Vattel said “Natural Born Citizen”—though what he said was an “indignes”, and there are French speaking lawyers who say that Natural Born Citizen is not a good translation of that.
    That still begs the question that the writers of the Constitution followed Vattel. None of them ever said that they did, and the quotations from Tuker and Rawle show that the Americans at the  time believed (correctly of course) that the term came from the common law.
    Proponents of Vattel have to show more than that the writers of the Constitution read Vattel because they read a lot of other things too.

    Reply
  • July 17, 2013 at 7:10 pm R C Jackman

    DrConspiracy
    R C Jackman
     smrstrauss
    Our
    Vattel-inspired ‘natural born citizen’ could aspire to the presidency, but
    Blackstone’s ‘natural born subject’ could not aspire to be king.’Citizen’ and ‘subject’ are not the same
    thing.And as I have noted previously,
    George Mason, while advocating the adoption of our constitution, explicitly
    said “The common law of England is not the common law of these States.”

    Reply
  • July 18, 2013 at 6:16 am smrstrauss

    IF the members of the Constitutional Convention had meant to switch the meaning of Natural Born from the place of birth that everyone was familiar with from the common law to parents (two or even one), they WOULD HAVE TOLD US–and they didn’t.

    Reply
  • July 18, 2013 at 6:24 am smrstrauss

    The Minor v. Happersett decision does not say what you think it says.
    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012

    Reply
  • July 18, 2013 at 6:26 am smrstrauss

    HOWEVER, the Minor v. Happersett decision does not say what you think it says:
    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012

    Reply
  • July 18, 2013 at 6:50 am DrConspiracy

    smrstraussHistorian George Bancroft in his History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United States (1884) (Volume 1 Page 346) wrote of the deliberations of the Federal Convention:
    “One question on the qualifications of the president was among the last to be decided. On the twenty-second of August the committee of detail, fixing the requisite age of the president at thirty-five, on their on motion and for the first time required that the president should be a citizen of the United States, and should have been an inhabitant of them for twenty-one years. The idea then arose that no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for the office of president; but as men of other lands had spilled their blood in the cause of the United States, and had assisted at every stage of the formation of their institutions, the committee of states were charged with all unfinished business proposed, on the fourth of September, that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the the of the adoption of this constitution, should be eligible to the office of president,” and for the foreign-born proposed a reduction of the requisite years of residence to fourteen. On the seventh of September, the modification, with the restriction as to the age of the president, was unanimously adopted.”

    Reply
  • August 17, 2013 at 12:10 am PeterLettkeman

    smrstrauss and how many of those are SCOTUS rulings?

    Reply
  • February 18, 2014 at 11:10 am MarthaTrowbridge

    At this point, happily, We The People have no need to nab aka Obama on Constitutional Eligibility. [Which, by the way, would shift the blame to those who let him pass through the gates.]

    No. Today, we have Identity Fraud, Election Fraud, and oodles of incidents of Treason.

    Happily, also, the consequences of his inevitable conviction are far more appropriate.

    Reply
    • February 18, 2014 at 11:25 am HistorianDude

      MarthaTrowbridge Any.Day.Now.

      Reply
      • February 18, 2014 at 11:36 am MarthaTrowbridge

        HistorianDude MarthaTrowbridge  Elated to hear that Truth has finally penetrated your mighty defenses.

        Reply
        • February 18, 2014 at 11:54 am HistorianDude

          MarthaTrowbridge We all find elation where we can. Fascinating that delusion is your drug of choice.

          Reply
        • February 18, 2014 at 12:03 pm MarthaTrowbridge

          HistorianDude MarthaTrowbridge  equally fascinating, that The “Obama” Conspirators assume that everyone has drug addictions and mental competency issues – never mind sexual perversions

          Reply
        • February 18, 2014 at 12:46 pm HistorianDude

          HistorianDude Not everyone.

          Reply
    • February 18, 2014 at 12:19 pm smrstrauss1

      MarthaTrowbridge  
      Obama really was born in Hawaii and really won both the 2008 and 2012 elections (the notion that either was influenced by significant fraud is loony. If that had happened, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and Karl Rove and the Republican secretaries of state and Republican governors of the swing states and Huckabee and Michele Bachmann and Santorum and Gingrich and Ann Coulter and Limbaugh and the National Review would have said something—-but not one of them did).
      Obama really was born in Hawaii.
       Obama has shown both his Hawaii short-form BC (the Certification of Live Birth, COLB, which is the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii, used by thousands of people to get their US passports every year), and he has shown his long form Hawaii BC. And the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that they sent them to him, and that all the facts, repeat ALL the facts are exactly the same, repeat, EXACTLY the same, as what they sent to him. And Obama’s birth in Hawaii in 1961 is also confirmed by the public Index Data file and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers in 1961 by the DOH of Hawaii (and ONLY the DOH of Hawaii could send birth notices to that section of the newspapers, the “Health Bureau Statistics” section, where Obama’s birth notice was published, and in 1961 the DOH only did so for births IN Hawaii).

      And every child, repeat EVERY child born on US soil, except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders, is a Natural Born US Citizen.
      That is why birthers and two-fers were not able to convince a single member of the US Electoral College to change her or his vote to vote against Obama in either the 2008 or 2012 elections. Obama won 356 electoral votes in the 2008 general election, and 356 electors voted for him. He received 332 votes in the 2012 general election, and 332 electors voted for him. In short, not one single elector changed her or his vote—that is because not one of them believes the nutty birther claim that Obama was born outside of the USA or the loony birther constitutional theory that two citizen parents are required. And ditto for the US Congress, which confirmed Obama’s election UNANIMOUSLY twice, and that included the votes of Rep. Michele Bachmann and Rep. Ron Paul).
      The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law—-not from Vattel, who is not even mentioned once in the Federalists Papers while the common law is mentioned about twenty times, and always with praise. Not one single member of the Constitutional Convention EVER said that two citizen parents are required, and John Jay—who first used the term in his letter to George Washington, was an expert in THE COMMON LAW. If he had meant to use the term as Vattel did, and not to use it the way that the Common Law did—he would have said so.
      And in the common law every child born in the country except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders is a Natural Born Citizen—and that INCLUDES dual citizens.
      Moreover, the Minor V. Happersett case did not say what birthers claim it said, and the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court Case was AFTER Minor v. Happersett, and it said that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen and that the term comes from the common law (a six justice to two justice ruling with one justice not voting BTW).
      So the Heritage Foundation book is right, and the two-parent theory is wrong:
      “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
      More reading on the subject:
      http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/
      http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012

      Reply
      • February 18, 2014 at 12:28 pm MarthaTrowbridge

        smrstrauss1 MarthaTrowbridge  Well, well, what have we here? A convocation of ‘entities’ who habitually harassed Mario Apuzzo at his website, suddenly manifesting on a website story that has had zero commenting activity for a year and a half. 

        Shall I assume you consider yourselves the ‘top brass’ amongst the “Obama” propagandists?

        Please do tell, so I can decide if I should be flattered by your lavish attentions.

        And oh, psssst: careful, bros. Mike Zullo can track you.

        Reply
        • February 18, 2014 at 12:51 pm HistorianDude

          MarthaTrowbridge smrstrauss1Mike Zullo could not track a rhinoceros across mud.

          Reply
        • February 18, 2014 at 1:09 pm MarioApuzzo

          HistorianDude MarthaTrowbridge smrstrauss1  He would not do something like that.  He would ask you to do it for him.

          Reply
        • February 18, 2014 at 2:14 pm DrConspiracy

          MarthaTrowbridge smrstrauss1Apuzzo’s web site was 100% moderated (nothing appeared until he approved ti) and he shamelessly deleted comments that pointed out that he was wrong.
          Don’t get me started on Zullo.

          Reply
        • February 18, 2014 at 2:17 pm MarthaTrowbridge

          MarioApuzzo HistorianDude MarthaTrowbridge smrstrauss1  🙂

          Reply
        • February 18, 2014 at 2:37 pm smrstrauss1

          MarthaTrowbridge smrstrauss1
          Re: “… a website story that has had zero commenting activity for a year and a half”
          That’s because when you post it sends an e-mail to me—so I respond with the facts.
          Re Sheriff Joe, Zullo and the Cold Case Posse:
          http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292780/conspiracy-again-editors
          Re Zullo “tracking”—who cares?
           Here is a link to most of the documents that confirm that the officials in Hawaii sent the short form and long form birth certificates to Obama and that all the facts on the published image match what they sent to him:
          http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/heres-the-birth-certificate/
          That shows the short-form official birth certificate, the Certification of Live Birth in detail. It also shows several confirmations that you should check including two that say that the facts on the published BC MATCH the facts on the ones sent to him.

          Reply
        • February 18, 2014 at 2:40 pm MarthaTrowbridge

          smrstrauss1 MarthaTrowbridge  Apparently, you are unfamiliar with my familiarity with this matter

          Reply
        • February 19, 2014 at 7:47 am smrstrauss1

          MarthaTrowbridge smrstrauss1  
          I do not post for you. I post the facts on the off-chance that a rational person may visit this site and seek the facts.  I have posted some of the facts above. Rational people will notice that you have not attempted to disprove them.

          More facts:

          Here is the confirmation by the former governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican, that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital:
          http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html
          Here is the statement of the former Hawaii teacher who recalled being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, in 1961 and writing home to her father (named Stanley) about hearing that a child was born to a woman named Stanley:
          http://web.archive.org/web/20110722055908/http://mysite.ncnetwork.net/res10o2yg/obama/Teacher%20from%20Kenmore%20recalls%20Obama%20was%20a%20focused%20student%20%20Don%27t%20Miss%20%20The%20Buffalo%20News.htm
           
          Here are the birth notices of Obama’s birth in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961.
           
          http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php
          (And as you can see the section of the paper is called “Health Bureau Statistics”. Well, as the name indicates, and as both the papers and the DOH confirm, ONLY the DOH could send notices to that section of the paper, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii.)
          Here is the Index Data file:
          http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2011/04/in_hawaii_its_easy_to_get_birt.html

          Reply
        • February 19, 2014 at 8:18 am realitycheck1776

          MarioApuzzo HistorianDudeMarthaTrowbridgesmrstrauss1 
          And Mario Apuzzo could write 10,000 words explaining that even though it was a large mammal with a single horn it wasn’t a rhinoceros.

          Reply
        • February 19, 2014 at 8:44 am MarthaTrowbridge

          realitycheck1776 MarioApuzzo HistorianDude MarthaTrowbridge smrstrauss1  Dear RC: It has come to my attention that you honored me with a mention on your show last night. This can only indicate that my work rattles you and yours. For this validation, as Sidney Greenstreet quipped in “Christmas In Connecticut”: “I am deeply touched, deeply touched.”

          Reply
        • February 19, 2014 at 9:20 am MarioApuzzo

          realitycheck1776 MarioApuzzo HistorianDude MarthaTrowbridge smrstrauss1  No, that is how many words it takes to explain to people like you that a dog is not a poodle, unless it is a poodle.

          Reply
        • February 19, 2014 at 9:38 am HistorianDude

          MarioApuzzo realitycheck1776MarthaTrowbridgesmrstrauss1  You know, Mario. There’s an old Sicilian proverb that perfectly describes your legal theories regarding natural born citizenship and how they have been treated by the US Judicial System. It goes like this:
          “C’era beddu lu pitrusinu, c’ii lu ‘attu e ci piscio.”
          Roughly translated, it means, “It wasn’t such beautiful parsley in the first place, and
          then the cat went and peed on it.”
          I imagine there is no limit on the number of times that you can rewrite the same failed arguments for your blog, but until such time you can get a US court to agree with you, they’re still just so much urine soaked parsley.

          Reply
        • February 19, 2014 at 10:08 am MarioApuzzo

          HistorianDude MarioApuzzo realitycheck1776 MarthaTrowbridge smrstrauss1  

          You give us this
          Sicilian saying:  “C’era beddu lu pitrusinu, c’ii lu ‘attu e ci piscio.”

          You said it means:  “It wasn’t such beautiful parsley in the
          first place, and then the cat went and peed on it.”

          It looks like your
          understanding of Sicilian is as good as your understanding of the meaning of a “natural
          born citizen.” 

          The quote translates
          as follows:  “There was beautiful parsley.  Then there was the cat which peed on it.” 
          So, from that saying
          we can arrive at this truth:  The meaning
          of a “natural born citizen” was beautiful. 
          Then there was de facto President, Barack Obama, who . . . . .

          Reply
        • February 19, 2014 at 10:16 am MarthaTrowbridge

          MarioApuzzo HistorianDude realitycheck1776 MarthaTrowbridge smrstrauss1  Bravo!!!

          Reply
        • February 19, 2014 at 10:49 am HistorianDude

          MarioApuzzo realitycheck1776MarthaTrowbridgesmrstrauss1
          How odd that you would accuse me of not understanding Sicilian and then provide an alternative translation that is essentially identical to my own, demonstration only that your command of the idiom is less than fluent. You know Mario, if you want to split hairs, you must first actually have hairs to split.
          At least twelve US courts have declared President Obama to be a natural born US citizen. Zero US courts have agreed with a single one of your tendentious arguments. You personally have lost every effort you have made in court on this issue even to the point of having your arguments declared frivolous by the court. You further appear to have pretty much completely given up ever trying again in court, explaining the pathetic redundancy of your blog.

          Obama is still the President, we (the Obots) have still won every single court case, and your arguments are still urine soaked parsely.

          Reply
        • February 19, 2014 at 10:54 am MarthaTrowbridge

          HistorianDude MarioApuzzo realitycheck1776 MarthaTrowbridge smrstrauss1  

          Hitler had his so-called courts under his vile claws. What did that prove? Please. 

          Time for The “Obama” Conspirators to either lawyer up, or flee.

          Unless, of course, some of Adolf’s alleged cyanide is still in stock.

          Reply
        • February 19, 2014 at 11:25 am MarioApuzzo

          HistorianDude MarioApuzzo realitycheck1776 MarthaTrowbridge smrstrauss1  

          Do you really believe that you can save face now after having miserably failed with your Sicilian?  

          You can hide all you want behind some court cases, but you still cannot show that Obama is a “natural born citizen.”

          Reply
        • February 19, 2014 at 11:37 am HistorianDude

          MarioApuzzo realitycheck1776MarthaTrowbridgesmrstrauss1
          If saving face had been my objective, of course. But since face saving was patently unnecessary, no.
          That said, back here in the real world, what you call “hid(ing) behind court cases” is actually called “adjudgment.”
          I’m sure you’ve got access to a good legal dictionary. Look it up.

          Reply
        • February 19, 2014 at 1:07 pm MarioApuzzo

          HistorianDude MarioApuzzo realitycheck1776 MarthaTrowbridge smrstrauss1  

          I
          see that not only are you poor at Sicilian, but you are also a poor
          dreamer.  And what “settled legal
          authority” may that be?  I am not aware
          of any opinion by the U.S. Supreme Court agreeing with your silly definition of
          a “natural born citizen,” i.e., that all born citizens are “natural born
          citizens.”

          Reply
        • February 19, 2014 at 2:31 pm smrstrauss1

          MarioApuzzo HistorianDuderealitycheck1776MarthaTrowbridgesmrstrauss1
           Re: “I am not aware…”

          Your lack of knowleged of the law reflects badly on you and does not change the situation. The Wong Kim Ark case ruling defined Natural Born Citizen in these words:

          “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.”

           And:
          It thus clearly appears that, by the law of
          England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of
          this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing
          in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the
          allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the
          power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every
          child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless
          the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State
          or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child
          was born.
          III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this
          continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in
          the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the
          Constitution as originally established.
          That clearly defines Natural Born as coming from THE COMMON LAW (not from Vattel), and it says that the meaning relates to the place of birth—not the parents—and it says that EVERY child born in England, or the 13 colonies, or the early states and UNDER THE CONSTITUTION is considered Natural Born.”
          And it says later that there is no difference between subjects and citizens where this is concerned.
          In the past you have claimed that those words do not indicate that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen, or that the ruling is “dicta.” But the rulings of ten appeals courts all cite that ruling (hence it is NOT dicta) and all of them say that the US Supreme Court DID RULE ON THAT MATTER, and that the Wong Kim Ark ruling is the ruling that did it.
           Here are some of the appeals court rulings:
          Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency…”
          Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
          Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
          Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
          Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”
          Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”
          Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
          And, on October 1, 2012, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of the last of the rulings shown above, the Farrar case, which had ruled that “children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” By rejecting the appeal, the US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court to STAND.

          Reply
        • February 19, 2014 at 2:39 pm HistorianDude

          MarioApuzzo realitycheck1776MarthaTrowbridgesmrstrauss1
          We have all learned long ago Mario, that what you are or not personally aware of is hardly a basis for determining what is or is not true. 
          As to the settled legal authority, here you go. Pay particular attention to Part I “Birther Cases with Decisions Recognizing
          that Obama is a “Natural Born Citizen.”
          http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/BIRTHER%20STRING%20CITE.pdf
          None of these cases are pending or under under appeal. Each and every one of them is “settled legal authority.”

          As to Supreme Court Decision I have already quoted in this thread the relevant discussion from US v. Wong Kim Ark… the only US Supreme Court Decision that has ever been cited as precedent regarding the definition of natural born citizen.

          Reply
        • February 19, 2014 at 4:41 pm MarioApuzzo

          smrstrauss1 MarioApuzzo HistorianDude realitycheck1776 MarthaTrowbridge  

          I of II 

          Just cutting and pasting comments without addressing my arguments gets you
          nowhere. 

          The American Revolution produced free and
          independent states.  These states, as not
          to revert to a state of nature, selectively adopted the English common law to
          stay in effect until abrogated by the states’ legislatures.  This local common law continued to be applied
          to define citizenship of a state until abrogated by state statute.  This is the “rule” of which Justice Gray
          speaks and which he says continued in the United States “under the Constitution
          as originally established.”   There is nothing in what he said that suggests
          that the Constitution adopted the English common law for the national
          government or to define national citizenship. 
          So the “rule” was not something which the Founders, Framers, Ratifiers,
          and then Congress used to define national citizenship. 

          In fact, we know that we did not adopt the English
          common law jus soli rule for national citizenship and that a state citizen was
          not necessarily also a “citizen of the United States,” for early Congress in
          its Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 treated children born in
          the United States to alien parents as alien born and in need of
          naturalization.  Under those statutes,
          such children could become “citizens of the United States” after birth upon their
          alien parents naturalizing and if dwelling in the United States at the time of
          such naturalization.  So, Congress
          rejected any English common law or state rules as controlling who could be “citizens
          of the United States.” 

          Wong Kim Ark did not say that the Founders, Framers,
          and Ratifiers used the English common law to define national citizenship or
          even a “natural born citizen.”  Wong Kim
          Ark did not say that a “natural born citizen” had the same meaning as an
          English “natural born subject.”     
          We know that Wong Kim Ark was not analyzing a “natural
          born citizen,” but rather only a “citizen” for it said that under the English
          common law, no effect was given to descent as a source of nationality.  The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor had
          already explained that a “natural born citizen” was a child born in a country
          to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.  The Court said: 

          “The Constitution
          does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had
          elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the
          framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all
          children bornin a country of parents who were its citizensbecame themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.
          These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or
          foreigners.” 
          Note that the Constitution to which Minor referred
          already included the Fourteenth Amendment. 
          Also note that at common law, if one was not born in the country to
          citizen parents, one was an alien or foreigner. 
          Wong Kim Ark cited and quoted Minor and the common law to which it
          looked for the definition of a “natural born citizen.”  Clearly, that definition contains a
          requirement of having citizen parents. 
          That is undeniably descent as a source of nationality.  Wong Kim Ark did not criticize Minor’s definition
          of that clause.  So, Wong Kim Ark could
          not have been defining a “natural born citizen,” which as Minor explained had
          an element of descent as a source of nationality.  Rather, what it defined was a “citizen,” not a
          “natural born citizen.”   

          Hence, looking to how citizenship was defined in the colonies and maybe in
          the new states under English common law for purposes of interpreting and
          applying the Fourteenth Amendment which was ratified in 1868 and as an aid to
          determining the meaning of a “citizen of the United States” thereunder in 1898 has
          nothing to do with how the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers defined in 1787 national
          citizenship and especially an Article II “natural born citizen.”

          Continued . . .

          Reply
        • February 19, 2014 at 4:41 pm MarioApuzzo

          smrstrauss1 MarioApuzzo HistorianDude realitycheck1776 MarthaTrowbridge  

          II of II 

          Minor is the supreme law of the land and all lower courts are bind by it.  Yet, all of the lower court cases that you cite erroneously relied upon Wong Kim Ark and each other to illegally change Minor’s definition of a “natural born citizen.”    Again, a correct reading of Wong Kim Ark shows that the Court, in defining a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, which both Minor and Wong Kim Ark informed does not define a “natural born citizen,” did not change Minor’s definition of a “natural born citizen.”  Rather, what it did was distinguish a “natural born citizen” from a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment and hold that Wong, by being born in the United States, was as much a citizen as a natural born citizen and therefore a “citizen of the United States” by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Critically significant, it neither held nor said anywhere in its opinion that he was a “citizen of the United States” at birth by virtue of the same common law which the Framers used to define a “natural born citizen.”  So, Wong could have been as much a citizen as a “natural born citizen,” but he was not a “natural born citizen.” 

          Finally, your relying on the U.S. Supreme Court denying a petition for a writ of certiorari as authority for any point is misplaced, for the Court’s denial carries no weight either way.  What you do not have is a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which changed Minor’s definition of a “natural born citizen” which to this day is still a child born in a country to parents who were its citizen at the time of the child’s birth. 

          So, smrstrauss1 and HistorianDude, you are going to have to come up with a better argument to prove your position that all born citizens are “natural born citizens.”

          Reply
        • February 19, 2014 at 6:31 pm HistorianDude

          MarioApuzzo smrstrauss1realitycheck1776MarthaTrowbridge
          LOL… it is a rather egregious level of pathetic when Mario hallucinates that prolix hand-waving on random Internet blogs will somehow make up for the fact that these are settled legal issues, and that he has lost in the only venue where it counts… the court of law. But let’s just lovingly consider one of the most profoundly idiotic assertions he makes here, one that leaped out at me practically from across the room.
          Mario writes that “Minor is the supreme law of the land and all lower courts are bind (sic) by it.” Oh Mario? Do you really think so? Hmm.
          Minor v. Happersett is actually one of only two US Supreme Court Decisions that was considered so despicable in its outcome that it was reversed NOT by a later court reversal of precedent, and NOT by the passage of a statute by Congress… BUT BY AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES! The other case is, of course the notorious Dred Scott decision. 
          So when one actually considers the decision of court, no Mario. Minor is NOT the supreme law of the land at all. THE 19TH AMENDMENT TO THE US CONSTITUTION IS!!!!
          Now this does not render the decision completely meaningless, but that hardly matters since it is always was completely irrelevant to any definition of natural born citizen in the first place. Again, no subsequent court has ever cited it as precedent on that issue. 
          Ever.
          In contrast, the definition offered by the Wong decision has not only been cited multiple times, and not only is it the ONLY Supreme Court decision that has EVER been cited as precedent on the issue by ANY subsequent court decision, it has been cited numerous times to specifically refute Mario’s urine soaked parsley and explicitly declare Barack Obama to be a natural born US citizen.
          This is the entire bottom line. The Wong definition governs, the Minor definition is not a definition at all, and President Obama’s citizenship status has been considered and settled in several US courts of law.
          He is a natural born citizen. End of story.

          Reply
        • February 19, 2014 at 8:43 pm DrConspiracy

          MarioApuzzo smrstrauss1HistorianDuderealitycheck1776MarthaTrowbridge 
          Minor doesn’t define “natural born citizen” and I would think any first-year law student could see the absurdity of your claim. You made that argument in court and you lost, and you lost on appeal.

          Reply
        • February 20, 2014 at 7:43 am realitycheck1776

          DrConspiracy MarioApuzzosmrstrauss1HistorianDuderealitycheck1776MarthaTrowbridge 
          Mario Apuzzo and the other Birthers resurrected Minor from the dustbin of history in desperation after the “Obama was born in Kenya” meme got nowhere. Apuzzo barely mentioned it in the original complaint in Kerchner v Obama. 
          Nothing in Minor actually remains in law today. The Nineteenth Amendment overturned the main ruling of the case and Wong Kim Ark settled any questions on citizenship that Minor might have left open. 
          Citing Minor on anything is akin to citing Dred Scott v Sandford, the Birthers other most favorite Supreme Court case.

          Reply
        • February 20, 2014 at 8:20 am smrstrauss1

          realitycheck1776 DrConspiracyMarioApuzzosmrstrauss1HistorianDudeMarthaTrowbridge
          Well said DrConspiracy and realitycheck1776.
          I  like to put the Minor v. Happersett decision in terms of an analogy. 
          It says that it was never doubted that a person with two citizen parents and birth in the country was a Natural Born Citizen. Well, the analogy is “it was never doubted that if you wore both suspenders and a belt that would hold your pants up.” 
          As you see, the statement that it was never doubted about pants DOES NOT SAY that it is required to wear suspenders and a belt to hold your pants up. It says that if you wear both FOR SURE your pants will be held up. But it does not say that wearing both is necessary to hold your pants up.
          Well, the same thing with the Minor V. Happersett listing of both the citizenship of parents and the US place of birth. It is entirely possible that having one of them will be sufficient to make you a Natural Born Citizen. Listing both does not say that both are necessary. 
          In fact Virginia Minor had both, and the justice was nice enough to say so in showing that she was a citizen (which was all that was necessary), but the ruling DOES NOT SAY that she or anyone required both anymore than it is required to wear both suspenders and a belt to hold your pants up.

          Reply
        • February 20, 2014 at 8:23 am smrstrauss1

          MarthaTrowbridge HistorianDudeMarioApuzzorealitycheck1776smrstrauss1
          Obama has shown both his Hawaii short-form BC (the Certification of Live Birth, COLB, which is the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii, used by thousands of people to get their US passports every year), and he has shown his long form Hawaii BC. And the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that they sent them to him, and that all the facts, repeat ALL the facts are exactly the same, repeat, EXACTLY the same, as what they sent to him. And Obama’s birth in Hawaii in 1961 is also confirmed by the public Index Data file and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers in 1961 by the DOH of Hawaii (and ONLY the DOH of Hawaii could send birth notices to that section of the newspapers, the “Health Bureau Statistics” section, where Obama’s birth notice was published, and in 1961 the DOH only did so for births IN Hawaii).

           That is why birthers and two-fers were not able to convince a single member of the US Electoral College to change her or his vote to vote against Obama in either the 2008 or 2012 elections. Obama won 356 electoral votes in the 2008 general election, and 356 electors voted for him. He received 332 votes in the 2012 general election, and 332 electors voted for him. In short, not one single elector changed her or his vote—that is because not one of them believes the nutty birther claim that Obama was born outside of the USA or the loony birther constitutional theory that two citizen parents are required. And ditto for the US Congress, which confirmed Obama’s election UNANIMOUSLY twice, and that included the votes of Rep. Michele Bachmann and Rep. Ron Paul.

          Reply
        • February 20, 2014 at 8:48 am realitycheck1776

          smrstrauss1 realitycheck1776DrConspiracyMarioApuzzoHistorianDudeMarthaTrowbridge 
          Yep, and it is that clear to any rational thinking person. Most importantly it has been clear to every judge or magistrate whom has been subjected to Mr. Apuzzo’s nonsensical legal theories.

          Reply
        • February 20, 2014 at 11:45 am smrstrauss1

          MarioApuzzo smrstrauss1HistorianDuderealitycheck1776MarthaTrowbridge
          Re: ” There is nothing in what he said that suggests
          that the Constitution adopted the English common law for the national government or to define national citizenship. ”
          However, what he ruled, and what Tucker and Rawle agreed to, is that the MEANING of Natural Born comes from the common law. He did not say that it came from Vattel—nor did Tucker or Rawle or any of the members of the Constitutional Convention. And as you have admitted, the states were using the common law selectively. That means that when they were NOT using the common law, they said so, and so would have the writers of the US Constitution. But they didn’t. Neither the Federalist Papers, nor any of the writings of the members of the Constitutional Convention, and certainly not JOHN JAY–who was an expert in the common law—ever said that they were using Vattel or had chosen not to use the meaning of Natural Born that they were familiar with from  the common law. 
          That is why the Heritage Foundation is right, and you are wrong.
           
          “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli,
          persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children
          of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus,
          those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens”
          and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether
          children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born
          citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al,
          THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald
          Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known
          Conservative organization.]

          Reply
        • February 20, 2014 at 4:30 pm HistorianDude

          smrstrauss1 realitycheck1776DrConspiracyMarioApuzzoMarthaTrowbridge
          Just to put as fine a point as possible on the inadequacy of Minor v. Happersett for birther purposes, birthers regularly (even in this thread) are quick to point out that the Wong decision never actually declares Wong Kim Ark to be a “natural born citizen.” In perfect symmetry, the Minor decision never declares Virginia Minor to be a “natural born citizen” either. In both cases, the plaintiffs are only referred to as citizens.

          Reply
      • February 19, 2014 at 12:05 pm chillydogg1

        smrstrauss1 MarthaTrowbridge  
        Liar. The court NEVER called Wong a natural born citizen. Here’s the decision;

        “The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of
        this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the
        parties were to present for determination the single question stated at
        the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the
        United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his
        birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent
        domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on
        business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity
        under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen
        of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of
        opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”
        Do you see the words “natural born” in there anywhere? In fact they specifically call him just a “citizen” even though the lower court had called him a “natural born citizen”.  The Wong case supports the birthers not the Obots.

        Reply
        • February 19, 2014 at 12:22 pm HistorianDude

          chillydogg1 smrstrauss1MarthaTrowbridge
          Actually, Chilly, you are rather severely in error. In order to reach the decision you point to, the court engaged in a comprehensive legal and historical review of Anglo-American citizenship law. In so doing they provided the only Supreme Court  definition of “natural born citizen/subject” that has ever been cited by any subsequent court as precedent regarding. To wit:

          “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England
          for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this
          country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the
          dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the
          allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the
          power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every
          child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless
          the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State
          or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child
          was born.

          III. The same rule was in force in all the
          English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration
          of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to
          prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
          Further, even the most casual reading of Justice Fuller’s dissent shows without doubt that Fuller explicitly understood the majority opinion to declare Wong a NBC fully eligible for the presidency. Also the brief by government attorney George Collins show that he shared the same explicit opinion.
          So… Justice Fuller got it. Attorney Collins got it. All subsequent courts get it. I get it. The folks who don’t get it (to include you and Mario) are the outliers.And as we all know, “There’s always 10% who never get the word.”

          Reply
        • February 19, 2014 at 2:10 pm MarioApuzzo

          HistorianDude chillydogg1 smrstrauss1 MarthaTrowbridge  

          Making stuff up, are we? 

          Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, “a Citizen of the
          United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” was eligible
          to be President.  But for those born
          after its adoption, only a “natural born Citizen” was so eligible.  So, in simple terms, today being a “citizen
          of the United States” is not sufficient to be President.  Rather, one must demonstrate that one is a “natural
          born citizen” if one wants to be a constitutionally legitimate President. 

          The Framers used the “natural born citizen” clause to keep
          foreign and monarchical influence out of the singular and all-powerful civil
          and military offices of President and Commander in Chief of the Military. 

          The Fourteenth Amendment defines who shall be “citizens of
          the United States” thereunder.  Neither
          the text nor intent of the Fourteenth Amendment has anything to do with
          defining a “natural born citizen.”  Both
          Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) said that the
          Fourteenth Amendment does not define a “natural born citizen.”  That much has also been confirmed by current
          judicial authority. 

          The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor defined a “natural
          born citizen” under the common law the nomenclature of which the Framers were
          familiar as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the
          time of the child’s birth.  It is only by
          meeting this definition that a child is born with sole and absolute civil,
          political, and military allegiance to the United States, which birth condition is
          designed to keep foreign and monarchical influence out of the office of
          President and Commander in Chief. 

          Wong Kim Ark was about interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment
          and who was a “citizen of the United States” at birth thereunder.   Wong
          Kim Ark did not change Minor’s definition of a “natural born citizen.”  On the contrary, it confirmed it. 

          Hence, Minor is authority for the definition of a “natural
          born citizen” and Wong Kim Ark authority for what is a “citizen of the United
          States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. 

          This means that Obama has to prove that he meets Minor’s
          common law definition of a “natural born citizen” if he want to be a
          constitutionally legitimate President. 
          Since he cannot make that showing because, regardless of where he was
          born, while he was born to a U.S. citizen mother, he was not born to a U.S.
          citizen father, he cannot be a constitutionally legitimate president.  This also means that while Obama is the
          President today, he is only  a de facto President.

          Reply
        • February 19, 2014 at 2:13 pm chillydogg1

          HistorianDude chillydogg1smrstrauss1MarthaTrowbridge  
          That’s all dicta, not precedent. This is the precedent that has been used ever since to make those born in the country citizens, ” …becomes at the time of his birth a citizen
          of the United States.”. It’s right there in black and white that they DON’T call him “natural born”. Show one instance in the opinion were the court writes “Wong Kim Ark is a natural born citizen of the United States of America.”

          Reply
        • February 19, 2014 at 2:35 pm smrstrauss1

          chillydogg1 smrstrauss1MarthaTrowbridge
          Re: ” Liar. The court NEVER called Wong a natural born citizen. Here’s the decision;”
          No, it didn’t. It did not have to. Remember syllogisms? If ALL men are mortal and George is a man then George must be mortal. So, when the US Supreme Court ruled that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats, and Wong Kim Ark was born in the USA and his parents were not foreign diplomats, hence Wong Kim Ark (like everyone else born in the USA) is a Natural Born Citizen.
          And, that is what TEN appeals courts all have ruled that the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case, and not one said that it didn’t, and not one said that the Minor v. Happersett decision applies and in fact one of the rulings says specifically that it does NOT apply.
           Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency…”
          Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
          Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
          Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
          Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”
          Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”
          Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
          And, on October 1, 2012 the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of the last of the rulings shown above, the Farrar case, which had ruled that “children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” By rejecting the appeal, the US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court to STAND.

          Reply
        • February 19, 2014 at 2:39 pm smrstrauss1

          MarioApuzzo HistorianDudechillydogg1smrstrauss1MarthaTrowbridge
          Obama has proven that he met the definition to NINE appeals courts (and one made the same ruling with regard to John McCain). More importantly, he proved it to the US Electoral College (which has the final decision on US elections), and he proved it to the US Congress, which confirmed Obama’s election UNANIMOUSLY twice.
          Birthers and two-fers were not able to convince a single member of the US Electoral College to change her or his vote to vote against Obama in either the 2008 or 2012 elections. Obama won 356 electoral votes in the 2008 general election, and 356 electors voted for him. He received 332 votes in the 2012 general election, and 332 electors voted for him. In short, not one single elector changed her or his vote—that is because not one of them believes the nutty birther claim that Obama was born outside of the USA or the loony birther constitutional theory that two citizen parents are required. And ditto for the US Congress, which confirmed Obama’s election UNANIMOUSLY twice, and that included the votes of Rep. Michele Bachmann and Rep. Ron Paul).
          The Heritage Foundation is right, and you are wrong:
          “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli,
          persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children
          of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus,
          those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens”
          and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether
          children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born
          citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al,
          THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald
          Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known
          Conservative organization.] 
          The Wall Street Journal is right, and you are wrong:
           “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a
          “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural
          born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this
          notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical
          in meaning.”—The Wall Street Journal
          (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett)

          Reply
        • February 19, 2014 at 2:44 pm smrstrauss1

          chillydogg1 smrstrauss1MarthaTrowbridge  
          They did not rule that Wong was a natural born citizen because the bottom line in the case was whether he was a citizen or not. But they ruled that EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen, and Wong was born on US soil—so he was a Natural Born Citizen.
          The Heritage Foundation is right, and you are wrong:
           “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli,
          persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children
          of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus,
          those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens”
          and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether
          children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born
          citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al,
          THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald
          Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known
          Conservative organization.] 
          Black’s Law Dictionary is right, and you are wrong:
           “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a
          national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of
          citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth
          Edition
          Senator Hatch is right, and you are wrong:
          “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United
          States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate
          Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch
          (R-UT).

          Reply
        • February 19, 2014 at 2:53 pm HistorianDude

          MarioApuzzo chillydogg1smrstrauss1MarthaTrowbridge
          “Making stuff up are we?” No. That’s never been part of my reputation. 
          Ignoring that there is actually no Constitutional requirement to demonstrate anything, the only difference between ““citizen
          of the United States” and a “natural born citizen” is that the former is a super-set that includes naturalized citizens. Since no one has suggested naturalized citizens are eligible for the presidency, we are safe to declare your discussion on that issue entirely pointless.
          No one here has pretended that the 14th Amendment defines natural born citizen either. So that is another of your army of straw man we’ll just leave aside for someone else who might care.
          The court decision in Minor v. Happersett is notable for little more than its irrelevance in this discussion. Unlike Wong Kim Ark, it has never once been cited by any subsequent court as precedent for the definition for NBC. This is for several reasons, not the least of which it was not a citizenship case, and Virginia Minor’s citizenship was never an issue before the court. But more to the point, the dicta for which you are so affectionate never even pretends to offer an exclusive definition of NBC.Subsequent courts have explicitly called bullshit on the claim that Minor defines NBC.
          Wong Kim Ark remains the only US Supreme Court cases that has ever been cited as precedent regarding the definition of NBC. Refer again to the previously offered string cite for several examples.
          If you are having trouble finding it, here it is again:
          http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/BIRTHER%20STRING%20CITE.pdf

          Reply
        • February 19, 2014 at 2:55 pm HistorianDude

          chillydogg1 smrstrauss1MarthaTrowbridge
          No, Chilly. The Wong definition is not dicta. It is ratio decidendi without which the final decision cannot be reached.
          Note that the court never called Virgina Minor NBC either.

          Reply
        • February 19, 2014 at 3:02 pm smrstrauss1

          MarioApuzzo HistorianDudechillydogg1smrstrauss1MarthaTrowbridge
          No appeals court has ever ruled that the Minor v. Happersett decision was relevant to the definition of Natural Born Citizen, and TEN appeals courts have all ruled that the Wong Kim Ark decision is relevant and that it ruled that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born US citizen.

          Reply
    • May 13, 2014 at 9:54 am smrstrauss1

      MarthaTrowbridge  
      Three months have passed, and Obama is still president. Nobody in Congress has made any claims whatever regarding alleged Identity Fraud or Election Fraud, and, the upcoming Benghazi investigation is focused on whether or not Obama mislead the American people—which, if true, and it is unlikely since we do not know that terrorist groups were involved even today, would be sad—-but not “treason.” But you have the right to DREAM.

      Reply
    • June 27, 2014 at 1:22 pm smrstrauss1

      MarthaTrowbridge 
      More than four months have passed since this article was posted, and Obama is still the president, and no Congressional committee has even held hearings on the matter. TEN appeals courts have all ruled on presidential eligibility (nine about Obama and one McCain), and the ALL said that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth and that EVERY child born on US soil (except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders) is a Natural Born US Citizen.

      Reply
    • July 1, 2014 at 9:57 am smrstrauss1

      MarthaTrowbridge 
      Obama really was born in Hawaii, as his birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii (and the Index Data file and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii) all show. And every child born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders is a Natural Born US Citizen.
       
      “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus
      soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than
      children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth.
      Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born
      citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is
      whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born
      citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al,
      THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald
      Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known
      Conservative organization.]
      “Some birthers imagine that there
      is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen”
      on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric”
      is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest.
      All three terms are identical in meaning.”—The Wall Street Journal
      (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett)
      “Every
      child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen
      except for the children of diplomats.”—Senator Lindsay Graham
      (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)
       
      More reading on the subject:
      http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/
      http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012
      http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/vattel-and-natural-born-citizen/
      http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html

      Reply
    • July 25, 2014 at 11:17 am smrstrauss1

      MarthaTrowbridge 
      FIVE months have passed since you posted that, and nothing has happened on any of the subjects you mentioned. No member of Congress or district attorney has raised the issue of alleged “identity fraud” or “election fraud” or “treason.”
      You can dream about Obama’s “inevitable conviction.” But the explanation is far more simple: None of those things are true.

      Reply
      • July 25, 2014 at 11:46 am MarthaTrowbridge

        smrstrauss1 MarthaTrowbridge My, my, ‘smrstrauss1’ reappears to take another swing at aka Obama’s and his notorious Most Wanted Fugitive Domestic Terrorist Mother’s Terrible Truth. Could it possibly be that you continue to believe that The “Obama” Conspirators remain hidden from America’s observation? 

        Or is it you so need to believe you remain occult, that you continue to impose your ‘created reality’ upon America?

        You far better than others comprehend that “BHO II”, “Stanley Ann Dunham” and a horde of other created characters originated, not in actual births, but in the conspiratorial psyches of a small group of very wicked people.

        You thought you’d done such a master job at ‘substantiating’ these characters, that you’d never be ‘found out’. After all, Identity Fraud served the Resistance Conspirators for years, didn’t it?

        But your forgery work was so lame, so sloppy, so amateurish, all one needed do was to examine it. Take for instance, the ridiculous digital composites you call “Obama family” images. America spotted them immediately – though at the time didn’t get why.

        We do now.

        It is your right to push off impinging reality. No one, not even those whose advice you esteem, can demand you do otherwise. If you prefer to wait til the handcuffs are clicked and you are hauled off, that is your right.

        Carpe diem, yes?

        Reply
        • July 25, 2014 at 4:30 pm realitycheck1776

          MarthaTrowbridge smrstrauss1 Utter gibberish. When are my handcuffs arriving? Martha, you wouldn’t recognize reality if iy bit you on the ass.

          Reply
          • July 25, 2014 at 4:58 pm MarthaTrowbridge

            realitycheck1776 MarthaTrowbridge smrstrauss1 So we meet again – in less than 24 hours….What’s that appendage? 1776? As in Bari Malik Shabazz aka Barack Obama’s Mom’s REVOLUTION! ? 

            As in “Barack’s” 1975 Weather Underground launch in Boston?

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81vWU6HjLfk

            http://terribletruth.wordpress.com/2014/06/11/baris-battle-of-boston/

            I was just discussing with my husband the fact that “Barack’s” REVOLUTION! debut coincided with the 199th anniversary of the American Revolution. 1+9+9, of course, equaling 19. 

            Hmmmm…………

        • July 26, 2014 at 1:36 am smrstrauss1

          MarthaTrowbridge 
           The above is an example of the lack of rational thinking of members of
          the far right wing of the conservative movement. Their thinking is so
          irrational that they have not been able to convince a single member of
          Congress of what they claim (and not all members of Congress are very
          rational), and Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and the National Review have all
          called them CRAZY.

          Reply
          • July 26, 2014 at 9:08 am MarthaTrowbridge

            smrstrauss1 MarthaTrowbridge The only way The “Obama” Conspirators were able to pull off their U.S. Presidency Heist was that their forgeries, Identity Fraud, crimes, and Election Fraud were not scrutinized. 

            If The “Obama” Conspirators dare to peek out from their ‘created’ ‘reality’ they will see that the world now sees them for who they actually are.

            And despises their wickedness.

            If you think Congress your bastion, you are mistaken. If you think propaganda polls cloak your evildoing, you are pathetic. 

            Like Adolf Hitler, you bask in old ‘victories’; refusing to acknowledge that the world has awakened to your wickedness, and is rallying to quash it.

            It’s April 1945, all over again. Mid -April.

          • July 26, 2014 at 10:33 am realitycheck1776

            MarthaTrowbridge smrstrauss1 
            Wow, so much insanity in one comment. The Hitler reference is the icing on the cake.

          • July 26, 2014 at 1:09 pm MrPlutodog

            realitycheck1776 MarthaTrowbridge smrstrauss1 
            Because of the blek, the uppity blek, of course.

          • July 26, 2014 at 5:33 pm realitycheck1776

            MrPlutodog realitycheck1776 MarthaTrowbridge smrstrauss1 
            When  interacting with the certifiably insane people like Martha and Nancy Owens you always have to ask yourself why? I find Nancy to be a much more entertaining and creative kook than Martha however.

          • July 27, 2014 at 6:00 am MarthaTrowbridge

            realitycheck1776 MrPlutodog MarthaTrowbridge smrstrauss1  

            There is nothing entertaining about the wicked deeds of The “Obama” Conspirators. 

            As for certifiably insane, how about thorough psychiatric evaluations of those who created the FAKE IDENTITY “BARACK OBAMA” then schemed to place him into The White House  – a man whose LIVING mother has an extensive political criminal violent history – and who truly believed that no one would ever comprehend what they did.

            Loonies who believed they’d never have to pay for what they did.

            That’s sanity, in your psyche?

          • July 28, 2014 at 2:52 am smrstrauss

            MarthaTrowbridge realitycheck1776 MrPlutodog smrstrauss1 
            Re: “Living mother.” 
            She died in 1995, of cancer.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham
            And the rest of what you claim is just as wrong and just as stupid — and it gives the right wing of the conservative movement a bad name.

          • July 28, 2014 at 5:43 am MarthaTrowbridge

            smrstrauss MarthaTrowbridge realitycheck1776 MrPlutodog smrstrauss1

            If all you have left to offer is an asinine wikipedia post spun out of a nest of Identity lies, clearly, you are at your scam’s end. 

            As for ‘bad name’ – this is appropriately assigned to all who refused to SEE the wicked scam visited upon America. They too will suffer appropriate punishment as aka Obama is brought to Justice.

            That’s Justice – with a capital J.

          • July 28, 2014 at 7:10 am smrstrauss

            MarthaTrowbridge smrstrauss realitycheck1776 MrPlutodog smrstrauss1 
             IF all that you can do is pull the claim that Obama’s mother is alive out of your ass, then you are at your wit’s end. (Moreover, it isn’t true. She really is dead.)

          • July 28, 2014 at 7:43 am MarthaTrowbridge

            smrstrauss MarthaTrowbridge realitycheck1776 MrPlutodog smrstrauss1

            You sound more and more like Mom, with each new lashing. Conduct unbecoming for a Phd, yes?

          • July 28, 2014 at 8:45 am smrstrauss

            MarthaTrowbridge smrstrauss realitycheck1776 MrPlutodog smrstrauss1 
             Re: “Sound like Mom.”

            ALL that you can do is make up stories. One of them is that Obama’s mother is still alive, but she died in 1995.

          • July 28, 2014 at 8:55 am MarthaTrowbridge

            smrstrauss MarthaTrowbridge realitycheck1776 MrPlutodog smrstrauss1

            Given the unholy mess she finds herself now in, she probably wishes she were.

            #NoExit

          • July 28, 2014 at 12:42 pm MrPlutodog

            MarthaTrowbridge smrstrauss realitycheck1776 MrPlutodog smrstrauss1 We gotta get a better class of birther here.  This one’s totally ruint.

          • July 28, 2014 at 1:21 pm realitycheck1776

            MrPlutodog MarthaTrowbridge smrstrauss realitycheck1776 smrstrauss1 
            Nancy Owens would be an upgrade from Martha. DIid you all know Martha actually expects people to pay to read her delusions? Maybe she is in it for the money? LOL

          • July 27, 2014 at 6:42 am realitycheck1776

            smrstrauss1 MarthaTrowbridge Martha has one of the worst cases of O. D. S. we have seen.

          • July 27, 2014 at 9:06 am MarthaTrowbridge

            realitycheck1776 smrstrauss1 MarthaTrowbridge

            Fancying themselves intellectual elites, The “Obama” Conspirators evidence morbid curiosity in the unfolding of their ‘First Class Criminal Intrigue’. 

            Perhaps you prefer notorious fate to the agonizing absence of acclaim you experienced when your wickedness went unnoticed.

          • July 27, 2014 at 12:46 pm MrPlutodog

            MarthaTrowbridge realitycheck1776 smrstrauss1 R C Jackman Actually it’s not a big deal to fancy oneself intellectually, morally, spiritually, and aromatically to birthers and the otherwise ODS-stricken.  It’s just the most common of sense, actually.

    • September 3, 2014 at 10:20 pm smrstrauss1

      MarthaTrowbridge 
      More than six months have passed since you posted the claims of “Identity fraud, Election Fraud and oodles of incidents of Treason”—and not a single hearing much less a case has been held on any one of those claims.

      Reply
      • September 6, 2014 at 6:41 am realitycheck1776

        smrstrauss1 MarthaTrowbridge Martha’s raving lunacy is like a flatulence in an empty room. No one is there to hear it or smell it and it is soon forgotten.

        Reply
  • February 18, 2014 at 11:23 am realitycheck1776

    MarkGillarSunlightDisinfectant
    I had forgotten about Gillar chickening out of the debate.

    Reply
  • July 25, 2014 at 11:14 pm MrPlutodog

    So we’ve lost ol’ Reggie Jackson, eh?  He’s still alive and a friend of
    Orly so why’d he give up on this thread?  Doesn’t he know that Obama is
    going to be POTUS until Jan of 2017 since he’s left off defending the
    crazy here?  We know numbnuts Mario is legally impotent and of course
    Martha is just batty-harmless.  But Reggie, he might’ve saved the day.
    😉

    Reply
    • July 26, 2014 at 10:12 pm MrPlutodog

      Actually, I meant Reggie Jackman of course.  Where are you, Reggie?

      Reply
  • April 15, 2015 at 2:21 am GerryNance

    The bottom-line of section (g) is this: if you were born outside the U.S. but one of your parents is a citizen, and that parent spent at least five years living in the U.S., two of which were after the age of 14, you have the right to come to the US before age 18 and claim naturalized US citizenship under 8USC1431, period. Or if you desire to live out of the US but you want US citizenship, then come to the US before age 18,  and  claim naturalized US citizenship under 8USC1433, period.

    Reply