“Birtherism” and the Tyranny of Ignorance

| March 23 2013
Greg Conterio

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.

417 comments
MrPlutodog
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. ;)

MarthaTrowbridge
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.

MrPlutodog
MrPlutodog

Actually, I meant Reggie Jackman of course.  Where are you, Reggie?

smrstrauss1
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. 

smrstrauss1
smrstrauss1

@MarthaTrowbridge 

Re: " Today, we have Identity Fraud, Election Fraud, and oodles of incidents of Treason."

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. 

smrstrauss1
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



smrstrauss1
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. 

smrstrauss1
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. 

smrstrauss1
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

 



MarthaTrowbridge
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?

chillydogg1
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.

MarthaTrowbridge
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.

smrstrauss1
smrstrauss1

@MarthaTrowbridge 

 Re: "Take for instance, the ridiculous digital composites you call "Obama family" images."

 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.

HistorianDude
HistorianDude

@MarioApuzzo @chillydogg1@smrstrauss1@MarthaTrowbridge

"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

smrstrauss1
smrstrauss1

@chillydogg1 @smrstrauss1@MarthaTrowbridge  

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).


 

 

smrstrauss1
smrstrauss1

@MarioApuzzo @HistorianDude@chillydogg1@smrstrauss1@MarthaTrowbridge

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)

smrstrauss1
smrstrauss1

@chillydogg1 @smrstrauss1@MarthaTrowbridge

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.

chillydogg1
chillydogg1

@HistorianDude @chillydogg1@smrstrauss1@MarthaTrowbridge  

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."

MarioApuzzo
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 wants 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.  

HistorianDude
HistorianDude

@chillydogg1 @smrstrauss1@MarthaTrowbridge

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."

HistorianDude
HistorianDude

@smrstrauss1 @realitycheck1776@DrConspiracy@MarioApuzzo@MarthaTrowbridge

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.

smrstrauss1
smrstrauss1

@MarioApuzzo @smrstrauss1@HistorianDude@realitycheck1776@MarthaTrowbridge

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.]

smrstrauss1
smrstrauss1

@MarthaTrowbridge @HistorianDude@MarioApuzzo@realitycheck1776@smrstrauss1

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.

smrstrauss1
smrstrauss1

@realitycheck1776 @DrConspiracy@MarioApuzzo@smrstrauss1@HistorianDude@MarthaTrowbridge

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.



realitycheck1776
realitycheck1776

@DrConspiracy @MarioApuzzo@smrstrauss1@HistorianDude@realitycheck1776@MarthaTrowbridge 

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.  

HistorianDude
HistorianDude

@MarioApuzzo @smrstrauss1@realitycheck1776@MarthaTrowbridge

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.

MarioApuzzo
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.”  

MarioApuzzo
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 . . . 



HistorianDude
HistorianDude

@MarioApuzzo @realitycheck1776@MarthaTrowbridge@smrstrauss1

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.

smrstrauss1
smrstrauss1

@MarioApuzzo @HistorianDude@realitycheck1776@MarthaTrowbridge@smrstrauss1

 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.




 

MarioApuzzo
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.”  

HistorianDude
HistorianDude

@MarioApuzzo @realitycheck1776@MarthaTrowbridge@smrstrauss1

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 "settled by legal authority
."

I'm sure you've got access to a good legal dictionary. Look it up.

HistorianDude
HistorianDude

@MarioApuzzo @realitycheck1776@MarthaTrowbridge@smrstrauss1

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.

MarioApuzzo
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 . . . . . 

HistorianDude
HistorianDude

@MarioApuzzo @realitycheck1776@MarthaTrowbridge@smrstrauss1  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 as you can get a US court to agree with you, they're still just so much urine soaked parsley.

smrstrauss1
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


smrstrauss1
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.



DrConspiracy
DrConspiracy

@MarthaTrowbridge @smrstrauss1 Apuzzo's web site was 100% moderated (nothing appeared until he approved it) and he shamelessly deleted comments that pointed out that he was wrong.

Don't get me started on Zullo.

MarthaTrowbridge
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.

MarthaTrowbridge
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………...

MarthaTrowbridge
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.

MarthaTrowbridge
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?

MarthaTrowbridge
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.