The controversy over President Barack Obama continues with an interesting twist: Maj. Gen. Carroll Dean Childers (ret.) and active U.S. Air Force reservist Lt. Col. David Earl Graeff are supporting the litigation. On July 8th, Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook filed the suit July 8th in federal court demanding conscientious objector status and a preliminary injunction based upon his claim that President Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States. He argued that, since Obama cannot serve as president of the United States, he cannot order him to deploy as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.
What is curious is the decision by the military to suddenly revoke the deployment orders of Cook. That served to fuel the growing movement spreading this rumor. The government is now claiming that the lawsuit is “moot” since Cook doesn’t have to go to Afghanistan. Cook in turn has added a claim to this lawsuit that he was retaliated against for his lawsuit after he was terminated at Simtech Inc., a Department of Defense contractor.
The addition of a retired major general and active colonel will have more of a promotional and legal benefit for these litigants. It was an unfortunate decision to revoke these orders. The Administration should have fought the lawsuit on the merits rather than try to moot the matter. The optics are perfect for those alleging a grand conspiracy to conceal Obama’s birth certificate (which has been viewed as third parties) and hide his alleged foreign born status.
For the full story, click here.
I say try the man for dereliction of duty. Maybe an Article 15 would be appropriate under the circumstances.
“Cook in turn has added a claim to this lawsuit that he was retaliated against for his lawsuit after he was terminated at Simtech Inc., a Department of Defense contractor.”
Well la tee da, should not all us us be so lucky: First) Still employed by the DOD and earning benefits and pay; Second) Working for a DOD Contractor, being paid and earning Social Security credits, humm, not a bad gig; and Third) Refusing to Follow Orders as Commanded by the CIC? Maybe a Section 8 would be more appropriate.
What does he think he is?
Mike Castle (R-DE) asked about Obama Birth Certificate
Yes, Obama should fight the issue, not continuously bury it. Then again, maybe – just maybe – he has something to hide.
Can greater minds than mine explain this to me? If President Obama’s mother WAS a U.S. Citizen (and there is no dispute there, from what I understand), then President Obama could have been born inside the Kremlin — or on the Moon for that matter — and still be eligible to stand for the presidency, correct? I don’t agree with him on many things, but it seems like this illegitimacy argument is beyond foolish.
I’m guessing that this retired Major General wasn’t curious one bit about Commander Codpiece’s mysterious National Guard papers.
Exactly What IS a Natural Born Citizen?
Argue it on the merits.
If this is how the govt. wants to deal with it, then every soldier ought to join this claim and get out of being sent to any one of our many illegal and immoral wars.
And, the soldiers should all get it in writing that they will never be deployed. At this point I suspect our govt. will argue on their case on the merits, but if there’s a chance of people not being sent to war, I’m all for taking it.
One has to be amazed by the inanity of all this. First of all, as George mentioned, it doesn’t matter where Obama was born, he’s a citizen by virtue of his mother’s citizenship. Secondly, and this is the part causes me outright laughter, these lunatics call this a conspiracy to elect a socialist, a communist, a terrorist, etc. Now, if you were going to try to subvert the American system would you really select a half-black man born in the early 1960’s of a white mother, give him a Muslim name and fully expect he’d become President of the United States? You’d have to first plan Clinton’s daliances in order to get a completely incompitent and maleable GWBush elected, plan and execute the 911 disaster and the failures of the Iraqi invasion and the implosion of the economy. Even Dick Cheney isn’t that conspiratorial.
View the video and comment on its contents.
The controversy is the difference between a natural born U.S. citizen v. a U.S. citizen. To become POS, one must be a Natural Born U.S. Citizen.
Requirements for a Natural Born U.S. Citizen
1) Born on U.S. soil
2) *Both* parents must be U.S. Citizens
Accordingly, Mr. Obama’s father was not a U.S. Citizen but was subject to British rule. Therefore both of Obama Jr.’s parents were *not* U.S. citizens and Jr. is *not* a *Natural Born* Citizen.
There is no question whatsoever that B.H. Obama is a U.S. citizen because one of his parents—his mother—was a U.S. Citizen.
Professor Turley, given your status as a constitutional scholar, what is your position regarding the Natural Born U.S. citizenship requirement for the U.S. Presidency v. the naturalized or ‘plain’ U.S. citizenship?
Vince Treacy, please consider addressing this specific controversy.
<>
What’s really curious is that the military has done such a bad job explaining why Cook’s orders were revoked.
Apparently, because Cook volunteered for duty in Afghanistan, he has the right to change his mind. By filing his suit, the military obviously concluded he had changed his mind, and accordingly revoked his orders to deploy.
The fact that Cook volunteered, then filed his suit, certainly speaks to his motives.
The issue is as ridiculous as was the “Swiftboaters” game in the Kerry candidacy and no doubt funded by the same crackpots.
I’m not surprised that an Air Force General and Colonel have got involved in this given the fairly successful attempts to Christianize The Air Force Academy in Colorado. Remember to the long history of air Force Kookery exemplified by General Curtis
LeMay, who wanted to H Bomb Cuba and Russia during the missile
crisis.
The Air Force has always had an overrated sense of their own importance, given that no wars have ever been won solely, or partially by air power. It’s the guys on the ground the Infantry and the Marines who win the wars, backed up by the men of the Navy, who win them at sea.
Finally, Jonathan’s point about why the Army dropped the orders, rather than allowing the case to go through is a good one. All it did was add fuel to this addled fire.
To me rcampbell’s perspective on this is the best one. This is perhaps the least probable of conspiracy theory surmises and if some evil group really planned this then we are all in trouble because they would have to have had strong psychic as well as superb analytical powers.
There is more evidence than the birth certificate. Evidence shows Barack Obama was an Indonesian citizen in the US on a student visa even after his parents were divorced when he was over 18 years old. That is why he did not register for the selective service, he was not required to, being a foreign citizen. Then he had to create one for the campaign when questions were asked.
The charges and evidences against Barack Obama are on my website, court style:
http://www.divine-way.com/forgery_evidences_sss_reg_colb_birth_cert_for_obama_impeachment.html
and
http://obama-birth-cert-forged-sss-impeach.blogspot.com
A copy was sent to Barack Obama and US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. Both were sent about 2-11-09. Barack Obama clearly thinks he has something to hide.
Email the president that you want this controversy ended, http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ The president, administration and Congress, and media will only press the president to quickly end this controversy if the people press them for a quick end. He should easily be able to end this controversy with proofs he has held as hidden. The president is open for blackmail from his own administration and others who have his records: Kenya, Pakistan, Indonesia, classmates and faculty at his colleges etc. This is serious and he cannot get out without prayer.
No matter what this won’t go away. It will become the “Vince Foster suicide” of this administration in the eyes of wingnuts. As for Cmdr Codpeieces National Guard Service, it’s clear that the mainstream media let itself be muzzled on that one.
Mike Spindell hit it right on the nose. This is a swiftboat attempt to discredit the President and to derail or slow down the health care reform and other issues from being successful. The business of being an objector on the grounds that the President does not have the right to be President is BS. What standing does a soldier have to object to the President’s status as President? My understanding of the CO requirements is that an individual applying for that status must show that he/she is against all wars on moral and ethical grounds and not idividual policies or wars. I had a friend during the Vietnam war that applied and received his CO status and was only able to claim the moral and ethical grounds. Also, once you are in the military it is far higher standard to be successful in obtaining the CO status. I have to agree that the administration should have proceeded to prosecute this individual or to deny his claim, but his legal ability to withdraw his request to be deployed is a legitimate one.
Why would an honorable man continue to fight so hard to hide information about his birth? Why? –How long does one stand on “you can’t make me”?
The one document that should put an end to the controversy must be the same one that will create a greater controversy.
Mr. Turley
As the supposed pre-emminent constitutional scholar, why don’t you explain to all of us the issues surrounding ‘what is a natural born citizen according to the constitution?’ ‘What court cases and congressional actions have declared a natural born citizen to be.’ , ‘what the assetions are in these claims and lawsuits.’ , and why Obama has refused to date to answer any of these challenges on the merits and in fact has spent close to or more than 1 million dollars weaseling around them on standing grounds or other technicalities.
If these questioners are so absolutely wrong and misguided, please show that with facts and evidence rather than laughter, denials and scorn.
Don’t the people have a right to know?
regards…
rafflaw,
You are, to some extent, wrong. I personally believe that Obama is a “natural born” US citizen, but I’m extremely bothered by his refusal to address the issue.
It’s not – at least not in all cases – swiftboating. Obama’s response to this issue has been unconscionable.
The Bush National Guard story cratered under the weight of the patently phony, Microsoft Word-generated “official” documents that Dan Rather so naively and willingly proferred. If the Obama citizenship controversy issue is merely a figment of the far right’s imagination, then why doesn’t the President just end it once and for all by tendering his birth documentation to independent, reputable forensic document examiners for authentication? What’s so hard about that??
I tend to agree with Jim Byrne (above) on this one.
Guys, this is *not* about conspiracy theories.
There is one simple question that needs answering. Is it a constitutional fact that a U.S. Citizen must be born on U.S. soil AND specifically, are *both* of his/her parents required to be U.S Citizens?
Who among us posting here would not tender whatever documents required, answering this question for the last time. I know that I certainly would. As a Federal LEO, I had to reveal virtually everything about me, every relative who worked for the govt., and my clearances were thoroughly reviewed every 5 years.
Rcampbell:
“Now, if you were going to try to subvert the American system would you really select a half-black man born in the early 1960’s of a white mother, give him a Muslim name and fully expect he’d become President of the United States?”
———————————————
you lefties are very crafty! lol.
Even I, as a non-left winger, think Obama is a US citizen by virtue of his mothers citizenship no matter where he was born.
Vince Treacy has laid this to rest a long time ago, give up neo-cons, paleo-cons, ultra-cons, acme-cons, pseudo-cons, faux-cons, sino-cons, anglo-cons, bi-cons, gay-cons.
Okay, put another way, every fool, imbecile, idiot, common person, or genius will agree that Obama is a U.S. Citizen.
However, the U.S. Constitution specifically states Natural Born Citizen–a more stringent requirement for POS. Is B.H. Obama a *Natural Born* U.S. Citizen? Yes, Virginia, he definitely is a U.S. Citizen, and no, there is no ‘Santy Clause’.
Don’t you think that the Bush/Cheney machine would have done the oppo dirty work after, for example, the ‘04 Obama keynote at the Dem convention?
Seems like they coulda stopped Obama in the starting gates BEFORE the election.
This is going into UFO/Clintoon American Spectator bullshit.
Article II of the Constitution specifies that a president must be a “natural born citizen,” but does not define the phrase. However, the Fourteenth Amendment provides, in part, that all persons born in the United States are citizens. Hawaii became a state approximately two years prior to Obama’s birth. Therefore, if he was born in Hawaii, he is a natural born citizen of the U.S., regardless of whether both of his parents were actually from Krypton.
I am also bothered by the constant harangue that the president could clear up all of the uncertainty by simply producing his original birth certificate. First, whose uncertainty? Am I required to produce some sort of proof of a fact to satisfy the irrational speculations of people with an agenda? Since when does it become the obligation of the victim of a rumor to disprove the rumor? Suppose I were to use the internet to spread a rumor that Sarah Palin is actually the love child of the first President Bush and that her candidacy for the White House is being financed by a Bush-Saudi cabal. I am confident that I could eventually enlist many believers on the web. Does any rational person believe that it would then be incumbent on the elder Pres. Bush and Gov. Palin to submit to DNA testing to disprove the rumor?
Second, even were the original long-form certificate of Pres. Obama’s birth enshrined in glass and placed on public display in Independence Hall, the stories of forgery and duplicity would persist. After all, there are still thousands of Holocaust deniers running about, some of them on this site.
We may have to tolerate irrational and unreasonable people in this life, but we need not indulge them.
“The addition of a retired major general and active colonel will have more of a promotional and legal benefit for these litigants.”
************
It has about the same effect as Lindbergh joining the America First movement. Big splash, little wave, and more revealing of the attitude of the member, than the efficacy of the cause.
Mike A:
“We may have to tolerate irrational and unreasonable people in this life, but we need not indulge them.”
*********
Very well said.
the terrorist must be removed– i recommend waterboarding with acid
Jonolan,
The President did “prove” he was born in Hawaii. At least according to the State of Hawaii!.
Mike A.,
What is this about Sarah Palin being related to George the First? That is big news! Who was her mother then?
rafflaw 1, July 19, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Jonolan,
The President did “prove” he was born in Hawaii. At least according to the State of Hawaii!.
Mike A.,
What is this about Sarah Palin being related to George the First? That is big news! Who was her mother then?
The answer to that question is classified as a state secret.
Shuuush, her mother is a secret. No one can tell that she is Georges half blood. The Force will be out and surround your dwelling with crafts that have strobe lights that appear to throb as they circle the craft. Usually they come in threes but no less than two at a time.
He mothers name is not Barbara nor can George’s be revealed either at this time. It is to be kept a state secret as long as it could possible endanger anyone alive that is familiar with the Kennedy assassination. That as well was conducted by the same people that have knowledge of the whereabouts of Sarah and Georges mother.
I hope not all was compromised as a result of the display of this message.
This is the end of this message.
Mike Appleton stated:
“Article II of the Constitution specifies that a president must be a “natural born citizen,” but does not define the phrase.”
________________________________
That is the crux of the problem and the cause of the ruckus. Why would the Framers of the Constitution make a special case for a *Natural Born* U.S. Citizen v. an ordinary U.S. Citizen? From what you are stating, it does not matter what Article II states, the birthers must concede to the 14th Amendment.
I have dealt with this issue of Congress not stating environmental law specifically enough and then leaving too much deference to the government to decide what Congress intended. The result is often disingenuous, arbitrary, and capricious decisions, which end up in costly/lengthy lawsuits.
The Framers erred when they did not clearly define the meaning of Natural Born Citizen.
I just don’t understand what’s so hard to comprehend here about Obama being a citizen. He was born in Hawaii, that was proven, hence since Hawaii is (and was at his birth time) part of the US, he is a US citizen by the 14th amendment. This is regardless of parental citizenship.
Ask the children of illegal immigrants that were born in this country – they’re citizens. Obama’s parents weren’t even illegal – he was legally here, she was a citizen – but that doesn’t even matter. What is the only common exception to citizenship by birth – children of diplomats…certainly doesn’t apply. And whatever someone above said about -both- parents having to be citizens, that’s definitely not true.
Overlord,
Should I be watching for the black helicopters now?
jenbrooke,
The issue is *Natural Born* Citizen. View the video above posted by BVM.com and pay attention to the the case of John Sidney McCain III where the *both* parents statement is raised.
The Cook case is weird on a number of fronts. I knew bunches of Reservists in a previous government job and none of them were surprised when the government deployed them overseas for training or duty- it went with the job that you got deployed where ever the government wanted you to go. Unless that’s changed there shouldn’t even be an issue about it. That’s what a discharge with prejudice and loss of benefits is all about (for a refusal) or, if valid, a hardship discharge is all about.
Both government contractors and in-house employees have conditions of employment that have to be met. When you apply for a job or promotion with the government or a contractor (I’ve been both.) you get the opportunity to state weather or not you will travel.
The promotion announcements (in DOD and Intelligence) state that the position requires travel (though the language was moving to the word “deploy” when I left employment to distinguish between domestic and foreign.) and often which theater or country you would be expected to travel to and weather it was hazardous duty or not. They made it black letter clear not to apply if you weren’t prepared to travel. A deployment to a hazardous theater could effectively double your pay and some positions had as a wage-grading component and critical function that one travels to hazardous countries.
The only way not to suffer the ill effects of a later reconsideration on your part (which could be as little as reassignment, demotion if it was a matter of promotion, or as great as termination) was to be able to prove that a valid, legally recognized, life changing event transpired after you signed up and before you got your orders. That generally came down to some physical handicapping condition or family situation. That kind of proof was generally the proof needed to mitigate probable termination down to reassignment/demotion.
Those life changing events had to be obvious and/or disclosed at the time they happened to have some traction too, you couldn’t sit on a position for 4 years knowing that you couldn’t travel due to a family situation and not tell your chain of command. That constituted bad faith at least, and lying by omission if they wanted to bring that to bear..
Cook wasn’t blind-sided. Cook was just gaming the system, as I saw happen more than once personally.
Former Federal LEO,
Seeing that the U.S. Constitution was constructed primarily to define State/Fed relations, as in the original preamble read “We the States…”, I thought the Obama/Citizenship issue was closed as soon as Hawaii settled the matter.
And BTW, what do you mean there’s no Santy Clause?
Ҥ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
The Law of Nations (1758), Book I, Chapter XIX, Section 212
Now, who thinks “natural-born” status has been resolved?
Do any of these “birthers” have any evidence AT ALL that Pres. Obama was born somewhere else?
I think the Burden Of Proof should be on THEM.
All of our Federal Government, including the Supreme Court, are certain that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen.
Why should a bunch of loonies call the tune? I think Obama should COUNTER SUE them for libel. Lets see what they’re holding, if anything.
Miserable Fools.
Childers denies being part of this suit. He claimed he signed up as a plaintiff on another motion and she “signed” him up on the Cook case without his permission.
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/story/779856.html
There are some intelligent people writing on this thread about their suspicions. I don’t get why you can’t get the concept that this is blatant propaganda, blown out of proportion by rich
kooks who would finance any campaign they could against any Democratic President or aspirant? This technique started in 1988 with Dukakis and Willy Horton and hasn’t abated since, as the cast of characters has changed. This is the techniques of the “big lie,” first named by Joseph Goebbels, which is that if you repeat any lie often enough, most people will come to view it as fact.
In that respect could somebody please show me where the “fact” came from the the President has spent million$ in lawyer’ fees to keep this hidden?
Mike S.,
What is “the rule of law”?
Sorry Mike, I should have answered your question first.
“In that respect could somebody please show me where the “fact” came from the the President has spent million$ in lawyer’ fees to keep this hidden?”
I don’t know. Our transparent President is not that transparent.
I don’t think anyone would argue that he has spent over $5000.00 to keep this hidden, when it would cost him less than $100.00 to get the vault copy released.
Can you tell me why it is worth more to keep it hidden? One good reason will do.
Jim,
Please! The figures thrown around as to what he’s spent always start with a million$. I hang out a lot with a successful lawyer friend. He probably would charge $5,000 to appear in court on a minor litigation. $5,000 to deny the propaganda machine the ability to perpetuate their big lie isn’t unreasonable and what’s more you must know it.
“Can you tell me why it is worth more to keep it hidden? One good reason will do.”
Because the President and his advisors are smart men, who know the history of this “swiftboating”/Vince Foster/Paula Jones tactic, they are playing hardball with it. If they begin to started challenging the validity of each silly charge, all they end up with are arguments about whether their refutations are true and it further perpetuates itself. As Vince and Mike A have stated in other contexts, the birther movement will not be dissuaded by truth, because that is not their interest. They are not neutral upholders of constitutional purity, but partisan hacks who will sling fecal
matter in all directions hoping to make it seems less than the crap it is by sheer repetition.
Mike S.,
We need to start with things to which we will both agree:
1. We have a written Constitution.
2. Article II of that Constitution requires that the President meet 3 criteria to be qualified.
3. One of those qualifications is that he must be a “natural born citizen”.
4. We have no choice but to adhere to the requisites of our Constitution.
Do you agree with the 4 points presented above?
Yes I do agree with those 4 points. However, Jim he has already proved his case, the State of Hawaii agrees and contemporary birth announcements in two Hawaiian newspapers add further proof. The Federal Election Commission is satisfied, as have been the courts.
As to your questions Jim I’ve got too much respect for your intelligence to believe that you are not aware that you are throwing up a smokescreen, since at this point the burden of proof has been met and there is no credible evidence on the birther side to discredit it. You will notice that no one on the birther side, or its’ supporters has shown me where the well used accusation that President Obama has spent million$ covering this up came from. Just another piece of excrement thrown up and parroted and re-parroted by people like Orly Taitz.
However, perhaps you also believe that Vince Foster killed himself and John Kerry was falsely awarded the Silver Star. Meanwhile a wacko billionaire like Richard Mellon Scaife, who’s never accomplished anything in his life save for being born to the right family, sits in his mansion and cackles. Within two years my bet is that Ms. Taitz either has her own FOX TV program or is running for congress. By then we’ll be discussing whether or not Michelle Obama’s Law degree is a forgery, if she cheated on her bar exam and whether her husband was involved in the first WTC bombing.
Mike S.,
Since you agree that the President MUST BE (as in -we have no choice) a natural born citizen of the United States; how are you defining “natural born citizen”?
What is the source of your definition?
Jim,
I refer you back to Vince Treacy’s monumental research on this, through the course of many threads. I’m not playing in this because as i’ve clearly stated there is no there, there. I might get back in the game when someone answers my question which is: Where does the oft repeated charge that The President
has spent million$ covering this up come from? If this unattributed statement can’t be answered, then it becomes crystal clear the nature of the game the birther movement is playing.
Mike S.,
If you ignore the facts, because you’re more interested in the motive for asserting the facts, you’re ignoring the rule of law.
We know that John Jay was familiar with the writings of Emmerich Vattel. (See Madison’s instructions to John Jay, Dated Oct. 17th, 1780)
We know that John Jay was the one who suggested the adoption of “natural born citizen” in our Constitution. (see letter dated July 17th, 1787 from John Jay to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention.)
John Jay was so revered that he became the first CJ of the U.S. Supreme Court.
As such, and unless some other definition of “natural born citizen” was floating around at the time of the Constitutional Convention (I am not aware of any others), we must be willing to recognize the definition presented by Vattel.
Vattel’s definition requires that the father must be a citizen of the United States.
“it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Barack Obama Sr. was a citizen of Kenya, (I don’t think that is being disputed) which, by definition, would indicate that Barack Obama Jr. could not be considered to be a “natural born citizen” of the United States.
If we ignore this, are we not ignoring our own Constitution? Are we, in effect, saying our constitutional provisions are ridiculous…so we should ignore the Constitution? Is that not the same thing as ignoring “the rule of law”?
Jim,
To expand on Mike S’s last comment, I originally came to this blog to debunk the claim the President Obama is not a natural born citizen (specifically, that his father’s status as a British subject did not invalidate his natural born status). Dr. Taitz, Berg, Dinofrio, et al. have put forth the legal interpretation that both parents must be citizens in order to be natural born. On a thread around the time that the SCOTUS was denying cert to Dinofrio there was a thread in which Vince Treacy (and others) put forward a legal argument refuting that interpretation (which seemed more persuasive to me, although I am admittedly not a lawyer). This leaves the birthers in the position of trying to make an argument for a legal interpretation which the SCOTUS appears uninterested in (having denied cert on several cases). As Mike S. pointed out, the charge that the President has spent some large amount trying to keep his records secret – a charge I have seen repeatedly made in birther circles – doesn’t seem to come from any source and is thus dubious. Mike is right that this whole thing stinks of the “Big Lie” technique.
Jim,
So if President Obama’s father was a citizen then he is natural born? I would argue that you just lost your point – if it was only necessary for the father to be a citizen to transmit NBC status, then by that pesky amendment that gave women the right to vote (should have know that would come back to bite us in the ass…) his mother being a citizen is sufficient. Any of the lawyers around here care to verify this or tell me I’m crazy?
Jim,
How about this quote “… our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.” –Attorney General Edward Bates
Or from the ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark “It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject” (The court was applying English Common law, in a ruling about because Natural born wasn’t defined in the Constitution).
Slartibartfast,
The amount of money spent by Barack Obama is irrelevant to the legal question of qualification. The claimed “million dollars spent” only serves to bring attention. -the shock factor of “spent a million dollars!” -on what? Makes people take notice.
How much did Barack Obama spend? -Who cares?
Does he meet the standard of qualification set forth in the Constitution, under the definition that I have provided? -No.
Do we follow the Constitution -because it’s the law; or do we ignore the Constitution -because we like the guy?
Jim,
The money spent is irrelevant to the main question, but the questions Mike and I raised indicate that something smells funny…
You said:
Does he meet the standard of qualification set forth in the Constitution, under the definition that I have provided? -No.
You don’t get to decide this, the SCOTUS does and they don’t see this as an issue that should be heard before the court thus they must consider the issue unimportant (unlikely) or they must not find the arguments put forth by Dr. Taitz, et al persuasive. We follow the constitution as interpreted by the SCOTUS and every indication is that President Obama is eligible to serve in that office.
“How much did Barack Obama spend? -Who cares?”
Jim,
I may be an old fart but my memory so far is good. Aren’t you the one who threw in whether The President “lied” about being in school when he met his wife and defended it by saying that if he lied it is indicative of his nature? How come the birther movement apparently lying about million$ spent is irrelevant in determining their good faith? Jim you are simply not going about this in a straightforward manner and you are smart enough to know it. The birther movement, which you appear to support, is spreading unproven lies and disinformation and you are choosing to support their fantasy. You claim merely being a person interested in the constitution. Perhaps this is so, but if it is why are you so reluctant to acknowledge lies when you see them, even if they don’t help your case?
“The claimed “million dollars spent” only serves to bring attention. -the shock factor of “spent a million dollars!” -on what? Makes people take notice.”
With this statement you seem to admit that the birther movement is lying for a hyperbolic effect and you condone this?
Gyges,
The Court was not addressing the natural born citizen requirement of Article II. In addition the determination of a natural-born subject is not the same as a natural born citizen.
As the high court has never addressed the definition of natural born citizen, we must look to a definition that existed prior to adoption of our Constitution. -That is the only way to interpret what the Framers would have considered.
Jim:
““it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.””
What about the mother? Back then women were not given equal status so they are ignoring the possibility that the mother would be a citizen.
Jim,
I have a feeling that there is no evidence or quote that ANYONE could put forth that would satisfy you.
Mike S.,
You’re focusing on the trivial BS in order to avoid the important stuff.
One lie is relatively meaningless, but it is still a lie, and reflects upon the general truthfullness of the one who tells it.
I presented a constitutionally mandate qualification, and a reliable definition that would indicate that President Obama does not meet the constitutional qualification. Everything else is just meaningless fluff.
Either you want to follow the Constitution, or you don’t.
You have become distracted by that which is meaningless. Did Obama lie about where he met his wife? -It would appear so. -Is that relevant to meeting the constitutional qualifications? -No. Can the “birthers” prove that President Obama spent over a million dollars to hide his birth certificate? Probably not. Does that have anything to do with meeting the constitutiional qualifications? -No.
A far as i know am aware this part
“As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.”
…would be news to the Supremes (TUAN ANH NGUYEN V. INS) as they have ruled against bestowing citizenship on “immigrants” with USC fathers even with DNA evidence, mothers yes, but not fathers…
seems that men can make “potential” “citizens” more easily than women, so children ARE NOT citizens naturally following the “condition of their fathers” or alone by “tacit consent”. but that is a separate issue…
my only point here is what you are quoting may indeed be written in the Law of Nations but there are exceptions and it isn’t necessarily the law of the land. so before you use that as the base of the birther arguement we need to see how that has been qualified by SCOTUS and present interpretations of the law.
Born to a USC mother (touch of gold) IN the US seems like that would be a shoe-in arguement for “natural born citizen” as he didn’t have to naturalize, adjust or apply to have his citizenship approved or acknowledged, it was “natural” at birth. That is what i would consider a definition of “natural born citizen”. Make sense? If he had been born to a USC father outside the US it would have been a different story based on the law (based on current immgration law).
I am not a lawyer, but this is just my 2 cents..
Jim Byrne, your comment on Vattel is simplistic and woefully incomplete. You make it appear that at the time the Constitution was ratified, The Law of Nations was the only treatise to have touched upon the issue. Hence, you assert that we must analyze the problem “under the definition I have provided.” You ignore any other writers, such as Blackstone, for example, who defined a “natural-born subject” as anyone born “within the dominions of the crown of England,” and who therefore owed allegiance to the king.
Furthermore, The Law of Nations was written in French. The phrase “natural born citizen” does not appear in Vattel’s treatise, nor in any of several English translations in existence as of the time the Constitution was adopted. Therefore, why do you believe that your definition was in the minds of the Framers?
IS,
Citizenship and natural born citizen are two very different things.
Natural born citizen had to do with loyalty to one’s country. Even today, in most American households, the father dictates the direction of the household. In the time of our Constitutional Convention, there were few exceptions to that rule.
While it is true and accepted that every child born to a woman within the United States is by virtue of the 14th Amendment a citizen of the United States, that does not have bearing on the allegiance of the child.
If a child has an Iranian father, but the child is born in the United States, going to be brought up with loyalty to Iran or the United States? Who knows? -I’d say it could go either way.
Now if a child is born in the United States, to a father who is a U.S. Citizen; do you think it is more likely that the child would remain loyal to the United States? I’d say the odds increase dramatically.
–I’m not claiming that Barack Obama is not loyal to the United States, and I don’t think most “birthers” would make that claim either. What I am claiming, is that we have a Constitution, and, whether we like it or not, that Constitution sets forth a few qualifications. We either have a President that meets those qualifications, or we do not. If he does not, are we best to ignore the Constitution?
Mike A.,
The word “subject” in French, is “sujet”. The word “citizen” in French, is “citoyen”. -I don’t think they had any trouble translating.
If the Framers would have intended to use the word “subject”, I think they would have done so. A “subject”, in constitutional law, is one that owes allegiance to a sovereign, and is governed by his laws. Men if free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. (See Black’s First Edition (1891))
Mike A., S. et al.
What Jim B. and I are trying to discuss is the *Natural Born* U.S. citizenship requirement for the POTUS (POS). Please forget the Birther arguments because we all agree that Barack Hussein Obama II is a U.S. Citizen.
The discussion I am interested in is a constitutional clarification regarding Natural Born. This is a blawg sponsored by a Constitutional scholar and I am a bit perplexed that Prof. Turley will comment on doggie stories but will not weigh in on this issue of the U.S. Constitution, at least give us some hint in his original essay. Perhaps he did with this statement, “The Administration should have fought the lawsuit on the merits rather than try to moot the matter.” That way he left us to grapple with the issue, thereby providing him with “fodder” for his class lectures on the subject.
I see this question arising in the future when the ever-increasing Hispanic populace–or other ethnicities–might support a presidential candidate whose parent(s) were in the country illegally when he/she was born.
Mike Appleton, I requested earlier above, does the subsequent 14th Amendment make the Natural Born requirement in Article II moot or null and void?
Bob Esq. I understand the State issue you raised and that might be the answer to this all. That is, the Framers perhaps left the definition of Natural Born up to the States’ discretion. Regarding Santy Clause, the Easter Bunny, Gawd et al. I will leave that to others’ discretion, as I do with the Birthers’ rights, but then I do consider them all within the same realm of fantasy.
Reiteratively, this for me is about Natural Born as stated in Article II of the U.S. Constitution and not the Birther issues. Therefore, please do not denigrate my position with aligning me—or perhaps others such as Jim Byrne—with the Birthers’ lost cause. Everyone here espouses the importance of the U.S. Constitution and that is what I am interested in; not suspicions.
“As the high court has never addressed the definition of natural born citizen, we must look to a definition that existed prior to adoption of our Constitution. -That is the only way to interpret what the Framers would have considered.”
now is this one of those situations that if the framers or those at the time didn’t give the mother the same “equal rights” as the father then in modern times they should not be afforded those rights unless a specific amendment is passed? that kind of originalist?
The framers intended the notable “citizen of the family” bestows natural born citizenry? again, not a lawyer, but i would imagine that those rights a father has/may have had at the times of the framers are equally possessed by the mother in modern times in conjunction with equal rights of women. in fact, as in my example in some situations the pendulum has swung the other way…
the father allegiance thing is kind of far-fetched don’t you think? do you think you can stand up and argue that in a courtin the US today? especially when the father didn’t raise the child?
again. I would argue that “natural born” means not naturalized (i.e. your citizenship was passed by a qualified parent without the need to naturalize or adjust status in any way). His mother can do that.
the definition of “father favorite” issued from the Law of Nations is out of date given the current recognition of women as equal citizens. are you suggesting there are legal qualities that a man/father can bestow that a woman can’t? i think you are on the wrong end of that one. literally. certain cases would unfortunately prove the oppisite. see above TUAN ANH NGUYEN V. INS
granted that case involved a child born OUS. but to a Male USC. just an example of how things aren’t as the Law of Nations says.
FFLEO,
I was commenting on the natural born citizen issue and for what it’s worth, I agree with the interpretation that the 14th amendment overrides the natural born citizen clause of article II (and I think that this is what President Obama means when he says he is a citizen via the 14th amendment).
I must compliment the governement posters here. High points for coreography and to one in particular, timing!
According to Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison, the 14th amendment cannot make the natural born citizen clause from Article 2 Section 1 superfluous. If being born as a 14th Amendment citizen was enough to be President, then the natural born citizen clause would have no effect. According to Marshall, that argument is inadimissible.
Leo C. Donofrio
Jim B,
Apparently, in the opinions of at least 5 of the justices, that argument is persuasive since the SCOTUS decided not to hear Donofrio’s case.
I have a novel idea and I’ve said it before. Supposedly his original BC is in a vault or where ever the spokesman from Hawaii says they have personally seen and verified that they hold it. If Obama doesn’t want to release it, why not let some independent forensic examiners go and look at it. Then they can say we have seen and verified that Hawaii holds President Obama’s original according to state policies and procedures. Oh and maybe they could add and it shows Obama’s original birth place of Hawaii. Which by the way was NEVER said in the original statement from Mrs. Okubo (I think thats right) all she said was we have seen and verified that they hold his BC according to state policy and procedure. You would have thought they would of added, and he was born in Hawaii.
Obama and Biden were not qualified for 2009 election. They are War Criminals and guilty of many other crimes.
“What Jim B. and I are trying to discuss is the *Natural Born* U.S. citizenship requirement for the POTUS (POS). Please forget the Birther arguments because we all agree that Barack Hussein Obama II is a U.S. Citizen.”
FFLEO,
Do we all agree that President Obama is the legal President of the US? I can see that you do, but I don’t think Jim has acknowledged that at all. While the topic of discussion in an abstract sense of the law might be an interesting one, this is clearly not the same sense that Orly Taitz, the General, Colonel and Major take it in. They clearly believe that the President is illegitimate. The entire birther movement believes that and the outcome they seek is the removal of the President. Given that, also not doubting your sincerity for one second, I really think that the topic of this thread is not a legal discussion in the abstract and I’m unwilling to go there because what I see is the repetitive propaganda of the “illegitimacy machine” that is financed by the likes of Scaife and run to perfection by the Atwaters, the Roves and the Norqvists via their tools like Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity and Beck.
Let me be very clear on this. To me this is the basest of treason in that the will of the American People is being thwarted by a plutocracy of privileged heirs and abetted by their bought off minions. GW Bush did not win the Presidency due to voter fraud in the State of Florida and backed up by a SCOTUS led by Scalia who presented a decision that went against all his supposed legal principles. The 2004 vote was also tainted in Ohio, by their dishonest Attorney General and the fact that GW Bush already held the reins of power and SCOTUS had already showed how they would roll (over).
Now in 2008 a Democratic President wins so handily that the election couldn’t be rigged, so we go back to the days of Bill Clinton and the massively endowed attempt to make him illegitimate. In an instructive side note poll results have shown that about 75% of American males define “having sex” as engaging in intercourse. “I didn’t have sex with that woman” was in fact a true statement in the minds of most American males. Nevertheless the blood lust of this plutocracy was not fed by just disgracing the man and his family, no they had to try to impeach him.
If this sounds like an angry diatribe FFLEO, it is, but my anger is not directed at you. It is directed at the hypocrites who claim to love this country and pretend to follow its’ constitution, some are in, or have worn uniforms, When the truth is they only want to kiss the behinds of those they consider their betters and reap the rewards forthcoming from such a debasement. The man is legally the President of the US and no torturous logic, or parsing of verbiage will make that change.
However, the more this continues, the more the flames of the ignorant’s hatred is fed, the more likely that the guns will come out. This is the possible legacy and purpose of the birther movement and to me that is the path of treason and chaos, leading to the end of whatever Republic we have left.
“You’re focusing on the trivial BS in order to avoid the important stuff.”
Jim,
You’re the one focusing on the trivial BS and parsing words and facts to play word games and pretend you’re discussing serious matters. You brought up the Michelle/Barack meeting in a silly little way to bolster your unstated belief the man is a liar. Jim, as I’ve said before you are good rhetorically, but I’m just as good, as are most of the other regulars here. The difference with me though is I’m a fan of how Alexander dealt with the Gordian Knot. Jim, the Vattel gambit was frankly as silly as it gets and yet I’m sure you think you were making a serious point. That was dealt with by Mike A and Slartibartfast, for instance, but you just ignored and/or disparaged their points, with poor refutations.
You are so good though, that even a wise old fox like FFLEO gets fooled about where you’re coming from. Am I wrong well then just make the clear statement, as he has, that the legal President of the US, with no qualifications, is Barack Obama.
If I’m wrong and you do acknowledge this, I will of course be truly humbled in my error and offer you my sincere, unvarnished apology for ever doubting your sincerity.
Now I do have to apologize in any event because I read FFLEO wrongly. I re-read his statement and saw my mistake as being that he was only acknowledging President Obama’s
citizenship. Silly me for thinking therefore that there was some separation from the birther movement and FFLEO’s position.
Sorry, FFLEO, as much as I like and respect you, if you do not feel that Barack Obama is the legitimate and legal President of the US, then you become part of the birther movement and all its’ excesses. This movement has created this issue with their tissue of lies and innuendo and if you give credence to part of it, you support the whole. That the way it works because what the “Big Lie” depends on is people of good will giving credence to parts of their argument, thus sanctifying the whole. An example would be those Germans who believed: Well those Jews aren’t bad people, but why do they control our money and make us poor.
As I stated in different words above, this movement is a watershed issue, that will determine the future of this country and in my opinion credence to the birther movement will destroy the last vestiges of freedom we have. Think of the mindlessness of Buena Vista Mall. Imagine him armed and then consider the consequences of his thought processes.
Today we learn that the President is refusing to release a critical report on the state of our economy, which contains essential facts. These facts could tell us alot. Just like the birth certificate he won’t release them. More openness and transparencey
I bet he was good playing Hide and seek
six months later
Mike Spindell wrote:
FFLEO,
“Do we all agree that President Obama is the legal President of the US?”
________________________________
Yes, until the Supreme Court of the United States decides differently.
The best treatise of this issue occurs in this primer:
________________________________
Obama Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Primer
Last revised: June 5, 2009
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm
_________________________________
The previous Supreme Court cases (e.g. Minor v. Happersett (1874) and a full discussion of the topics, including Pres. Chester Arthur (not a Constitutional Natural Born Citizen) is presented.
Mike, there is never any need to apologize for anything I posit or whatever you might misread or misinterpret. The Supreme Court needs to answer this question because it will continue to arise even after Pres. Obama leaves office in 1 or 2 terms.
This is important to me because legislators and the judiciary need to get the laws right to begin with and explain the terms and reasoning to prevent disingenuous bureaucrats the ability to randomly and independently determine what a law means or what the judges or legislators intended the law, rules, regulations and policies to mean. I mentioned this earlier and the deference given to bureaucrats needs to be reined in by the formation of good, sound, well-defined, logical laws, Acts, policy, directives, etc. that do not need the courts’ involvement to reinterpret the wrongful acts committed my governmental officials in long and costly lawsuits.
FFLEO,
I think this is exactly why JT said this case should be argued on its merits. Glad to hear from you again and hope you are well.
Mike S.,
Great work in tossing the stale birthers arguments in the garbage where they found them. I know I can’t get my original birth certificate here in Illinois. I can only get a certified copy of it. The State of Hawaii has already certified the authenticity of the document so Bdaman and BVM can return to planning their next Tea Party.
Hi Jill,
I am fine. I do not have air conditioning in my home and the temps over the last 4 days have averaged 114 degrees with a high of 117. My computer desk temp is 104 degrees plus at those ambient temps. I have a computer hardware system monitor and if the core internal temps exceed 70 Celsius (158 F) I shut my computer off. Therefore, I spend most of my time outdoors, as I did during my career.
Rafflaw so Bdaman and BVM
Obama and Biden were not qualified for 2009 election. They are War Criminals and guilty of many other crimes.
Bush and Cheney are War Criminals and guilty of many other crimes.
Bush stole the 2000 election Obama hijacked a country.
Bdaman,
Where is your proof that Obama and Biden were not qualified for 2009 election? And I am not talking about the birth certificate crap. Where is your evidence for anything that you said? I’m sorry. I forgot that the neocon, tea partying crowd doesn’t deal in facts. My bad.
rafflaw 1, July 20, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Bdaman,
Where is your proof that Obama and Biden were not qualified for 2009 election? And I am not talking about the birth certificate crap.
**************************
If Obama is not qualified and he was born on America soil. I have a hell of a Question is McCain even in the running as he was born in an area that was not even a territory, state or possession of the US? Ok, that is just a pure accidental question.
AY,
I do believe that the Panama Canal Zone was a US possession of the US back when Grampy McCain was born.
McCain’s status is detailed in the video above.
FFLEO,
I disagree with the video in that I don’t believe both parents are required to be citizens at the time of the birth on U.S. soil. -I think the mother can be of any citizenship. However, the father must be a U.S. Citizen.
Since Congress only has the authority to create uniform rules for naturalization (the process of making an alien a citizen), I believe they lacked the authority to redefine the definition of natural born in order to include John McCain. -Remember..that was a NON-BINDING resolution.
As such, the referenced “American Citizen(s)” from the video would also be a declaration that exceeds the constitutional authority granted to Congress.
Without the non-binding resolution, is there any other place that would require both parents to be citizens?
Some of the Plaintiffs
Captain Pamela Barnett, §
Lt. Colonel Richard Norton Bauerbach §
Captain Robin D. Biron §
Colonel John D. Blair, §
Captain Harry G. Butler, §
Chief Warrant O. Thomas S. Davidson §
Lt. Jason Freese, §
Commander David Fullmer LaRoque, §
MIL officer US Army Lita M. Lott, §
Major David Grant Mosby, §
MSGT Steven Kay Neuenschwander, §
State Representative Frank Niceley, TN §
SFC E7 Robert Lee Perry , §
Colonel Harry Riley, §
Sergeant Jeffrey Wayne Rosner §
MSGT Jeffrey Schwilk, §
Captain David Smithey, §
Lt. Commander John Bruce Steidel, §
Cmdr. Douglas Earl Stoeppelwerth §
Thomas J Taylor, §
Captain Neil B. Turner, §
LCDR Jeff Graham Winthrope, and §
Lt. Colonel Mark Wriggle, §
Jim B,
As I said before, if the father’s citizenship is sufficient, then the mother’s is as well by the 19th and 14th amendments (unless you don’t recognize these amendments as part of the constitution…)
Rafflaw: I was parroting BVM’s posts, hello earth to Rafflaw, come in Rafflaw. Thats why I started the comment like this
so Bdaman and BVM which was copied from one of your comments.
Executive order 13489 signed Barack Obama Jan 21 2009
From the Executive Order text:
Upon receipt of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Attorney General (directly or through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel) and the Counsel to the President shall review as they deem appropriate the records covered by the notice and consult with each other, the Archivist, and such other executive agencies as they deem appropriate concerning whether invocation of executive privilege is justified.
(b) The Attorney General and the Counsel to the President, in the exercise
of their discretion and after appropriate review and consultation under subsection
(a) of this section, may jointly determine that invocation of executive
privilege is not justified. The Archivist shall be notified promptly of any such determination.
Not only is the CINC playing hide and seek, he makes his own rules.
Has anybody heard from Vince, not one comment on this thread.
Vince you out there buddy. Engage,engage do not eject.
Slartibartfast,
The 14th Amendment has to do with citizenship, and the 19th suffrage. We’re talking about natural born citizen.
What are you using as the definition of “natural born citizen”?
Mario Appuzzo has now filed his Plaintiff’s Brief Opposing Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
Mike and Vince get back with us and give us your opinion please.
Oh and you to Prof. Turley
Jim B,
If the father can transmit (natural born) citizenship, then by the 19th amendment (making women full citizens) and the 14th amendment (making all citizens equal) so can the mother.
Slartibartfast 1, July 21, 2009 at 10:49 am
Jim B,
If the father can transmit (natural born) citizenship, then by the 19th amendment (making women full citizens) and the 14th amendment (making all citizens equal) so can the mother.
*****************************
Hey, here is a little secret, and don’t share this with anyone else ok. The 19th Amendment only applied to white women. They were the only ones that could not vote. The 13, 14, and 15 amendments only applied to “minorities” another little ole secret for ya, Susan B. Anthony, never paid the 100 dollar fine imposed against her for voting in New York when she knew she did not have the right to.
Now don’t tell anyone else. FYI, women had the right to vote in the Utah territory until they join this great ole union. The first female congresswoman hailed from either Montana or North Dakota, even before she had the right to vote for herself. Go figure.
“Mike and Vince get back with us and give us your opinion please.”
bdaman,
I can’t talk for Vince, but he’s a working attorney and probably is busy. In any event he has across a number of threads exhaustively and correctly rebutted every issue that came his way. To no effect, or even honest dispute of his rebuttals. As for me above I made my position on this well known, but since the birther people fail to engage it, or simply ignore it, to me the effort becomes pointless. Even though you and I agree on some things and strongly disagree on others, I feel we have engaged each other fairly and have had constructive debate. Say what one will about you, I believe that you honestly try to engage with people and I respect that.
Others, however, really do play rhetorical games and cover their game playing well. to deal with them I would have to de-construct their posts line by line continuously. Part of their technique is to ask supposedly “honest” questions, which in fact are really not too cleverly constructed traps.
What shows their true colors though is that they take great pains to reveal as little as possible about their real beliefs and couch themselves in the cloak of just fair minded inquiry. The tedium of tracking down every little rhetorical thrust, only to have my refutations/citations ignored, or dismissed really gets boring because their work is so essentially dishonest.
This is to me is the extent of the birther movement and the rich plutocracy that is supporting its “stars.” My original birth certificate in NYC was lost after my parent’s death. Two of the copies I received officially from the City of New York, were also lost through the years. The copy I have now is a poorly defined Xerox. It’s funny how when I’ve had to produce it on official business, like mortgages, passports, etc. no one has ever questioned its’ authenticity.
You can go on line and see a copy of President Obama’s birth
certificate. You have Hawaiian officials attesting to its’ validity. You have contemporaneous newspaper birth announcements and each document is treated by the birthers with caviling and caveats. We want to see more is their battle cry. As Vince said at one point and he was perfectly correct they will never be satisfied.
The reason for this is that this is not about whether the President is a “natural born” citizen, it is about de-legitimizing him as President. This is not a movement coming from people who give a rat’s ass about our Constitution, it is about people who are trying to maintain a plutocratic aristocracy in this country and are rich enough to find partisan fools on the make, like Orly Taitz, to front for them.
That some of their supporters are truly people concerned with constitutional government is true, but what separates them out is a willingness to acknowledge that President Obama is duly elected, until a SCOTUS judgment that will never come because even with a Republican Majority on SCOTUS, they understand that this case has no merits. Understand though that although FFLEO acknowledges this, Jim Byrne refuses to.
Perhaps I’m wrong and should give him the benefit of the doubt, but since Jim likes to pose and re-pose questions, rather than answering those put to him, I’ll go with my interpretation for now.
When he posits that the writings of Vatel, from the 1750’s should be indicative of the founder’s intent, he is dredging up the esoteric in defense of the undefendable. Vatel wrote at a time when women were considered their husband’s property, rather than full citizens. That has changed in American jurisprudence. Perhaps he will next argue this “Constitutional” fact:
“Slavery is seen in the Constitution in a few key places. The first is in the Enumeration Clause, where representatives are apportioned. Each state is given a number of representatives based on its population – in that population, slaves, called “other persons,” are counted as three-fifths of a whole person.”
On might posit that in Jim’s view President Obama, being black (the only legal race for slavery in the US)is only three-fifths of a whole person and therefore can’t be President. Now while we’ve had subsequent amendments over ruling this methodology, the “natural born” citizen argument is of the same quality, when it stoops to making Vatel, a Frenchman, into John Jay’s inspiration. There is no end to the tortuous logic and you know what, if I was one the other side of the fence, or perhaps just liked to argue, I could come up with much better reasons to make the same case. I wouldn’t, however, because the entire birther movement is a hoax of Machiavellian proportion, supported by a bunch of wealthy Plutocrats.
Slartibartfast,
“If any other construction would render the clause inoperative, that is an additional reason for rejecting such other construction, and for adhering to the obvious meaning.”
Opinion of CJ John Marshall, Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 175
As such, I don’t agree with your interpretation that the 14th and/or 19th Amendments had any effect on “natural born citizen”.
Again, I ask; what is your definition of “natural born citizen”?
What is the source of your definition?
“Do we all agree that President Obama is the legal President of the US?”
Yes until the Supreme Court of the United States decides differently.”
FFLEO,
You old conservative coot, you know I would never doubt your
honesty, or your devotion to truth. You are in the parlance of old folks like us(and the Mafia unfortunately) a stand up guy. I always enjoy reading your posts, whether I agree with them or not.
It is really hot out by you and I’m not sure I could stand the weather, even if I did back in the day on my cross country wanderings. It’s hot down here to and my A/C is blasting, a fact that my fixed income will have to absorb when the energy bill comes in next month. I may not envy your weather, but are you far enough away from town to see the full sky? Being a City boy and going out west, I would eschew my tent and lay in my sleeping bag staring up at the magnificence of the heavens I had never seen at home. Sometimes I would even be lucky enough to have a woman sharing her bag hooked up to mine. While that was nice, the wonder of the heavens brought an ecstasy even greater. I remember watching meteor showers on a hill near Rapid City in 1977. Oops there I go rambling on again with no point.
Jim Byrne 1, July 21, 2009 at 11:11 am
Slartibartfast,
“If any other construction would render the clause inoperative, that is an additional reason for rejecting such other construction, and for adhering to the obvious meaning.”
Opinion of CJ John Marshall, Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 175
********************
I have confusion about how this case, which was written in or published as written in 1801 or 1803 has any applicability to the current discussion other than the Sct has the last say in the interpretation of the laws of the land. As you will notice I do not write “SCOTUS” as it is a term that I did not learn to write with.
If you will look at history at this time “we had a great fight” amongst the leaders at the time and some centered about when the Sct was going to be called into “term”.
You cannot very well have a Sct make bad decisions for your administration if they are not writing opinions. That is also the case where it was stated that the Sct does not write advisory opinions as they are the supreme law of the land, yawnnnn.
Has anyone seen Buddha or heard from him?
Mike S.,
“but what separates them out is a willingness to acknowledge that President Obama is duly elected”
Can one be duly elected, and still not meet the constitutional requirements to be President?
BTW -I think bdaman was asking Mike A. or Vince to weigh in. He was interested in legal opinion.
Mike S said, Even though you and I agree on some things and strongly disagree on others, I feel we have engaged each other fairly and have had constructive debate. Say what one will about you, I believe that you honestly try to engage with people and I respect that.
Mike thanks, I’ve been debating whether or not to respond and I just wanted to say I’m sorry about last week. I sincerley apologize for my outburst. I do play games Mike or try to be funny, lifes to short. There are other times when I get serious and get to the nuts and bolts. Here’s the thing, you said,
Quote: You can go on line and see a copy of President Obama’s birth
certificate. You have Hawaiian officials attesting to its’ validity.Un Quote
But thats the whole point, a SELECT group of people got to touch it and smell it. People say this group are non partisan. I don’t know that. Then the COLB is pasted all over the internet and people say see, I told you he was born here. Then we have the statement from Hawaii which stopped short of confirming anything.
The official statement says we have seen and verified that we have President Obama’s original certificate in accordance to state policy and procedure. It would of been nice if they would of added that, IT CONFIRMS HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII. It doesn’t read it yourself and tell me what it confirms.
Mike I am sorry to say this but I don’t believe in the outcome of presdential elections. After the 2000 election and all the circumstances surrounding this one I think it’s rigged. I don’t believe he was duly elected as much as I do he was duly selected. I’ve said it before, until there is proof beyond a resonable doubt I will continue to believe that.
You said, The reason for this is that this is not about whether the President is a “natural born” citizen, it is about de-legitimizing him as President.
Mike this is about President Obama letting a situation he could of resolved long ago get out of hand.
The man is hiding something Mike and he is screwed either way now. He is losing the trust of the American people. He is damned if you do damned if you don’t. If he releases the BC now, people will say what the hell took you so long. If he doesn’t this issue will not go away. He will continue with a cloud over his head of distrust. I believe that if the whole BC issue is settled then the two parents must be citizen will go away. People will be willing to move on and wait the next 3 1/2 years out.
Jim,
How about this construction? Do you believe that President Obama is legally the President of the United States at this present time, without any encumbrances. Is that more clear? Remember this thread discusses whether these officers are legally obligated to follow the President’s orders and their suit alleges that he lacks the authority because he was not eligible to be President and is thus not legally President.
“a SELECT group of people got to touch it and smell it. People say this group are non partisan. I don’t know that”
bdaman,
If you asked for my birth certificate what do you think you would get? Mine is long gone and all that is left is a copy of a copy. By the way the hospital I was born in in Brooklyn doesn’t exist any more. I am saying that I have seen more than enough proof and corroboration to convince me that this whole thing is yet another de-legitimization trick being paid for by the plutocracy.
“Mike I am sorry to say this but I don’t believe in the outcome of presdential elections. After the 2000 election and all the circumstances surrounding this one I think it’s rigged.”
There could be some valid reason to not believe that our elections are rigged. I sometimes suspect that myself. Other than Orly Taitz though what are “all the circumstances surrounding this one?”
“Mike this is about President Obama letting a situation he could of resolved long ago get out of hand.”
bdaman,
I wouldn’t have handled it differently if I was President Obama, actually I would have dealt with it less respectfully.
This is about propaganda games and not the constitution.
“The man is hiding something Mike and he is screwed either way now. He is losing the trust of the American people.”
bdaman his ratings are fine given all the crap the MSM has floated out and the people will continue to support him. The reason is that America has turned in its’ thinking, check out Ruy Texeira, who predicted this past election years ago.
“I believe that if the whole BC issue is settled then the two parents must be citizen will go away. People will be willing to move on and wait the next 3 1/2 years out.”
The settling of the BC issue even by SCOTUS will stop nothing, just as the settling of Vince foster didn’t stop the attacks on Clinton. As for 2012 the President will handily win reelection, unless the wacko’s in this country don’t get him killed. I lived through the deaths of both Kennedy’s and MLK. I know what the Plutocratic Hate machine can resort to if they think they’re being thwarted. The real problem is this group is more crazy and bloodthirsty than they were in my youth.
Bdaman,
However, a final word. I’m well aware that both party’s are controlled by money and that money controls the country. There is a difference in outlook though by the plutocrats who run this country. That difference is that one side believes in fully screwing the people to enrich themselves and the other side believes that if you give a little to the people the whole thing will function better. sort of like the difference between France and England before the French Revolution.
Until we’re in a position to get rid of the plutocrats in general, with the prayer of the Who about not being fooled again if we do, then I would prefer having the Democrats in power. The Republican’s are far too greedy and murderous and have in their greed destroyed this country’s most important asset, our industrial base. Bill Clinton, of course helped with that, but essentially it was that dumb “B” Movie actor, his minions and GE, followed by GHW Bush, who turned us into Hessians in Iraq I and GW Bush into war criminals in Iraq II.
“BTW -I think bdaman was asking Mike A. or Vince to weigh in. He was interested in legal opinion.”
Jim,
Perhaps you’re right and he was asking for Mike A, however, given that this is not, nor never has been a legal issue, but is merely a political one given highly dubious legal color in an attempt to confuse, I feel fully qualified to step into the breech.
“BTW -I think bdaman was asking Mike A. or Vince to weigh in. He was interested in legal opinion.”
That is correct I was looking for Mike A and Vince. Vince has not posted one comment since thursday of last week. I hope he is ok #1 and #2 I like to here what he says.
But I’m glad you responded Mike S it gave me an in for my apology
Hey Jim B, I have a question for you. Did you comment on stories over at newsvine on the BC issues?
Mike S. said; “given that this is not, nor never has been a legal issue”
There’s where you went wrong Mike. This is a legal issue. I fully believe that you don’t think it is, but you are confused. You’re more than happy to abide by our Constitution when it supports your needs, but when it imposes a restriction that you consider to be unfair, you’re more than happy to trash it.
What’s the difference between the list of Plaintiffs supplied above, FFLEO, myself, and you? -Other than you, the rest of us operated/operate under the authority of the President. We took an oath to support and defend our Constitution from enemies, foreign and domestic, and nowhere in our oath did we swear to ignore the Constitution when it didn’t fit our needs.
“Do you believe that President Obama is legally the President of the United States at this present time, without any encumbrances”?
No. Given the information provided by Barack Obama, and Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen; I do not believe that Barack Obama meets the natural born citizen qualification of Article II.
I’d be kind of disingenuous if I believed otherwise; wouldn’t I? I’d be guilty of playing “the game” if I didn’t believe what I presented; wouldn’t I?
Since I am not in a position to make decisions for others, I don’t ask that anyone else take my position.
When you understand the obligation to ignore an unlawful (or illegitimate) order, you may understand my position.
bdaman said “Did you comment on stories over at newsvine on the BC issues?”
Not that I can recall. If you’re talking about something recent; I don’t think so. –I’m getting old, but I think I would remember. (at least I hope so)
Mike Spindell & Jim Byrne,
Have you had a chance to read this detailed information at the link below? If not, it would be well worth your time. Remember that Pres. Obama is not the first non-Constitutional Natural Born Citizen to become president; Pres. Chester A. Arthur was the first.
Obama Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Primer
Last revised: June 5, 2009
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm
FFLEO,
I read that yesterday after you posted the link.
If an unconstitutional act is so from the beginning, and therefore, any official act performed by the (acting) President would not have valid; how do we undo time?
Jim,
I am not a lawyer, but from the info that i can put my hands on…
As long as you don’t have to naturalize you are a natural born citizen (hence 14th amendment wording “All persons born or naturalized in the United States…”). Natural born citizens can’t have their citizenship taken away, save for treason etc.(INA Sec. 349. [8 U.S.C. 1481]), they can, however recant (see recent gitmo case of USC “encouraged” to recant in order to be released), i imagine that is the reason for the distinction… if you naturalize there are still ways you can have it yanked against your will (INA Sec. 340. [8 U.S.C. 1451] ), therefore someone that is not a natural born citizen is not eligible lest something happen that strips their citizenship. how hard is this?
“Since Congress only has the authority to create uniform rules for naturalization (the process of making an alien a citizen), I believe they lacked the authority to redefine the definition of natural born in order to include John McCain.”
well, congress does have the authority to define the rules, and has in the INA, that make people born in states that weren’t part of the union at the date of the constitution natural born citizens … unless you want to say you have to be born in the eastern US to be a citizen at birth. In the INA Congress defines the eligible dates for localities bestowing US citizenship by birth, i.e. natural born (as opposed to those who have to “naturalize”).
I would consider THAT the authority to define “natural born”,”native born”, “at birth” or there would be a few more past presidents that didn’t meet the standard besides Arthur.
Sec. 303. [8 U.S.C. 1403] covers McCain (Canal zone births after 1904,.. oh wait how old is he? ahahah)
Sec. 305. [8 U.S.C. 1405] covers Obama as a Hawaiian birth after 1900
Here are ways you can lose it…
INA: ACT 349 – LOSS OF NATIONALITY BY NATIVE-BORN OR NATURALIZED CITIZEN
Sec. 349. [8 U.S.C. 1481]
Note the Wording…. “Native born” vs “Naturaliized Citizen”…
INA: ACT 340 – REVOCATION OF NATURALIZATION
Sec. 340. [8 U.S.C. 1451]
That is how i see it as defined. do you have reason to trump the INA? or are you going to try to take down the entire immigration & nationality policy of the US as established by congress in your attempt to say Obama isn’t a natural born citizen?
you seem to be going all the way back to Vattel because it suits you. There is more recent language clarifying this issue for the US made by OUR Congress. BTW the more recent amdendments don’t render the clause inoperative, they clarify. the Law of Nations is binding as definition why and how? sounds a little bizarre to say the US Congress can’t define Natural Born but some Frenchman can for once and always. Even more bizzare after the recent comments of GOP senators warning Sotomayor about consulting any foriegn law in deciding matters involving the US Constitution.
UNLESS your entire point is that he was a born via c-section, and is therefore not natural born, and if that is the case then i (might) give up.
Mike S you said his ratings are fine given all the crap the MSM has floated out and the people will continue to support him.
The number of people who think Obama can improve the economy is down a sobering 19 percentage points from the euphoric days just before his inauguration. The same for expectations about creating jobs. Also down significantly: the share of people who think he can reduce the deficit, remove troops from Iraq and improve respect for the U.S. around the world, all slipping 15 points.
On overhauling health care, a signature issue for Obama, hopes for success are down a lesser 6 points.
Add it all up, and does it mean Obama has lost his mojo? Has yes-we-can morphed into maybe?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32049471/ns/politics-white_house
One of the little-explored issues relating to the controversy over Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president under the U.S. Constitution’s demand for a “natural born” citizen s the impact of his move to Indonesia as a child.
The implications of his move as a child to Indonesia and apparent adoption by an Indonesian citizen who married his mother are not clear.
Jerry Fuller and Mike Persons of the passport services division of the U.S. State Department say such a move for a child, coupled with the apparent adoption, could impact a child’s birth status.
That includes the possibility of a change in the listed location of the birth, a change in the names of the parents on the birth certificate, and others. Without a doubt, officials said, the result could be a dual citizenship if that nation recognized dual citizenship at the time through a stepfather. Indonesia did not recognize dual citizenship.
This document lists Obama as Barry Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia and his religion is listed as Islam. According to the U. S. State Department, “Indonesian law does not recognize dual nationality for adults over 18 years of age. Because of this law, U.S. citizens who are also documented as Indonesian nationals may experience difficulties with immigration formalities in Indonesia and furthermore, holding dual citizenship may also hamper the U.S. Embassy or Consulate’s ability to provide consular protection to dual national Americans. In addition to being subject to all Indonesian laws affecting U.S. citizens, dual nationals may also be subject to other laws that impose special obligations on Indonesian citizens. In July 2006 the Indonesian Parliament passed new legislation allowing children under age 18 to maintain a foreign nationality as well as Indonesian citizenship. Parents whose children hold both Indonesian and U.S. citizenship may experience difficulties with entry and exit immigration procedures until the new law is fully implemented.”
The question is, how does the fact that Indonesian law prohibited dual citizenship affect Obama. It certainly isn’t clear.
There is a further question about the implications of Anna Dunham also becoming an Indonesian citizen — what if the entire Soetoro family were citizens of Indonesia?
lrhf97,
“Natural born citizen” is a legal term of art. It’s not as simple as vaginal delivery on U.S. soil. It relates to an inherent belief of the Founders, that one whose father is a citizen will pass down the associated loyalty, as a supplement to the loyalty normally attributed with one who is born on the land. This is a two-part test for loyalty.
As Vattel states; “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
That makes a lot of sense to me.
You must think of this in the context of the time in which it was written into our Constitution. -We had just fought a war for our independence. This country was now ours, and as our lead negotiator with other countries, we wanted to make sure that the loyalty of the President was secured by using a two-pronged approach.
Jim they don’t want to here that. They don’t understand that Claire McCaskill tried to change the constitutions clause on NBC the evidence is here.
http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1131&posts=4
They don’t want to here how some guy breached Obama’s passport file and was found executed. Obamas passport was the main target and info was erased. http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/brennan_passport_breach/2009/01/12/170430.html
They don’t see the connection of how Mccain was a puppet of thier distraction by tellin him, John buddy we want this to be a fair election and we are gonna back you up with senate resolution 511. Sen. Claire McCaskill [D, MO]
and 5 Co-Sponsors
Sen. Hillary Clinton [D, NY]
Sen. Thomas Coburn [R, OK]
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D, VT]
Barack Obama
Sen. Jim Webb [D, VA]
How nice those democrats are just keepin the playin field nice and level. Oh and look there’s Claire again stickin her nose in a NBC issue. She wanted to do away with it and now what ever she can do to help ol Johnny out.
They don’t want to here about his forged Selective Service card.
http://www.debbieschlusseldotcom/archives/2008/11/exclusive_did_n.html I spelled dot out, JT doesn’t allow multiple links
They don’t want to here about acorn and voter fraud.
All they want to here is that, he’s the messiah, he can solve anything, he’s gonna be the best president ever. He’s gonna give me free health care and stop global warming. Don’t forget that all the muslims will love us now because he can unclench fist.
It’s our turn to spend the money you guys had your chance for eight years. You decided you wanted to spend it on war and military machines. We will spend the money how we see fit it’s our turn. If Bush hadn’t of stole the 2000 election in the first place Al Gore would have already taken care of all of this. It’s our turn to spend the money.
Jim they don’t want to here that. They don’t understand that Claire McCaskill tried to change the constitutions clause on NBC the evidence is here.
http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1131&posts=4
They don’t want to here how some guy breached Obama’s passport file and was found executed. Obamas passport was the main target and info was erased. http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/brennan_passport_breach/2009/01/12/170430.html
They don’t see the connection of how Mccain was a puppet of thier distraction by tellin him, John buddy we want this to be a fair election and we are gonna back you up with senate resolution 511. Sen. Claire McCaskill [D, MO]
and 5 Co-Sponsors
Sen. Hillary Clinton [D, NY]
Sen. Thomas Coburn [R, OK]
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D, VT]
Barack Obama
Sen. Jim Webb [D, VA]
How nice those democrats are just keepin the playin field nice and level. Oh and look there’s Claire again stickin her nose in a NBC issue. She wanted to do away with it and now what ever she can do to help ol Johnny out.
They don’t want to here about his forged Selective Service card.
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/11/exclusive_did_n.html
They don’t want to here about acorn and voter fraud.
All they want to here is that, he’s the messiah, he can solve anything, he’s gonna be the best president ever. He’s gonna give me free health care and stop global warming. Don’t forget that all the muslims will love us now because he can unclench fist.
It’s our turn to spend the money you guys had your chance for eight years. You decided you wanted to spend it on war and military machines. We will spend the money how we see fit it’s our turn. If Bush hadn’t of stole the 2000 election in the first place Al Gore would have already taken care of all of this. It’s our turn to spend the money.
bdaman,
I try to stay away from claims like “They don’t want to hear”. I found that to be unnecessarily insulting to the independent thinking capabilities of intelligent people. -I think most people here are extremely intelligent (bias perhaps, but intelligent nonetheless.)
I’ve spent most of my adult life troubleshooting and determining the best course of action to resolve the problem. I tend to focus on what is important and relevant. -The items that you posted are definately of interest. However, they are not relevant to the constitutional qualifications of the Office of President.
Please don’t think I’m being dismissive. You have exposed some very interesting items. I just think the best course of action is to focus on the topic at hand.
Very well said Jim, I am not an attorney, in most court procedings I’ve seen on TV. Alot of times they have to build a case on circumstantial evidence and then connect the dots on why someone has broken the law. They give it to the Jury and they decide. Thats all I was trying to do. Be out all day,keep up the fight
Gee, I leave town for a few days, and look what happens.
George and rcampbell. Birth to a single US citizen parent outside the US does not automatically confer citizenship. The parent must meet certain residence requirements that have changed over the years.
FFLEO. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires that a natural born citizen have two US citizen parents. Please show us the words. This was confirmed by the Wonk Kim Ark case that held that a person born in the US of noncitizen parents was a citizen by reason of birth, not naturalization.
I have pointed out that Donofrio’s thesis that Obama was subject to Kenyan jurisdiction or has Kenyan citizenship at birth does NOT translate into a two-citizen parent requirement. Suppose Kenyan law at the time said that only persons born in Kenya had citizenship? Then anyone born outside Kenya would NOT have been under dual jurisdiction. So you do not even have stated Leo’s argument correctly.
Mike A., Mike S., gyges. Right.
Professor Turley. Cook volunteered for deployment. He could have changed his mind at any time. Then he filed a lawsuit to stop deployment. That was pretty good evidence that he had changed his mind. How could the Army possibly defend on the merits? If they agree to his request for an injunction to stop the deployment, then they have to cancel his orders. There was no possible way for this case to present a case or controversy to the court. There was simply no basis for jurisdiction.
As I said earlier, he was like the guy who sued for an injunction to stop himself from chopping down his own tree.
Jim Byrne. Sec. 212 is not in the Constitution, was not written into it by the framers and not ratified by the people in conventions, so it does not settle anything about the Constitution.
Scholars mostly look to the British common law at the time the Constitution was adopted, and that provided for citizenship on the basis of place of birth. A court so held even before the 14th Amendment was ratified.
Vince,
Welcome back. Work or vacation?
–I have no problem with citizenship being bestowed upon one who is born on U.S. soil.
I don’t think that’s what the Framers intended when they used the term “natural born citizen”. They could have easily stated that the president must be born on U.S. soil, but they didn’t.
I’m open to exploring other definitions of “natural born citizen”.
Vince T., welcome back to the latest installment of “Reinventing the Wheel.” Every birther argument I have seen asserts that a Swiss legal scholar is the only legitimate authority on the citizenship issue. I don’t know why, but they appear to believe that the Commentaries on the Laws of England was a work unknown to the Founders. This debate has found its way into three or four different threads on this site so far and I am convinced that a pronouncement by Scalia himself would be unsatisfactory to the opposition. I am expecting at any moment that someone will raise the issue of the unlawful abolition of primogeniture.
–I have no problem with citizenship being bestowed upon one who is born on U.S. soil.
I don’t think that’s what the Framers intended when they used the term “natural born citizen”. They could have easily stated that the president must be born on U.S. soil, but they didn’t.
I’m open to exploring other definitions of “natural born citizen”.
***********************
How about Slavery and all of the other stuff going on at the time. Natural, meaning “whether or not “colored men” can be citizens of the United States.”
“I conclude that the free man of color, mentioned in your letter, if born in the United States, is a citizen of the United States, ….” In the course of that opinion, Bates commented at some length on the nature of citizenship, and wrote,
… our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.
########
This is a dead issue hear? I could have said here, but do you hear that it is a dead issue.
The “birthers” are not giving up although they should. Last night Liz Cheney joined them. I think they are on a mission to invade the blogs and get their message out.
Swarthmore mom 1, July 22, 2009 at 9:43 am
The “birthers” are not giving up
************
I think you are correct. How is this morning going?
Swarthmore Mom, Liz Cheney is simply positioning herself to run for public office so that she can contribute to the wonderful legacy left by her father.
I am going to repost from another thread to clarify the underlying facts of Cook’s suit and to expand a little on my post above.
These facts may not be clear to readers from the summary at the top. There it is written that “Cook filed the suit July 8th in federal court demanding conscientious objector status and a preliminary injunction based upon his claim that President Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States. He argued that, since Obama cannot serve as president of the United States, he cannot order him to deploy as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.
“What is curious is the decision by the military to suddenly revoke the deployment orders of Cook. That served to fuel the growing movement spreading this rumor.”
The reader might get the impression that 1) Cook was ordered to be deployed to Afghanistan, 2) he filed suit to stop the deployment, 3) arguing that Obama was not a natural born citizen, and 4) as a result of the lawsuit, the Army cancelled his orders to prevent a ruling on this issue.
That is not how it went down. In fact, 1) Cook volunteered for deployment and 2) had the right to revoke his application at any time up and until deployment; 3) he then filed suit to stop the deployment; and 4) the Army reasonably concluded that a soldier who had sued to stop his deployment no longer wanted to go overseas and 5) cancelled his orders.
This is clear from the news reports. So where is the lawsuit? Where is the case or controversy?
Maybe Cook should have gone on active duty and then refused to obey a lawful direct order to get on the plane. That might or might not have been a case, but he did not, and there is no case.
If he suffered employment retaliation, he has to go the Labor Department under the federal veterans employment protection statute. It cannot be raised this case.
As for the retired General, he has no standing or interest in the case at all. Please, someone tell him that you can sue to challenge your own tax assessment, but not your neighbor’s. Can a PI attorney explain to him that you can sue if you yourself are run over, but not if someone else is run over.
Here is the article that makes it clear that he volunteered to go on active duty.
QUOTE Earlier today, Quon said Cook submitted a formal written request to Human Resources Command-St. Louis on May 8, 2009 volunteering to serve one year in Afghanistan with Special Operations Command, U.S. Army Central Command, beginning July 15, 2009. The soldier’s orders were issued on June 9, Quon said.
“A reserve soldier who volunteers for an active duty tour may ask for a revocation of orders up until the day he is scheduled to report for active duty,” Quon said.
Sandra, at July 20, 2009 at 7:54 am on General did not join suit.
Thanks, Sandra, for a great catch. The General is not on the case, so the jury will disregard my para on his lack of standing. It continues to apply to any and all other innocent bystanders.
This General is a lot smarter than Cook, and infintely smarter than Orly.
nice one…
Vince takes the true lawyer/Judge/Justice tract and instead of joining in the birther arguement wraps up the case on standing and the smaller albeit core issue before the birther reasoning can even enter the conversation.
brilliant!
i love that kind of resolution. shows you are concentrationg on the law and not the issue. not all lawyers do that unfortunately.
I-97, wrong! I have addressed the issues here.
Obama has produced a valid birth certificate. He was born in Hawaii in the United States.
He is a natural born citizen by virtue of his birth in the US, and that status is NOT affected by the fact that his father was Kenyan.
Obama is the President of the United States of America.
I have supported all of this here and on many other threads, as the regulars will attest.
Vince,
Let’s say; a Saudi couple visiting the U.S. has a child born on U.S. soil, while visiting…and they take their child with them to grow up in Saudi Arabia. The child returns to the U.S. when he/she is 30 years old, and, at 45 runs for/ and is elected President.
Do you think the loyalty of that person could be legitimately questioned?
“[I]t is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural born citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay, or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.” -dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Fuller (joined by Justice Harlan) United States v. Wong Kim Ark
Always important to distinguish between the Opinion of the Court and the Dissent.
Those are remarks in a dissenting opinion.
Quotes from the estimable Mr. Byrnes,
“Why would an honorable man continue to fight so hard to hide information about his birth? Why? –How long does one stand on “you can’t make me”?”
MS: This is a clear political, not legal statement.
“The Law of Nations (1758), Book I, Chapter XIX, Section 212
Now, who thinks “natural-born” status has been resolved?”
MS: Mr. Vatel’s book would not have been authoritative because British Common Law and Statutes would have first preference. Also it is bizarre to use as a reason since it did not recognize the rights of women, who were considered chattels. Times do change, Constitutional Issues do evolve, even if certain people recognize the evolution only when it suits their political views. Scalia anyone, or perhaps Jim Byrne?
“Mike S.,
We need to start with things to which we will both agree:
1. We have a written Constitution.
2. Article II of that Constitution requires that the President meet 3 criteria to be qualified.
3. One of those qualifications is that he must be a “natural born citizen”.
4. We have no choice but to adhere to the requisites of our Constitution.
Do you agree with the 4 points presented above?”
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/two-minute-warning-vattel-decoded/
MS: Given agreement on the above, where does the fact that Monsieur Vatel wrote a tome, that John Jay purportedly read have to do with our Constitution, except in the sense of people with political objectives who lack substance and need to sound as if they’re authoritative? By the way the link below the quote shows where you got Vatel from, the “estimable” professional poker player, retired lawyer and money hungry (see website to donate) Leo C. Donofrio.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/two-minute-warning-vattel-decoded/
“Sorry Mike, I should have answered your question first.(You)
“In that respect could somebody please show me where the “fact” came from the the President has spent million$ in lawyer’ fees to keep this hidden?” (quoting me)
I don’t know. Our transparent President is not that transparent.”(You)
MS: Another purely political answer by you Jim to a legitimate question dealing to one of the major lies spread by the people you support
“One lie is relatively meaningless, but it is still a lie, and reflects upon the general truthfulness of the one who tells it.”
MS: Jim your hypocrisy is showing. How is it that the oft repeated claim of those you follow, Obama has spent million$ covering this up, has no bearing upon their general truthlessness? It doesn’t because this isn’t about the constitution for you Jim it is decidely political, but you choose to hide that to make yourself seem a fair observer. Nice pose, but it doesn’t fly.
“Does he meet the standard of qualification set forth in the Constitution, under the definition that I have provided? -No.”
MS: And your definition is based on a book written in the 1750’s by a Swiss citizen. That isn’t Constitution Jim it’s political. By the way have I mentioned that while not a lawyer I went to Law School for 2 1/2 years (albeit at night)
and there I learned that the background of our jurisprudence comes from British Common Law and Statutes. These legal standards were decidedly not similar to the legal theories practiced in Europe. However, when one plays political games any port in the storm, I guess.
“As the high court has never addressed the definition of natural born citizen, we must look to a definition that existed prior to adoption of our Constitution. -That is the only way to interpret what the Framers would have considered.”
MS: So we should look at Monsieur Vatel in determining the intent rather than to British conceptualization? Idiotic and lacking historical understanding and by the way don’t throw Voltaire at me as an influence, I’m quite aware of the history. However, what really is wrong with your statement Jim is the part about interpretation. That kind of thinking about the Founder’s thoughts. That method of interpreting the Constitution allows for people, Federalist Society anyone, to give free reign to whatever fantasies are driven by their inability to separate their political beliefs from reality. Politics again Jim.
“We know that John Jay was familiar with the writings of Emmerich Vattel. (See Madison’s instructions to John Jay, Dated Oct. 17th, 1780)”
MS: Interesting word choice “familiar with” because it doesn’t say believed in or fervently supported. A man as erudite as Jay was also familiar with the doctrine of The Divine Right of Kings and may have commented in letters about it to anyone. He may hqave even thought there was some minor applicability. More political claptrap Jim and no direct link to the issue, except by smoke and mirrors.
“As such, and unless some other definition of “natural born citizen” was floating around at the time of the Constitutional Convention (I am not aware of any others), we must be willing to recognize the definition presented by Vattel.”
MS: No we mustn’t to be willing to accept Vatel’s definition. While you state it confidently as if it is clearly logical, it in fact isn’t logical at all and truthfully downright silly. Using the reasonable person standard, I doubt if you’d get more than 2% of Constitutional lawyers alone to agree with you and I’m being generous in that estimate.
“According to Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison, the 14th amendment cannot make the natural born citizen clause from Article 2 Section 1 superfluous. If being born as a 14th Amendment citizen was enough to be President, then the natural born citizen clause would have no effect. According to Marshall, that argument is inadimissible.
Leo C. Donofrio”
MS: Mr. Donofrio is a retired lawyer, professional card player and man on the make for a buck. He is also decidedly
Republican and decidedly political as the link below from the website carrying his blog until at least November 2008 shows.
Jim protest all you want that this is serious stuff, but your own words, your lack of candor and your answering questions with questions clearly indicates that this too for you is political, but it suits you to be disingenuous about it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/bloggers-forum/index
I’ll deal with your last snarky reply in my next post.
While it is true that dissenting opinion is of no precedential value, it does provide us with the interpretations of two judges of the U.S. Supreme Court.
We are left with a decision. Do we ignonre the opinions of two Justices of the Supreme Court, and only recognize the partisan opinion presented by Vince, Mike A. et al, or do we recognize that further non-partisan interpretation should be explored?
“This is a legal issue. I fully believe that you don’t think it is, but you are confused. You’re more than happy to abide by our Constitution when it supports your needs, but when it imposes a restriction that you consider to be unfair, you’re more than happy to trash it.”
Jim,
I’m not at all confused and neither are you. You may have the ability to deceive yourself to think you are being fair but you’re not. Actually though I dealt with that in a previous post, which is unfortunately “awaiting moderation” due to the amount of links and so this post will probably appear first.
As for saying that I abide by the Constitution when it suits my needs. You cite an 1850 tome by a Swiss as your basis for knowing the intent of the Constitution. Now of course you got that from Leo C. Donofrio, that retired lawyer, professional poker player, erstwhile Republican and con man for a buck who couldn’t get SCOTUS to accept his suit. Thin at best Jim and clearly not the person I’d go to for Constitutional Theory.
“What’s the difference between the list of Plaintiffs supplied above, FFLEO, myself, and you? -Other than you, the rest of us operated/operate under the authority of the President. We took an oath to support and defend our Constitution from enemies, foreign and domestic, and nowhere in our oath did we swear to ignore the Constitution when it didn’t fit our needs.”
I have your word that you were in the service. If you actually served in combat, more credit to you. After that your comment becomes insulting. You don’t know me Jim. you know little of my life or the struggles I’ve been in to do my part to make this country a better place. If you served directly in combat, yes than you put your life on the line. However, to a lesser extent so have I. Don’t claim, however, that being in the military gives anyone the right to claim special status when it comes to following the Constitution.
George Bush and Dick Cheney swore a similar oath and both of them trashed the Constitution and were equally derisive of it.
Most of those people who you linked yourself with above voted for those draft dodging traitors, not once but twice, so I guess that their duty to their oaths had flexibility.
“No. Given the information provided by Barack Obama, and Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen; I do not believe that Barack Obama meets the natural born citizen qualification of Article II.”
Again we revert to the authority of a Swiss writer to interpret our constitution. Jim you are so clearly full of it.
This is all about politics for you and you are front and center in the mainstream of the birther movement.
“When you understand the obligation to ignore an unlawful (or illegitimate) order, you may understand my position.”
I may not have been in the service Jim but I more than understand the obligation to ignore an unlawful order and my career, income and family suffered for it on more than three occasions. In only one of them as the Chief Contracting Officer for the NYC/HRA Adult Services Administration (read Colonel), with 450 million$ in contracts under my purview, I refused a direct order of my Executive Deputy Commissioner (read two star General)to give a no-bid contract that was phony but had been asked for by Mayor Giuliani’s people. I never talked to the man again and he was about to fire me when the HANAC contracting scandal broke and the contract I refused to do was withdrawn. Nevertheless, I had to leave that Agency for another job which was equivalent to a Majors in pay and perks. So I took a demotion for my principles.
That was one of three times I put myself on the line for the law and principle and suffered greatly for it. Also too, in 1966 after graduating college I tried to enlist in the Air Force, where I was guaranteed OCS, but was rejected for high blood pressure. A good move since I have had extensive heart trouble since then.
How many unlawful orders did you ignore in your military career Jim? We both understand the obligation, but as you well know some in the military put their career advancement ahead of the niceties of legalities and their own personal morality. People like Major Cook even like to play pretend to advance their political feelings. Jim, deny it all you want but this is only about politics and relying on 18th Century Swiss for constitutional insight and 21st Century legal hacks does nothing to disprove it.
The Opinion of the Court is the law and by virtue of the Supremeacy Clause is binding on all federal and state courts and on federal and state legislatures, until reversed or changed by a later decision, or by an Amendment.
As for the Saudi child, anyone can “question” his loyalty, but he can run for President. It is up to the people to decide. If is is a problem, propose a constitutional amendment. It is not easy to take away citizenship.
“Do we ignonre the opinions of two Justices of the Supreme Court, and only recognize the partisan opinion presented by Vince, Mike A. et al, or do we recognize that further non-partisan interpretation should be explored?”
Jim,
Be honest enough to cut the crap why don’t you? You are more partisan than those you accuse, except that you are also too disingenuous to admit your bias.
There is a lot of concern about the meaning of natural born citizen. To aid an informed discussion, there is a student law review note by Jill Pryor available:
http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf
And a CRS Report on citizenship of children born to alien parents in the United States:
http://www.ansarilawfirm.com/docs/U.S.-Citizenship-of-Persons-Born-in-the-United-States-to-Alien-Parents.pdf
Since the term “natural born citizen” was not defined, it is best to start with the words themselves. The Constitution expressly authorized the naturalization of foreign citizen, and allowed natural born citizens to be President. So, to start with, there were two kinds of citizens, born and naturalized.
To qualify to be President, then, a person had to be a citizen, and had to be a citizen by reason of or by virtue of birth rather than by naturalization.
It does not say born in the U.S.A. Jill Pryor (at 97 Yale Law Journal 881) found an early draft by Hamilton that said no person should be eligible for President unless he ”hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” So they meant citizen by birth, not merely citizens born on US soil.
The first Congress included children born to citizen parents overseas within the meaning of natural born citizens. I (like Tribe and Olson) think that McCain was eligible under this rationale, as well as by his birth on a US territory.
It is important to look at the purpose or rationale of any legal rule, and to ask what benefit or bane was the motivating force. Our main aide here is Jay’s letter, which is clearly concerned with grown-up generals or princes seeking power after being naturalized by a compliant Congress. The letter expressed no concern about infants or babes.
The framers knew that common law existed, and the first Congress referred to it by name in the 7th Amendment. So it is appropriate to look to the common law for help in interpretation, and common law included all persons born in the realm as citizens by birth.
So there it is: a “natural born citizen” includes all those born on US soil as well as those who are citizens from birth by virtue of their parents. They are all eligible to be President. Other citizens are citizens by naturalization, and not eligible.
FFLEO,
Followed your link and this to me is the most interesting and telling answer:
“21. If President Obama’s birth certificate shows conclusively that he was born in Hawaii, would it end the eligibility controversy?
Definitely not! President Obama has stated publicly that his father was not a U.S. citizen. According to the birthers’ understanding of history and law, if his father was not a U.S. citizen, President Obama cannot be a Constitutional natural born citizen, regardless of where he might have been born. If President Obama was born in Hawaii, he could be regarded as a statutory natural born citizen, but he would not necessarily be a Constitutional natural born citizen.
Regardless of what his birth certificate says, Obama’s presidential eligibility will never be settled or resolved, until the Supreme Court decides whether the U.S.-born children of non-U.S.-citizen parents are Constitutional natural born citizens.”
This sums it all up and it is conclusive in showing that this is about politics. You understand, I know, that this conclusion is based on their interpretation of Emerich de Vattel, who died in 1767, 9 years before the revolution. A question for you is would he be your “go to” guy on US Constitutional matters? He wouldn’t be for me and actually I’d prefer the works of François Vatel (1631 – April 24, 1671)who has just as much bearing on the US Constitution.
Mike S.,
I was never given an unlawful order. As such, I had no reason to disobey one. I also had no reason to question the authority of my President, or my superiors…If I would have had reason, I would have questioned such authority/legitimacy.
Why would I select Vattel? Did I just pick it out of the blue? Is there no document that would provide support for the use of his definition?
(As I have posted earlier) James Madison quoted Vattel in a letter to John Jay. John Jay, in a letter to George Washington, while Washington was presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, recommended that only a “natural born citizen” should be permitted to be POTUS.
Were the Framers concerned with loyalty? -Very much so.
Byrne QUOTE As such, and unless some other definition of “natural born citizen” was floating around at the time of the Constitutional Convention (I am not aware of any others), we must be willing to recognize the definition presented by Vattel.
Vattel’s definition requires that the father must be a citizen of the United States.
“it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
UNQUOTE
I do not see a definition of natural born citizen in there. It just defines citizen.
Mike S, good post, but it is even worse than you say; Vattel was 1758, not 1850. He knew the law of the Swiss. He was not a framer or a Supreme Court Justice.
Also, Jay was not a member of the Constitutional Covention. His letter did not quote or cite Vattel. And, as stated many times, he was concerned with generals and princes in arms, not babes in arms.
Ҥ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
That is Vattel’s definition. It is not in the Constitution of the United States. If the framers had intended that result, they had to put the words “born to parents who are citizens” in the Constitution for all to ratify. They did not. The just put in the words “natural born.” The words were not put into the 14th Amendment, either.
This parental argument was dreamed up in 2008 after Obama produced his birth certificate. It is new. No one ever made it before. No one ever used it against Arthur, whose father was not a citizen. It is not in any civics text. There are entire threads on this over at Obamaconspiracy.com.
Even the nuts who say a woman cannot be President (because the 19th only granted the vote, not the right to be President) can find a civics text years ago saying that the Pres must be a he. But the birthers are still looking for this one.
And I have shown that Donofrio’s argument does not support this. He hangs his had on dual citizenship, not on a two parent rule.
The tho-parent rule is second stage birther nonsense.
If Obama was born in the US, then he was and is a natural born citizen.
Jay’s letter wanted a “strong check on the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our National Government.”
Read it. He was worried about Foreigners.
Not about someone who has been a citizen from birth.
Not about the number of his citizen parents.
Read it again.
“The first Congress included children born to citizen parents overseas within the meaning of natural born citizens. I (like Tribe and Olson) think that McCain was eligible under this rationale, as well as by his birth on a US territory.”
Vince,
You are either being intentionally deceptive, or you are unprepared to participate in this dicsussion -as demonstrated by the quote above.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed, and superceded by the Naturalization Act of 1795. The natural born citizen portion does not exist in the 1795 Act.
SO you think McCain was eligible by means of a an Act of Congress that was repealed before even he was born. (and that was a long time ao)
Byrne QUOTE Barack Obama Sr. was a citizen of Kenya, (I don’t think that is being disputed) which, by definition, would indicate that Barack Obama Jr. could not be considered to be a “natural born citizen” of the United States.
If we ignore this, are we not ignoring our own Constitution? Are we, in effect, saying our constitutional provisions are ridiculous…so we should ignore the Constitution? Is that not the same thing as ignoring “the rule of law”? UNQUOTE
This passage just assumes what it tries to prove. The Kenyan citizenship of Obama’s father does NOT “by definition” indicate that he cannot be a natural born citizen. The natural born citizen definition includes, at the very least, all citizens born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction. The only exclusions are for ambassadors, invading armies, and indians.
Obama was subject to the jurisdiction of the US from birth, subject to its laws and power and control. He met all the qualifications at birth. The 14th Amendment did not include the phrase “and not subject to any foreign power” that had been included in the civil rights act. This is an effort to read back into the Constitution a requirement that was expressly considered by Congress and rejected, and that was never ratified by the people. That is a fundamentally flawed manner of statutory construction and reasoning. See the CRS Report linked above and other threads searchable with the term Donofrio.
We are not ignoring the Constitution. Some are trying to insert their own personal policy predilections into the Constitution, with no support in the language or purpose of the document. They are the ones ignoring the rule of law.
Once again, the two-parent rule is not in the Constitution. Even Leo Donofrio cannot support that rule.
The fact that one parent was a citizen of another country did not disqualify Arthur, and does not disqualify Obama.
Byrne, I cited that law for the intent of the framers, based on the acts of the framers who served in first Congress.
Washington presided at the Convention and approved the Constitution, and then signed this law. I do not think he would have signed an unconstitutional law.
Go the the treads searchable for mccain and natural born citizen to find complete treatment of McCain. Of course the law was repealed, but others have followed. Look at the research tools I have linked.
I invite any onlookers to look at my posts over the past two years and see if I am deceptive or unprepared. I just post what I know. I have not called anyone names, impugned anyone’s ability or motive, or even asked for their legal credentials.
The 1790 law stands for the propostion that at the time of adoption, the framers believed the term natural born citizen could include children born to US citizens beyond the seas. Jill Pryor has all the footnotes.
“Do you think the loyalty of that person could be legitimately questioned?”
Jim,
Your letting your politics show. This is about the man’s legitimacy as President, not about his loyalty, or is it in your mind. Bad example to make your case with and still be considered to be seeing this impartial of political beliefs.
“I was never given an unlawful order. As such, I had no reason to disobey one. I also had no reason to question the authority of my President, or my superiors…If I would have had reason, I would have questioned such authority/legitimacy.”
So I can assume from your answer to my question that you were never involved in combat. I also see that in your career you never bucked the trend and thus probably made good career moves. I have Jim and I paid the price for doing the right thing, therefore how dare you state:
“When you understand the obligation to ignore an unlawful (or illegitimate) order, you may understand my position.”
I understand it a lot more than you Jim because I was willing to put my career on the line for principle. I’m glad you never had to, but then I guess you really couldn’t understand those of us who did.
Vince,
1850 was a typo, I should read these posts of mine more clsely.
Byrne QUOTE Barack Obama Sr. was a citizen of Kenya, (I don’t think that is being disputed) which, by definition, would indicate that Barack Obama Jr. could not be considered to be a “natural born citizen” of the United States.UNQUOTE
QUOTE Jim Byrne 1, July 16, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Vince,
I concur. The 14th does ensure that anyone born in the U.S., regardless of parental citizenship, would be considered a natural-born citizen, and therefore meet that qualification requirement of Article I. UNQUOTE
http://jonathanturley.org/2008/12/04/eligibility-questions-can-clinton-serve-obama-and-can-obama-serve-the-country/
Give me a while to get back to you on these.
Quoted without comment
paratrooper508th
Jul 15, 2009 10:11:58 PM
I have a hard time understanding why this coward volunteered and then backed out, being a so called leader, he is a embrassment to the state he is from and the U.S. Army, who lowed the standards for him to get in?, and this so called lawyer what rock this crawl from under?, I speak as a combat veteran, two tours of duty in Vietnam, both times I volunteered, so what give this scumbag the right too say no too what he asked for, coward
unquote
From: http://www.military.com/news/article/anti-obama-gis-afghan-orders-revoked.html
Dr. Conspiracy said it best:
QUOTE Obama’s book stating his father’s nationality has been on the bookshelves for over a decade.
Why did NO ONE even mention that he wasn’t a natural born citizen because of that before June of 2008? That’s because until the smear campaign and the propaganda, no one in the country thought citizen parents were a requirement. The whole redefinition issue was created out thin air by Obama opponents, and many of you were fooled into thinking that you knew something all your life that you never heard before last June.
I challenge you to find a US Civics textbook published in the past 200 years that says a US president must have citizen parents. Now explain to me why you can’t find one.
And if it is in no textbook, then where do you think anyone would have gotten the idea that there was a parental requirement? They read it on the Internet AFTER June 2008, and after Obama had shown his birth certificate, requiring the smearbots to come up with a new strategy. UNQUOTE
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/05/a-comment-at-the-natural-born-citizen-blog/
Vince,
Wow. I’m impressed. I’d like to drop you on an unsuspecting birther blog and watch the fireworks
Vince T., welcome back again, with a vengeance. I recall learning in seventh grade civics that a child born in the United States is a citizen of this country. Of course, that was in 1958, when people still ate white bread and lived under white institutions and paid homage to the god of “separate but equal.”
I have racked what remains of my brain in an attempt to determine a motivation for what has become hysteria in certain quarters (see the video on the Delaware town hall meeting that’s all over the web). The comments have variously included references to “Kenya,” “Muslim father” and “loyalty,” as well as repetition of the “I want my country back” mantra. In all fairness, it adds up to a combination of irrational fear, racial prejudice and xenophobia. Instead of using this as an opportunity to remind Americans of the diversity that has created a strong nation, politicians have instead capitalized on the widespread ignorance of the Constitution in this country in a partisan effort to destroy a presidency, a goal most recently repeated by the great senator from South Carolina, Jim DeMint.
It is no more possible to convince hardcore haters that they are wrong on this issue than it is to convince the White Aryan Resistance that the Holocaust actually happened. There is a difference between ignorance and willful ignorance. I no longer desire to exchange views with those occupying the latter category.
Mike A, I don’t go to those sites because they edit (censor) any posts and they get your email, which I do not want to give them..
Also, someone posted that I am a practicing attorney, but I do not want to leave any mistaken information standing, or to seem to confirm it by not answering it, so my status is retired lawyer, not practicing lawyer.
Try convincing a moon shot doubter that Armstrong landed on the moon. Some of the moonies are also birthers.
Vince, you’re right. I watched the moon landing on TV in 1969 in absolute awe. Now I understand that Whoopi Goldberg, of all people, raised questions about it on “The View” because she wondered who was holding the camera.
I am dismayed at the posts herein that evidence so much passion coupled with so little information. For those people interested in actually tackling a fascinating issue: the question that millions of Americans are pondering, from both political parties, is what exactly is a (1) natural (2) born (3) citizen.
Secondly, is the current president?
To opine without knowledge of the issue is just, well, stupid.
At the very least, find out what the phrase “natural born citizen” means, how it is defined and the possible differing constructions that well-intentioned scholars hold and then, and only then in my opinion, base your opinions thereon.
Most of the messages posted here demonstrate the writer’s ignorance of the complicated issue and are just silly hyperbole or, worse, knee-jerk emoting that contribute nothing to the discussion.
Honestly, learn, think, understand and find out why good minds are dismayed by the possibility of this issue.
Jill writes:
Argue it on the merits.
If this is how the govt. wants to deal with it, then every soldier ought to join this claim and get out of being sent to any one of our many illegal and immoral wars.
good point and I will keep this in mind should a draft ever be reinstated.
Kelly, most of us who have been “opining” on this issue have done so on three or four different threads. Most of us have also read a great deal of material on the issue. Implicit in your comment is the suggestion that you are knowledgable on the subject. Why don’t you give us the benefit of your opinion and rationale?
Kelly, please read the posting above at July 22, 2009 at 1:08 pm and the law review note and CRS Report link there, and you will find an abundance of information on what exactly is a natural born citizen.
In other posts, here and on other threads, I have made it clear that Obama is a natural born citizen and is the President of the United States.
Even the Pope thinks so.
Slartibartfast. Thanks.
“I am dismayed at the posts herein that evidence so much passion coupled with so little information.”
Kelly,
I’m dismayed that you would write without reading and basically make a statement as stupid as that. The issued has been wrapped up and settled and if you think the question is open then it is you who are uninformed.
“Honestly, learn, think, understand and find out why good minds are dismayed by the possibility of this issue.”
Honestly Kelly, you don’t have a good mind, but it is not to late to educate yourself.
Vince,
if you read my posts you would know that i completely agree with you. i know you had a lot to read to catch up, but i am on your side. Just thought i would mention it.
My post about you was in reference to how you neutered Cooks attempt bring the birther arguement to court. he ran out of gas through his and his lawyers own incompetence because the facts that were supposed to lead to that issue implode.
I have been lurking for a few months but had to post in this thread because Jim Byrne’s comments were about to make my head blow up. I have not seen your posts in other thread only this one. Obviously you didn’t read mine except the last one and took it the wrong way (like i said, there was a lot to catch up on), no worries.
Vince,
Game, set and match. You have once again simply outworked and out thought the opposition. You are my hero and I’d say I’d like to be Vince Treacy when I grow up, but unfortunately I’m older than you are. My compliments and my respect.
When any of you are interested in providing a definition of natural born citizen, that we could reasonably attribute to the mindset of the Framers, please post it.
For further proof on the question of Vattel’s influence we only need to look at Benjamin Franklin. In 1775, he observed, the importance of the Law of Nations, on the Founding Fathers and he then ordered 3 copies of the latest editions. The Library Company of Philadelphia which holds one of the three copies, lists the 1775 reference to this book, as “Le droit des gens,” from the publishing house of Chez E. van Harrevelt in Amsterdam, Holland, with a personal note to Franklin from the editor of this edition, C.G.F. Dumas. The fact that this particular volume that Franklin ordered is in French is significant, for at that time French was considered by the “family of nations” to be the diplomatic language, and the 1775 edition was considered the most exact reference of Vattel’s Law of Nations.
There is no doubt that the Founding Fathers did not exclusively use the English translation, but relied upon the French original. On December 9th of 1775, Franklin wrote to Vattel’s editor, C.G.F. Dumas, “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting. Accordingly, that copy which I kept has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.”
Samuel Adams in 1772 wrote, “Vattel tells us plainly and without hesitation, that `the supreme legislative cannot change the constitution”
Then in 1773 during a debate with the Colonial Governor of Massachusetts, John Adams quoted Vattel that the parliament does not have the power to change the constitution. John Adams as so taken by the clear logic of Vattel that he wrote in his diary, “The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me.” These arguments were what inspired the clause that dictates how the Constitution is amended. The Framers left no doubt as to who had the right to amend the constitution, the Nation, (that is the individual States and the people) or Legislature (which is the federal government.)
In the Federalist Papers number 78, Alexander Hamilton also echoed Vattel, and both of the Adams, when he wrote, “fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness.”
Then in 1784 Hamilton arguing for the defense in the case of Rutgers v. Waddington extensively used Vattel, quoting prolifically from the Law of Nations. The Judge James Duane in his ruling described the importance of the new republic abiding by the Law of Nations, and explained that the standard for the court would be Vattel. He ruled that the Statues passed under the color of English Common Law, must be interpreted from the standpoint of its consistency with the law of nations. This concept of Vattel lead to the creation of the Judiciary branch of our government to insure that Congress could never legislate away the provisions of the Constitution.
“When any of you are interested in providing a definition of natural born citizen, that we could reasonably attribute to the mindset of the Framers, please post it.”
Jim,
Gutless copout showing who you really are. You were beaten to a pulp by Vince and others, factually, logically and rhetorically, but not man enough to admit it. To me that means that for you it was always political and your version of politics is riddled with disingenuous and hypocrisy. You’re good
Jim, but you’re not in the league of some of the people here, of whom I’m among the least.
Vattel’s Influence on the term Natural Born Citizen
lrhf97, right, thanks, I have caught up with your posts. Keep posting. We need you.
And Vince,
As to my concurrence with the 14th Amendment. -If you continue to read that same thread, you will see that I retracted my concurrence.
Jim Byrne
1, July 17, 2009 at 10:14 am
“—Unfortunately, as I am reminded, that would indicate that even though one who was born in within the jurisdiction of the U.S. is a citizen at birth, they may not be eligable to serve as POTUS if the parents were not U.S. Citizens.”
“For further proof on the question of Vattel’s influence we only need to look at Benjamin Franklin.”
Jim,
Poor rejoinder again. None of the quotes are pertinent and I’m aure that the founding Father’s knew of Vattel, that proves nothing.
“Then in 1784 Hamilton arguing for the defense in the case of Rutgers v. Waddington extensively used Vattel”
The constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787 three years after the case you cite. Come on Jim, man up and admit the fact that this is all about your political beliefs and you don’t like our President and will attach yourself to any crumb to try to de-legitimize him.
Beware Jim, those you align yourself with include crazy people, some of whom have weapons. The consequences of your behavior may be indirectly contributing to possible treason.
Perhaps though, despite your self control and denials, you would welcome such a consequence? Just remember after FDR was elected, General Smedley Butler was approached to initiate a coup by Prescott Bush and other industrialists. There was an assassination attempt on FDR, but the assassin missed and killed Mayor Anton Cernak instead. I remember the deaths of JFK, RFK and MLK done by the same type of people you align yourself with and support. You are playing in dangerous waters Jim and covering yourself with rotting seaweed in the process.
“This concept of Vattel lead to the creation of the Judiciary branch of our government to insure that Congress could never legislate away the provisions of the Constitution.”
And who was the architect of the Judiciary Branch of our Government? –Why none other than John Jay. He was the principle author of the oft-forgotten Judiciary Act of 1789.
“This concept of Vattel lead to the creation of the Judiciary branch of our government to insure that Congress could never legislate away the provisions of the Constitution.”
Back to Donofrio for your comments again Jim? You running out of thoughts? It sure looks like your balloon is losing its’
hydrogen.
Mike S.,
I’m sorry, but you are acting like a crazy man. Do you ever focus on the subject in front of you? Do you often go off on wild tangents?
What do JFK, FDR, MLK, and some mayor, have to do with the natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution?
Thanks for the laugh.
“as to my concurrence with the 14th Amendment. -If you continue to read that same thread, you will see that I retracted my concurrence.”
Jim,
Nobody cares about the minutiae of your flagging thought process, you’ve been destroyed factually, logically and rhetorically, not to mention being exposed as a deceitful partisan.
“I’m sorry, but you are acting like a crazy man.”
Au contraire Jim, a crazy man is defined as one who keeps losing and continues the same strategy.
“What do JFK, FDR, MLK, and some mayor, have to do with the natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution?”
It has to do with the potential treason that you are encouraging with your nonsense.
Can’t keep up with the flip-flops by Byrne. First he needed parents for citizenship at birth, then he did not, and then he retracted his retraction. Okay. Have to deal with the position of the day.
None of that stuff Byrne pasted up from the net on Vattel’s influence seems to have mentioned a framer or founder actually citing or relying specifically on his natural born citizen stuff. Can’t find it in his source, either.
Appuzzi is really out of his depth. In his brief, linked above, he cites Vattel for the “common law definition” of natural born citizen. Vattel himself would be surprised to be called a common law jurist.
Just to repeat. It is the birthers who are trashing the Constitution by trying to put their own personal partisan position into it, when there is no support in its language or intent.
Repeat, the birthers are trashing the Constitution. The Constitution, read as a whole, allows anyone who is 35 and has resided in the US for 14 years to run for President, as long as he or she was born a United States citizen. In different words, if a person is a citizen by birth rather than naturalization, that person may try to be elected President.
The birther-Donofrio arguments are too tenuous and remote to come anywhere near to altering the plain language of the Constitution and its intent.
Mike S.,
Have a good day. I will ignore any further commentary from you on this thread.
Alexander Hamilton was one of the people who suggested the natural born citizen clause. He recommended that no person be President unless he “be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” Found by Jill Pryor, see1988 Yale Law Journal 881, at 889. Link above.
They took his proposal. Natural born citizen is defined as a person who was born as a citizen of the United States.
Since Obama was born a citizen of the United States under the rule of the 14th Amendment, he is eligible.
“Appuzzi is really out of his depth. In his brief, linked above, he cites Vattel for the “common law definition” of natural born citizen. Vattel himself would be surprised to be called a common law jurist.”
In fact, the framers rejected the notion that the United States was under English Common Law, “The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” –George Mason one of Virginia’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention.
Vince,
I case you didn’t know it, Hamilton’s ideas were regularly rejected. He got mad, and went home, missing out on most of the convention, only to return for the committee of style.
Byrne, I said that Vattel was not a common law jurist, and I am right, and he is not an authority on any common law concept.
The United States and the individual states did receive common law slectively, and some terms in the Constitution, like Bill of Attainder, can only be understood by referring to the common law. See the 7th Amendment to find out about civil jury trials.
So don’t quote Mason out of context to refute something I did not say.
And there is no need for an attack on Hamilton. In this instance, they took his draft nearly verbatim, so your generalization does not hold.
Jim Byrne July 22, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Mike S., Have a good day. I will ignore any further commentary from you on this thread.
Mike, I should be so lucky.
One more time.
Natural born citizen is defined as a person who was born as a citizen of the United States.
There are a lot of prior threads on this topic at this site. Readers can use the search window at this site for terms like donofrio, mccain, birth and natural born citizen, or just google those terms and Turley.
The links to the other threads do not seem to want to be posted at this time.
Time to feed the dog and the cat.
Natural Born Citizen… Does that mean if your born by Cesarean you’re ineligible? I’m only half joking! You could make a legal case out of that, no? (don’t shoot me…)
Hidflect,
Not only that, but you could kill MacBeth.
Jim Byrne, there was no common law in this country at its founding other than English common law. George Mason’s comments notwithstanding, where do you think American common law came from?
I don’t know where you live, but Section 2.01 of the Florida Statutes, adopted by the first Florida legislature in 1829, provides as follows: “The common and statute laws of England which are of a general and not a local nature, with the exception hereinafter mentioned, down to the 4th day of July, 1776, are declared to be of force in this state; provided, that said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of this state.” I believe that virtually all other states (with the exception of Louisiana) adopted a similar statute.
In his “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,” published in 1833, Joseph Story notes the following: “The universal principle (and the practice has conformed to it) has been, that the common law is our birthright and inheritance, and that our ancestors brought hither with them upon their emigration all of it, which was applicable to their situation. The whole structure of our present jurisprudence stands upon the original foundations of the common law.” (Chapter XVI, paragraph 79).
And we shouldn’t forget the 7th Amendment, which preserves the right to trial by jury “in suits at common law” where the damages exceed $20.00. What “common law” do you think the Framers were referring to?
“Natural Born Citizen… Does that mean if your born by Cesarean you’re ineligible?”
Hidflect,
Don’t give them ideas.
Jim Byrne, I just checked the site from which you were extensively quoting, birthers.org. I was surprised to discover that it is an anonymous site, one of those sites where unnamed people hammer the president about transparency, but who take great pains to make certain that their own identities are not disclosed. That is problem for me because I have an inherent distrust of rumor mongers. It is one thing to anonymously post one’s opinion on an issue. It is quite another to promote as authoritative a site whose origins, promoters and funding sources are completely unknown.
Organizations which purport to be reputable don’t need to wear white robes and hoods.
“Mike S.,
Have a good day. I will ignore any further commentary from you on this thread.”
Au revoir Monsieur Vattel, and thank you for the most amusingly bad reasoning of the week. Perhaps since you’ve eliminated the Common Law from consideration and replaced it with a Swiss, you might try looking at the Code Napoleon and surmise that John Jay foresaw it in a psychic vision? No, that’s no good, it’s makes more sense then your original argument and you’re all about the nonsense.
Vince,
Tag you’re it. Truth be told I was beginning to lose it. When I’m faced with faulty reasoning, abject denial and a refusal to notice points made I lose patience. Also truth be told you do a much better job then I do on this, without the hysterics.
“I was surprised to discover that it is an anonymous site, one of those sites where unnamed people hammer the president about transparency, but who take great pains to make certain that their own identities are not disclosed.”
Mike A,
This is what was getting me so annoyed. The game being played is so obvious and yet some of its players like Byrne claim earnestness and impartiality. From now on, as Mr. Byrne wishes, you can be the Mike on this thread tearing his tissue of lies.
One more time.
Natural born citizen is a legal term of art. Vince’s claims are not supported by definition. His opinion is, his opinion. -Much the same as my opinion is just my opinion.
My opinion is supported by two former Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Vattel was a philosopher, diplomat, and legal expert. He was councilor to the court of King Augustus III of Saxony.
Vince Treacy, Thank you for the discussion and the new links. Not all of this was repetitive from your other posts on other threads, most of which I read. I learned a lot from this discussion and that is why I specifically requested your and Mike Appleton’s comments. Thanks Mike A.
Jim Byrne, your posts were worthwhile and elicited comments that were informative and without which this discussion would not be as complete and interesting; continue on, Mike Spindell has his BP under control and we older guys are a bit set in our ways.
I am now convinced by the evidence and reasoning what the Framers intended a *Natural Born* U.S. Citizen to entail. Too bad, they lacked specificity in their definition. This discussion illustrates why it is important for legislators and the judiciary to define—clearly and unequivocally—the foundation of all laws when made and when laws are contested and then adjudicated, judges must write clear, unambiguous, and detailed opinions to serve as a clear-cut guides as preventatives to legal misunderstandings and then unnecessary lawsuits.
Mike Spindell, thanks for your contribution to this thread and for taking the time to read the material at the link although you have already made your mind up over this issue. Contrary evidence is critical and often helpful to one’s own counterarguments.
BVM.com, thanks for the video, “Exactly What IS a Natural Born Citizen?”, which got me started asking specific questions.
“Vattel was a philosopher, diplomat, and legal expert. He was councilor to the court of King Augustus III of Saxony.”
Now that’s a real good citation for how we should interpret our Constitution and right out of Wikipedia to boot. You’re really a deep one JB.
As to the common law of nations, we thus have Dr. Franklin’s authority for the statement that the members of the Continental Congress referred to and accepted Vattel’s famous treatise, as the measure and standard of the duties of the colonies, soon to become free and independent States.2 We could, however, dispense with his authority, inasmuch as the common law of nations was then regarded as an intricate part of the common law of England, and adopted as a system by the adoption of the common law. For does not Blackstone inform us, in his Commentaries, that “the law of nations (when ever any question arises which is properly the object of its jurisdiction) is hereby adopted in its full extent by the common law, and is held to be a part of the law of the land.”
from “The United States of America” by James Brown Scott (1920)
In Re Baiz ( 135 U. S., 403)
Some of you may be interested in reading the online snippet, provided by the University of Pennsylvania, of “The Law of Nations as part of the Natural Law of the United States”
It was written in 1952 by Edwin D. Dickinson (former Dean of the University of California School of Law)
Why did NO ONE even mention that he wasn’t a natural born citizen because of that before June of 2008? That’s because until the smear campaign and the propaganda, no one in the country thought citizen parents were a requirement. The whole redefinition issue was created out thin air by Obama opponents, and many of you were fooled into thinking that you knew something all your life that you never heard before last June.
Thats because behind the scene Claire McCaskill was doing her best to change it and this is the first time in history other then Chester Aurthur there was a suspect. The guy has been groomed to be president. He wasn’t elected, he was selected.
This is making it’s rounds again, I’ve seen it before, but it’s the first one I’ve seen that someone hasn’t added thier BS to it. The first go around required a retraction from Mr. Suttons family and then on fight the smears. You can’t acccess fight the smears anymore but it said in effect that Mr Sutton is old has health problems and basically he don’t know what he’s talking about. I say he does.
Vince nice to see you back, I really, really enjoy your passion. OUTSTANDING. by the way the first paragraph above was you. I haven’t been using the quote unqoute button since you’ve been gone. Did you hear, one of my post set Buddah off and it brought him back from the dark and into the light and he’s posting again. See I have some good points.
Nice to see you back Vince I was getting concerned.
Mike S writes:
Jim,
Gutless copout showing who you really are. You were beaten to a pulp by Vince and others, factually, logically and rhetorically, but not man enough to admit it. To me that means that for you it was always political and your version of politics is riddled with disingenuous and hypocrisy. You’re good
Jim, but you’re not in the league of some of the people here, of whom I’m among the least.
me: lets also not forget that the framers designated that an african american was not a citizen but 3/5 of a whole person and that they had no rights to marry or emancipate or vote and in many instance it was illegal for them to be literate. much has changed since then but the way I see it, this whole birther business would never have happened if Obama had been white with all the same other circumstances, born in Hawaii with a father with foreign birth.
Hey Jim B when I said keep up the fight I didn’t mean start one. Remember the quote from Gahndi.
Even if you are in a minority of one the truth is still the truth. It looks like you were in the minority today. You are not alone my friend and just like Obamas polls are going down the birther issue is heating up. Expose the truth.
I’m not into the two parent gig, Law of Nations, Vattel stuff. I’m into why Mr. Transparency ain’t so Transparent. Especially after he signed the executive order on FOIA the very first day, which in effect says you can look up anybody else, just not me.
I smell a rat
GWLawSchoolMom Quote: this whole birther business would never have happened if Obama had been white with all the same other circumstances, born in Hawaii with a father with foreign birth.
Really so when Donofrio filed and included in his suit McCain and Calero you think that.
You think this is a race thing or it has now turned into one. Do you think that all birthers are racist or do you think that the only people who are pushing the issue is white? Just curious
These “birthers” are nothing more than direct descendents of the Know Nothing Party.
Barack Obama is the sharpest guy we have had in the White House in many years. His capabilities far surpass his immediate predecessor. I may not agree with some of his political beliefs, but those are just a drop of rain in the sea. Further, I believe in a democracy. -The people have spoken. No honorable man would interfere with that for dishonorable reasons. -Contrary to the claims of some; I would not.
If removed, due to a failure to qualify (my contention); what happens? -While removal would be unprecedented, I believe the Twentieth Amendment would be controlling. -As such Joe Biden would be our next President. I think Joe’s a heck of a nice guy, but I also think he would be a gaff machine…something we surely don’t need right now.
I wouldn’t trade Barack for Joe unless I didn’t have a choice. I don’t believe I have a choice.
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.” -Thomas Jefferson
bdaman writez: Really so when Donofrio filed and included in his suit McCain and Calero you think that.
You think this is a race thing or it has now turned into one. Do you think that all birthers are racist or do you think that the only people who are pushing the issue is white? Just curious
look, I really don’t care who files what law suit. it seems clear to me that this is a race thing and that it all started with the whack jobs that palin attracted to the mccain campaign…like that crazy woman who said she though Obama was a terrorist and McCain had to talk her down saying that Obama was a decent guy and that he wasn’t an arab.
“The people have spoken. No honorable man would interfere with that for dishonorable reasons.”
When you lie with pigs you get dirty. The birther movement is not and never has been an honorable movement. It is bought and paid for by people who want to de-legitimize the President. Its’ “great” legal minds Mr. Donofrio and Ms. Taitz are kooks at best, but most probably self-serving frauds. In back of this movement is no doubt racism and the shock that our President is a black man. This movement is being stirred up by the pundits of the talk radio circuit and by the farthest out of Republican legislators.
The end result of it if it keeps going on, will be frustration with every succeeding lost/dismissed lawsuit by birther minions. Convinced that President Obama was installed by a huge conspiracy to put a “foreigner” in the White House, those among the birthers who are the craziest, Aryan Nation, KKK perhaps, will try violent means to “save” their country and perhaps may succeed.
Despite what torturous logic is brought to bear the overwhelming proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, is that the President is a “natural born” American citizen and thus legitimately the President of the US. When GW Bush was installed as President by SCOTUS in a decision made that was so putrid, it said within its own body, that it was not to be used as precedent. Antonin Scalia’s son was hired by the law firm that represented Bush, but our “esteemed” jurist refused to recuse himself and rendered a decision overruling the Florida Supreme Court, directly counter to his every professed legal belief. However, when 9/11 occurred the honorable people in opposition to the phony election rallied around Bush and gave him support, until his deceit and incompetence became all too apparent. Honorable people do not support the birther movement, despite their protestations to the contrary.
Shakespeare in Marc Antony’s funeral oration is a good source for this as Antony said “And Brutus is an honorable man.” There is nothing honorable about ther birther movement and thos who give them succor can not count themselves honorable.
P.S. Based on knowledge not leeched from Wikipedia, or Donofrio, but from my own reading through the years, Vattel was a Natural Philosopher, whose chief influence was Liebniz.
Gottfried Liebniz was a genius rivaling Isaak Newton and who actually co-invented Calculus with Newton, although Newton got the credit. Both were giants in the Natural Philosophy Movement which led to “The Enlightenment.” In that respect Liebniz probably outshone Newton who was obsessed with alchemy all of his life. Our founders were overwhelmingly Natural Philosophers and so of course would be familiar with Vattel as they would be aware of all the works of others in the movement and as men of The Enlightenment. To pick out Vattel as a particular influence on their thinking is cherry picking at best and more probably disingenuous. One simply looks for a Natural Philosopher who might by some stretch makes their case and lo and behold the one chosen was widely read and commented on.
This is extremely interesting.
The U.S. Supreme Court Reports present Justice Joseph Story (in 1814) indentifying Vattel “is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says” –and goes on to quote Vattel’s definition of citizens.
I guess Justice Story was trying to “de-legitimize the President”.
It was Chief Justice John Marshall, not Justice Story, who quoted Vattel with approval in his concurring opinion.
Jim Byrne, I continue to be bothered by your insistence that we are somehow bound by the views of one writer on the issue of what constitutes a “natural born citizen.” You will recall that I earlier cited Blackstone, but you rejected his definition on the basis that there is a distinction between a “citizen” and a “subject,” and asserted that the Founders would have used the word “subject” rather than “citizen” in the Constitution had they agreed with Blackstone.
I believe it is important to remember that the Founders were forming a republic rather than a monarchy. Although the terms “subject” and “citizen” share a common characteristic, a duty of loyalty or allegiance, the word “citizen” is more appropriate to our form of government and has its origins in the Roman republic. Indeed, you will recall from your student days that at one time the most important boast one could make was “Civis romanus sum” (“I am a Roman citizen”).
In any event, I went home last night and pulled out my volumes of Kent’s “Commentaries on American Law,” first published in 1827. I note that Mr. Kent acknowledges the contributions of Vattel on the law of nations, as well as those of Grotius, Burlamaqui, Montesquieu and others, but makes no reference to Vattel in his discussion of natural born and naturalized citizens, relying instead upon principles of English common law. (Although not relevant here, I would argue that the Founders were much more deeply indebted to people like Montesquieu, Locke, Hobbes and Hume than they were to Vattel.)
Kent writes that “Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States.” (Lecture XXV, Vol. II, p. 33). “It is the doctrine of the English law, that natural born subjects owe an allegiance, which is intrinsic and perpetual, and which cannot be devested (sic) by any act of their own.” (Id., pp. 35-36). By contrast, “An alien is a person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States,” (with certain exceptions). (Id., p. 43). Thus aliens can become citizens only through an applicable naturalization procedure. “A person thus duly naturalized, becomes entitled to all the privileges and immunities of natural born subjects, except that a residence of seven years is requisite to enable him to hold a seat in congress, and no person, except a natural born citizen, is eligible to the office of governor of this state, or president of the United States.” (Id., p. 57).
Kent is referring to the state of New York, where these lectures were given, and to the naturalization acts then in effect. The point, however, is that he uses the phrases “natural born subject” and “natural born citizen” interchangeably.
On the subject of the constitutional requirements to hold the office of president, Kent observes, “The constitution requires, that the president should be a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and that he have attained the age of thirty five years, and have been fourteen years a resident within the United States. Considering the greatness of the trust, and that this department is the ultimately efficient power in government, this restriction will not appear altogether useless or unimportant. As the president is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot intrigue for the office, and the qualification of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany and Poland, as well as the Pontificate at Rome.” (Lecture XIII, Vol. I, p. 255).
I suggest that the Founders did not define the phrase “natural born citizen” for the simple reason that they did not believe a definition was necessary. If one is born in the United States, one may be properly described as “native born,” a “natural born subject” or a “natural born citizen.” Therefore, since the president was born in the United States, he was and is constitutionally eligible for the office he holds.
I offer the foregoing as cumulative to what I and others (particularly Vince Treacy) have previously posted. If you remain unconvinced, I will have to leave it to others because I have exhausted my intellectual capabilities. And if you nevertheless subscribe to the Hawaiian forgery-conspiracy branch of birtherism, I have nothing at all to say.
Thanks for the correction Vince.
Mike Appleton. Excellent discussion. I will print it for reference.
On the terms citizen and subject, I believe that British and Commonwealth jurisdictions have moved away from the term “subject” in favor of “citizen” in the wake of the decline of the non-ceremonial aspects of the monarchy. Tribe and Olson suggested that “citizen” and “subject” are often used interchangeably. In a very technical sense, certain non-citizens may be subjects, but I doubt if any of that is relevant to natural born status.
On the common law, the Constitution draws its meaning from many of common law terms and concepts that existed at the time of adoption. To my mind, the best example is habeas corpus. The Constitution at no point defines this term, and does not even list it as an enumerated power of the new government. It is simply provided in Art I, sec. 9 that habeas corpus shall not be suspended except for rebellion or invasion. The Constitution assumes that the privilege exists and will continue to exist. The Clause cannot be understood withour reference to the common law writ of habeas corpus.
So it is not surprising to me that Chancellor Kent looked to the common law for guidance.
Mike Appleton wrote:
“I suggest that the Founders did not define the phrase “natural born citizen” for the simple reason that they did not believe a definition was necessary.”
________________________________
The simple addition of, perhaps, “that is, not a naturalized U.S. citizen” would have saved a lot of the today’s consternation and Pres. Chester Arthur’s concern, apparently to his deathbed.
Lawyers, legislators, and judges et al. need to use precise and unequivocal language to forestall most anticipated problems since the law is predicated on reasonableness. Without all of the facts and discussions, the *natural born* question is one a reasonable citizen could have cause to question. However, once the evidence is presented–as here and elsewhere–all reasonable citizens should accept that President Barack Obama Jr. is a natural born U.S. citizen based on the current available evidence.
I will admit that I had not known about Arthur’s situation until this discussion and learned about it while reading the Primer to which I earlier linked.
Thanks to all for their extra effort in this discussion.
A serious take on this whole issue, giving due deference to the birther movement from America’s most Trusted Newsman.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/23/jon-stewart-eviscerates-t_n_243383.html
I thought Jon Stewart had more investigative ability. He is certainly shallow on the birth certificate issue.
Lou Dobbs is more intelligent!!
Don’t believe the overwhelming lies of the easily fooled and sellouts.
Mike, that is a great link. It makes Dobbs look like an idiot — he seems unaware that Kitty Pilgrim answered his questions — ON HIS ON NETWORK, ON HIS OWN SHOW.
Continuing the list of frivolous suits, take a look at Judge James Robertson’s decision in Hollister v. Soetoro.
The judge issue a show cause order to determined whether to sanction attorney Hemenway. (He later settled for a reprimand since Hemenway was over 80 and not likely to repeat the behavor).
Robertson is the same judge who refuse to let Orly Taitz file a case in D.C. Orly later filed in California because she could find NO D.C. attorney willing to join her as co-counsel.
http://media.ledger-enquirer.com/smedia/2009/07/14/11/obamcase2.source.prod_affiliate.70.pdf
“Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume: 3 January 1, 1776 – May 15, 1776″
Benjamin Franklin to James Bowdoin
“My dear Friend, Philada. Mar. 24. 1776 Inclos’d is an Answer to the Request from the Inhabitants of Dartmouth. I have comply’d with it upon your Recommendation, and ordered a Post accordingly.
I have put into Mr Adam’s Hands directed for you, the new Edition of Vattel When you have perus’d it, please to place it in your College Library.
I am just setting out for Canada, and have only time to add my best Wishes of Health & Happiness to you & all yours. Permit me to say my Love to Mrs Bowdoin, & believe me ever, with sincere & great Esteem, Yours most affectionately B Franklin”
“Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 22 November 1, 1784 – November 6, 1785″
Elbridge Gerry to Timothy Pickering
“I am in Want of the following Books from Messr Jackson & Dunn, & wish to know whether I must send the others to Phila., or deliver them to any Friend of those Gentlemen here. The Books wanted are Vattel’s Law of Nations. Burlamaqui’s principles of natural & political Law 8 vo. Burlamaqui’s Law of Nations if the Reputation of it, is equal to his other works. “
The 1760 English translation of the “Law of Nations” uses the virtually the same Vattel definition as has been previously posted. –The one that requires a natural born citizen to be the offspring of citizen(s). (I say virtually, because the letter “s” is represented by “f”.)
Some good history on the definition of “natural born citizen” can be found here.
http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/
Thanks for the link, Vince. So, what did Judge Robertson really think?
Vince Treacy and Jon Stewart are my heroes!
Jim B,
I think that “The Hitch-hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” is a great book but what relevance does that have? I’m sure that the founding fathers looked at all of the books on national law they could get their hands on – why should we enshrine one of them as definitional to the constitution?
“I think that “The Hitch-hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” is a great book but what relevance does that have? I’m sure that the founding fathers looked at all of the books on national law they could get their hands on – why should we enshrine one of them as definitional to the constitution?”
Previously I posted a link to the U.S. Supreme Court Records. That document covers 5 thru 9 Cranch (our early Court cases). A word search of that document reveals that Vattel is identified 30 times; Montiesquieu twice, and Blackstone only 7 times.
When looking at the law, I find it reasonable to look at who those interpreting the law looked at.
Feel free to perform your own search. Make sure you count the occurences…not just the pages.
BVM writes: I thought Jon Stewart had more investigative ability. He is certainly shallow on the birth certificate issue.
Jon Stewart is a comedian, not a journalist. you should catch him live someday. he’s hilarious.
Professor JT:
Would the COLB stand as proof in your court?
Can you answer without losing your MSNBC gigs?
What do you think of the case on its merits?
Hear ye, hear ye. What say you JT?
Jim B,
I wont be doing my own search and I take you and Vince at your word – that’s not my kind of research. I just don’t see why you’re putting such faith in one non-canonical source on such a significant issue when, at the bare minimum, a majority of the people who’s opinions matter disagree (or the SCOTUS would have heard one of the cases that were considered by the justices). To me, you are just lending credence to Mike S’s arguments and you haven’t yet put a dent in the edifice that Vince has built.
“The certification of live birth, which, as WND reported recently, is not even considered by the U.S. State Department to be a document with which you can obtain a passport, let alone establish a constitutional standard of “natural born citizenship” and qualify to serve in the White House.”
You can’t even get a drivers license in Hawaii with it.
http://www.wnd.com
BVM, the World Nut Daily is wrong.
The COLB is the ONLY birth certificate that Hawaii now issues, and is good for everything, including Hawaiian Home Lands, drivers license, and passports. Hawaii no longer issues certificates of live birth or long-form certificates, so how can they be required? The COLB states on its face that it is prima facie evidence of birth.
Find someone who received anything other than a COLB lately. Find someone who could not get a passport with it.
The COLB is a fool’s document! Fool’s ID!
This country is full of fools! Obama knows his constituents.
Call the State Dept. and verify it.
http://www.honolulu.gov/csd/vehicle/dlrequirements.htm
Hawaii only accepts a “State Certified Birth Certificate with both parents listed or State Certified Birth ID Card.”
NO COLB !
BVM,
A valid COLB is accepted when applying for a driver’s license.
You have been beating this dead horse for ages, bvm. The COLB is by definition a birth certificate that lists both parents, and Obama’s COLB says on the bottom that it is a certificate and lists his parents.
The website nowhere says “No COLBs.” Those are your words. You don’t live in Hawaii, anyway.
And you used to claim that Home Lands would not accept a COLB. Well, they do now, despite an obsolete web site. You have yet to acknowledge that particular fact.
And the State Department will accept a COLB issued by Hawaii, since that is all Hawaii now issues, and a lot of Hawaiian like to travel.
So get over it.
Theh BC is trivial considering that Obama has been a War Criminal / mass murderer for years. Can a mass murderer get a drivers licence in HI?
BVM,
To the best of my knowledge (I haven’t done any research), I don’t think being a felon would prevent someone from being elected POTUS. It would be a good reason to remove one from office, if the felony occured while in office, but I don’t think a prior felony would present a bar from holding the Office of President.
Vince may be able to provide better information on that subject.
North Carolina will not accept Obama’s COLB for a drivers license. They require a Certified or original birth certificate. Will your state?
BVM, gee, I guess Obama’s lucky that he doesn’t have to get a North Carolina driver’s license. And I guess all of us are lucky that the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles doesn’t determine presidential qualifications under the Constitution.
Yes, the NCDMV is good. They are trained well to reject ‘no value’ documents.
Jim Byrne, it does not matter how frequently a publication is cited. It’s a question of what it’s cited to support. Your methodology is equivalent to asking everyone in the room to raise their hands if they’ve heard of Vattel, and then guaging his authority by the response. Have you actually waded through volumes 5 through 9 of the Cranch law reports and read the cases in which Vattel has been cited? I confess that I have not, but it should be remembered that Vattel’s main interest was in formulating from natural law principles rules for the conduct of nations in the pursuit of war, peace and international trade relations. Thus he was frequently cited in commercial disputes. I suspect that the cases you reference deal primarily with commerce and maritime issues. If I’m wrong, slap me down.
To me, it’s an uncomplicated English common law analysis. The Founders were not concerned with one’s parentage. That’s why naturalized citizenship was fine for congressional candidates. But they wanted to make certain that future presidents had roots in American soil, meaning that they were born here. That Vattel is literally the only scholarly authority for the birthers’ position is reason enough to suspect the agenda.
It doesn’t take an Einstein to see Obama is a fraud.
Print out a copy of Obama’s COLB and drop by the DMV in your city … see for yourself. They won’t accept it as proof of birth. They aren’t Obama fools
Mike A.,
Perhaps this will provide some guidance.
“It is therefore to be expected that when terms of municipal law are found in the Constitution, they are to be understood in the sense in which they were used in Blackstone’s Commentaries; and, when the law of nations is referred to, that its principles are to be understood in the sense in which Vattel defined them.”
“The United States of America” by James Brown Scott (1920)
Who is this James Brown Scott?
He founded the law school at the University of Southern California, and was its dean. He was dean of the college of law at the University of Illinois (1899-1903), professor of law at Columbia, and professor of law at George Washington University (1905-06).
BVM, you’ve established your Einstein observation quite satisfactorily. Thank you.
Jim B,
Forgive me for addressing just a couple of points on your recent post, but Vince can (and has) addressed most of them far more ably and easily than I ever could. The SCOTUS has addressed this issue – by not hearing cases which were reviewed in conference they have implicitly said that there is no need for them to review this issue. If it would precipitate a constitutional crisis I would think that the justices would consent to hear the case (if only to clearly state that Barack Obama was eligible to be president). That they saw fit not to do so in multiple cases heard in conference speaks volumes to me. Additionally, while you’re interpreting the constitution in the framer’s mindset, please look at all of it. You cannot assert a constitutional difference between men and women without ignoring the 19th amendment and the intent of those that wrote it! By your own arguments, (President) Barack Obama would have received NBC status from his mother. It seems to me that for any interpretation of the constitution to be valid in light of the 19th amendment, the sexes of his parents cannot matter.
Have a gorgeous evening!
BVM,
I have a North Carolina Driver’s License! Do I get to be president when you throw Obama out?
Ask the military when they take him into custody.
Is it just me or did BMV just predict a coup d’état?
The military has the authority and duty to arrest Obama.
Jim Byrne, I believe you have misinterpreted Prof. Scott. Under traditional legal definitions, the “law of nations” is what we refer to in modern jurisprudence as “international law,” public law governing the relationships among sovereign states. That’s why I stated earlier that Vattel’s primary interest was in developing natural law principles to guide relations among states. The phrase “municipal law,” although its Latin root is “municipium,” meaning a provincial town, does not relate to city government. It describes the internal or domestic law of a sovereign state. The law governing the qualifications for a presidential candidate is part of the municipal law of this country. But the phrase is a bit archaic. The Constitution represents the supreme “municipal law” of the land. See, e.g., Kent, Commentaries on American Law, Vol. I., Lecture XX, pp. 419-420.
Slartibartfast,
“The SCOTUS has addressed this issue – by not hearing cases which were reviewed in conference they have implicitly said that there is no need for them to review this issue. If it would precipitate a constitutional crisis I would think that the justices would consent to hear the case (if only to clearly state that Barack Obama was eligible to be president). That they saw fit not to do so in multiple cases heard in conference speaks volumes to me.”
You’re misunderstanding the role of the appelate court. What is presented to the Supreme Court are errors of the lower court. In these cases, it was the lower court’s determinations of standing that was appealed to the Supremes. The justices of the Supreme Court determined, by not granting cert, that the lower court’s decision to dismiss for lack of standing was correct. The Supreme Court has never addressed the merits of the case. (i.e. They never addressed the natural born citizen status of Barack Obama. Alll they did was determine that the person bringing suit had not been directly harmed)
“Additionally, while you’re interpreting the constitution in the framer’s mindset, please look at all of it. You cannot assert a constitutional difference between men and women without ignoring the 19th amendment and the intent of those that wrote it! By your own arguments, (President) Barack Obama would have received NBC status from his mother. It seems to me that for any interpretation of the constitution to be valid in light of the 19th amendment, the sexes of his parents cannot matter.”
The 19th Amendment granted women the right to vote. While voting is one of the benefits of citizenship, the Amendment itself does not define/redefine natural born citizen.
Gyges, I don’t know about predictions, but I’m relatively certain that BVM is advocating a coup d’etat.
Jim B,
Throw the 14th into the mix then – do you still think women are 2nd class citizens constitutionally?
Jim Byrne and Slartibartfast, as a technical matter the Supreme Court’s declination to hear a case does not constitute approval of the appellate court determination or of the reasoning of the appellate court judges. It means only that the Court has decided not to hear the matter for reasons which are generally not disclosed, thereby allowing the appellate court decision to stand. When the Supreme Court declines review, that does not mean that the appellate court decision is the law of the land. That’s one of the reasons that there are numerous conflicts among the circuits on various points of law.
Mike A.,
“The law governing the qualifications for a presidential candidate is part of the municipal law of this country.”
Can you provide support for that position, or is it just your opinion?
Lecture XX is irrelevant, as it deals with the various laws of the states -not of the Union.
Kent really doesn’t say much about the qualifications of the President. He suggests that anyone born on U.S. soil can be president. I disagree. Kent does not discuss why he thinks a natural born citizen is the same as a native citizen.
Mike A.,
I appreciate your clarification on effect of the Supreme Court refusing to grant certiorari. I refrained from getting into too much detail with SBF. (I’m tired of typing slartibartfast) :>)
I just wanted SBF to know that the Supreme Court had not really decided anything about Obama’s qualifications.
“Throw the 14th into the mix then – do you still think women are 2nd class citizens constitutionally?
I still think the 14th Amendment has no direct effect on the natural born citizen clause. However, it does convince me that anyone, regardless of race or gender, are determined to be citizens by birth on U.S. Soil.
I would not consider a child, the offspring of foreigners, to be elligable for the Office of President, simply because they were born here.
Now my turn for a question.
Do you think a child of foreign parents, born on U.S. soil, then wisked away to their parents homeland, and brought up in the traditions of their parents country, who returns to the U.S. at age 45 and runs for President at age 60, would have more deep-down loyalty to this country, or the country in which the child was raised? Do you think that person might be inclined to favor his parents country over another?
Jim B,
Let me be clear: Are you maintaining that a father can transmit NBC status and a mother cannot? I think that interpretation is unconstitutional via the 14th and 19th amendments.
Mike A,
Thanks for clearing that up. The fact remains that the SCOTUS had the opportunity to hear a case on Obama’s citizenship and declined to do so.
“Let me be clear: Are you maintaining that a father can transmit NBC status and a mother cannot? I think that interpretation is unconstitutional via the 14th and 19th amendments.”
I’m stating that the definition of “natural born citizen”, which I believe to be controlling as to the qualifications of the President would not grant natural born citizen status by virtue of the mother alone being a citizen.
FYI -Something mandated by the Constitution itself, cannot, by definition, be unconstitutional.
” The fact remains that the SCOTUS had the opportunity to hear a case on Obama’s citizenship and declined to do so.”
No. They had the opportunity to hear a case on “standing” and declined.
Jim B,
Can the father alone transmit NBC status?
“Can the father alone transmit NBC status?”
Yes. That would go along with Vattel’s definition.
I know it doesn’t seem fair, and the law should be fair. However, the way we correct an unfair attribute of the Constitution is by Amendment. -As we have done with the 14th and 19th Amendments.
Currently, in my opinion, we are ignoring the Constitution in order to appease the masses. -It is good for the government to fear the citizens, but it’s not good to avoid the Constitution in order to make people happy..even if it’s the majority that are being made happy.
Jim, it is not fair, but luckily it is not the law. Neither father nor mother can transmit NBC status. A citizen can only have that status by being born a U.S. citizen, being a citizen by birth.
Vince,
You should really learn to preface your opinions with “In my opinion” or something of the like.
Or I can omit such notice of opinion, and state that; In fact it is the law.
Vince, did you vote for President Obama? If so, are you really expecting us to believe that you are impartial?
Why wouldn’t I take you at your word? -You state that Hawaiian officials have verified Obama’s COLB. -That is not the truth.
They have verified that they have Obama’s original “certificate of live birth” in the vault, but have not verified that the information contained on the COLB matches the information on the vault copy. -To me, a statement made with the intent to deceive, is the same thing as a lie.
And the 14th did in fact amend the natural born clause. The 14th overturned Dred Scott, which said that at the time of Declaration and the Constitution, a black man had no rights a white man had to respect. It held that a black person could not be a citizen, let alone a natural born citizen. Before the 14th, a black man could not even sue or vote or be a natural born citizen, but after the 14th, an African American man or woman who was born an American citizen like Obama could be elected President.
The Constitution is not amended like a statute, with a clause saying section blank is hereby amended by inserting these words or to read as follows. Just as Art I and the amendment requiring direct election of Senators must be read together and harmonized, so also Amendment 14 must be read together with the NBC clause, because it did amend NBC to change the definition of citizen in that clause to include Black Americans.
No, Jim, the officials who issued the COLB signed and sealed it certifying it as an official record. If they lied, they left themselves open to prosecution. I just do not think that happened. No one can prove a negative, but the liklihood is diminishingly small.
You can label it opinion all you want. No one is making you believe me. But the COLB is an official document. And I have posted numerous links that objective journalists and others have posted that verify its validity. They have taken the COLB and photographed the seal and signatures. We have more proof of Obama’s birth than most other Presidents.
Also, there should be some clarity. Is the COLB a forgery? Is it authentic, and actually issued by the Hawaiian government, but falsely states that Obama was born in Hawaii when their records show he was born elsewhere.
The birthers have candidly acknowledged that they fully expect any underlying records to show that Obama was born in Hawaii. That is why they have invented the 2 parent theory.
My postings can stand on their own. I have read even more scholarly treatment of this subject, and everything confirms my postings so far.
Dear Jim Byrne,
You wrote: “The U.S. Supreme Court Reports present Justice Joseph Story (in 1814) indentifying Vattel “is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says” –and goes on to quote Vattel’s definition of citizens.”
Ah, but your cite of Story’s comment leads to one of the most disappointing discoveries the Birther’s ran across after trumpeting the Constitution’s verbatum use of the expression “Natural Born Citizen” from Vattel’s work. Turns out no English translation of Vattel’s work used that expression until 1997, a decade too later for any claim that it was adopted verbatum from Vattel by the Framers.
Story reveals as much in the SCOTUS case you quoted from, “The Venus”, a more complete citeing of which would have continued, “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
Notice the oft quoted line “Natural Born Citizen” is not there YET, because translations undisputed by Vattel while he was still alive (considered more authentic I suppose by Story, even in 1814), used the expression “Natives or Indigenes” Go to Justia’s site and call up “The Venus” and page search for “Vattel” – the second hit will get you to my longer cite.
Consult a book expert on 18th and 19th Century works and you will discover that later editions and translations often misleadingly quote the original year of the work’s publication.
The French language would have provided “Citoyen de naissance” if Vattel had intended that expression.
Apuzzo has pretended to state this little detail doesn’t matter.
The Dumas editions Franklin received are among the “pre NBC” verbatum translations. The plot thins.
BenjiFranklin
Jim,
1997 NOT 1997! Sorry typo.
Benji
“They have verified that they have Obama’s original “certificate of live birth” in the vault, but have not verified that the information contained on the COLB matches the information on the vault copy.”
You really think they examined their records, and THEN allowed a fake COLB to be circulated? Go over to Leo Donofrio’s site and see what he thinks of that idea.
This is getting to the point of Moynihan’s quip: Everyone is entitle to his own opinions, but not to his own facts.
I can no more prove the COLB to you that I can prove to bdaman that Armstrong landed on the Moon. It is only my opinion that men landed on the Moon 40 years ago this week?
Also, Benji, the quote was from Marshall not Story.
Jim,
I menat to type Seventeen Ninety Seven, not 1997!
Benji
1797. [?]
Jim B,
“… as we have done with the 14th and 19th amendments.” Exactly. I am arguing that if your interpretation of Vattel is correct, then by virtue of these amendments Barack Obama received NBC status from his mother (since Vattel (according to you) established that only 1 parent is required and in light of 14 and 19 there is no distinction between men and women in the constitution). Why not just make things easier for yourself and admit that President Obama is the legitimate holder of his office?
Mike A writes: to me, it’s an uncomplicated English common law analysis. The Founders were not concerned with one’s parentage. That’s why naturalized citizenship was fine for congressional candidates. But they wanted to make certain that future presidents had roots in American soil, meaning that they were born here. That Vattel is literally the only scholarly authority for the birthers’ position is reason enough to suspect the agenda.
me: thank you. at last, an explanation that makes sense and allows us to move on. this whole birther thing is getting frustrating and tiresome and only adds to my belief that this whole thing is racially motivated.
Vince,
No one has a right to be President. You must be elected and meet the qualifications. Those qualifications do not descriminate against a protected class.
Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen” was not affected. In addition, Vattel’s definition does not descriminate against a protected class?
BVM writes: Print out a copy of Obama’s COLB and drop by the DMV in your city … see for yourself. They won’t accept it as proof of birth. They aren’t Obama fools
you really don’t ever get tired of this, do you? One might expect that any normal person, finding such opposition to a crazy idea would either drop it or go find other like minded folks instead of doing what you do.
let me ask you this: would you be so involved in this hysteria if Obama were white?
Vattel’s definition was not affected by a constitutional amendment, BECAUSE IT IS NOT A PART OF THE CONSTITUTION.
When did the people ratify Vattel?
Wow!
Gyges writes: Is it just me or did BMV just predict a coup d’état?
hmmmm….. I don’t think its just you…. unless BVM doesn’t know that the military works for the president…..
“When did the people ratify Vattel?
Wow!”
*************
Viva, Vattel! oops, that was Zapata.
GWLSM said “to my belief that this whole thing is racially motivated”
OK. I’ll play the game. Let’s say it is racially motivated. But just in case; let’s also say that it’s politically motivated, anti-christian, anti-muslim, anti-lawyer, anti-hope and anti-change, et al. I don’t want to miss any.
So what? A legitimate constitutional question about the qualifications of the President exist for the first time in our life, a question that should be decided…once and for all, and you want to ignore it? Why? Don’t you trust our Court?
If you have that little faith in our system of laws, you might as well give up. The only correct decisions aren’t just those with which you agree.
Tell me. Why do you think the President would endure all this controversy just to keep the vault copy of his birth certificate from public view? Think about it. Who would let this continue when it can be so easily resolved? Haven’t you figured out that there is more to this than our President wants us to know? If his BC is as he claims…he should be proud to show it. -One call to the Governor of Hawaii and I’m sure it would be released.
In turn…When did the people ratify the common law of England?
When did the people ratify Judicial Review? At least in my case the words exist to be defined.
“The people” did not ratify the Constitution. It was adopted by members of the state conventions. While I don’t have information from all the states, I can tell you that North Carolina had 268 attendees. Could 264 people in North Carolina have been familiar with Vattel? That would be reasonable. Many people on the plantaions studied the law.
JB: “The people” did not ratify the Constitution. It was adopted by members of the state conventions.”
That’s right. And the STATE of Hawaii, i.e. acting on EQUAL FOOTING as the 13 ORIGINAL COLONIES, has certified that Obama is qualified as a Natural Born Citizen to serve as President.
Look people don’t you get it already? BVM is just a moron, who did call for a coup d’etat. Jim Byrne, however, is something else entirely. He is playing a game and he’s got you playing on his board, so he keeps going and no matter how logically you demolish his foolishness, he just dances around it and gets you repeating points where you’ve already demolished his idiocy with many posts before. As I showed by dissecting his posts this is someone who has an axe to grind but is so dishonest and dishonorable that he plays games with us.
You see the disingenuous always have an advantage in a debate with the earnest. The why is obvious. He doesn’t hesitate to dissemble when each of his points are destroyed. What can we learn though about Jim Byrne despite his penchant for disingenuity?
1. He is a birther, but more cerebral than the norm, that is obvious.
2. He believes in interpreting the Constitution strictly based on the Founder’s Intent view, which would put him four square with the Federalist Society.
3. He believes that Constitutionally women are less than men despite the 19th Amendment which he interprets in a most curious manner.
4. He is perhaps a creature of the crazy right wing, but perhaps too he could be a libertarian. You see we can’t know because that is part of his game.
5. He professes to be a military man and even has used it as a club to express some higher knowledge of truth by his service. If he was in the military he did not serve in combat.
6. You will never win a debate with him, even though his points are weak and stupid, but simply because he ignores it when he is bested. If you think I’m wrong read all of the posts on the thread and see where when a telling point is made he simply responds in a non-responsive fashion.
We all must remember that this is a man who claims monsieur Vattel was the primary influence on our Constitution, which is a concept of monumental stupidity, save for the fact that its’ beholder is a true believer in his Federalist Society polemics. The society was begun by a group including Edwin Meese, Robert Bork, Ted Olson and Steven Calabresi, and its members have included Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Jr. and Samuel Alito. You know the society by its founders, who are true believers in their dogma, but many of whom have shown that despite the dogma, they also like to enrich themselves and take opposing points of view when it suits their politics. They are disingenuous men like Jim
Byrne.
However, were that all,one could justly say that well one may disagree`with them, but they’ve got their right to their opinion. That would be true as far as it went were it not for the fact that at root their beliefs are anti-democracy. Count the times Jim has alluded to this and I take him at his word.
The Federalists and Jim basically believe in the rule of plutocracy, an elite, because the unwashed masses don’t have the intelligence to govern themselves. Look back again to his musings on the 19th Amendment and ponder if you will what is behind it.
Now many have questioned his kindred spirit BVM’s word construction that seemed to call for a military coup and you were right to do so. Don’t be too sure that this isn’t also Jim Byrne’s game, but he is somewhat smarter than BVM, who is an idiot. A coup is the end game of the birther movement, pure and simple. If you think this is folly then check out the life of General Smedley Butler, who testified to congress that he was approached by a group of wealthy industrialists urging him to lead a coup against FDR. The committee he testified before in its final report took his charges as credible.
While Vince, Mike A and Slartibartfast are able debaters, I too have some skills in that area and frankly Jim is any easy
person to take apart, other than he concedes nothing, so entrenched is he in his delusion of righteousness. However, at some point it became obvious to me the game he was playing, which includes his sincere beliefs, but doesn’t include the ability to absorb contrary viewpoints. At that point I realized that by taking his nonsense seriously, you are giving him more credibility and recognition than he deserves. You cannot out debate someone who will never admit defeat and instead claim victory, despite having their ideas demolished.
We may all be justly proud of our debating skills, but never forget that debate only works when all the parties to it are honorable and honest. Without that the demagogue always wins simply because the demagogue is bound by no rules of fairness.
If you think I’m being melodramatic think back on the last 29 years, it actually goes back much farther of course, and see how the national discussion has gone, observing how demagoguery has carried the day. Jim Byrne is a demagogue and so your sterling proofs fall on deaf ears. By the way when you agree to disagree with him, you are then giving his nonsense credence.
This is a good conversation. I always like people picking up the “Devil’s Advocate” baton for the sake of a quality debate and I doubt anyone really thinks Obama is illegitimate as a N.B.C. Surely?
hidflect,
Read all of Jim Byrnes post’s and discover that yes he does think the President is illegitimate.
Bob,Esq. said; “And the STATE of Hawaii, i.e. acting on EQUAL FOOTING as the 13 ORIGINAL COLONIES, has certified that Obama is qualified as a Natural Born Citizen to serve as President”
That’s an outright lie Bob. Hawaii has not certified that Obama is qualified as a natural born citizen to serve as President.
With Obama’s refusal to permit the Governor of Hawaii to release his birth certificate from the vault, I’m even willing to question his status as a citizen.
Honest people don’t hide information that would provide a defense unless the information contaains something they don’t want the public to know. This whole..because I don’t gotta bullcrap is childish. President Obama needs to stop hiding. -Or should we call him Dick Cheney II?
From the JAG Hunter:
FEDERAL ARREST OF TREASONER OBAMA IS CREDIBLY REPORTED TO OCCUR IN 60 TO 90 DAYS!
Reports have been coming in for several days that the IMPOSTOR OBAMA will be placed under federal arrest in anywhere from 60 to 90 days for TREASON!
WELL DONE to AMERICA’S GRAND JURIES!
OBAMA’S is to be the first of tens if not hundreds of arrests of OBAMA’S TREASONOUS CRIMINAL ASSISTANTS!
Details emerging suggest that military commanders are refusing to obey OBAMA’s orders recognizing OBAMA as a TREASONOUS foreign born domestic enemy.
Congressman / Judge Ted Poe says COLB is not a birth certificate, Obama has not produced a birth certificate.
The people ratified the Constitution through and by means of conventions called for the purpose, and have rataified all amendments either by legislature or convention. This country is a “representative” republic. That is how the people act.
The real issue can be reframed. When was Vattel ratified as part of the Constitution by any means whatsoever.
And one more time. To understand the meaning of many terms in the Constitution, consult the common law at the time. If someone wants a civil jury trial, it must be a suit a common law. 7th Amd. What is a suit at common law? Consult the common law.
MODERATORS
BVM FELONY IDENTITY POST SHOULD BE REMOVED
It violates the rules of civility at this site.
It contains no reasoning, only wild charges that are false, inflamatory and possibly defamatory. The posting charges treason, criminal activity, and mutiny in the armed forces, wrongly, and with reckless disregard of truth or falsity.
The fraudulent fake “grand jury” was summarily kicked out of court in the District of Columbia.
Folks here should take a look at military.com. A lot of posters there, like the paratrooper quoted above, were severely underimpressed by civilian citizen Cook who sued to stop the deployment he himself “volunteered” for.
“Congressman / Judge Ted Poe says COLB is not a birth certificate, Obama has not produced a birth certificate.”
That is a lie, and lies will be challenged here. The COLB is a legal birth certificate, valid in Hawaii and all other states.
The BIG LIE technique. Keep repeating a lie until people bleieve it.
And since this is a legal blog, here is the defintion from federal law of the standards for a birth certificate:
SEC. 7211. MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR BIRTH CERTIFICATES.
Contents
(a) Definition.–In this section, the term “birth
certificate” means a certificate of birth–
(1) for an individual (regardless of where born)–
(A) who is a citizen or national of the
United States at birth; and
(B) whose birth is registered in the United
States; and
(2) that–
(A) is issued by a Federal, State, or local
government agency or authorized custodian of
record and produced from birth records
maintained by such agency or custodian of
record; or
(B) is an authenticated copy, issued by a
Federal, State, or local government agency or
authorized custodian of record, of an original
certificate of birth issued by such agency or
custodian of record.
The COLB meets all of the requirement of this section, enacted as part of the terrorism laws to standardize birth certificates across the country.
It was issued by an agency, by the authorized custodian, based on the birth records of the agency.
From Military.com
“Officer Calls Obama ‘Usurper’ President”
http://www.military.com/news/article/February-2009/officer-calls-obama-usurper-imposter-president.html?col=1186032325324
Byrne, is there any scholarly research in the records of the debates of the 13 ratifying conventions that has found any indication that the conventions considered Vattel on the issue of natural born citizen?
“With Obama’s refusal to permit the Governor of Hawaii to release his birth certificate from the vault, I’m even willing to question his status as a citizen.”
When and where did this “refusal” take place? Any links or cites?
Once again, Hawaii does not issue any so called vault or long form certificates to anyone any more, and I have linked to the sources.
The campaign has released everything that the state will release.
The COLB that was released is in full compliance with the existing federal law, quoted above.
Byrne has said that Obama is not a natural born citizen even if he was born in Hawaii, because his father was not a citizen.
So what is the point of seeing the birth records?
Even if more records are released and prove birth in the US, he will still challenge Obama’s legitmacy.
So the question: Why the concern about the certificate?
The burden was on Obama to prove birth, He produced the evidence. He had nothing to hide. None of the other canditates showed any certificate at all.
Is everyone really sure that G W Bush was natural born? How do you know? Seen his bc? Because he is a very credible person?
The COLB will be valid for all purposes under the proposed bill if Obama chooses to run for reelection in 2012, because it is valid under existing federal law.
Of course, no one HAS to “beleive” any of this.
A computerized image of the Certification of life birth for Mr. Obama and Certification of Selective Service in statements from experts, show these documents to exhibit numerous signs of forgery. Adding to the forgery charges for 50 ststes there are numerous counts of suspected fraud, voter fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, corruption of a public official, intimidation, interference with the system of justice, social security fraud, tax fraud, perjury and other related crimes.
Please see http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1 and http://www.orlytaitzesq.com for evidence.
I second Vince’s call for BVM’s censure.
He’s had his spam, er, say.
Bil, welcome back to this thread. I am very sorry for your loss.
BVM, Nothing that Orly Taitz says can be relied on. Most of her court pleadings contain patently false information. She is still telling courts that Americans could not travel to Pakistan in 1961 when an official State Dept notice said they could get visas.
“Bob,Esq. said; “And the STATE of Hawaii, i.e. acting on EQUAL FOOTING as the 13 ORIGINAL COLONIES, has certified that Obama is qualified as a Natural Born Citizen to serve as President”
Byrne: That’s an outright lie Bob. Hawaii has not certified that Obama is qualified as a natural born citizen to serve as President.
Bob is telling the truth. Byrne has no basis to call him a liar, and personal attacks like that do not belong here.
I have posted the federal law. The COLB has been examined by independent reporters. It is an official document that is prima facie evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii, one of the United States, and because he was born a US citizen, he is a natural born citizen eligible for the Presidency.
BTW, BVM is a shopping mall, not a person, so he she or it cannot by definition be the subject of a “personal” attack. lol
Byrne: “When did the people ratify Judicial Review?.”
I do not think you want to go down this road. You seem to say that the words judicial review are not in the Constitution, so they could not be ratified.
Then you say “At least in my case the words exist to be defined.”
What words? You claim that a NBC must have US citizen parents, or a US citizen father, or maybe even natural born US citizen parents. But those words are nowhere to be found in the Constitution, and were never ratified.
There is nothing that says the President must be a natural born citizen “born to citizens.” There is nothing in the contemporary records to support this. We know the framers were concerned about foreign born grown up princes or generals. And the 14th Amendment settled all doubts by saying that all persons born or naturalized are citizens. You are either a citizen by birth or a citizen by naturalization, one or the other, and if you are born here, subject to our jurisdiction, then you are a citizen by birth and a natural born citizen.
How do you find the meaning of habeas corpus in the Constitution? Bill of attainder? Corruption of blood? Marque and reprisal? Look at the common law. Even poor ignorant Apuzzi looked for the common law definition of natural born citizen. He just looked in the wrong place. He looked in Vattel for the common law. Vattel was not a common law authority.
The birthers are trashing the Constitution by trying to put words and requirements in it that are not there, and were never intended to be there. This entire parental requirement argument itself is less that a year old.
“Keep your stinking paws off my Constitution you damn dirty birthers!”
The synopsis posted by Mike S. pretty much hits the nail on the head. If one reviews the posts on this and other threads relating to the birther controversy, certain patterns emerge:
1. The accusers are all anonymous.
2. While defenders of the president’s legitimacy have cited numerous historical and legal sources, the accusers, including Mr. Byrne, continue to rely on a single statement from a single author on a matter wholly unrelated to the constitutional provision in question.
3. The accusers, including Mr. Byrne, repeat in verbatim fashion what is published on anonymous web sites, but never resort to original sources for any of their debating points. I would be willing to bet that Mr. Byrne had never even heard of Vattel prior to this controversy and has never read any of his work.
4. The accusers, including Mr. Byrne, refuse to respond to any questions posed by others, choosing instead to either change the topic or repeat what they have already said. There are a number of instances on this thread in which Mr. Byrne, after I and others had responded in detail to one of his queries, has declined to address questions posed to him.
5. The accusers make assertions which they know to be false. In the case of Mr. Byrne, he has falsely stated that the law of nations is the basis of the internal laws of this country. He has also falsely stated that English common law is not the foundation of American jurisprudence and constitutional principles.
6. The accusers embrace as a hero a lady with a mail-away law degree whose legal credentials are as phony as her hair color and who is already the subject of pending bar disciplinary proceedings in California.
7. The accusers wrap their arguments in the flag, claiming to be motivated solely by patriotism. As Samuel Johnson reminded us almost 300 years ago, “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”
8. The accusers have used emotionalism unfettered by logic to stir the anger of the ignorant and the fearful. Did anyone note the pathetic appeal of the woman in the Delaware town hall meeting video, a woman whose entire argument was the tiny flag she held in her hand, her father’s service during World War II and her own birth certificate issued to her, as she said, by the United States government?
9. The accusers have enlisted the assistance of the most wretched of haters, people such as “BVM the Unknown,” who openly call for a military takeover and who are so delusional that they actually believe that U.S. marshals will be ringing the door bell at the White House in a few weeks with an arrest warrant. In the past, such people were typically admitted for observation by trained psychiatrists.
But perhaps most galling of all, the accusers continue to insist that if the president had nothing to hide, he would simply “come clean” to satisfy their hunger for the truth and erase their fears of usurpation. What presumptuous nonsense! No man has either a moral or legal obligation to “prove” his innocence of the fabricated claims of lynch mobs. No man has either a moral or legal obligation to dignify bad faith by acknowledgment or response.
Reason and logic are the only tools for honest debate. We are fools if we believe we can engage in serious discussion of serious issues with the residents of Bedlam.
Very well said, Mike.
In the meantime, birthers, please direct me to the long form vault birth certificates of G H W Bush and G W Bush showing date and time and hospital of birth, names of delivering physicians or midwives, names and birth dates and citizenship of both parents, and names of all family pets.
What’s that? You say that no one has questioned their natural born status?
Well, I am questioning it.
Now, cough them up.
Vince said; “Byrne, is there any scholarly research in the records of the debates of the 13 ratifying conventions that has found any indication that the conventions considered Vattel on the issue of natural born citizen?”
DO you really want to go there? Are you willing to apply your premise to all things in our Constitution? If record of debate, at the state conventions, on a single subject of the Constitution, does not exist, or the origin of the wording was not discussed, are you willing to consider that portion to have never been ratified?
Debate -at the state conventions was limited to those particular provisions in which there was confusion or disagreement.
Just so you don’t claim that I wouldn’t answer your question; I have no record of Vattel, or any other author, being discussed at the state conventions with regard to the subject of natural born citizen. However, the U.S. Constitution was adopted as a complete piece of work. As such, we must look to the records of the Constitutional Convention. Records of the Constitutional Convention indicate that Vattel was recognized and used…even in the Declaration of Independence.
Byrne: “Vince, did you vote for President Obama?”
None of your business. You don’t have to believe anything I say, anyway, since I do not care what you believe, or who you voted for, and I am not posting here for your benefit.
I am posting for all the other readers of this blog, not for you, and I address your posts only to correct them so that misinformation does not go unanswered, and my posts stand on their own merit, not on authority.
“Records of the Constitutional Convention indicate that Vattel was recognized and used…even in the Declaration of Independence.”
Where was Vattel used on the issue of natural born citizen at the Constitutional Convention?
“Records of the Constitutional Convention indicate that Vattel was recognized and used…even in the Declaration of Independence.”
Just to clarify for the readers, the Constitutional Convention adopted the Constitution, not the Declaration.
BVM,
You are a moron and a traitor and I assume that people will be coming to lock you up soon. Lucky for you it will probably be for a mental institution, rather than a Federal Prison. You don’t realize that you are calling for a military coup? You are really that ignorant.
Vince,
I am posting for all the other readers of this blog, not for you, and I address your posts only to correct them so that misinformation does not go unanswered, and my posts stand on their own merit, not on authority.
Byrne: “I am posting for all the other readers of this blog….”
Very well written, and on this point, I agree with you.
“Where was Vattel used on the issue of natural born citizen at the Constitutional Convention?”
One need only look at the words in order to find the source.
I have repeatedly asked for presentation of an alternative source. None has been provided, and none will be provided.
Bob,Esq. said;
“And the STATE of Hawaii, i.e. acting on EQUAL FOOTING as the 13 ORIGINAL COLONIES, has certified that Obama is qualified as a Natural Born Citizen to serve as President”
Jim Byrne: “That’s an outright lie Bob. Hawaii has not certified that Obama is qualified as a natural born citizen to serve as President.
With Obama’s refusal to permit the Governor of Hawaii to release his birth certificate from the vault, I’m even willing to question his status as a citizen.”
Oh yes they did.
Sorry Jim, but Birth Certificates didn’t exist at the time of the framing or ratifying of the constitution; they didn’t come into existence IN THE WORLD until 70 years later. Thus your ‘added’ requirement of producing a ‘birth certificate’ to prove Natural Born Citizenship is wholly of your own making; since the Founders NEVER CONTEMPLATED IT NOR REQUIRED IT.
Accordingly, even if your claim is true, that Obama somehow blocked the revelation of this birth certificate, such alleged concealment of a CONSTITUTIONALLY IRRELEVANT DOCUMENT is meaningless in light of the STATE OF HAWAII’s standing to certify that Obama is qualified to serve as President.
STATES elect presidents. Accordingly, unless you can find a state that agrees with your allegations that Obama is not a NBC, it would appear you have no standing to waste word one to the contrary.
Your courtesies in connection with this matter are greatly appreciated.
Bob
Vince said; “In the meantime, birthers, please direct me to the long form vault birth certificates of G H W Bush and G W Bush showing date and time and hospital of birth, names of delivering physicians or midwives, names and birth dates and citizenship of both parents, and names of all family pets.”
I am all for both Bush’s providing their certificate of live birth. I’ll just on board, Vince. If Barack Obama is to provide his, all living former-Presidents should be required to provide theirs.
That’s reasonable.
Just one further word to signify the stupidity of this debate by Jim, his pals the Federalists and the birthers. Monsieur Vattel was a good man and disciple of Liebniz, a great man and great genius. He was primarily a philosopher. A Natural Philosopher.
Natural Philosophy was a movement that gained impetus around 1650 all over Europe and Britain and was a reaction to the despotism of monarchies and religion. It was the springboard of the Enlightenment and the sciences and our Founding Fathers were predominantly followers and/or Natural Philosophers. It was from this modernist idea that sprang the American Revolution.
Jim and his pals use Vattel, but in truth are opponents of the Enlightenment and thus Natural Philosophy that spawned it. That is part of the age old American debate between plutocrats like Jim and the Federalists and people who are intellectual descendants of the Enlightenment.
This is not only the irony of this whole debate, it also highlights the ignorance of Jim and his birther comrades. Notice I used ignorance rather than stupidity. Jim is far from stupid, but he has little idea of the concepts he deals with, not out of incomprehension, but directly caused by the disability of not being able to see any point of view besides his own rigidly held beliefs. This is ignorance, whether it be in Jim, Anton Scalia, Robert Bork or even many Left Wing radicals like Howard Zinn. Unfortunately, in this dangerous world smart men who are ignorant, are ignorantly lethal.
Mike Appleton,
Thought you might like this:
Jon Stewart Eviscerates The ‘Birther’ Movement (VIDEO)
“In a lengthy opening segment, Jon Stewart took on “birthers” last night, mocking their internal leadership and the media figures and politicians who support them. ….”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/23/jon-stewart-eviscerates-t_n_243383.html
Vince T., Jim Byrne is misrepresenting once again previous posts on this blog. I specifically cited him to Blackstone and his response was that “citizen” and “subject” are not the same thing. I then explained that the Founders used the word “citizen” rather than “subject” because they were forming a republic rather than a monarchy. I also cited references to Chancellor Kent’s work and to that of Joseph Story, which he ignored. I asked if he had read any of the cases in the Cranch law reports citing Vattel, and he did not respond, meaning that he hasn’t read any of those cases and has no idea what the context was for any of the citations he refers to. To give Mr. Byrne a little bit more of historical context, but with the knowledge that he will ignore it, I refer him to the early North Carolina case of State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 122, in which the court noted that in the United States the word “citizen” is analogous to the word “subject” in the common law, and that our use of the former term has resulted from our changing the form of government.
Hey you Obama fools:
I hope and expect soon Obama will be arrested by the military as an usurper, traitor, war criminal, forger, etc. At that time the members of Congress, et al who served as his
co-conspirators will be arrested too. Then a Military Commission will be appointed to function as a care giver government until new elections are held.
BVM, I believe you are confusing the U.S. with Honduras. Keep your geography straight.
“Then a Military Commission will be appointed to function as a care giver government until new elections are held.”
Buena Vista Mall is a traitor to the United States and I suspect an agent of anti-America terrorists.
Jim Byrne is a supporter of Buena Vista Mall.
Thanks for removing any doubts about the Coup issue.
In looking up more on coup, I found an interesting thing about Coup d’état: what Julius Caesar, and Napoleon were Coups. There is such a thing as a self coup, that is one in which the establish government takes on extra non-constitutional powers with the help of the military.
Byrne; “One need only look at the words in order to find the source. I have repeatedly asked for presentation of an alternative source. None has been provided, and none will be provided.”
Everybody. How does one find a source by looking at words?
He has repeated asked for an alternative source to Vattel. He has been repeatedly been referred in great detail by Mike Appleton and others to the existing common law at the time of the Declaration and the Constitution. Under the common law, all persons born in the realm were citizens. The common law is the source of the meaning of many of the terms in the Constitution, and that includes natural born citizen. We still have not seen any framer who referred to Vattel on citizenship. It is just assumed that since Vattel’s books were in the States, then he was the source of the meaning of the clause. That is a long, long, loooooonnnng leap from premise to conclusion. It is an Olympic record in conclusion jumping.
And Benji Franklin above performed a valuable service for everyone when he discovered that the stuff that Vattel wrote and that Story or Marshall read may not even have been translated into English until 1797.
And finally in the post above about sec 212 at July 19, 10:40 PM, Byrne quoted Vattel:
“The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent….I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” That doctrine is not the law in the United States, and has never been the law in the United States, even though it may have been Swiss law, since I think Vattel was Swiss. So why is anyone looking to Vattel as authority? When Vattel wrote “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens” he was perhaps talking about the Swiss and other continental countries. He could not possible be talking about the United States in 1758. The Constitution as first adopted did not address the issue of citizenship, leaving that to the states under the federal system, but state laws recognized persons born in the United States as citizens. So the reliance on Vattel is misplaced.
He can find abundant information at obamaconspiracy.com.
One just has to look in the right places.
“Looking for love in all the wrong places.”
We call for the arrests of Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama, et al for Treason, War Crimes, Fraud and a multitude of other charges.
To give just one more example of Orly’s idiocy, here is a typical filing:
Q
(33) However, Barack Hussein Obama, in order to prove his constitutional eligibility to serve as President, basically needs only produce a single unique historical document for the Plaintiff’s inspection and authentication: namely, the “long-form” birth certificate which will confirm whether Barack Hussein Obama was in fact born to parents who were both citizens of the United States in Honolulu, Hawaii, in or about 1961.
UQ
Anybody, anybody, out there got a birth certificate that lists the “citizenship” of the parents?
We will wait.
BVM=moron and traitor
Is Orly Taitz a US citizen. She seems to have a thick un-American accent. Where are her papers and is she here legally?
BVM, please call. Your room is ready.
I call for the arrest and prosecution of BVM for unlawfully converting to his own use and benefit the acronym of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
O.K. Mr. Appleton, but what about Jesus? Where was his father born? Was Jesus a NBC of anywhere?
Byrne himself linked to a guy named Greshak who actually posted Blackstone’s commentary on the laws of England. That is clearly an alternative source to Vattel. Why does he say no one has shown an alterntive to Vattel?
quote
William Blackstone at Oxford…
THE firft and moft obvious divifion of the people is into aliens and natural-born fubjects. Natural-born fubjects are fuch as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, fuch as are born out of it.
Also, there is the following passage from the same work:
Natural allegiance is fuch as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king’s protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themfelves.
Mike A.,
Yes. I read other citations of Vattel in Cranch. The most applicable is Chief Justice Marshall’s recognition of Vattel on the subject of citizens.
I provided you with the Black’s Dictionary of Law, First Edition (1891) definition of subject to demonstrate the legal difference between subject and citizen. Here; I’ll repost it.
“A “subject”, in constitutional law, is one that owes allegiance to a sovereign, and is governed by his laws. Men of free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws.”
Are you really suggesting that a North Carolina court’s decision should be controlling?
When I drive thru North Carolina am I a subject or a citizen? I am subject to their laws, but I don’t have the right to vote. Clearly, their must be a difference between subject and citizen.
Jim Byrne, don’t be silly. I specifically stated that the North Carolina decision was intended to provide “historical context” for the point that in applying the English common law definition of citizenship, the Founders treated the words “subject” and “citizen” as essentially interchangeable. The court in the North Carolina case acknowledged that understanding.
Byrne, try to learn from Mike before asking questions.
The definition from Black’s says that people are “subjects as well as citizens.”
Think about it. Some persons are both subjects and citizens.
But how about a lawfully admitted resident alien awaiting citizenship? That person is a subject, since she has left her old country and is fully subject to the laws of the United States. She is not yet a citizen. So that is the difference.
Also learn that the state court decisions were controlling on citizenship before the 14th Amendment.
And subject and citizen can be interchangeable. The British jurisdictions are now using citizen in place of subject to get away from the idea of subjecttion to a monarch.
BTW, still not addressing the fact that Vattel does not seem to be relied upon in the Cranch reports on the topic on natural born citizenship. Just because he is right on one topic does not make him right on everything.
Finally, still not anwering the point that there WERE sources of the meaning of “natural born” other than Vattel. He was not the ONLY PERSON ON THE PLANET that wrote about the topic, or whose writings were available to the framers.
Still waiting for anybody with a long form BC that lists the citizenship of parents.
Jim Byrne, one further point. We do not have “subjects” in this country in the monarchical sense, as you well know. We also have two tiers of citizenship, in recognition of the limited sovereignty of the individual states. Therefore, your reference to being “subject” to the laws of North Carolina while not being a “citizen” of that state has no relevancy to the issue.
Vince and Mike A.,
I believe that the term “natural born citizen” is a term of art. As such, the words cannot be separated. It is evident that Vince and Mike A. do not consider “natural born citizen” to be a term of art. The question is; will a court of law agree with their conclusion or my conclusion? -That is yet to be determined, and will not be decided on this blawg.
IF, a court determines that “natural born citizen” is a legal term of art, they will look for a definition of that EXACT TERM. Vattel’s is the only one that matches that EXACT TERM.
A term of art is a word or phrase that has a particular meaning. Terms of art abound in the law. For example, the phrase double jeopardy can be used in common parlance to describe any situation that poses two risks. In the law, Double Jeopardy refers specifically to an impermissible second trial of a defendant for the same offense that gave rise to the first trial.
The classification of a word or phrase as a term of art can have legal consequences. Since this has been a recent topic of discussion on Professor Turley’s Blawg, let’s examine Molzof. In Molzof v. United States, 502 U.S. 301, 112 S. Ct. 711, 116 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1992), Shirley M. Molzof brought suit against the federal government after her husband, Robert E. Molzof, suffered irreversible brain damage while under the care of government hospital workers. The federal government conceded liability, and the parties tried the issue of damages before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. Molzof had brought the claim as executor of her husband’s estate under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) (28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346(b), 2671–2680 [1988]), which prohibits the assessment of Punitive Damages against the federal government. The court granted recovery to Molzof for her husband’s injuries that resulted from the Negligence of federal employees, but it denied recovery for future medical expenses and for loss of enjoyment of life. According to the court, such damages were punitive damages, which could not be recovered against the federal government.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed with the trial court, but the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. According to the Court, punitive damages is a legal term of art that has a widely accepted common-law meaning under state law. Congress was aware of this meaning at the time it passed the FTCA. Under traditional common-law principles, punitive damages are designed to punish a party. Since damages for future medical expenses and for loss of enjoyment of life were meant to compensate Molzof rather than punish the government, the Court reversed the decision and remanded the case to the Seventh Circuit.
States elect presidents.
Individuals lack standing to intervene in issues between the states.
Birth Certificates are non-dispositive and ultimately constitutionally irrelevant.
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/07/19/retired-major-general-joins-litigation-over-obamas-birth-status/#comment-69625
Jim Byrne writes: OK. I’ll play the game. Let’s say it is racially motivated. But just in case; let’s also say that it’s politically motivated, anti-christian, anti-muslim, anti-lawyer, anti-hope and anti-change, et al. I don’t want to miss any.
me: what makes you think that smarter people than you and I have not already authenticated the president’s legitimacy? and why do we have to throw in all these other ways of looking at what is motivating this birher stuff? if you followed the campaign at all and I did, there is a large straight line from all those hysterical anti-obama folks at palin rallies screaming that he is an arab and a terrorist to this. they failed. he was elected and sworn in and all they can do is wait 4 years. maybe 8. and even then, who is there to take his place? which uptight, screwed up, republican adulterer do you have in mind? some one from The Family? those holier than thou shamelessly craven polls who believe that god is their bitch?
ask yourself this: if Obama were white would this be happening? I dont think so
Jim: So what? A legitimate constitutional question about the qualifications of the President exist for the first time in our life, a question that should be decided…once and for all, and you want to ignore it? Why? Don’t you trust our Court?
me: do you? The Court already decided it wasn’t going to hear this. And Obamas birth certificate was already authenticated. its done. its over. He is the president. don’t like it? that is your right. Find anothe candidate. Work for him or her and maybe you will be successful in 2012. anyway, do I trust the court? no. hell no. I like some of the decisions they have made and I dislike others. Roger Taney who wrote the majority in the Dredd Scott decision was an unreconstructed bigot who created the basis for all modern race relations and it all comes to race in American, every time. A black president calls a police action against a decent moderate head of a Harvard black studies department stupid and looky looky…. it is suddenly a lightening bolt for every flag waving anti-black voice in american who will certainly use this in the mid-terms as proof that Obama is a militant who wants black men to rape their sisters.
Jim: If you have that little faith in our system of laws, you might as well give up. The only correct decisions aren’t just those with which you agree.
Me: huh?
Jim: Tell me. Why do you think the President would endure all this controversy just to keep the vault copy of his birth certificate from public view? Think about it. Who would let this continue when it can be so easily resolved? Haven’t you figured out that there is more to this than our President wants us to know? If his BC is as he claims…he should be proud to show it. -One call to the Governor of Hawaii and I’m sure it would be released.
Me: it has been solved. its over. you wanna call the governor of hawaii? knock yourself out.
Bob,Esq.,
The election is not being challenged. Your point is therefore moot.
Does the Constitution provide for the possibility of one being elected, but not meeting the qualifications? -See the Twentieth Amendment.
GWLSM said; “if Obama were white would this be happening? I dont think so”
Yes it would. I would hold the same position.
MIke S writes: Jim Byrne, however, is something else entirely. He is playing a game and he’s got you playing on his board, so he keeps going and no matter how logically you demolish his foolishness, he just dances around it and gets you repeating points where you’ve already demolished his idiocy with many posts before. As I showed by dissecting his posts this is someone who has an axe to grind but is so dishonest and dishonorable that he plays games with us.
Me: Mike. this is the way I see it. everyone needs a hobby and this is Jim’s. It’s also my hobby and there have been lots of folk here who dont care for my opinions either. At the end of the day he is the one stuck with a president he doesn’t like and stuck talking to people he doesn’t respect. I’d say that is a collossal waste of time, but, who am I to tell Jim how to spend his days? I kind of like his sense of outrage and love standing on the side of the winner for a change. After 8 years of Bushco, this feels really good.
MIke: You see the disingenuous always have an advantage in a debate with the earnest. The why is obvious. He doesn’t hesitate to dissemble when each of his points are destroyed. What can we learn though about Jim Byrne despite his penchant for disingenuity?
me Nah.he doesn’t have an advantage. he is just persistent. perseverating, if you will.
1. He is a birther, but more cerebral than the norm, that is obvious.
2. He believes in interpreting the Constitution strictly based on the Founder’s Intent view, which would put him four square with the Federalist Society.
me: maybe he’s a racist too. I don’t care about that. he has no power here or anywhere else. so he’s annoying and doesnt get that his ideas only make him laughable. this does not win him anything. not even respect.
Mike: 3. He believes that Constitutionally women are less than men despite the 19th Amendment which he interprets in a most curious manner.
me: well we are. until we earn what men earn, until we can raise our children with enough to eat everyday, until we can go where we want and do what we want and say what we want without being called bitches or whores for having ideas that men have, for being successful, we are not equal. the constitution might grant us equal rights. doesn’t mean we have them.
Mike:
6. You will never win a debate with him, even though his points are weak and stupid, but simply because he ignores it when he is bested. If you think I’m wrong read all of the posts on the thread and see where when a telling point is made he simply responds in a non-responsive fashion.
me: i don’t debate. I just respond with my own ideas. I’m not in it to win I just like writing about stuff. JIm is not my enemy. I don’t want to invite him for cocktails. He doesn’t seem like my kind of guy. He isn’t temperate, doesn’t have a sense of humor. probably isn’t very good looking.
I don’t respect him. But I don’t care if he comes here or not. For every Jim who comes here there are thousands of others who do not. I learned a longtime ago that some people like this for the combat. some like it for attention. some like it to control others. some do this to make friends. Me? I like it for the entertainment and to hear the ideas of people that I really respect. sadly I also get to hear the ideas from people I don’t respect and who do not entertain me.
in the end. shouldnt it just be fun?
Vince asks: Anybody, anybody, out there got a birth certificate that lists the “citizenship” of the parents?
We will wait.
me: just went and checked. nope. just mom’s name and dad’s name. address. little raised seal in corner. place of birth. date and time, footprint. name.
my name, gwlawschoolmom.
anyone want to deport me? tell me I can’t vote?
Jim Byrne:
“The election is not being challenged. Your point is therefore moot.”
While you may have used the term ‘moot,’ you’re not at all familiar with the doctrine of Justiciability are you? How exactly are you harmed in the same degree as the states of this union by Obama not being a NBC?
“Does the Constitution provide for the possibility of one being elected, but not meeting the qualifications? -See the Twentieth Amendment.”
Actually, that did happen in 2000, when SCOTUS appointed Bush thereby triggering the 12th, 20th, 22nd & 25th amendments.
That too would have been a battle between the States; but it didn’t happen.
You on the other hand suffer from the delusion that you, as an individual, enjoy as much standing as a State with equal footing as the 13 Original Colonies. Get over yourself.
Jim Byrne posted a legal discussion, starting with “A term of art is a word or phrase that has a particular meaning….”
I liked it better at one of the many websites where the verbatim discussion has also appeared, for example:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Term+of+Art
There is another legal term of art that folks should know about: plagiarism.
QUOTE Passing off someone else’s work as your own, whether word for word or merely the creative ideas. This can amount to copyright infringement if permission has not been obtained from the copyright owner for use of the expressive elements of the work. Even if permission is granted, putting your name on someone else’s work is still plagiarism and is unethical within artistic, scientific, academic and political communities. UNQUOTE
Source: http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/F88F0800-C164-445B-8AC254D1108F4E5A/alpha/P/
Bob,Esq.,
“You on the other hand suffer from the delusion that you, as an individual, enjoy as much standing as a State with equal footing as the 13 Original Colonies. Get over yourself.”
Where did you get the idea that I have claimed standing?
By the way
With 49 States having assented to Hawaii’s assertion that Obama is a natural born citizen…
Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies.
Assuming you had the same standing as a State on the issue you attempt to raise, your argument fails to rise any higher than multiple forms of argumentum ad ignorantiam. 50 dollar philospher speak for horse shi+.
There is another legal concept: a distinction without a legal difference. The distinction between natural born subject and natural born citizen is a distinction without a difference, since the terms citizen and subject in context meant the same thing.
The courts are not likely to limit an inquiry about NBC to exact matches, and will usually look for legal substance rather than verbal form in resolving an issue.
Also, “natural born” may well be the legal term of art here.
Bob esq
next time… a spew warning, please…although it is jon stewart so I should have known that my cosmopolitan would be sprayed all over my computer screen.
Have fun kids. I have beeter things to do than be personally attacked.
If you want to have a group of “pile-ons”, that is your choice, and Professor Turley’s choice.
I will return if/when personally invited to do so from Professor Turley.
Good day.
Jim Byrne writes: Yes it would. I would hold the same position.
me: where were you 8 years ago? 4 years ago? 16 years ago? ever think to check that Bush’s BC was valid? reagan’s?
no. of course not. they looked american. they talked american. they were/are white. oh and republicans. right thinking men. uptight. just your kind of guys.
Byrne: “I will return if/when personally invited to do so from Professor Turley. Good day.”
OK
For bil, gyges and all other science fiction buffs out there, I can now get back to BBC America, Torchwood, Children of Earth, 5-part series this week and DVD by the end of July, maybe SyFy later. Great, great TV SF.
Jim Byrne: “Have fun kids. I have beeter things to do than be personally attacked.”
I didn’t attack you personally, I personally showed you how dumb your argument is.
Vince,
I never thought Science Fiction in general translates well to visual media. The focus tends to be too much on “look at how cool this is” as opposed to “look at this great plot that uses fantastic elements to highlight some aspects of humanity.” Lem would tell you that’s just a problem with American Sci-fi in general.
You guys give BVM a hard time but he knows what he is talking about. FEMA NLE 09 starts next week. They are preparing for a wide range of scenarios. Even if you do not live in a hurricane prone area stock up on your provisions. Martial law is just around the corner. Listen to BVM now and believe him later. I may Bdaman but you is daman.
There are two scenarios that FEMA is concerned with. These two scenarios has promted FEMA to produce a document called the C and R report. This document was said to have been circulated among senior members of congress including Nancy Pelosi. It’s called C and R because C stands for Conflict and R stands for Revolt, these are the two scenarios. Under the conflict scenario, this is where the United States defaults on the loans made by China and other countries and the United States effectively cancels it’s debt starting a major conflict with those countries. If anyone believes that China just lent us money under the current economic conditions as a goodwill gesture, I got news for you. China recieved assurances, plus collateral.
The R scenario is one where taxes are levied at such a high rate that Americans in this country revolt.(can you say T-Party) Now it has been said that these bills (cap and trade, health care) that are trying to be passed, are tax generating bills. The money collected from higher taxes would go quickly to pay down the debt. This maybe why they are trying to rush everything thru without reading it.
Just a note: The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team known as BCT to the Northern Command’s U.S. Army North will augment FEMA and federal law enforcement. This Brigade will be given the Army’s full arsenal of non-lethal weapons to train with. These weapons are designed for command and control of unruly crowds or mass protesters.
“Byrne: “I will return if/when personally invited to do so from Professor Turley. Good day.”
Now why would JT bother to do that. Exactly what does this guy think he offered?
“Me: Mike. this is the way I see it. everyone needs a hobby and this is Jim’s. It’s also my hobby and there have been lots of folk here who dont care for my opinions either.”
GWLSM,
What I was doing was done for my fun and was quite purposeful. Many people get away with being disingenuous because people, generally thinking well of others, do not confront the lies and just focus on the arguments. Jim was getting far too much pleasure playing his games and my purpose was to disturb his fun with some fun of my own. To be honest I think I nailed who he is which is a Federalist Society type, who hates the President and therefore attempts to discredit him with the “big lie” technique. As you suggested he may well be an intelligent racist, as if that isn’t an oxymoron. I made him uncomfortable and he finally refused to engage with me.
He didn’t finally quit though because of me. Vince, Mike A Bob and SBF (sorry guy your pseudonym is just to long and for some reason I can’t memorize the spelling)just completely demolished every argument he proffered and he finally was too frustrated by it. Someone like Jim is not used to being challenged because you can bet in personal conversation he is a bully. Nevertheless, he rose above troll in my estimation because he at least has some ability to think. However, I am quite serious in believing that the birther movement is pushing either towards assassination, or coup, or both. This offends me and fills me with dread and loathing.
“There are two scenarios that FEMA is concerned with. These two scenarios has promted FEMA to produce a document called the C and R report.”
bdaman,
I have more respect for you than I do the ravings of BVM. Understand though he is talking about a military coup to remove the President and take over the country. I’m not a fan of FEMA by any means, but I think you are talking about two different things.
Gyges,
I couldn’t agree with you more about scifi (don’t get me started about SyFy).
Mike S,
No worries about the name, it’s not important. I only use the first letter of your last name anyway…
Bdaman,
Make sure you and BVM pack enough supplies into your doom bunker.
Jim B,
Goodbye. Sorry that your ideas were so thoroughly and completely refuted (and thanks to Vince et al. for refuting them). Better luck next time.
Slart,
Have you ever been to Lem’s official website? http://english.lem.pl/ There’s a gallery of his drawings. I’m fascinated by doodles of people known for their creativity in other areas. His are fantastic, and remind me of some underground graphic novel’s I’ve seen (yup, I’m that much of a geek). Stravinski’s doodles may be my favorite though, there’s a REALLY cool series of geographic interpretations of famous composers music.
Mike S writes: GWLSM,
What I was doing was done for my fun and was quite purposeful. Many people get away with being disingenuous because people, generally thinking well of others, do not confront the lies and just focus on the arguments. Jim was getting far too much pleasure playing his games and my purpose was to disturb his fun with some fun of my own. To be honest I think I nailed who he is which is a Federalist Society type, who hates the President and therefore attempts to discredit him with the “big lie” technique. As you suggested he may well be an intelligent racist, as if that isn’t an oxymoron. I made him uncomfortable and he finally refused to engage with me.
me: I think you were generally thoughtful, calm and deliberate in your posts. Don’t think that I was criticizing you — I wasn’t. Jim and people like him love to see how many people they can get to jump up and down and then try to make them jump faster, or on one leg. I’m glad you had fun. the big lie is a useful advertising tool, but worse than the lie is the myth.
you: He didn’t finally quit though because of me. Vince, Mike A Bob and SBF (sorry guy your pseudonym is just to long and for some reason I can’t memorize the spelling)just completely demolished every argument he proffered and he finally was too frustrated by it. Someone like Jim is not used to being challenged because you can bet in personal conversation he is a bully. Nevertheless, he rose above troll in my estimation because he at least has some ability to think. However, I am quite serious in believing that the birther movement is pushing either towards assassination, or coup, or both. This offends me and fills me with dread and loathing.
me: of course he didn’t quit because of you. he does this from time to time as we’ve already seen. this time his departure was quite operatic with the
rof will have to invite me back: nonsense. he’ll be back when he thinks that there is something to come back for.
i never thought he was a troll. I just think that his ideas and opinions can be narrow and not well thought out. maybe he is a bully. maybe he just writes like one.
Hey Slart, remember the old adage, it’s better to have it and not need it then it is to need it and not have it. Just sayin, The govt just bought a boat load of swine flu vaccines, 195 million doses. If you haven’t seen my post on those you need to see them. The boxes come with a warning: Buyer beware
Mike thanks for the compliment, not much of one considering whom I’m up against, (no disrespect BVM) Mike I said FEMA was preparing for a wide range of scenarios, the two I’ve given you are the only two that I know come from a reputable source.
Awwww,
Did you boys run off the troll again?
lol
He should have stayed away the first time he “r-u-n-n-o-f-t”.
All must learn to agree with the liberal mind. We know best.
GWLawSchoolMom,
There’s nothing worse than a joke with footnotes.
No wonder Obama’s ‘Obot fools’ are upset.
From http://www.WND.com
“WASHINGTON – The latest AOL online poll shows 82 percent of respondents saying Barack Obama should release his birth certificate.
This finding in spite of a veritable media barrage in recent days of unsubstantiated claims ranging from all Hawaiian birth certificates were destroyed to it already has been released. ”
Get ‘em Lou!
Lou Dobbs, the birth certificate has been released, and you can see it at any time. You fool!
The polling report is from World Nut Daily, a wholly owned subsidiary of the millionaire putting up the billboards, Joseph Farah, and is a completely biased source. An online poll is inherently unreliable because it is not based on a representative sample. A poll question can be biased, for example, have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no.
A Mall cannot be a natural born citizen.
A Mall is a terrible thing to waste.
Excerpt message from Orly Taitz website:
“Now the MSM is saying that Hawaii destroyed all the origional records in 2001. They are lying, see the ACTUAL e-mails from the State of Hawaii, Vital Records on my blog. How could the Gov. of Hawaii state they have Obama’s origional on file as per the regulations in Hawaii in 2008, if they destroyed them in 2001?”
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive” Sir Walter Scott
By the way the Orly Taitz website is now among the top 2% of all the web sites in the world according to the traffic (after only 3 months of existence) http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1
“By the way the Orly Taitz website is now among the top 2% of all the web sites in the world according to the traffic (after only 3 months of existence)”
**********
“No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”
–H. L. Mencken
There are always a lot of hysterical accusations by bvm on this site.
Here are some facts.
Orly said “Now the MSM is saying that Hawaii destroyed all the origional records in 2001.” That is a lie. It is not the MSM saying this. It is Janice Okubo, spokeswoman for the Health Department, who said that in 2001, the state of Hawaii Health Department went paperless, and paper documents were discarded. Everyone can read below and judge.
If you look at my postings, I have said that Hawaii has released the only birth certificate that it can release, a “Certification of Live Birth.” No one can get any other type of birth certificate, neither a long form nor a “vault copy” nor any other. The COLB meets the legal federal definition of birth certificate that I posted above.
Where’s the birth certificate? In front of you. Open your eyes.
The head of CNN told Lou Dobbs that the story is dead. Kitty Pilgrim showed that Obama has proven his birth on DOBBS OWN SHOW when she substituted.
Dobbs, prepare for award of “Worst Person in the World.”
Now for the sources; judge for yourselves:
QUOTE
Original Message —–
From: Klein, Jon (CNN)
Sent: Thu Jul 23 19:00:44 2009
Subject: Important re birth certificate
I asked the political researchers to dig into the question “why couldn’t Obama produce the ORIGINAL birth certificate?”
This is what they forwarded. It seems to definitively answer the question. Since the show’s mission is for Lou to be the explainer and enlightener, he should be sure to cite this during your segment tonite. And then it seems this story is dead – because anyone who still is not convinced doesn’t really have a legitimate beef.
Thx
*****************
*In 2001 – the state of Hawaii Health Department went paperless. *Paper documents were discarded* The official record of Obama’s birth is now an official ELECTRONIC record Janice Okubo, spokeswoman for the Health Department told the Honolulu Star Bulletin, “At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting,” she said.
———————
Transcript from Lou Dobbs Tonight – 07.23.09
DOBBS: ….And a number of Americans are asking, why not? The left-wing media has attacked me because I simply asked the question. Meanwhile, the state of Hawaii says it can’t release a paper copy of the president’s original birth certificate because they say the state government discarded the original document when the health department records went electronic some eight years ago.
That explanation, however, has not satisfied some critics. Joining me now, Roland Martin. He’s CNN contributor, syndicated columnist. And joining us as well, Congressman Ted Poe.
UNQUOTE
Source: http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/jon_klein_on_birthers_it_seems_this_story_is_dead_122546.asp
Watch this space for more birthing myths falling from the sky and crashing and burning.
This is from the Orly Taitz site: http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/?p=3350#comments
“syc1959 says:
July 24, 2009 at 11:33 pm
The issue with the MSM is they are trying to cover-up and act ignorant. I have been screaming that there are THREE (3) versions of the COLB that have been posted. WHY NO ONE HAS BEEN ASKING THESE HOSTS LIKE LOU DOBS, “WHICH VERSION OF THE COLB ARE YOU REFERING TOO?”
HERE ARE THE THREE FORGERIES
#1 – posted on ‘Fight the Smears’ – no seal, evidence that it is a computer graphic
#2 – posted on FactCheck – has an invalid SEAL from the State of Hawaii
#3 – posted on FactCheck – has no seal whatsoever
See my video on this!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKVr-Evn6Z0
Read my blog
http://nobarack08.wordpress.com
The State of Hawaii has stated they NEVER issued an Obama COLB in 2007 or 2008. So how can three versions of a document that Hawaii never issued be authentic!
Now the MSM is saying that Hawaii destroyed all the origional records in 2001. They are lying, see the ACTUAL e-mails from the State of Hawaii, Vital Records on my blog. How could the Gov. of Hawaii state they have Obama’s origional on file as per the regulations in Hawaii in 2008, if they destroyed them in 2001?
This is from the Orly Taitz site;
“syc1959 says:
July 24, 2009 at 11:33 pm
The issue with the MSM is they are trying to cover-up and act ignorant. I have been screaming that there are THREE (3) versions of the COLB that have been posted. WHY NO ONE HAS BEEN ASKING THESE HOSTS LIKE LOU DOBS, “WHICH VERSION OF THE COLB ARE YOU REFERING TOO?”
HERE ARE THE THREE FORGERIES
#1 – posted on ‘Fight the Smears’ – no seal, evidence that it is a computer graphic
#2 – posted on FactCheck – has an invalid SEAL from the State of Hawaii
#3 – posted on FactCheck – has no seal whatsoever
See my video on this!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKVr-Evn6Z0
The State of Hawaii has stated they NEVER issued an Obama COLB in 2007 or 2008. So how can three versions of a document that Hawaii never issued be authentic!
Now the MSM is saying that Hawaii destroyed all the origional records in 2001. They are lying, see the ACTUAL e-mails from the State of Hawaii, Vital Records on my blog. How could the Gov. of Hawaii state they have Obama’s origional on file as per the regulations in Hawaii in 2008, if they destroyed them in 2001?
Here is more evidence that Hawaii has released the birth certificate and that it is the official record:
QUOTE
Born identity
Birth certificate styles adjust to fit times and regulations
By June Watanabe
POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Jun 06, 2009
Question: What is the state’s policy for issuing a “Certification of Live Birth” versus a “Certificate of Live Birth”? My first, second and fourth children received certificates, but my third and fifth children received certifications. Why the difference? The certificate contains more information, such as the name of hospital, certifier’s name and title; attendant’s name and title, etc. The certification has only the child’s name, date and time of birth, sex, city/island/county of birth, mother’s maiden name, mother’s race, father’s name and father’s race. Why doesn’t the state just issue certificates? When did it stop issuing certificates? Is it possible to obtain certificates for my third and fifth children?
Answer: No, you can’t obtain a “certificate of live birth” anymore.
The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo.
The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii, she said.
And, it’s only available in electronic form.
Okubo explained that the Health Department went paperless in 2001.
“At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting,” she said.
Information about births is transferred electronically from hospitals to the department.
“The electronic record of the birth is what (the Health Department) now keeps on file in order to provide same-day certified copies at our help window for most requests,” Okubo said.
Asked for more information about the short-form versus long-form birth documents, Okubo said the Health Department “does not have a short-form or long-form certificate.”
“The birth certificate form has been modified over the years and decades to conform to national standards and models,” she said.
Okubo also emphasized the certification form “contains all the information needed by all federal government agencies for transactions requiring a birth certificate.”
She added that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state’s current certification of live birth “as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements.”
The issue of what constitutes an official Hawaii birth certificate received national attention during last year’s presidential campaign. Those who doubted Barack Obama’s American citizenship called the copy of the Hawaii birth document posted on his campaign Web site a fake.
Asked about that document, Okubo said, “This is the same certified copy everyone receives when they request a birth certificate.”
We found a discussion of “the truth about Obama’s birth certificate” on the Web site FactCheck.org — http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html.
The organization describes itself as “a nonpartisan, nonprofit ‘consumer advocate’ for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics.”
It says a “certification of live birth” is, in fact, a short-form official birth certificate. Information included in the document might differ from state to state.UNQUOTE
Source: http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html
“Do you smell that, son? Denial in the morning . . . smells like insane paranoia.”
So Mall, if I may call you that, do you get any other secret messages we should know about? Surely the voices in your head have other topics of discussion aside from Obama’s birth certificate.
Congressman / Judge Ted Poe says COLB is not a birth certificate, Obama has not produced a birth certificate.
Obama, where is the birth certificate?
Posted by Vince Treacy on July 25, 2009 at 10:09 AM,
“She added that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state’s current certification of live birth ‘as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements.’”
Which case was that Mr. Treacy?
Vince Treacy has on a number of occasions referred to http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf
STATEMENT BY DR. CHIYOME FUKINO
“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
Today, at 9:55 AM, Vince Treacy posts information that Obama’s original birth certificate has been destroyed.
Which is it? In possession or destroyed?
To all of you complicit in Obama’s forgeries;
The word is Sun Yat-sen was born on 12 November 1866, in CHINA. HE HAD a HAWAIIAN COLB. Are you going to say HE was born in Hawaii?
roflmao
Now that’s a hoot.
Yea Vince which is it. Ladies and Gentleman Vince will be right back after he checks to see what Dr. Conspiracy tells him next.
Buddah Check the Global Warming post
BIRTHER: Welcome back, Jim Boyle. Did you write this yourself? What if the original birth certificate is on record in electronic form “in accordance with state policies and procedures”? Haven’t your read section 7211 of the federal law yet? Why not come crawling back under your real name?
Everyone else. See section 7211 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, mandated minimum standards for birth certificates and provided a defintion. See pdf: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/108-796/titlevii_implement_911_recs.pdf
You will see that it has a definition and sets national standards. The are not issuing your father’s birth certificate anymore. The standards are tied into the anti-terrorism program
Or look at PL 108-458 118 Stat 3825-26
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ458.108.pdf
Sources linked to provide context .
Hawaii was not even a territory, let alone a State, and was not apart of the United States when whatever happened to Sun took place.
Birther/Boyle keeps asking irrelevant questions to avoid the relevant. The Supreme Court case is irrelevant. It would be hard to locate given the limited description available. Boyle has not shown any court case anywhere in the country that has said the COLB, or any COLB, is not valid. Why not?
But, everyone, please read: The state official with statutory authority over the records has stated that he has”personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
A COLB has been issued in accordance with state law. It says Obama was born in Honolulu. It is certified as an official record of state records, and complies with 7211.
No a radical skeptic will say that he will not believe until he goes into the state agency itself.
Sure. A lot of people do not believe that Armstrong did not land on the moon because THEY WERE NOT THERE AT THE TIME. Fine.
One more time. Obama has released his birth certificate. It is the only certifate issued to anyone.
BVM, that forgery stuff is nonsense. It has been discredited. I have posted the links discrediting the forgery nonsense. Why not post your bigfoot video while you are at it? Why not come out of hiding?
A note for BIRTHER /TROLL/ Byrne, lurking, and for anyone else still here: he wants to know about the Supreme Court case in the article. Now, I NEVER asserted there was such a case. I said that the state now issues only COLBs and that so called “certificates” of live birth, long forms, or vault copies are no longer available to Obama or anyone else.
I posted a news article to support my statement. Others here know that I hate to see things taken out of context, so I posted the ENTIRE article. BTB has questions about a part of the article I did not rely on. Fine. He studiously ignores the facts I have posted and supported. Fine.
He just refuses to accept the official’s statement. Fine. I do not care.
For everyone else. Officials have inspected the underlying records on file in their department. They have issued a COLB stating that Obama was born in Honolulu in 1961. The COLB certifies that the facts on its face are true representations of the facts in its records. It says on its face that it is prima facie evidence of birth.
Obama has released his birth certificate.
There is no other certificate that can be issued.
“She added that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state’s current certification of live birth ‘as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements.’”
Which case was that Mr. Treacy?
Vince Treacys response: Q The Supreme Court case is irrelevant. It would be hard to locate given the limited description available. UQ
A statement made by the spokesperson for the Hawaii Department of Health is irrelevant, or is that only the parts we choose to find irrelevant? This spokesperson can supposedly find supporting U.S. Supreme Court ruling, but a retired D.C. lawyer cannot? AMAZING
Will Vince Treacy take a position? Which is it? In possession or destroyed?
THIS IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF AVOIDING THE ISSUE
How do we know that? The above statement makes it so.
VALIDATION SHOULD BE PERFORMED BY A COURT NOT A WEBSITE
From the Chicago Tribune
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/oct/30/nation/chi-birth-certificate-30-oct30
“Contacted Wednesday, Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo cited Hawaii state privacy laws and guidance from the state attorney general in saying she was not permitted to confirm the authenticity of the certificate released by the Obama campaign.
But she said it appeared similar to other Hawaii birth certificates.”
It appeared similar, but she WAS NOT PERMITTED TO CONFIRM THE AUTHENTICITY of the certificate released by the Obama Campaign.
Vince would have us all believe that the authenticity has been confirmed by the Hawaii Officials.
Vince,
I agree with your guess that birther is old JB, back in a new pseudonym, but with the same format. What it says in essence was that most of what little he stated about himself was also untrue. I’m actually thinking Byrne was an attempt by BVM to show a less insane side, but it is hard to imagine that on his best day BVM could act in any way rationally.
Birther,
Jimbo, you certainly are gutless with your new appellation, but not good enough to hide your writing style, or smart enough
to make a valid point. The only thing that I must complement is that you’ve come out of the closet finally show your true self.
Jim Byrne, retired military indeed! Just some pimply faced college sophomore, with rich parents, who are simply horrified that a Black man is President. You’re a good little boy and always try to mimic your Mom and Dad. If you’re lucky some day you’ll get admitted to a quality Law School, like say Regent.
Buddha writes: “Do you smell that, son? Denial in the morning . . . smells like insane paranoia.”
hahahaha good to have you back Buddha
Mike and Vince, I’m sure the moderators at the site watch IP addresses. It would be easy to figure out who’s who when posting. Whether they do it or not remains a question. Vince I’m sure that you would get an e-mail stating as such on the request of it remaining confidential
BIRTHER/TROLL/Byrne should learn some law. Under the Constitution, all of the other states are bound to give full faith and credit to an official Hawaiin public record, including a birth certificate. Art. IV, sec.1.
”Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”
The Supreme Court is sworn to uphold the Constitution, so it is bound by the official public records of Hawaii. Congress has express power the manner by which those records shall be proved. Everyone can read section 7211, linked above, where Congress did prescribe those rules, and the COLB meets those requirements.
That stupid bill to require birth certificates, as introduced, did not even define the term, and so the courts would have to apply the definition in 7211. Under its terms, the COLB is valid, so Obama, unique among ALL present and former candidates, has already complied with the proposed bill for 2012..
BTB does not even seem to realize that I never said there was a Supreme Court decision. I just posted the article. Someone in the article said it. Under the Constitution, however, any Supreme Court ruling would have to sustain the COLB. Life is too short for me to waste anymore time for an anonymous troll asking idle questions that are irrelevant, anyway.
These BIRTHER arguments are getting so specious that it is not surprising that he, she or it does not want to sign them anymore. The link to the Trib is from last year, for crying out loud.
And the stuff is getting wilder “VALIDATION SHOULD BE PERFORMED BY A COURT NOT A WEBSITE”
No! As a matter of law, the time for court cases is long past, since a President has been sworn. It is no wonder that each and every one of the more than 40 court cases has gone down the drain. The Constitution expressly provides that this is now the sole responsibility of Congress. Read it, BTB: “The House of Representatives … shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” Art. 1, sec. 2 That says sole power, as in the only power, to impeach and remove a President. No courts may apply.
BTB can write to his Member of Congress, not to this blog. That Member is the only one who can bring a bill of impeachment, and there is no court in the land that can remove a President or challenge his qualifications after he is sworn in. An impeachment inquiry can uncover any information in the country.
Jim Byrne is gone? I’m disappointed. I’ve literally spent hours attempting to explain the purpose and meaning of the “natural born citizen” clause using logic, reason and original sources, just as Vince T. has. The response has been passages cribbed from secondary, tertiary and sometimes wholly anonymous sources. (Vince cooly called Mr. Byrne on that, so the latter’s departure from our friendly family is really Vince’s fault). And now Mr. Byrne is gone? And will only return if personally invited by Prof. Turley? Where is my special invitation? I guess players only love you when they’re playin’.
Of course, Lou Dobbs is to journalism what BVM is to logic and Orly Taitz is to law, pretentious but inadequate. Were Prof. Turley or some other nationally known person to ask Mr. Dobbs the basis of his intense hatred of hispanics, he would react in anger and outrage. Does anyone believe an appropriate response would be, “Why are you so upset, Mr. Dobbs? I’m merely asking the question.”
I don’t know whether Birther is Mr. Byrne in disguise, but the tone and style are eerily similar, and the disjointed approach to argument is identical. However, the posts of Mr. Byrne, BVM and a few others are the best evidence of why the dispute can never be resolved to the birthers’ satisfaction. Consider the following:
1. The controversy began as a rumor and was spread, and continues to be spread, by people who refuse to identify themselves, despite their self-serving and vaunted commitment to the Constitution.
2. As the rumors spread through the internet, sensationalist journalists picked up on it, not because they had done any independent research on the issue, but because they live and die on ratings and can smell blood at a hundred paces.
3. A couple of crack-pot lawyers saw an opportunity for self-promotion and initiated lawsuits which they knew in advance would fail. After all, if Orly Taitz actually had a clue, there would be dozens, if not hundreds, of lawyers around the country who would have lent their support. So where are all the amicus briefs? Is that the sound of crickets? The truth, of course, is that no legitimate attorney is going to file a written argument supported by citations to worldnet daily or birthers.org and because all of us who practice law understand that the documents already presented by the president’s defenders are admissible in any court of law in the country as proof of the truth of their contents.
4. The ignorant and fearful among the population react as they always do to rabble rousing, grabbing their American flags, pitchforks and ropes. Their lack of knowledge about the issue is truly astounding when you read their comments on the various anonymous birther sites. For example, when Taitz was given an opportunity to amend and the court instructed her to serve the U.S. attorney a couple of weeks ago (rather than doing what he could have done and thrown her out on her butt), there was excitement and back-slapping congratulations all over birther world, prompted by a combination of gross ignorance and Taitz’ trumpeting about her great “victory.” We all know where that led.
5. All of the anonymous posters continue to express their faux indignation over their perception that the president is refusing to come clean and allay their fears. Please.
6. After the last final order of dismissal has been entered and the last appeal has fallen flat on its face, the birthers will conclude that the conspiracy is now complete and that America has been lost to a black, socialist Kenyan. Unless, of course, there is a call to arms and revolution, with Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh remaining safely ensconced in their guarded studios, exhorting the mobs to storm the White House Bastille and “take our country back.”
The sad truth is that the internet now provides what used to require robes and hoods, a forum for the expression of hatred and lies, where the accused cannot even identify the accusers, let alone confront them, while the media purveyors of political filth can deny their own complicity with a simple, “I was only asking the question.” Or, as was expressed by the California city councilman last week, “I am not a racist. I was merely forwarding the racist jokes that had been forwarded to me.”
So to Mr. Byrne, Mr. Birther, Mr. BVM and others of their persuasion, understand that we know you desire not to preserve the Constitution, but to destroy a presidency. We know that you will wear your robes and hoods throughout the process so that you can hide your cowardice while you exhort the less informed, the less sophisticated and the less educated to scream at the town meetings, send outraged letters to their representatives and flood the telephone lines of the Limbaughs the Becks and the Hannitys with pleas for assurance that the black imposter will be at last deposed. And when it is done and you have lost, you will crawl back into your holes, where you will nurse your bitterness and wait for a new opportunity.
CNN/U.S. president Jon Klein sent an email to a handful of “Lou Dobbs Tonight” staffers last night regarding the coverage of the so-called Birthers and the validity of Obama’s eligibility.
In part, Klein writes, “It seems this story is dead — because anyone who still is not convinced doesn’t really have a legitimate beef.” Klein asked CNN researchers to dig into the question of why Obama couldn’t produce the original birth certificate. The researchers contacted the Hawaii Health Dept. and confirmed that paper documents were discarded in 2001 when the department went paperless. That reportedly includes Obama’s original birth certificate.
If Klein’s statement is true, then this official statement, dated October 31, 2008, from state health director Dr. Chiyome Fukino is false:
“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
If what Klein says is true, Fukino is lying. If what Fukino says is true, Klein is lying. It’s one or the other, isn’t it?
Klein may be the king of the dung heap at CNN, but this story is far from dead.
The simple fact, that Klein, Chris Matthews, Brian Williams, John Stewart and even The New York Times, are addressing the eligibility issue on a daily basis now is clear evidence that the eligibility question is never, ever, going to go away. It will dog Obama until he goes back to Chicago — or releases his bona fides.
The Times writes, “Advocates of the issue, who are sometimes called Birthers, have succeeded in calling attention to themselves through frequent calls to talk radio shows, e-mail messages to news organizations and a videotaped question at a Congressional town hall. The Associated Press said that Obama’s citizenship status had been one of the most popular topics for the wire service’s ‘Ask AP’ column.”
A few months ago, Birthers numbered in the hundreds. Now, they number in the millions. Millions of Americans are demanding — “Obama, show us the birth certificate”
Unquote
Answer: * You are an Obama Fool *
Jim Byrne,
This natural born topic thread would not have ‘progressed’ without your input and I thank you for that. My best estimation is that you are not a coward, but your grandstanding departure here does not bode well for your cause or your reputation. Once before, I sided with you in a similar instance regarding your departure and there is no reason now why you should not return on your own, albeit your request for a special invitation was transparently pretentious. You are far from a troll and your comments elicit replies while other commenters’ requests stand idle and unanswered; that alone should demonstrate your contribution to this blawg.
At some point in any debate, one must concede or proclaim that—regardless of the debate’s ‘winners or losers’—sometimes a person simply has a ideology with which they cannot part and that appears to be your position. The *natural born U.S. citizen* question has been answered to my satisfaction and I am a champion of expressing contrary opinions and presenting contrary evidence—up to the point when such contradictory evidence becomes self-contradictory and no longer valid through its refutation by counteracts of sound logic, reasoning, and evidence.
When the 14th Amendment is fully considered, along with all of the other discussion and available evidence, I cannot understand why any reasonable person would not consider President Obama a natural born U.S. citizen unless such persons simply had a strong, unwavering bias against the man, irrespective of the facts. Although I voted for him, there are plenty of valid reasons to be upset without questioning his legitimate birthright.
Regarding the “piling on,” BV mall-wart is man enough to hang in there still and he has been putdown more times than a dirty plug nickel…
Jim I second FF Leo, What happened was you were trying to fight a gang, you were surrounded. I’ve been beat up here plenty of times. You were the one who pointed out to me that if you agree here your a good guy here, if you don’t, your a neocon, troll,ect ect. FFleo makes a good point about BVMall. Thats why I give BVMall plugs from time to time because he’s like the little kid that keeps getting pushed around. It would be nice if BVMall would write some comments, but hey, to each is own. Jim look at me and Mike S. Look at me and Buddah. I’ve told both sorry and I love you and in return, well, they still haven’t told me that they love me, but thats ok, maybe one day. Even Vince, which he won’t talk to me anymore, but thats O.K. I still love him. I get mad sometimes to. Bottom line Jim, if your waiting for JT to say please come back, forget it. Vince would be the only one he would do that to. Trust me, I already tested the waters on that one and JT let me know in no uncertain terms that thats his boy. Vince must send him apples. comeback Jimmy
Looks like Klein is backing off his earlier statements. Man this thing is like a huge Zit that’s gonna pop and oooze out everywhere. Now that cook PLANTED him self in the middle of this, and Judge Carter making his comments last week, I can just feel it. If I could squeeze it myself and make it pop I would.
Greg Sargent spoke with CNN’s president Jonathan Klein about Lou Dobbs, and the demands from some liberal groups that Dobbs be punished for giving airtime and credibility to birthers.
“Look, Lou’s his own show, and CNN in general has repeatedly and thoroughly reported on the facts behind this situation,” Klein said to me, adding that Lou had merely hosted “a few conversations with people representing a wide range of opinions.”
Klein said that Dobbs has repeatedly stated that he believes that Obama was born in Hawaii, and has simply been examining the “phenomenon that for some people this won’t go away.”
Asked if CNN is concerned that Dobbs’ repeated granting of airtime to theories the network has conclusively debunked amounts to overkill and could harm CNN’s credibility, Klein brushed off the possibility. “We respect our viewers enough to present them the facts and let them make up their own minds,” he said, adding that what Dobbs does is “his editorial decision to make.”
Hey Vince how bout a knock, knock, Joke
Knock, Knock
Who’s There?
Kenya
Kenya Who?
Kenya just show us the damn original birth certificate.
hahaha… good one.
May this thread never die. Its testament as a “living document” to the thrust-and-parry of blogging is invaluable…
Buddah, you say it’s about the rule of Law. Obama, just like Bush thinks he is above the law.
U.S. Transfers $200 Million In Violation of Anti-Terrorism Act
The Obama Administration has transfered $200 million directly to the Fatah PA in violation of the criteria of the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006.
The Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 has very specific criteria that the Palestinian Authority must be in compliance with in order to recieve any U.S. funding.
“U.S. Transfers $200 Million In Violation of Anti-Terrorism Act”
While you’re at it, why not mention the $3 Billion given in aid to Israel in violation of the law banning financial assistance to any country with nuclear missiles. At the bottom of all these acts is always some legal fiction that makes it OK. Remember, nearly all these people are lawyers.
It has been said that the president of MSNBC is playing the ‘race card’ on Obama’s ineligibility now and thus causing the babbling of Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann on the subject. This could explain why I don’t hear JT speaking on the merits of the eligibility case. MSNBC might give him the boot. And I don’t hear the big picture of the war crimes coming from MSNBC. They need to be discussing the Wars of Aggression too of which torture is a part. That road would lead to Obama’s door also.
Obama doesn’t need a birth certificate to be arrested for war crimes, mass murder, torture,maiming, fraud, forgery and many other crimes.
Hidflect, Thank you, while we here are in the worst financial crisis since the great depression we are giving money away while borrowing. Why not cut the middle man out and just say hey China could you give so and so some money for us, that way all we will owe you is the interest.
MSNBC and the rest of the mainstream media have suppressed the Truth about the U.S. Wars of Aggression and the Truth of Obama for years.
The U.S. Government and Obama have become the modern day Nazis.
BVM the Prof. has, in his own words has denounced the president.
Quote:
I supported Obama. However, he has abandoned not only campaign promises but basic principles of human rights and civil liberties in these policies. Democrats are showing the same cult of personality that destroyed the Republicans in their blind loyalty to George Bush.
The Obama Administration continues its retention and expansion of abusive Bush policies.
President Obama has already adopted or expanded many of the most controversial Bush policies on executive privilege, detainee treatment, termination of privacy lawsuit, and other matters. Now, he has adopted the identical position of Vice President Dick Cheney in seeking to withhold visitor logs to the White House. Unquote
These are just a few. So my overall take is Prof. Turley is a very fair man but he also understands that the baby needs new shoes.
While he may not show it on TV one day his conscience will prevail, give him time. Attitudes and Opinions are like the tides, they come and go.
From Orly Taitz Esq.
Selective Service certificate
Please visit my blog http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/ and read my dossiers in archives.
One important item in dossiers #1, 3 and 4, is a statement by the Federal agent Steven Hoffman, showing that there are multiple signs of forgery in Obama’s selective service certificate: a stamp, that is a wrong stamp for that year, a form number, that is wrong for the year, a date, which is wrong. On the top of the document the serial number starts with 08, which according to agent Hoffman typically means a year (meaning created in 2008), underneath in explanations there is an 8 added in front of the number and it looks like it was created in 1980, the year Obama was supposed to be registered for the service. Accompanying letter states that the registration was done in September, when Obama was thousands of miles away in Occidental college.
The icing on the cake is the fact that it supposed to be accompanied by a birth certificate, however the description says that no birth certificate was provided, which invalidates the document. If one is not properly signed for selective service, he is not eligible for work in the executive branch and of course presidency it the pinnacle of the executive branch – that means Obama is not eligible.
“Mike S. Look at me and Buddah. I’ve told both sorry and I love you and in return, well, they still haven’t told me that they love me,”
bdaman,
I know you did say you were sorry at one point, but you needn’t have been, we’ve both come at each other hard. I did acknowledge to you that I respected some of your views. I don’t remember though you specifically saying you loved me. It’s highly possible I missed that post because I get at least 50 E mails on a lax day regarding followup comments so I could have overlooked it.
There are people on this site that I love in a cyberspace way and Buddha is one of them. This is not about being in total agreement with him, because we have some areas where we strongly disagree. However, he is someone who shares similar views to mine and we’re both Sci-Fi fans and I love his sensibility. I’m flattered that you love me, but as I’m not insincere I can’t say I love you back. However, I do like you and I do respect some of your views which are concurrent with my own.
Why is like not translated into love then becomes a question I must in fairness answer. I am unfortunately a serious old fart and I do believe that the very concept of America and our Constitution are under attack by fascism and I don’t mean by President Barack Obama. Some of your views give what I see as aid and comfort to the enemies of the rule of Law and constitutional government. This is not about conservative and liberal because I also love FFLEO, the old coot, also in a cyberspace way. There is much we disagree on but if the real battle for this country ever materializes, he and I would be on the same side despite our political differences.
I’m really not sure if I could say the same for you, although I acknowledge that you are a good man. I can understand for instance your defense of Jim Byrne, because he does have some talents. BVM, however, to me has no redeeming value and basically is an agitator, for I know not what. You and I share similar cynicism about government in general, in the sense that the whole edifice can be corrupt, where we differ greatly is that I see you more accepting of it in the sense of “Well what can you do, that’s the way it always is and always was.” Now maybe I’ll concede I’m getting you wrong, but that’s my current view. As for me while I’ve seen more than enough to make me cynical I continue to adopt a hopeful, optimistic position because it gives me a reason to fight my ailments and to stay alive to fight for a better world, in what limited way I can. I also believe that one’s outlook can have a positive effect on ones physical condition and given my prognosis I lead a surprisingly full life.
From Orly’s site:
Obama’s illegitimacy to presidency is exploding on the Internet
STATS
July 26th, 2009
There are different web stats. Latest 7 day survey shows that out of over 20 million sites, this site to ranked 162,308, which means it is in the top 0.8%, less the 1%. It means that 99.2% of all the web sites in the world, many of which existed for years and years, have less traffic than this site, that exists only 3 months (my previous two sites were tampered with).
Another interesting piece of statistics is that readers spend on average 7 seconds on different sites. They typically scan. On this site they spend 3.2 minutes on average.
What it all means, is that the issue of Obama’s illegitimacy to presidency is exploding on the Internet, that Obama’s hired Nazi Brown shirts in the media. like Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Kitty Pilgrim, Geraldo Rivera and Jon Stewart cannot stop this avalanche. It is only the matter of time until there is a Senate and Congressional hearing, judicial determination of his illegitimacy and criminal investigation of ones that are aiding and abetting this massive fraud and treason. This includes our governmental officials, Democratic National committee, some members of Congress and Senate, law enforcement officials and judges and presidents and vice presidents of major networks as well as anchor men and reporters and talk show hosts, who intentionally defrauded American citizens.
How soon it will all happen, depends on each and every one of you: please go to the town hall meetings with each and every elected and appointed official, confront them and demand immediate judicial hearing and criminal investigation of Obama. Make signs and stand in front of the White House, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, FBI, Federal Buildings, Governor’s mentions, all the major media outlets. Blogging and talking is not enough. Get off the couch, bring some food and drinks with you, bring your i-pods and video cameras, bring all your friends from church, co-workers, relatives. More people demonstrate, more people confront officials and media – sooner we’ll end this nightmare.
Thank you Mike S and I love you not only in cyberspace but as a human being. This shows that two people can have disagreemnets, different points of view, different up bringings and at the end of the day still have civility. I hope that Jim B is lurking. Jim I love you to.
P.S. It was Jim, look at me and Mike S. look at me and Buddah
So bvm is now calling people Nazis.
Despicable.
The U.S. Government, Obama, many of mainstream media, et al have violated the same law used to prosecute and convict the Nazis at the Nuremberg Trials.
bdaman,
What Mike said. I don’t think you’re necessarily a bad guy, but you do espouse some really bad ideas at times. If side choosing comes? I could elaborate, but the essence of Mike’s response sums up my sentiments as well.
The mall is posting stuff calling named individuals in the media nazi brown shirts and making accusations of violations of Nuremburg law about private individuals who hold no govermental posts at all. All of those accusations are false and malicious and possibly legally defamatory.
It is my personal opinion that accusations like that do not belong on this site. They violate all rules of civility, are inflammatory, and do not contribute in any way to to the ongoing discussion.
I respectfully request that the sentence above including the words “hired Nazi Brown shirts” be deleted.
Mike S, BIL, gyges, well I watched the end of Torchwood, Children of Earth on BBC America, and I think for once TV nailed it – great SF, exciting like the first Star Wars, Alien and Aliens, and CE3K. SF does not always make it to the screen, but this time the have the writing, acting, sets, locations, music and direction, with a great first contact theme. It repeats today Sun. 7-26 from 2 to 8 on BBC America, and DVD and Blueray is on the way.
It is really very simple:
If they have conspired in violating the War Crimes laws as the Nazis did … you call them Nazis.
Vince,
Thank you. I’m heading to my DVR right now, since I was curious about, but missed the series. Good catch and in the nick of time for me. Done. With my wife out of town I have something to watch this evening.
bdaman writes: Klein said that Dobbs has repeatedly stated that he believes that Obama was born in Hawaii, and has simply been examining the “phenomenon that for some people this won’t go away.”
so this won’t go away and Dobb’s constant harping has no effect? Dobbs is a neutral guy reporting the phenomenon? if Dobbs decided to report real news this would go away. although maybe not. maybe because of Dobbs and others like him this thing now has a life of its own. and it isn’t a nice life. it doesn’t do anything to bring the country together and shouldn’t that be a goal?
anyway it isnt like there is a shortage of real news instead of this repulsive display of partisan sour grapes.
Vince,
I watched Torchwood CoE last night as well and I have to agree. Simply an excellent story, well played and produced. My respect for Russell Davies as a writer most certainly went up a notch and the usually strong Torchwood cast out did themselves. The 4-5-7 are an appalling adversary. Especially given that in terms of artifice they are a reflection of ourselves. This was every bit as good as E&M’s version of Battlestar Galactica and that is very high praise indeed. Dramatic, poignant, relevant scientifically and sociologically in theme, it is what every S/F series should be or at least aspire to become. It transcends genre. No tawdry pretender this. We as a species have a concept for this.
Art.
To All Involved in the making of Torchwood: Children of Earth:
Bravo. Well done one and all. My hat is off. This is a standing ovation.
lol
4-5-6
Bad fingers!
Buddah Got some learnin for ya over at the GW thread. You pointed out that I’m a slow learner, lets see how quick an old dog like you can learn new tricks.
FFLEO,
I sincerely appreciate your call for continued participation. However, this is JT’s bailiwick, and if he desires to have a child’s playground, where personal attacks and innuendo are considered acceptable behavior, that is his choice to make. My choice is not to play on that playground.
I have established a hotmail account, should anyone desire my opinion. The username is JBonJT. -I suggest than any who have a desire to setup an account of your own, in order to maintain anonymity.
As for the 14th Amendment securing your position –I just want to make sure that you are aware of the position taken by John Bingham (known as the architect of the first section of the 14th)
“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.” -March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.
The second part of that statement being that Congress has no authority to deny citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, whose parents are U.S. Citizens.
I suspect that Barack Obama Jr.’s original birth certificate contains information indentifying him as a British subject by virtue of his father’s status. Controlling English law for that period would have required such.
Per factcheck.org –http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html
”When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children:
British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.
In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.”
Make no mistake about it; Barack Obama Jr. had dual citizenship at birth. The BNA and the 14th Amendment both applied.
Can one born with dual citizenship be considered a “natural born citizen” of the U.S.? –I think John Bingham would object to such a proposal.
bdaman,
Keep up the good fight! I also appreciate your extension to remain.
Don’t expect to overcome political bias any faster than we have managed to overcome racial bias. The politics of today is the racism of yesterday. The slave-owners subconsciously knew the truth (that the color of one’s skin had nothing to do with one’s abilities), but were unwilling to acknowledge such because of the loss of power that would result. As you know, we have paid the price for too many years. Today, it is political power that blinds the activists. –Take notice of how Vince, after it was demonstrated that the COLB had not been validated by Hawaiian Officials (contrary to his earlier claims), wants everyone to recognize that it must be given full faith and credit. I would agree that a validated document should be given full faith and credit, but it is the validity of that document that must be resolved before doing so. –In addition, why rely on a generated copy when the original is reportedly in the vault? –Vince would tell you that a 1625 letter to the Pope is authentic, solely because it has an accompanying certificate of authenticity, while refusing to acknowledge that the certificate of authenticity could be forged. (Today, most COA’s have a holographic seal to help ensure authenticity) –Anything, originally generated by computer, can be generated by a skilled graphic artist)
BVM,
Keep posting the hyperlinks. Persistence overcomes resistance. -If I may suggest; try to stick to the topic. The war criminal suggestions only succeed in helping those that wnat to avoid the subject at hand to do so more easily.
I won’t be replying to any further comments, without JT’s intervention. FFLEO has been around the block a few times. I’m sure he’s aware that when an attorney represents a client, they do so to the best of their ability, regardless of the facts. Facts that hurt their case are avoided if possible. –Ask any attorney, on the record, about the scumbag landlord they are representing, and they’ll try to convince you their client is the best thing since sliced bread. Bias is part of their game…eventually, for some, it becomes part of their life.
Okay, Jim Byrne; thanks for the explanation. You must know that Prof. Turley does not read all of the thread comments; therefore, I suggest that you attempt to contact him directly to ensure that he is fully aware of your complaint.
Regardless of any ad hominem attacks—real or imagined—this topic has been very worthwhile.
bdaman,
I didn’t say slow.
I said “difficult”. Ask any teacher. They’ll be glad to explain the distinction, but it runs to flexibility of thought, not rate of retention or inability to reason. Different people learn in different ways. Had I meant slow I would have said slow. I didn’t mean to imply you can’t learn. There are plenty of people who can’t either from lack of capacity or lack of desire. I did not mean to imply you were either of those. However, it is also a psychological fact that some people have more difficulty changing their minds once made than others no matter what evidence or logic they are presented with that challenges these beliefs. Sometimes this state of thought remains fixed, sometimes it just takes longer to change, and then there is always the chance of epiphany. Manifestations of this can be as mild as ordinary obstinacy or as serious as a impairing learning disability or even debilitating delusional denial. I think you’re more toward the obstinate end of that scale. You have shown some evidence of being perhaps logic/evidence resistant, but not logic/evidence proof. For an example of the logic and evidence proof, BVM and some of the more egregious trolls that have been through here provide ample examples (in every meaning of the term example). If you were to take any other meaning for difficult as I used it, I can see how you took it as insult (as I suspected you would, hence my previous apology), then I again apologize.
I am unlikely to do so a third time given this clarification.
I see some people just can’t keep their word.
That says a lot about a person.
Oh no Buddah, my comment was in a fun southern country slang. Thats the problem with just words. Your explanation of, “it is also a psychological fact that some people have more difficulty changing their minds once made than others no matter what evidence or logic they are presented with that challenges these beliefs. Sometimes this state of thought remains fixed, sometimes it just takes longer to change, and then there is always the chance of epiphany”, is on point. Keep this in mind when you read over at the GW thread.
Buddha: “I didn’t mean to imply you can’t learn. There are plenty of people who can’t either from lack of capacity or lack of desire.”
Buddha, you should have used a semicolon:
I didn’t mean to imply you can’t learn; there are plenty of people who can’t either from lack of capacity or lack of desire.
Oops, does this belong on the new corrections page?
Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight: “Tell me I’m wrong baby! And I says ‘I can’t cause you’re not.’”
I discussed the issue of being born subject to any foreign power last year one of the Donofrio threads, retrievable with the term Donofrio in Search above. This will expand upon that treatment.
The note at the end of Bingham’s statement states “Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.” In legal scholarship, this means that the statement concerned Revised Statutes sec. 1992, the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The abbreviation “Cf” stands for “Confer,” a scholarly signal that the citation is not directly related, but can be compared. [law students, check the Blue Book]. So Bingham was talking about a different law, the Civil Rights Act, not the 14th Amaendment. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 differed from the 14th Amendment by including “not subject to any foreign power” and excluding Indians not taxed, while the 14th Amendment omits both.
Now, that Civil Rights Act, as codified in section 1992 of the Revised Statutes did say that all persons born in the U.S., and “not subject to any foreign power,” were citizens. Source: http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/expatriation-RS1999-1868.pdf
[scroll down to page 350].
But that phrase was omitted from the 14th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment was first introduced in the Senate on May 30, 1866, as an amendment to the resolution passed by the House. It read “All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” Senator Howard introduced the citizenship clause, and stated “every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” Howard later offered an amendment to include “or naturalized.”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11
Howard excluded persons born who were foreign and alien children of ambassadors. The courts have consistently held that ‘subject to the jurisdiction” requirement narrowly excludes children of diplomatic representatives, as well as children of alien enemies in hostile occupation. The debates were in conflict over the citizenship of children born of alien parents. Senator Cowan, who opposed the Amendment, objected to the inclusion of Chinese. Senator Conness had no objection to guaranteeing the American-born children of Mongolian parents civil rights and equal protection. The Supreme Court resolved any question conclusively in Wong Kim Ark.
John Bingham was a Representative at the time the 14th Amendment was adopted. The Citizenship clause was not a part of the House version of the proposed amendment when he made his statement on March 9. His remarks on March 9 concerned the Senate bill 61, “an Act to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights and furnish the means of their vindications,” which when enacted became the Civil Rights Act of 1866, codified as section 1992. He was not discussing the 14th Amendment, so his remarks are not part of its history and do not support its interpretation. Bingham’s statement had nothing to do with the 14th Amendment. He was describing the Civil Rights Act.
Source: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage
It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that a court will not interpret a law to include a provision that Congress had before it and expressly considered, and then did not include in the law. See, for example, the Steel Seizure Case,Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952). The President argued that he had authority to seize the steel mills in war time because of a national emergency, but the Court found that Congress had express considered this possibility and instead had enacted the Taft-Hartley Act, requiring the President to seek an 80 day cooling-off period injunction in federal court in cases of national emergencies.
Under this fundamental principle, the Wong Court declined to read back into the 14th Amendment a requirement which the Congress had expressly omitted.
Any one unhappy with the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark is free to bring a case to the Supreme Court urging its reversal, or to propose a constitutional amendment limiting birthright citizenship. The NY Times reported that the Republicans wanted to change the rule of birthright civlization in 1996.
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/07/us/citizenship-proposal-faces-obstacle-in-the-constitution.html?pagewanted=2
The Bingham statement is lovingly repeated all over the birther web. Anyone can google the words and find them. Once again, a quick paste-up of a quotation is palmed off as the scholarship of the putative author. Bingham does not provide any authority in the language or history of the 14th Amendment for the Donofrio theory of dual citizenship. The myth of Bingham’s authority is now engraved on their minds. But my analysis is here for any to follow.
The note at the end of Bingham’s statement states “Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.” In legal scholarship, this means that the statement concerned Revised Statutes sec. 1992, The Civil Rights Act of 1866. The abbreviation “Cf” stands for “Confer,” a scholarly signal that the citation is not directly related, but can be compared. [law students, check the Blue Book]. So Bingham was talking about the Civil Rights Act, not the 14th. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 differed from the 14th Amendment by including “not subject to any foreign power” and excluding Indians not taxed, while the 14th Amendment omits both.
Now, that Civil Rights Act, as codified in section 1992 of the Revised Statutes did say that all persons born in the U.S., and “not subject to any foreign power,” were citizens. But that phrase was omitted from the 14th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment was first introduced in the Senate on May 30, 1866, as an amendment to the resolution passed by the House. It read “All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” Senator Howard introduced the citizenship clause, and stated “every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
Howard excluded persons born who were foreigner and alien children of ambassadors. The courts have consistently held that ‘subject to the jurisdiction” requirement excludes children of diplomatic representatives, as well as children of alien enemies in hostile occupation. The debates were in conflict over the citizenship of children born of alien parents. Senator Cowan, who opposed the Amendment, objected to the inclusion of Chinese. Senator Conness had no objection to guaranteeing the American born children of Mongolian parents civil rights and equal protection. The courts have consistently held that intent of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was to exclude alien and foreign children of diplomatic representatives, as well as of alien enemies in hostile occupation. The Supreme Court resolved any question conclusively in Wong Kim Ark.
John Bingham was a Representative at the time the 14th Amendment was adopted. The Citizenship clause was not a part of the House version of the proposed amendment when he made his statement on March 9. His remarks on March 9 concerned the Senate bill 61, “an Act to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights and furnish the means of their vindications,” which when enacted became the Civil Rights Act of 1866, codified as section 1992. He was not discussing the 14th Amendment, so his remarks are not part of its history and do not support its interpretation. Bingham’s statement had nothing to do with the 14th Amendment. He was describing the Civil Rights Act.
It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that a court will not interpret a law to include a provision that Congress had before it and expressly considered, and then did not include in the law. See, for example, the Steel Seizure Case,Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952). The President argued that he had authority to seize the steel mills in war time because of a national emergency, but the Court found that Congress had express considered this possibility and instead had enacted the Taft-Hartley Act, requiring the President to seek an 80 day cooling-off period injunction in federal court in cases of national emergencies.
Under this fundamental principle, the Wong Court declined to read back into the 14th Amendment a requirement which the Congress had expressly omitted.
Any one unhappy with the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark is free to bring a case to the Supreme Court urging its reversal, or to propose a constitutional amendment limiting birthright citizenship. The NY Times reported that the Republicans wanted to change the rule of birthright civlization in 1996.
The Bingham statement is lovingly repeated all over the birther web. Anyone can google the words and find them. Once again, a quick paste-up of a quotation is palmed off as scholarship. Bingham does not provide any authority in the language or history of the 14th Amendment for the Donofrio theory of dual citizenship. The myth of Bingham’s authority is now engraved on their minds. But my analysis is here for any to follow.
I discussed the issue of being born subject to any foreign power last year one of the Donofrio threads, retrievable with the term Donofrio in Search above. This will expand upon that treatment.
Bob, Esq.
“Here is a lesson in creative writing. First rule: Do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you’ve been to college.” — Kurt Vonnegut
I have to disagree with Kurt.
To me, the semicolon is the 2000 Year Old Man’s nectarine of punctuation.
Half a peach, half a plum; it’s a hell of a fruit.
Here is the source for RS 1992
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/expatriation-RS1999-1868.pdf
[scroll down to page 350].
This is the source for Sen. Howard’s statement introducing the citizenship clause:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11
And here is Bingham, talking about the law, not the amendment, middle column, second full paragraph. Go to previous page for start of statement:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332
Hey Vince, now that you guys have succesfully ran Jim B off I dedicate this song to your discussion.
From http://www.WND.com:
“Obama’s birth certificate is not the only document at issue. WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.”
bvm has pasted up more junk from World Nut Daily. None of that stuff is relevant to the birth issue. He has no adoption records because he was not adopted, since he was born to and raised by his birth mother. None of the other so-called records are relevant to the birth issue. Does the Nut really believed that he does not have a passport?
In asking about law review articles, bv and bd should also be aware that the lead articles in the Harvard Law Review are written by professional lawyers and scholars, and only edited by the students, so that the primary role of the editor in chief is to edit, not write. Student-written material at Harv. L. Rev. (unlike Geo. Wash. L. Rev.) was unsigned for many years, so there is no public record of the student writings of many of the members of the law review staff.
So much ignorance and misinformation, so little time.
The Nut really has its pants in a knot now, because Ann Coulter — yes, that Ann Coulter — has dismissed the Obama birthers and their myths.
The latest from the reporters as Politifact.com, who have updated their coverage of the birther myths:
QUOTE ON: Obama’s birth certificate: Final chapter
By Amy Hollyfield
Published on Friday, June 27th, 2008 at 5:21 p.m.
UPDATE, July 2009: It’s been a year since we published this article, and Obama’s birth certificate is still the subject of much speculation. So on July 1, 2009, we published two Truth-O-Meter items exploring new aspects of the controversy. In one, we explored whether a White House spokesman lied when he claimed Obama’s birth certificate is actually posted on the Web, and the other one examined whether a bill in Congress would protect Obama from having to release his birth certificate.
Here’s our original story as published in June 2008:
SUMMARY: Since we published Obama’s birth certificate, questions about its authenticity have been frequent and fierce. After reviewing the evidence, we’re confident in our rulings.
….
On June 13, 2008, Obama’s campaign finally released a copy, while launching a fact-check Web site of its own, Fightthesmears.com. The site is a direct response to allegations about Obama that won’t go away: He’s Muslim. He took the oath of office on a Koran. He refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance. PolitiFact has researched all of these accusations and none of them are true.
When the birth certificate arrived from the Obama campaign it confirmed his name as the other documents already showed it. Still, we took an extra step: We e-mailed it to the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records, to ask if it was real.
“It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo told us. UNQUOTE
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
BTB. repeat: “It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” the Hawaiin state official said.
The COLB has been validated by state officials.
The story that “White House spokesman Robert Gibbs “lied” when he said President Obama’s birth certificate is posted on the Internet” is false. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/01/worldnethttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/daily/birthers-claim-gibbs-lied-when-he-said-obamas-birt/
It is a lie that a pending bill will prevent release of Obama’s birth certificate:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/01/chain-email/e-mail-claims-free-flow-information-act-would-prot/
BTB (BIRTHER/TROLL/Byrne) “Make no mistake about it; Barack Obama Jr. had dual citizenship at birth. The BNA and the 14th Amendment both applied. Can one born with dual citizenship be considered a “natural born citizen” of the U.S.? –I think John Bingham would object to such a proposal.”
If Bingham were alive. If Bingham were around, he would have to deal with the fact that his statement was about the Civil Rights Act of 1866, not the 14th Amendment.
The dual citizenship issue was discussed here last year, and shot down completely, on two Donofrio threads, retrievable with the term Donofrio in Search above. Leo went all the way to the Supreme Court on this one, when he was disguised in rock and roll clothes and dyed hair, and the Court turned him down last December.
Vince Treacy:
Do you believe Hitler was a good man?
Do you think he was born in Germany or Hawaii?
Vince:
Do you believe a mass murderer is a naughty person?
VALIDATION SHOULD BE PERFORMED BY A COURT NOT A WEBSITE
*******************************************************
This was posted on Saturday. Vince Treacy decided to ignore it. Today Vince Treacy makes another claim that the COLB has been validated by Hawaiian Officials.
From the Chicago Tribune
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/oct/30/nation/chi-birth-certificate-30-oct30
“Contacted Wednesday, Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo cited Hawaii state privacy laws and guidance from the state attorney general in saying she was not permitted to confirm the authenticity of the certificate released by the Obama campaign.
But she said it appeared similar to other Hawaii birth certificates.”
It appeared similar, but she WAS NOT PERMITTED TO CONFIRM THE AUTHENTICITY of the certificate released by the Obama Campaign.
Vince would have us all believe that the authenticity has been confirmed by the Hawaii Officials.
ONE MORE TIME
It appeared similar, but she WAS NOT PERMITTED TO CONFIRM THE AUTHENTICITY of the certificate released by the Obama Campaign.
bdaman writes Hey Vince, now that you guys have succesfully ran Jim B off I dedicate this song to your discussion.
no one ran Jim B off. he chose to leave.
“VALIDATION SHOULD BE PERFORMED BY A COURT NOT A WEBSITE”
See bdaman, Jim wasn’t run off, it’s just that his game was discovered and his nonsense debunked. Now he posts under birther, which is the first honest thing he’s written since he joined us. All the rest was posing and pretense.
Mike S.,
I am glad I read most of the stuff on my phone. When I see birther I can just skip and delete.
“Do you believe Hitler was a good man?”
BVM,
If someone like that would come back you would be goosestepping behind him, with your arm raised in a Nazi salute.
Only he wouldn’t be calling himself a National Socialist, but a Christian.
The circumstances are closing in on the traitor.
Orly’s new friends on Facebook: Eric Cantor, Republican whip, second ranked Republican congressman has joined congresswoman Mary Bono along with Benjamin Netanyahu.
From Orly:
To me it means that the leadership of the Republican party understands the importance of the issues and legal cases I brought forward. I hope more congressmen and senators join and either become additional plaintiffs or bring to the House and Senate judicial committee hearings the issues of Obama’s illegitimacy to presidency as well as suspected illegal activities by Obama and his supporters.
Chair of Republican National committee Michael Steele is now Orly’s friend on Facebook along with congresswoman Cynthia Lummis, WY
Obama the fascist and his minions will soon be arrested.
BTB: “I suspect that Barack Obama Jr.’s original birth certificate contains information identifying him as a British subject by virtue of his father’s status. Controlling English law for that period would have required such.”
BTB is now an erudite English solicitor and an expert on controlling English and Kenyan law in 1961? Ha!
Although BVM is usually thorough in presenting his laundry list of missing documents, I note that in his recent posts he has failed to mention the president’s high school basketball stats and his immunization records. Do we know for certain that Pres. Obama was vaccinated against small pox? Do we as a nation really want to take the risk of small pox in the White House?
BTB is cropping those quotes again:
Q Chicago Tribune
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Obama birth certificate rumor debunked
By James Janega
October 30, 2008
A persistent rumor circulated by opponents of Barack Obama in recent weeks questions the authenticity of his birth certificate from Hawaii, despite the fact that the Obama campaign debunked the rumor in June.
In the Tribune’s political blog “The Swamp” last week, reporter Mark Silva produced a copy of Obama’s birth certificate and addressed the birthplaces of both presidential candidates.
Sen. John McCain, Silva wrote, “was born to American parents, his father serving as a submariner in the U.S. Navy at the Coco Solo base in the Panama Canal Zone when and where young John Sidney McCain III was born. Barack Hussein Obama II – and yes, he actually has joked that he got his middle name from people who never thought he’d be running for president – was born in Hawaii, in 1961, and has a birth certificate to show for it.”
Conservative critics have suggested that Obama may have been born outside the U.S. and is not a “natural born citizen” eligible for the presidency. But they present no evidence that he was born anywhere other than Hawaii.
In June, the Obama campaign released an electronic copy of the certificate bearing the seal of the State of Hawaii Department of Health and showing that Barack Hussein Obama II was born to mother Stanley Ann Dunham in Honolulu at 7:24 p.m. on Aug. 4, 1961.
Contacted Wednesday, Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo cited Hawaii state privacy laws and guidance from the state attorney general in saying she was not permitted to confirm the authenticity of the certificate released by the Obama campaign.
But she said it appeared similar to other Hawaii birth certificates.
“It looks exactly the same as my own birth certificate,” Okubo said. UQ
BTB very conVEEENiently omitted the part that said it looked “exactly the same as” her own birth certificate.
Read the article. The rumor was debunked.
BTB has been debunked.
Orly currently is representing approx. 170 military members including commissioned officers in a lawsuit to force Barrack Obama to produce his birth cirtificate, proving that he is eligible to hold the position of President.
It is legal to dissent, resist, and disengage from two illegal, immoral wars, in hopes many others will follow their example.
Obama is NOT the president. Obama is NOT the Commander of the Military.
Birther’s insistence that validation should be by a court and not a website illustrates one of the great fallacies common to all birther complaints, the view that they have created a justiciable controversy. If they can ever figure out how to actually plead a cause of action, Birther might have a point. But if they are going to continue to pin their legal hopes on scholars of the caliber of Orly Taitz, they will suffer continual disappointment.
Perhaps Birther could also clarify the irony in his belief that websites are not appropriate forums for settling what he believes to be a bona fide controversy, but are nevertheless credible sources for establishing that a bona fide controversy exists at all.
Vince, thanks again for your citations. I don’t know where you’re finding the time, but I certainly appreciate your efforts. I now know more about John Bingham than I ever actually cared to know.
I agree that it is legal to dissent, resist and disengage from three illegal wars. I also agree that people have a right to challenge Obama’s status as president in a court of law and to state their case in a public forum. I never believed GWB was legally president. This belief was shored up by examinations of actual vote counts and voting fraud that took place in 2004 here in Ohio. BVM, I think you’re arguments have been refuted here, but I do not challenge your right to maintain them or try to prove your case in a court of law. I think Orly is completely mistaken to hitch herself to the Republican party. Our illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were begun by Bush and Cheney, who are not known Democrats. To believe that the Republican party is for truth and justice is naive and factually mistaken.
There are MANY dems, repubs. and independents wanting Obama arrested. His crimes will be addressed by all political parties
Hopefully this will lead into war crimes prosecutions with new administration. First let’s go after the most prominent mass murderer – OBAMA.
Mike A: I’m beginning to wonder where Vince gets the time as well, I’m hot on the trail.
Vince I took your advice, are you sure CF means confer
Most of you know I like to quote Mahatma Ganhdi here’s one
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Vince,
Thank you for your continuing scholarship. You have compiled enough debunking material to write a book and a very instructive one it would be. Also, thank you for making my night alone last night so enjoyable. By cluing me into Torchwood in the Afternoon/evening. Watched it all last night, sans commercials, since after your tip I DVR’d it. Fabulous and what’s more I find myself still thinking about it and the issues it raises today. How come the Brits do science fiction so well and we Americans screw it up by focusing more on special effects than plot?
BVM, actually the most prominent “mass murderers” according to your definition of that phrase are Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. Had you been equally vehement during their administrations, you might have actually had some credibility.
BVM,
How do you respond to the claim that Orly Taitz is not a natural born US citizen, or perhaps an illegal alien? Have you noticed her accent? Why would you be so anxious to follow the lead of a suspected foreign terrorist? Have you seen her birth certificate, law degree or real estate license? While we’re at it could you post your birth certificate and inoculations record on your website? How do we know that you are not a legal US citizen, not a mid Eastern terrorist and not trying to infect this country with strange diseases? While we’re at it why is it that you never reply in any sense to the work here of Vince, Mike A, or SBF, that have proved you wrong? I think you seriously need to look into the fact that you might not be a real human being, but a computer program on some foreign server.
You might not even be a real person, but a good piece of software.
More legal nonsense from BTB, Leo and Orly legal chocolat factory of misguided lost causes, this time the notion that a “quo warranto” can be brought against the President.
Per wiki, quo warranto functioned as a court order or writ to show proof of authority, for example, by demanding that someone acting as the sheriff prove that the king had actually appointed him to that office. It literally meant “By whose warrant are you the sheriff?”
The D.C. Code has a law on this in Title 16, 3501. “A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.” (Dec. 23, 1963, 77 Stat. 602, Pub. L. 88-241, § 1; July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 562, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 145(n).)
The problem for the birthers is that the AG has to ask for the writ: “The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion or on the relation of a third person.” 16-3502. Of course, an interested person can apply to the court for the writ if the AG declines. 16-3503. The court can order the office holder ousted and excluded. 16-3545.
It may leap out at the reader that this stuff must be filed in the District of Columbia, but this did not stop Orly, who filed her motion in the CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA!! Huh! Oh, she said, D.C. Federal Judge Robertson would not let her file because SHE WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE DC BAR. None of the tens of thousands of lawyers admitted in DC could be found to be co-counsel. So she filed a motion in California?
The next part is that the AG must file for the writ. To say the least, it would appear that General Holder might be somewhat reluctant to take this step. So also for anyone else at Justice, or, for that matter, anyone who is not out of his or her Vulcan mind. Some of the birthers have by-passed this. None have yet come up with sufficient facts to get anywhere.
And they are not going to.
This DC law may apply to a lot of lower public officials, but it has no application whatsoever to the President, because it is completely inconsistent with and contrary to the impeachment provisions of the Constitution, and the Constitution, not the DC Code, is the supreme law of the land.
Art II, Sec. 4, says that the President “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” That’s it. Removal is by impeachment. Write your Member of Congress. Now Leo, ever observant, has said that the clause does not say that the President can be removed “only” by impeachment. Tough luck, Leo! Article I, sec. 20 says that the House has the “sole Power of Impeachment.” That is “sole” as in “only” and “exclusively” to all readers for whom English is not their third or fourth language.
Impeachment is defined as the accusation that a public official should be removed from office, and the official is removed if convicted after a trial of impeachment. Impeachment is the means of removal, and only the House can propose the removal of an officer by impeachment.
So quo warranto is another forlorn, frivolous, and fantastic avenue of relief for the demented birther legal theorists.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th ed. 1968, p.289 defines “Cf.” as abbreviated form of latin “confer,” compare. Directs reader’s attention to another part of the work, case, volume, etc where contrasted, analogous or explanatory views or statements may be found.
Vince T., I will be surprised if Orly Taitz is not sanctioned by the court when it dismisses the quo warranto petition. It is a legally frivolous pleading and she either knows, or should know, that she is seeking the wrong remedy in the wrong court. I suggest that birthers will need to make additional contributions to her to cover this.
The U.S. Constitution DOES NOT state that the only method of removal of the President is by impeachment. The Constitution only restricts impeachment to the House.
A Petition for Quo Warranto may be filed by a third party ONLY after the AG refuses.
Has a petition been present to the AG?
http://defendourfreedoms.org/AttorneyGeneralwarranto.htm
If the petition was filed in the wrong venue the remedy is to transfer not dismiss.
Look .. There is Mike the Foolish Jew wearing a swastika.
Black’s
QUO WARRANTO.
In old English practice. .A. writ. in the nature of a writ of right for the king against him who claimed or usurped any office, franchise, or liberty to inquire by what authority he supported his claim in order to determine the right.
It lay also in case of non-user, or long neglect of a franchise, or misuser or abuse of it; being a writ commanding the defendant to show by what warrant he exercises such a franchise having never had any grant of it, or having forfeited it by neglect or abuse. BI. Comm. 262.
In England, and quite generally throughout the United States this writ has given place to an information in the nature of a quo warranto,” which, though in form a criminal proceeding, is in effect a civil remedy similar to the old writ, and is the method now usually employed for trying the title to a corporate or officer franchise, or to a public or corporate office.
BVM,
Will you post videos that equate Bush/Cheney and the young people who believe in them to Hitler and Hitler youth? As Mike A. pointed out, Bush and Cheney would be war criminals under your definition. Are you consistent enough in your philosophy to post these videos to this site? I’m certain they exist and I would like to know if you are serious about challenging war crimes or only a partisan hack.
Personally I see no need to bring Hitler into the discussion at all. However, if you have integrity of belief you will post the same videos aimed at Bush/Cheney and their young supporters. Let’s see if you do.
Birther, if you actually practiced law instead of simply pretending to know something about it, you would recognize that intentionally misfiling a petition because one is not admitted to practice in the court in which the petition should properly be filed is a sanctionable matter. Ms. Taitz could have retained counsel to file properly and submitted a motion for admission pro hac vice. She has continued to ignore rules of procedure, as well as substantive law, wasting court time and causing unnecessary attorneys’ fees to be incurred. In addition to authority under the rules, a judge has inherent authority to sanction lawyers for procedural abuse. The judiciary has exercised extraordinary patience with Ms. Taitz.
“QUO WARRANTO.
In old English practice. .A. writ. in the nature of a writ of right for the king against”
birther,
What’s this nonsense about quoting English Law? What does Monsieur Vattel has to say. He’s the real authority?
Vattel’s Law of Nations, Book I, Section 51
“If the authority of the prince is limited and regulated by the fundamental laws, the prince, on exceeding the bounds prescribed him, commands without any right and even without a just title: the nation is not obliged to obey him, but may resist his unjust attempts. As soon as a prince attacks the constitution of the state, he breaks the contract which bound the people to him; the people become free by the act of the sovereign, and can no longer view him but as a usurper who would load them with oppression.”
“Look .. There is Mike the Foolish Jew wearing a swastika.”
Unlike you I’m a loyal American citizen and not an Islamic Traitor/Terrorist like you. Why won’t you show your birth certificate and why do you hide under a pseudonym for a bankrupt money making scheme? Why do you hate America?
From Buena Vista Mall Website:
“We are an activist music company involved with getting broad publication of “The Truth about God”, ending the war, abolition of death penalty, free universal healthcare, stopping – big money control of the media / corporate corruption and we are working for a fair music market. Also, we only wish to market the best music available with emphasis on intelligent lyrics and betterment of society.”
How would you know what are intelligent lyrics?
What music have you published?
Who are your real backers, since you support Orly Taitz, whose backed by Republicans?
Buena Vista Mall is in truth a traitorous front organization claiming to be activists, when all they are is paid propagandists, in the pay I think of Satanists. They are the tools of the Dark One and no doubt representatives of the
Anti-Christ.
It is quite telling that a website that purports to be a record company, made up of musicians, list within it no names of musicians, no records made, no jingles or any other accomplishments. Yet with no indication of any accomplishments they requests donations. Real companies or non-profits don’t do that. You are just some young man or woman who put up a website, expressing deranged views and who has no accomplishments in life to speak of. You musical instrument is probably the Kazoo, or maracas. Then again you may be a front organization for Satan and his backers. No one will ever know because you are unwilling to share true information, that you think others are required to share. As usual with you BVM, you just can’t cut it.
All here, especially the lawyers should read Orly’s letter for a good laugh. In includes this little gem: “With respect, in absence of such guidance, Relators will proceed to request leave from the Supreme Court to relate information for this Quo Warranto on Mr. Obama to test his title.” Run that one through the translating computer again.
For law students, Orly’s letter is a good lesson, since it shows how not to do something in a manner that borders on malpractice, and shows that nothing is totally worthless, because it can always be a bad example for someone else.
Proof of possible malpractice? The statute clearly says that the remedy for the failure of the AG to act is not to appoint a special prosecutor, or to request leave from the Supreme Court, but to file with the District Court. Repeat for the West Coast: FILE WITH THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Quote § 16-3503. Refusal of Attorney General or United States attorney to act; procedure.
If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person on his compliance with the condition prescribed by section 16-3502 as to security for costs.
Except that Orly cannot file in the District Court for D.C. because she is not a member of the D.C. Bar, has been refused permission to file pro hac vice, and cannot find co-counsel. Unquote.
The military relators should immediately consult their JAG lawyers, or private counsel experienced in military law, for advice on how badly they are being represented, in order to preserve their military careers.
BIRTHER TROLL BOYLE clearly has no concern for the military personnel involved in this farcical application for a writ, for anyone truly concerned with their welfare would have long since advised them walk away from Orly and to seek independent counsel, as did Leo Donofrio to his credit.
All military personnel, consult JAG or independent counsel BEFORE getting caught up in birther nonsense.
If anyone is concerned about this issue, the proper, protected avenue to eapress concern is to write to your Member of Congress.
Vince Treacy,
As the self-proclaimed authority on all things law related, can you tell us what law these military members have or will have violated?
Do you need a link to the UCMJ?
Are Reservists subject to Courts Martial?
Are retired officers subject to Courts Martial?
Are you the uneducated nimrod we see on the eveining news making wild claims that somebody broke a law that never existed?
BVM writes: It is legal to dissent, resist, and disengage from two illegal, immoral wars, in hopes many others will follow their example.
tell ya what…. do this…. buy a bus ticket to Washington DC, take your guns and a copy of your birth certificate and go to the White House. Try to get into the Oval Office. Use force if necessary and be sure to keep screaming that it is legal to dissent and resist and that Obama is not the president.
we won’t see you back here any time soon after that but your name will be in the newspapers and all over the TV machine and you will be famous for about a day. then you will disappear and so will everyone else who thinks that Obama is not really president because he doesn’t have the kind of birth certificate you think he ought to have.
Birther, your last reference to Vattel provides good advice for a monarchy. Although the distinction could easily have been forgotten during the Bush-Cheney years, we still live in a republic, at least nominally.
Birther T. Boyle says “The U.S. Constitution DOES NOT state that the only method of removal of the President is by impeachment. The Constitution only restricts impeachment to the House.”
That is from Donofrio. The Constitution provides for removal by impeachment by the House and trial and conviction by the Senate. The House not only has the “sole” Power of Impeachment, but the Senate has the “sole” power to try all impeachments and to remove officers by conviction by two thirds of the Senators present. If the President is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside. The framers used the word “sole” twice in the same Article on the same subject to make themselves clear.
It is nonsense to think that this constitutional process for removal of the President, with the oversight of the Chief Justice of the United States, may be by-passed by a single District Court judge. BTB, Esquire, keeps painting himself into smaller and smaller legal corners.
Why didn’t they use the word “sole” in Art. II, sec. 4? Think about it. That article applies to the President, Vice President and “all civil officers of the United States.” The President, Vice President, and Judges and Justices of the courts have tenure and may only be removed by impeachment. Other civil officers, such as cabinet members, serve at the will of the President and can be removed at any time for any reason. But they can also be removed by Congress by impeachment if they are corrupt and the President refuses to fire them. That is why article II does not use the word “sole” and why impeachment is the sole means of removal for the President, Leo.
So, BIRTHER BOYLE, give them your phone number and bar membership number and advise them yourself.
BVM: “Look, Mike the Foolish Jew…”
Man, where the fuck do you get off tracking that kind of filth into the Professor’s house?
When I retired I stated at my retirement luncheon that ‘yesterday was the last day I had to deal with crazy people and talk to them as if the had something to say.’ I stay away from discussions started by crazy people and it’s why a thread like this has little interest to me. Not being a lawyer and actually having to deal daily with the long-term implications of every jot and tittle in a law, decision, its precedents or intent as elaborated in the founders documents I can just use the short form of assessment: sore losers.
Birthers are just the current public incarnation of the racist, sexist, fundamentalist, hard right base of the Republican party. If any white man (short of Arnold Schwarzenegger) had won the election this thread nor the larger discussion wouldn’t even be taking place. Sore losers.
Then, to top it off, you use the last refuge of a foundation-less argument: name calling of the most base sort. Shame on you.
And to think I actually had to read about 2/3s of this thread to see if there was some rational explanation for the reference; some posted literary or historic reference that may have given it context as irony or farce… you wasted my time (Not that some of it wasn’t interesting.) just to get me back to my departure point. Sore losers. Bah, humbug.
“If the authority of the prince is limited and regulated by the fundamental laws,”
Jimmy boy,
The pretend ex-military man couldn’t care less about the risk these officers face to their careers, because he himself has never served, but lied about it to give him more authority. He is also showing himself to be the behind sniffer of plutocrats, by continuing to quote a man whose very career depended on being supported by the aristocracy, a disciple of a greater man who was also supported by aristocrats, as influential on the Founding Fathers, who opposed aristocracy and threw off its’ bounds.
“Are you the uneducated nimrod we see on the eveining news making wild claims that somebody broke a law that never existed?”
Ah, nimrod nice word, there Jimmy boy, get it from your Thesaurus to give your nonsense the sheen of intellectuality?
What makes you such a joke is that by calling Vince that you are showing the defense mechanism of projection, because in your deepest recesses you know you’re really writing about yourself and your leaders the Taitz/Donofrio combine. Let me explain projection for you since you are so not self-aware that it might be a hard concept for you to get.
Projection is when you loath a characteristic in yourself and so imagine (project) that it is the characteristic of others who you deem yourself inferior to. It builds you up, while you attempt to take another down a peg, when you know in fact the other is better than you. Fake names, fake personal history, fake arguments combined with a tendency to lie. You are one really sick puppy, down on BVM’s level and awash in neurotic self-hatred that you can’t resolve. Get help birther
boy, I recommend Cognitive Behavioral Therapy which is highly effective with self-loathing, obsessive neurotics. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
lottakatz,
I agree with you. The response from BVM crosses the line.
Who started it?
“Mike Spindell
1, July 27, 2009 at 9:35 am
“Do you believe Hitler was a good man?”
BVM,
If someone like that would come back you would be goosestepping behind him, with your arm raised in a Nazi salute.
Only he wouldn’t be calling himself a National Socialist, but a Christian.”
If Mr. Spindell opens the door he should expect like responses.
Even Republicans are running from the nonsense. On the Hill, GOPers Vaughn and Inhofe are not birthers –
From FireDogLake: QO Mike Stark has been up on the Hill all week …and in his spare time, he decided to ask Republicans if Barack Obama was born in the United States. Not only do they not want to answer — they run.
He asks Republicans Tom Price, Thaddeus McCotter, Jeff Fortenberry, Charles Boustany, Aaron Schock, Greg Harper, Mike Coffman and others what they think. Tim Murphy hides, looking at pens for 20 minutes to try and avoid him.
Mike and Brave New Films cameraman Brett Vauhn finally got Arizona congressman Trent Franks to admit without equivocation that Obama was born in the United States, and that his birth certificate is valid. UQ http://firedoglake.com/2009/07/27/mike-stark-on-capitol-hill-know-your-birthers/
“Another reporter asked Inhofe spokesman Jared Young whether the Senator questions Obama’s legitimacy as President. He answered:
“No. His focus is on issues.” http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/breaking-inhofe-does-not-question-obamas-legitimacy-as-president/
Vince writes: rom FireDogLake: QO Mike Stark has been up on the Hill all week …and in his spare time, he decided to ask Republicans if Barack Obama was born in the United States. Not only do they not want to answer — they run.
He asks Republicans Tom Price, Thaddeus McCotter, Jeff Fortenberry, Charles Boustany, Aaron Schock, Greg Harper, Mike Coffman and others what they think. Tim Murphy hides, looking at pens for 20 minutes to try and avoid him.
Mike and Brave New Films cameraman Brett Vauhn finally got Arizona congressman Trent Franks to admit without equivocation that Obama was born in the United States, and that his birth certificate is valid
well then, there you are. sane people are everywhere…even congress.
BIRTHER/Jimmy boy,
Do you really believe that BVM asked me the Hitler question without the knowledge I was Jewish? You really are a schmuck, aren’t you?
BuenaVistaMall.com
1, July 27, 2009 at 9:03 am
Vince Treacy:
Do you believe Hitler was a good man?
Do you think he was born in Germany or Hawaii?
Glory Hallelujah! Birther/Jimmy boy finally got one right. Yes I was wrong it was addressed to Vince and I interceded. My bad. The difference though between you and me though birther boy, is when I’m proven wrong I acknowledge it, that’s the difference between an adult and a child.
From http://www.repubx.com
By JB Williams Monday, July 27, 2009
Division in the Ranks
Today, I report that four more have filed “treason” charges against Obama, similar to that filed by Commander Fitzpatrick last March.
Richard M. Keefner of Illinois, retired Marine Gy Sgt. Bob Pinkstaff, retired Marine Sgt. Phillip Wolf and retired Marine Colonel Edward Schriber, have all filed formal criminal charges of “treason” against presumed president Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro. Copies of their charges can be viewed here: riseupforamerica.com
An increasing number of soldiers are refusing Obama orders for recall and deployment. Obama is indeed losing control of the US Military. Above all other Americans, the men and women who volunteer and proudly take an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution by serving in the US Military, have a right to know without any doubt, that their orders are legal and constitutional.
BVM,
Private citizens cannot file criminal charges. Retired Sgts. are private citizens.
I am reading the charges have been filed.
http://www.uscourts.gov/UFC99.pdf
Page 30
“How do I file a criminal case?
Individuals may not file criminal charges in federal courts. A criminal proceeding is initiated by the government, usually through the U.S. attorney’s office in coordination with a law enforcement agency. Allegations of criminal behavior should be brought to the local police, the FBI, or other appropriate law enforcement agency.”
BVM, with whom have the “charges” been filed? With the Citizen’s Grand Jury in Georgia?
It doesn’t matter the damage is done. FEMA NLE 09 is underway. This year the United States welcomes the participation of Australia, Canada, Mexico and the United Kingdom in NLE 09. The NLE 09 scenario will begin in the aftermath of a notional terrorist event outside of the United States, and exercise play will center on preventing subsequent efforts by the terrorists to enter the United States and carry out additional attacks.
I think they are practicing at the border, my bad it’s still open. Then they must be practicing for attacks from right wing extremist, my bad again t-parties are over.
HHUMM why the participation of foreign troops in a FEMA/Homeland Security event. Could understand if it was a military exercise. Any thoughts BVM
The on again off again Donofrio is on again going off again about Obama is Guilty on at least two counts of false swearing. When was that trial. It’s the first i heard of it.
Hey BVM can answer this, If Pakistan attacked Turkey from the rear, would Greece help?
It looks like they are all retired and filing federal treason charges.
http://www.riseupforamerica.com/newtreasoncomplaints.html
Oh and If they did should they file charges against the Pakinanny Prime minister as a war criminal and then charge him with treason.
I hear Obama has been praying alot lately. I can only imagine it goes like this. Please don’t arrest me, please don’t arrest me Amen.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1201905/Obama-I-used-pray-night–I-pray-ALL-time-devotionals-BlackBerry.html;jsessionid=BD2A9B803E9BE16860ADE19DBD01E9E8
Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the lord the White House I keep. And if ther is a Coupe before I awake, I pray it’s a Deville for Michelle’s sake.
I have just reviewed the criminal complaints on riseupforamerica.com. Unless the complainants are completely unhinged, a possibility I do not rule out, the complaints fall into the category of libel per se. The U.S. attorney will place them in a nutcase folder and nothing more will be heard about them. The complainants in the meantime can periodically squeeze into their faded uniforms and participate in tea parties and White Citizens’ Council rallies.
Mike thanks for taking the time to review it. How does it fell knowing you wasted it.
Being a birther is the political equivalent of having a superfluous nipple – amusing but ultimately of no consequence as it’s useless. As in non-functional. A pretend nipple. As the Germans would say, a Nippleganger.
You boys want to meet the Tooth Fairy? I can arrange it for a modest fee. In fact, for such a discriminating and intelligent customer base, I’d be glad to offer all my pimping services for any imaginary character in public domain. A Mall is a great place for that kind of business.
Then perhaps I could interest you in a bridge. It’s in New York. Slightly used, but I’ll give you a discount.
If any of you are scared of the monster under your bed, don’t worry, he’s just as real as your ridiculous claims. I can also arrange a meeting with him for a small fee, but I warn you now. He’s not a birther. He thinks you guys are imaginary characters. He refuses to believe humans can be this stupid in the face of evidence and the law in a matter that the SCOTUS found so ridiculous, it passed on granting cert. I keep telling him that humans are far stupider than he gives credit, but just keeps telling me I don’t know enough gnomes. So I told him, “Yeah, but I do know some trolls.”
‘Nighty night, all the little childrens in birther-land. You need to get some sleep. Tomorrow is New Dead Horse Day. It’s traditional that you find another one to beat. This one has had it.
Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution:
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Obama has not waged war against the United States, nor adhered to their enemies, nor given them aid and comfort, and anyone who says so is a liar, and as noted, possibly committing libel.
No treason within the meaning of the Constitution has happened. The so-called complaints are incoherent and illiterate, have no basis in fact or law, and not one of them even mentions any statutory or constitutional definition of treason. They are the product of total ignorance.
No wonder bvm posts these links anonymously.
So just kindly shut up with these hate-filled potentially libelous charges. They are turning this thread into a hate site. The bvm can post anything it wants on its own site.
You know . . . treason.
That thing Bush Co. did by protecting the nation that attacked us on 9/11 (his family business partners) by subverting our military for their personal private gain by attacking not only a third country that not only didn’t attack us, but acted as a check on Iran.
9/11 was manned by Saudis. Paid for by Saudis. Operated by Saudis from bases in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the region.
And Bush Co. protected them. They even used our resources to whisk many of the Saudis, including Bin Laden relatives, out of the country as quickly as possible after the attacks.
You know . . . providing material aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States during a time of war.
Yeah.
Treason.
There’s plenty of room for talking about treason.
If BVM gets himself sued in the process, that’s just gravy.
Buddah Bush didn’t protect them, he assisted them in thier efforts. You of all people as edumacated as you are especially in relations to the suns activity should know this. Some men you just can’t reach
http://www.voltairenet.org/article160636.html
I wholeheartedly encourage the U.S. Military to dissent, resist, and disengage from the two illegal, immoral wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Obama is NOT the president. He was not elected legally. He is a warmonger / war criminal, mass murderer, traitor and guilty of many other crimes. The right and duty of the military and
all authorities is to arrest him and remove him from office.
TO THE U.S. MILITARY:
———————
OBAMA’S ORDERS ARE ILLEGAL. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW ILLEGAL ORDERS. IT IS YOUR OBLIGATION TO RESIST.
CNN wrong once again – birth record not destroyed – Hawaii contradicts network boss’ claim that Obama certificate no longer exists
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily http://www.WND.com
Directly contradicting CNN chief Jon Klein – who ordered host Lou Dobbs to quit discussing President Obama’s birth certificate – the Hawaii Department of Health affirmed that no paper birth certificates were destroyed when the department moved to electronic record-keeping.
“I am not aware of any birth certificate records that have been destroyed by the department,” Janice Okubo, public information officer for the Hawaii DOH, told WND. “When the department went electronic in 2001, vital records, whether in paper form or any other form, [were] maintained. We don’t destroy records.”
more at WND.com
Buddah writes: Being a birther is the political equivalent of having a superfluous nipple – amusing but ultimately of no consequence as it’s useless. As in non-functional. A pretend nipple. As the Germans would say, a Nippleganger.
I am so glad you are back
BVM did you buy your bus ticket to DC yet? clean and oil your guns? pack your map from the bus station to the white house? plan how you are going to break into the oval and force the president to submit to citizen’s arrest? what are you wasting time on this blog for when there is real work for you to do?
BVM Vince has already told you the only one Obama can give he has produced. Hawaii has Obama’s original certificate, it was personally seen and verified by Dr.Fukino. It can not be seen by anyone else. No one can see it, it’s a secret. Hawaii won’t even allow Obama to see it. Why don’t you get it?
Is a copy of a Van Gogh worth more than the original? No, but as long as nobody knows it’s a copy it’s priceless. SHHHHHH
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17727971/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-37-Defendants-Reply-to-Plaintiffs-Opposition-Brief-to-Defendants-MTD
If military people disobey orders because of bvm, where can they reach it afterwards when they face the consequences?
bvm is fiction. It has no name, address, phone number or birth certificate. Anyone in the military who follows it’s advice will be left holding the bag. They will have nothing to turn to but a url.
Military people are smart, too smart to heed a mall, especially when the power behind the mall spews hatred and lies, but is too cowardly to show its face or identify itself.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, and no attention at all to whatever is behind the mall.
Do not take advice from a mall.
Corsi is a swift boater writing for the Nut, a site paid for by a millionaire that openly solicits funds from birther nuts.
Here is a real newspaper report. Read it for yourselves.
The director of the Department of Health in Hawaii has personally seen the original vital records verifying that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Hawaii has officially verified that Obama was born in Hawaii.
That should explode the birth certificate myth. The birthers are now free to move around the galaxy with Leo’s flimsy little legal theory that Obama was a dual citizen, a theory discredited here last year before the Supreme Court shot it down.
QO Updated at 2:57 p.m., Monday, July 27, 2009
Obama Hawaii born, insist Isle officials
By Dan Nakaso
Advertiser Staff Writer
In an attempt to quash persistent rumors that President Obama was not born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961, Hawai’i’s health director reiterated this afternoon that she has personally seen Obama’s birth certificate in the Health Department’s archives.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai’i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago….”
On Oct. 31, Fukino originally tried to put an end to the belief among so-called “birthers” that Obama was not born in the United States and thus was ineligible to run for the office of president.
Despite Fukino’s statement today, the issue continued to resonate from Capitol Hill to the national airwaves to the blogosphere.
A congressional resolution introduced by Hawaii Rep. Neil Abercrombie commemorating the 50th anniversary of Island statehood was postponed today apparently because of a “whereas” clause noting Obama’s Hawaii birthplace.
The line “Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961;” has been construed by some who believe Obama is not a U.S.-born citizen as a thinly veiled attempt to get Congress to affirm Obama’s U.S. citizenship.
So-called “birthers” denounce the notion that Obama was born in Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961, despite court rulings and statements by Fukino and Hawaii’s Republican governor, Linda Lingle.
Abercrombie’s office had already issued a statement today announcing the House’s unanimous approval of Abercrombie’s resolution when Minnesota Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann rose today to object to the vote, saying there was not a quorum present.
Before Bachman’s objection, Abercrombie spokesman Dave Helfert had said some birthers believe the resolution “means the House of Representatives is on the record that Hawaii is the birthplace of the president of the United States.”
The House later voted unanimously 378 to 0 to approve the resolution.
“Fifty-five people didn’t vote for whatever reason,” Abercrombie spokesman Randy Obata said.
“Apparently there was no objection in the final analysis.”
Bachman ended up voting in favor of the resolution.
UQ, source:
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090727/BREAKING01/90727082/Obama+Hawaii+born++insist+Isle+officials
BIRTHER T (Big Bertha) Boyle quoted Black’s definition above, but without comprehension: “QUO WARRANTO. In old English practice. A.writ in the nature of a writ of right for the king against him who claimed or usurped any office, franchise, or liberty to inquire by what authority he supported his claim in order to determine the right.”
What is wrong with this picture? Well, the writ was FOR THE KING and it was against anyone who claimed an office, franchise or liberty. It challenges anyone not legally holding office from the King. It did not and could not challenge the King himself.
In the Middle Ages, peasants Leo and Orly could not bring the writ against the King. That would have been ridiculous (and dangerous). In the 21st, lawyers Orly and Leo cannot bring the writ against the President, because the President is the Head of State, removable only by the democratic process of impeachment, not by a cabal of unelected judges.
Some inferior officials may still theoretically be subject to the obsolete writ, but it has never been applied to federal judges, who have life tenure and have been removed exclusively by impeachment for the entire history of the country. Two Presidents have been impeached, but none has ever been subject to the writ.
Orly’s and Leo’s notion is frivolous in the extreme. The Constitution provides for impeachment of the President, solely by Congress.
Hey Vince Check out USA today looks like they added a little.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a NATURAL BORN American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago….”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm
Sorry missed it the first time
Also keep in mind her first statement was on official paper. Until the Hawaii DOH releases an OFFICIAL statement does what Fukino said become an official part of the record.
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/pressdate.html
That link don’t go there.
Try: http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf
INCREDIBLE BREAKING NEWS!!!
Dr. Fukino, a medical doctor with an undergraduate in psychology
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/admin/directorbio.html
makes this statement.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai’i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago….”
INCREDIBLE medical doctor can tell us what a unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court could not.
“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 born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
INCREDIBLE = Not Credible = Dr. Fukino
Its like it just came to her. FUK I NO
That dang horse leather ain’t gonna be good nuff for shoes if you keep tanning it this much.
Vince:
Your efforts at casting pearls before swine are courageous and right-thinking. However, even you must tire of explaining the most elementary concepts, and foisting off the most ridiculous assertions. I nominate you for the blog “St. George Award” for sallying forth to slay dragons who, while breathing considerable fire, are both blind and dumb.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Stgeorge-dragon.jpg/300px-Stgeorge-dragon.jpg
The quo warranto dreamed up by Orly, Leo and BTB is a stupid, stupid idea.
From the good people at Obamaconspiracy.com:
No quo warranto against a President
The learned counsel who immediately preceded me, has contended that a Senator cannot be considered as an “officer,” because there could be no quo warranto to remove him from his place, if he held it improperly, nor mandamus to place him in it, if unjustly kept out. But surely this cannot be a well founded argument, for if it be, it applies as well to the President, the Judges, the Secretaries, and the Commander-in-Chief of the army, as to a Senator. Not one of them could be removed by quo warranto or replaced by mandamus. Did any one ever hear of a quo warranto to remove a Colonel of a regiment ? Was a quo warranto ever brought in England against the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or a Secretary of State, or a Lord of the Admiralty ? Certainly not, and yet that these are officers, will not be denied. The truth is, Mr. President, that the doctrine of quo warranto and mandamus, as far as it relates to officers, is confined exclusively to certain local municipal officers, of a subordinate nature, who are placed, by the common law of England, under the superintendence of the Supreme Court of Justice; to which, from the nature of their offices, recourse could most conveniently and effectually be had, for their punishment, their removal, or their reinstatement. But this reason did not extend to the great officers of the State, of the army, or the navy, or to any of their subordinates. They could best be punished, removed and replaced, in a different manner, and by a different authority. To them, therefore, nobody ever dreamt of extending the power of the Supreme Courts by quo warranto and mandamus: and yet nobody ever, on this account, thought of denying that they were ” officers,” which, however, would be just as reasonable, as to contend that a Senator of the United States is not an ” officer,” because he cannot be removed by quo warranto, w admitted by mandamus. I admit that it would be absurd to talk of an office from which a man could not,be removed, however flagitious his conduct; or into which, when entitled to it, and improperly kept ont, he had no means of obtaining admission. But a Senator may be removed by a vote of expulsion ; and if duly elected, but not returned, may obtain his seat by a petition to the Senate.
Francis Wharton State Trials of the United States During the Administrations of Washington and Adams 1849
Source: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/06/response-to-eligibility-primer-part-2/#more-3756
“INCREDIBLE medical doctor can tell us what a unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court could not.”
birther/jimmy boy/liar about military service/racist
The above quote and post sums up why you are such a liar and a schmuck. Can it really be that you draw this conclusion from the Doctor’s statement? That is what your movement needs to do.Parse every particular word to come up with some minor thing to hang your stupid theories on. At the end you make fun of Dr. Fukino’s name, unlike you she’s been educated,not un-educatable. So it occurs to me that what we are really seeing is a bigot and a racist, who supports this whole thing because you can’t abide a black man in the White House.
It is a significant pattern that I’ve noticed with the likes of you. First they make posts that portray themselves as merely reasonable people interested in the truth. As the debate ensues though, their reasonable veneer begins to crack and what shines through is the underlying prejudice and radical hate of America, which doesn’t meet up to the rigidity of your standards. That is no doubt why you dote so much on law propounded in the era of Kings. you long to be under the boot of a higher authority and dream of following orders. For all I know BDSM may be at the root of your problem. You would be a difficult case for a mental health professional to handle because while there may be sympathy for your disorder, there would also be disgust with your true nature.
HuH? the link I provided is where official press releases are given. When we see an official press release like the one you linked to it will then be an official part of the record. I will point out that WND has the same article and if anyone was going to dismantle the claim she said it, it would be them.
Question The last several days I’ve had problems viewing this site. I get no smooth scrolling, I get delayed typing while commenting and the computer freezes. I do not have the same problems on ANY OTHER SITE I VISIT. Is anyone else having the same problems?
BIRTHER BOYLE, any doubts in Minor were resolved in Wong. From your joke on her name, you sound like an 8th grader. It does not cast you in a good light.
So, Mespo, when is the award ceremony?
Let’s just see Obama’s BC and other documents for proof then we can all move along in getting all the Nazis out of our government. Obama and Michelle, et al need to settle in with their rehabilitation programs in the prisons.
I am glad The Mall can be here with you. This site is plagued with a tremendous amount of mis-information (lies). But it will all come to light soon and many of the people here will scurry like humiliated rodents but we will not gloat (too much)
This is beautiful. Josh at TPM notes that the birthers who voted that Obama was a natural born citizen last night included Bill Posey, sponsor of the bill to require candidate birth certificates, and co-sponsors Marsha Blackburn, Dan Burton, John Culberson, Bob Goodlatte , Randy Neugebauer, and Ted Poe.
Morons.
Vince Treacy says “BIRTHER BOYLE, any doubts in Minor were resolved in Wong. From your joke on her name, you sound like an 8th grader. It does not cast you in a good light.”
BUT his own link, the one provided by Vince Treacy on 1, July 28, 2009 at 9:11 am says that the Wong Kim Ark did not make it clear.
“In 1898, in the Wong Kim Ark case, the Supreme Court reexamined the “citizenship-by-birthplace-alone” theory, but did not decide whether it applied to natural born citizenship. The Court ruled that Mr. Ark was a citizen, but did not rule that he was a natural born citizen (SCOTUS in ‘Wong Kim Ark’).”
Vince’s link
Source: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/06/response-to-eligibility-primer-part-2/#more-3756
Vince Treacy
1, July 28, 2009 at 9:54 am
“This is beautiful. Josh at TPM notes that the birthers who voted that Obama was a natural born citizen last night included Bill Posey, sponsor of the bill to require candidate birth certificates, and co-sponsors Marsha Blackburn, Dan Burton, John Culberson, Bob Goodlatte , Randy Neugebauer, and Ted Poe.”
Why didn’t Vince provide a link?
BECAUSE A LINK WOULD DESTROY HIS LIE!!!
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/07/birthers_flinch.php
They voted that Obama was born in Hawaii. THEY DID NOT VOTE THAT OBAMA WAS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
You know what bothers me is here we have Fukino again making the statement she has seen and verified. Well why is she the only one allowed to see. Reminds me of this movie.
It is not a lie, BIRTHER BOYLE. Babies born in Hawaii in 1961 were natural born citizens. It follow as day follows night, except for a grad of Google School of Law majoring in cut and paste up.
Correction, it should have been addressed to BIRTHER BYRNE.
BTB is still wrong. If they voted that he was born in Hawaii, they have also necessarily voted that he was a natural born citizen. Otherwise, WHY DID THEY INTRODUCE A BILL TO REQUIRE BIRTH CERTIFATES as proof of natural born status? Not one of them has embraced Leo’s and your theory of dual citzenship, or the two-parent theory, or citizenship through the father but not the mother, OR THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BOTHERED TO REQUIRE HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE IN 2012.
The point of their bill was to require birth certificates so that the people would know if the candidate was born a citizen. There is nothing in there about foreign jurisdiction or allegiance. The birth certificate settles it under their bill.
Now they have voted that Obama was born in Hawaii. They HAVE TO now concede that his certificate is valid, and that he is a natural born citizen. They have no choice.
Everyone, read TPM. Really grasping for straws, Byrne.
Vince Treacy,
You have been caught too many times to count.
“He who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and a third time till at length it becomes habitual.” -Thomas Jefferson
You are well-aware that the U.S. Supreme Court has questioned the natural-born citizen clause of Article II, with regards to those born of foreign parents (Obama’s father was foreign), yet you continue a claim (without merit) that a vote supporting Obama’s birth in Hawaii is a vote on his natural-born citizen determination. IT IS NOT!
“Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom” Thomas Jefferson
BTW, I will be watching this space to see if BIRTHER BYRNE, US NAVY, has any comment on bvm’s “I wholeheartedly encourage the U.S. Military to dissent, resist, and disengage from the two illegal, immoral wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,” and “Obama is NOT the president. He was not elected legally. He is a warmonger / war criminal, mass murderer, traitor and guilty of many other crimes. The right and duty of the military and all authorities is to arrest him and remove him from office.”
The BILL (House Resolution 593) voted on yesterday was a Bill to recognize the 50th Anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood. The Bill contained a statement that Obama was born in Hawaii.
H Res 593 is a NON-BINDING RESOLUTION. It carries no weight. It’s just like the Bill that determined John McCain’s status.
It’s a meaningless part of the show and Vince Treacy knows that.
The Bill requiring birth certificates is HR 1503.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.r.01503:
Well, well, well. BIRTHER BYRNE thinks he has a “gotcha!”
QHOTE ON Vince Treacy says “BIRTHER BOYLE, any doubts in Minor were resolved in Wong. From your joke on her name, you sound like an 8th grader. It does not cast you in a good light.”
BUT his own link, the one provided by Vince Treacy on 1, July 28, 2009 at 9:11 am says that the Wong Kim Ark did not make it clear.
“In 1898, in the Wong Kim Ark case, the Supreme Court reexamined the “citizenship-by-birthplace-alone” theory, but did not decide whether it applied to natural born citizenship. The Court ruled that Mr. Ark was a citizen, but did not rule that he was a natural born citizen (SCOTUS in ‘Wong Kim Ark’).”
Vince’s link
Source: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/06/response-to-eligibility-primer-part-2/#more-3756 UNQUOTE
Just one small problem here. At the link, the quoted paragraph was not written by Dr. Conspiracy, but by a writer named Stephen Tonchen, an internet birther. The entire link is a REFUTATION of that paragraph. Neither Dr. Conspiracy nor I agree with that statement. He only quoted it to discuss it. We agree that “While US v. Wong did not decide the natural born citizen question, the majority opinion leads inevitably to the conclusion that those born within the United States (except the children of ambassadors) are our natural born citizens, without regard to the citizenship of their parents.”
Dr. Conspiracy’s discussion is recommended to all.
Wong led inevitably to the conclusion that those born in the US are natural born citizens. Wong resolved the doubts. Don’t like it? Change it in Court or by Amendment.
Sorry, BTB.
Read it over, everyone. Why stop at birth certificate if the person must not only be born in the USA, but must also have no foreign parents?
The NECESSARY implication is that the birth certificate is sufficient, and birth in the US is sufficient, to establish natural born citizenship. The finding does not mention that two US parents are needed, or that the baby must not be subject to foreign jurisdiction.
The Leo-Orly-BTB theory seems completely unknown to the drafters. BTB should expend efforts on contacting the sponsors to amend their bill.
A BILL
To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee’s statement of organization a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDING.
Congress finds that under section 5 of article II of the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years.
SEC. 2. REQUIRING PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEES OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION OF CANDIDATE’S ELIGIBILITY TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT.
(a) In General- Section 303(b) of the Federal Election Campaign Act (2 U.S.C. 433(b)) is amended–
(1) by striking `and’ at the end of paragraph (5);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and inserting `; and’; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(7) in the case of a principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President, a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under section 5 of article II of the Constitution.’.
(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to the election for the office of President held in 2012 and each succeeding election for the office of President.
Wow! BTB says I am a liar. Well, always have to consider the source.
BTB “You are well-aware that the U.S. Supreme Court has questioned the natural-born citizen clause of Article II, with regards to those born of foreign parents (Obama’s father was foreign), yet you continue a claim (without merit) that a vote supporting Obama’s birth in Hawaii is a vote on his natural-born citizen determination. IT IS NOT!’
There was no lie, BTB is simply ignorant of the law. The question of citizenship of children born to foreign parents in the US was not before the Minor court, which ruled that women could not vote, requiring the later passage of the 19th Amendment.
The Minor Court said, but did not rule, that children of US parents are citizens by birth. It did not say that “only” children of US parents are citizens by birth, and did not say that children of non-citizens were “not” citizens from birth. Language not needed to resolve a case is non-binding dicta. It left the issue to be decided later. Wong Kim Ark resolved that children of alien parents are citizens by birth. That is the majority decision, and is binding until reverse by the Court or Constitutional Amendment.
BTB relied earlier above on two dissenting justices.
In this case, five is more than two, so five rules.
So many quotations pasted up from the web.
So much ignorance, so little time.
BIRTHER,
Other commenters have strongly suggested that you are Jim Byrne commenting under a new pseudonym. Can you unequivocally refute—with suitable evidence—that their suspicions of you being the former Jim Byrne are definitely wrong?
Vince Treacy,
Regardless of your required reiterations of this topic, your efforts are not wasted because this blawg section is becoming a good source of reference. I must say that, among others, your wry comment “Do not take advice from a mall.” was especially humorous. However, I disagree with your quest for BVM’s censorship. Paraphrasing—as Prof. Turley has stated elsewhere—we want such people to speak out to show up on the radar. In addition, I am still learning new bits of information from within the arguments’ replications.
I see by the old clock on the wall that it is time to mosey along and leave the birthers in the old corral. Lieutenant Commander Captain Admiral Jim BIRTHER TROLL Horatio Hornblower Byrne US Navy is starting to call me a liar (after also calling Bob Esq. a liar), and further rational response is clearly futile. I have maintained my policy of not calling posters liars or morons or any other demeaning names. (That does not apply to Members of Congress).
Looking back, I think his quo warranto argument has been refuted. He thought Major Cook would have standing to sue, but I correctly predicted the case would fail. He pasted that quote by Rep. Bingham from the web twice, but it was clearly a statement about a different bill. The Donofrio theory of dual citizenship (because of Kenyan citizenship) was refuted here last year, and the Supreme Court declined to take Leo’s case. The two-parent theory is not supported by Leo’s argument, but it has also been refuted. I think Wong Kim Ark is the law. He never got around to explaining how his discussion of “punitive damages” matched postings on the web word-for-word, and I hope Midshipman Byrne did not turn in work like that at Boat School. I will look for reaction to bvm’s call for mutiny. I think it is fair to say that Hawaiian officials have now verified that Obama was born in Hawaii, and most Members of the House now believe, by virtue of their votes, that he was born there as well. He never addressed the fact that the COLB is now the only certificate that Hawaii issues, so they cannot release a “certificate” or long form or vault copy. He still may want them to open the original records to him, but he may say that those are forgeries too, and there is no way to argue with that. I think the anonymous forgery theorists like truthdude and Polarik have been refuted, that independent Pulitzer Prize winning reporters have seen and verified the COLB, and that it is authentic. Boyle may never agree, but so be it. It took the Pope hundreds of years to agree with the evidence that Galileo wanted to show him.
FFLEO, thanks. I don’t care if birther and Boyle say anything about their online names. You and anyone else can post any questions at all about the topic, and I will try to find some answers or links.
Vince:
“So, Mespo, when is the award ceremony?”
**********************
If I ever get my kitchen done, we can have the awards ceremony there. I ‘ll order up the dragon, and we can get Orly Taitz, Esq. to parachute in without the chute! Patty C can organize the caterers, and we can probably get JT to MC, or maybe even, hope against hope, Lewis Black. Black tie, or course. Here’s my favorite funny man:
Honolulu Advertiser
July 28, 2009
Hawaii officials confirm Obama’s original birth certificate still exists
By Dan Nakaso
Advertiser Staff Writers
Hawai’i’s Health Department confirmed yesterday that it has President Obama’s original Aug. 4, 1961, birth certificate in storage, but the announcement is unlikely to satisfy conspiracy theorists who insist Obama was born in Kenya.
“We don’t destroy vital records,” Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo said. “That’s our whole job, to maintain and retain vital records.”
The Health Department’s director reiterated yesterday that she has seen Obama’s birth records.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai’i and is a natural-born American citizen,” Fukino said in a statement. “I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008, over eight months ago.”
Fukino tried on Oct. 31 to put an end to the belief among so-called “birthers” that Obama was not born in Honolulu’s Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital. The birthers insist that Obama was not born in the U.S. and is therefore ineligible to be president.
Despite Fukino’s statement yesterday — and several court rulings and statements by Hawai’i’s Republican governor, Linda Lingle, the issue continued to resonate from Capitol Hill to the blogosphere.
A congressional resolution introduced yesterday by Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawai’i, commemorating the 50th anniversary of Island statehood was temporarily postponed because birthers objected to a clause noting Obama was born in Hawai’i, said Dave Helfert, an Abercrombie spokesman.
The line “Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961;” appeared to be construed by birthers as a thinly veiled attempt to get Congress to affirm Obama’s U.S. citizenship, Helfert said.
As the issue came to a vote yesterday, Minnesota Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann rose to object, saying there was not a quorum present.
The House later voted unanimously 378-0 to approve the resolution. Bachmann voted in favor of the resolution.
original form exists
Mainland media has also continued to focus attention on the birthers. CNN’s Lou Dobbs last week demanded Obama’s original birth certificate. That was followed by CNN/U.S. President Jon Klein telling staffers of “Lou Dobbs Tonight” that the issue is a “dead” story, according to a Los Angeles Times report.
In an e-mail, according to the Times, Klein wrote that CNN researchers had determined that Obama’s 1961 birth certificate no longer exists because Hawai’i officials had discarded paper documents in 2001 — a claim denied yesterday by Isle health officials.
In 2001, Hawai’i’s paper documents were reproduced in electronic format but “any paper data prior to that still exists,” Health Department spokeswoman Okubo said.
Okubo would not say where Obama’s original birth certificate is, but said “we have backups for all of our backups.”
“Our Certificate of Live Birth is the standard form, which was modeled after national standards that are acceptable by federal agencies and organizations,” Okubo said. “With that form, you can get your passport or your soccer registration or your driver’s license.”
One thing that remains unclear is whether Obama has a copy of the original 1961 Certificate of Live Birth, or if he would even be allowed to see it if he asked.
Hawai’i’s disclosure law (Hawai’i Revised Statutes 338-18) states that “it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part on any such record … ”
The law further states that the Health Department “shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record.”
Those who have “direct and tangible interest” are generally limited to the person named in the record, the spouse, parent, descendant, or personal representative, or by someone who is involved in marital, parental or death litigation involving the named person’s vital record or other legal reason established by a court order, and various official agency or organization representatives, including the state director of health, according to the law.
format changed
The standard “Certification of Live Birth” that Hawai’i health officials now issue — and was posted on Obama’s campaign Web site — has less information than was required on the “Certificate of Live Birth” that Eleanor Nordyke was issued for each of her twin daughters on Aug. 5, 1961.
Nordyke was in labor at Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital the same time as Obama’s late mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Nordyke said. She gave birth to twins the day after Obama was born, Nordyke said, and her daughters later attended Punahou School with Obama.
The modern-day birth certificates issued to anyone seeking their Hawai’i birth records have spaces for the names and races of the parents, as well as information such as the time of birth.
Nordyke’s 1961 birth certificates required much more information, such as the ages, occupations and birthplaces of the babies’ parents.
There was a box to determine whether the mother’s address was “on a Farm or Plantation,” and the signature — but not the name — of the “attendant” was required, as well as boxes to determine whether the attendant was an “M.D.,” “D.O.,” “midwife” or “other.”
Birthers have failed to get state and federal courts in Hawai’i, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, California, Georgia and Mississippi to force Hawai’i officials to produce a copy of Obama’s birth certificate, with many of the courts agreeing with Lingle’s administration that birth records are confidential.
In October, the Hawai’i Supreme Court denied a writ of mandamus on behalf of Internet columnist Andy Martin. The court ruled that Martin did not have a “direct tangible interest” in seeking Obama’s birth certificate.
In December, the U.S. Supreme Court — without comment — declined to hear arguments in another case alleging Obama did not meet the Constitution’s citizenship requirements.
first mention
In November 2008, The Advertiser reported that the first published mention of the future president appeared in a Sunday Advertiser birth announcement that ran on Aug. 13, 1961:
“Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy., son, Aug. 4.”
The identical announce- ment ran the following day in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
Birthers wave off those birth announcements, saying that Obama family members 48 years ago could have phoned in false information to both newspapers.
Such vital statistics, however, were not sent to the newspapers by the general public but by the Health Department, which received the information directly from hospitals, Okubo said.
Birth announcements from the public ran elsewhere in both papers and usually included information such as the newborn’s name, weight and time of birth.
“Take a second and think about that,” wrote Robert Farley of the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times’ Pulitzer Prize winning Web site PoliticFact.com on July 1. “In order to phony those notices up, it would have required the complicity of the state Health Department and two independent newspapers — on the off chance this unnamed child might want to one day be president of the United States.”
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090728/NEWS01/907280345/Hawaii%20officials%20confirm%20Obama’s%20original%20birth%20certificate%20still%20exists?GID=oc4onLOVnbg56pPc2/scNBYxvt8yvewDUvaP6W4SCK4%3D
Vince T,
I came to this site a couple of months ago looking to debunk birther myths (specifically the requirement of 2 citizen parents for natural born status a nuance mostly ignored by the media) and found the facts presented by you and other posters very helpful, but what you have done on this thread is nothing short of amazing. It is probably fortunate that Jim B/BIRTHER, bdaman, and BVM all lack the self-awareness to realize just how badly they have been beaten down in this thread, but I think that the rest of us are impressed by the no-holds-barred legal smackdown you’ve inflicted on the birther movement. As long as President Obama has lawyers half as smart as you he’s got no need to worry about this (really, as long as he’s got someone better than Orly Taitz on the payroll he’ll be fine…). Well done.
Jim B/BIRTHER, bdaman, and BVM,
Are you guys aware of how thoroughly every single argument you’ve advanced has been shot down by Vince? After reading this thread the only conclusion that a rational person can come to is that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen of the US and the legitimate president. Can any of you leave the state of denial that you are living in and admit the truth or was Mike S correct in his speculation that this has nothing to do with the constitution and everything to do with your personal dislike for President Obama? It’s okay to disagree with his policies but questioning his legitimacy in the face of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary is just pathetic.
Yes Slart, I have given Vince props many many times. I have personally seen and verified that this debate will not stop short of the American public seing and verifying his original birth certificate. As I stated above why is Fukino the only one allowed to see it. If it is what it is then whats to hide. I believe he was born in Hawaii I believe he’s a natural born citizen, but I also believe there is something on the birth certificate he doesn’t want anyone to see. Eventually the truth will prevail, it always does. In the last six months we are finding out more and more about Bush and Cheney. Look how long it took to figure out the Chester Author Biography. Before all of this, I had no idea who Chester Arthur was. The truth will come out, hopefully sooner than later. Kinda like Global Warming look how long Gore has been pushing his “The science is settled there will be no more debate” wagon (HIS WORDS) now we know he is a profitier.
bdaman,
There you go questioning motives again… As to why Fukino is the only one allowed to see the original birth certificate, you should take that up with the state of Hawaii, but as far as I’m concerned privacy laws are a good thing and if President Obama has something to hide on his original long form birth certificate (which I doubt) then he has every right to keep that information to himself as it has been legally established that he is a natural born citizen of the US and eligible to be president. The information that we are finding out about Bush and Cheney comes from government documents (released under FOIA, I assume) and people talking (mostly stirred up by the dueling Bush and Cheney legacy tours). I don’t know who’s going to talk about the president’s birth certificate (especially since it would be a crime for any Hawaii official to do so) and there is no basis for a FOIA request here. It is unlikely that the American public ’seeing and verifying’ the original birth certificate would do anything to stop the birther’s irrational quest for reasons suggested by Mike S and Mike A (among others) on this thread. I applaud you for having the honesty to admit that President Obama is a NBC, but I really think you should go the last step and admit that there is no real controversy here or any information that the public has a right to know being suppressed. I did a report on Chester A. Arthur in middle school for a history class and my only lingering impression of the man is that he has got to be in the running for the least interesting POTUS so far…
Vince,
It’s a little off-topic, but I was wondering about the frequent birther claims about all of Obama’s records being sealed. Do you know if this is typical behavior for political figures or if the president is being unusually secretive? (or if the birther’s are just making it up…)
Sl, Thank you very much. I forgot to mention the Vattel issue. We should all thank Mike Appleton, who did the digging to show that the common law, and Blackstone, governed the framer’s views of citizenship, not Vattel.
SL “It’s a little off-topic, but I was wondering about the frequent birther claims about all of Obama’s records being sealed. Do you know if this is typical behavior for political figures or if the president is being unusually secretive? (or if the birther’s are just making it up…)”
That is on the topic, and a good question. I think it is a question for the electorate, not for lawyers. All politicians have a record and some disclose more than others. It is up to the voters, not to the courts. I posted that answer on another thread, in answer to FFLEO, that I think questions about education and other records are for the electorate, now for 2012 election. I do not think Obama was any different from any other candidates on that matter, but it is not my expertise, so others can chime in.
On birth records, Obama issued a BC. I do not think any other candidate did. I know McCain did not, and the BC on the web is a forgery. See Dr. Conspiracy over at ObamaConspiracy.com. If anyone has seen any other presidential or candidate BCs, feel free to share.
This topic started here a year ago, but the focus was on McCain, because he WAS born outside the 50 United States. Everyone assumed there was no issue for Obama because he was born in the US.
And he was
Sl;”I did a report on Chester A. Arthur in middle school for a history class and my only lingering impression of the man is that he has got to be in the running for the least interesting POTUS so far…”
As BIL woould say, LOLROTF
The Hawaiian Department of Health Director does not have the authority nor ability to make a call on Obama’s ‘natural born citizen’ question.
His documents must be examined by experts of the court.
Still he is not qualified as his father was not a US citizen. Simply Obama is not qualified to be president. The most important reasons for his disqualification are that he was / is a Warmonger / War Criminal, Mass Murderer, Forger, Thief, Guilty of Fraud, Treason and Many Other Crimes.
Obama should be arrested and removed from office. He is NOT the president. He is a criminal and should not have been on the ballot.
“Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent”
by Marjorie Cohn – from DefendUSx July 08, 2009 16:12
“Marjorie Cohn is a Distinguished Law Professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego where she’s taught since 1991 and is the current President of the National Lawyers Guild. She’s also been a criminal defense attorney at the trial and appellate levels, is an author, and writes many articles for professional journals, other publications, and numerous popular web sites.”
“Her record of achievements, distinctions, and awards are many and varied – for her teaching, writing, and her work as a lawyer and activist for peace, social and economic justice, and respect for the rule of law. Cohn’s previous books include “Cameras in the Courtroom: Television and the Pursuit of Justice” and “Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law.”
“Her newest book just out, co-authored with Kathleen Gilberd (a recognized expert on military administrative law), is titled “Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent.” It explores why US military personnel disobey orders and refuse to participate in two illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also explains that US and international law obligate them to do so.”
“Rules of Disengagement” goes into courtrooms where military personnel “have spoken out, arguing that (today’s) wars are illegal (and immoral) under international (and US) law.” It’s a “practical guide” providing “specific discussion(s) of applicable regulations and laws” for readers “to form their own conclusions and consider their own options.” Above all, it’s a way for honorable young men and women to dissent, resist, and disengage from two illegal, immoral wars, in hopes many others will follow their example.”
Obama was elected illegally. He is NOT the president. Obama is a Warmonger / War Criminal. His orders are illegal. The U.S. Military does not have to follow illegal orders. Obama is an Usurper Imposter. He is NOT the president.
BVM,
So what teacher taught you to play kazoo? What music have you published? What musicians work with you and finally just what is it the Buena Vista Mall has done except solicit donations?
Donofrio is one witty guy, From his blog
Most readers of this blog know that I personally believe Obama was born in Hawaii and can prove it any time he sees fit. I have always believed that the BC issue was a smokescreen to control awareness of the fact that Obama was a British/Kenyan citizen at the time of his birth through his father who was never a US citizen.
This fact alone – as the Supreme Court made reference to in the Minor case (see below) – raises doubts as to whether a native born US citizen with a dual foreign nationality at the time of his birth can be President. The BC birther conspiracy theory has clearly and effectively shielded from view the true issue – which is a legal question, not a conspiracy theory.
But with our Government trying to sanitize Obama’s eligibility today in Congress by attempting to pass H. RES. 593 , I’ve come up with a new mantra for the BC birthers:
WHERE DO WE PLACE THE PLAQUE?
H. Res 593 states:
Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii;
If they’re going to make that assertion so boldly and codify it in a Congressional Resolution then the American people, especially Hawaiian citizens, deserve to know exactly where in Hawaii Obama was born. Right?
This will be a source of State pride and also revenue for the municipality which can claim the exact spot where Obama was born.
H. Res 593 is intended to celebrate Hawaii’s entering the union. It makes great pomp out of its factual assertion that the 44th President of the US was born in Hawaii. So let’s not stop there. If the Congressional record will state Obama was born in Hawaii, it should also tell us where exactly in Hawaii he was born.
Honolulu is a city. But his birthplace is a spot, a certain address. That’s what we need. Because otherwise we can’t memorialize the spot. So here comes your mantra:
WHERE DO WE PLACE THE PLAQUE?
It doesn’t seem fair to the citizens of the municipality where Obama was born to deprive them of a plaque stating “this is where the 44th President was born.”
Most birth-sites of Presidents are given special distinction – some are protected and maintained by the National Park Service as National Historic Sites. For example, the place of birth for Teddy Roosevelt is a National Historic Site.
Why should Hawaii get the raw end of the stick?
Considering his historical run as the first African American President, doesn’t the place of Obama’s birth deserve to be declared a National Historic Site?
Of course, if Obama states unequivocally where he was born then historians will be able to thoroughly research that claim. And that’s all good because I’m sure Obama wants this cleared up. So let them make the Congressional resolution – just demand that the exact spot in Hawaii is made clear.
Was it a hospital? Was it in a house? If so, which house?
Is Congress really going to pass a resolution saying Obama was born in Hawaii without knowing where exactly in Hawaii he was born?
So listen up BC birthers, this is your new mantra:
WHERE DO WE PLACE THE PLAQUE COMMEMORATING OBAMA’S BIRTH?
It’s a respectful question. It’s not mean spirited. It doesn’t involve a conspiracy theory. And it will generate revenue and tourism for the people in the town where Obama was born. It will also provide something concrete for those concerned about his eligibility to properly research. Seems like a win win for everybody.
Just ask Obama to have a little love for the municipality where he was born by confirming once and for all his exact birthspot? What’s wrong with a little love, Pres?
11 Comments »
WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, weighing in on an issue the White House described as “fictional nonsense,” said Monday he did not know whether President Obama is a citizen of the United States and qualified by birth to be president.
“I believe those people who are concerned about his birth certificate, about whether he is a citizen and qualified I encourage them to do that,” the Oklahoma Republican said of a group pursuing the issue.
Inhofe, however, stressed repeatedly during a brief interview that is not an issue he has taken on.
“My concern is to deal with things I can deal with now, which is stopping the cap and trade, keeping Gitmo open and stopping socialized medicine,” he said.
Still, Inhofe’s stance on the Obama birth certificate issue has drawn attention.
Comments by the senator were reported by Politico in a story on how Republican lawmakers are expecting to hear from a “small but vocal crowd of right-wing activists who refuse to believe that President Barack Obama was born in the United States.” …
“I don’t discourage them from going ahead and pursuing that,” Inhofe said.
The official statement by Dr. Fukino is now on the web:
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf
Huff Post tube video
“The Running of the Birthers,” the potential Emmy Award winning video, was first posted here above at July 27, 3:32 PM.
To update the other information, Inhofe spokesman Jared Young was asked whether the Senator questions Obama’s legitimacy as President. He answered: “No. His focus is on issues.”
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/breaking-inhofe-does-not-question-obamas-legitimacy-as-president/
Leo must have dyed his head again.
Obama was born at the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu, Hawaii, United States.
David Farrar at the rightwing site Free Republic recently came to the conclusion “that Obama would be a ‘natural born’ U.S. citizen if his father was Obama Sr., a British subject and Kenyan national at the time of his birth.”
He now has over 280 responses. The posters are up in arms!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2299780/posts
Obama has violated the same law used to prosecute and convict the Nazis at the Nuremberg Trials therefore OBAMA AND HIS MINIONS ARE NAZIS.
BVM, since violations of those laws are also violations of the laws used to prosecute police officers in Texas a few years ago, I guess that means that Obama and his minions are also police officers. Is that correct?
Goerge asked:
“Can greater minds than mine explain this to me? If President Obama’s mother WAS a U.S. Citizen (and there is no dispute there, from what I understand), then President Obama could have been born inside the Kremlin — or on the Moon for that matter — and still be eligible to stand for the presidency, correct? I don’t agree with him on many things, but it seems like this illegitimacy argument is beyond foolish.”
SCOTUS states in the Minor case, six years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, that the definition of “natural-born citizen” is not found in the Constitution:
“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 born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
Furthermore, with this decision, the most on point as to the definition of natural-born citizen in SCOTUS history, the court raised doubts as to the citizenship of native born citizens with foreign parentage.
The issue now is that Obama admits he was British at birth. The question is whether we are going to allow persons who were once citizens of other nations to be Commander In Chief.
Leo, that question has already been asked and answered at this site, above at July 28, 2009 at 12:39 pm
The question of citizenship of children born to foreign parents in the US was not before the Minor court, which ruled that women could not vote, requiring the later passage of the 19th Amendment.
The Minor Court said, but did not rule, that children of US parents are citizens by birth. It did not say that “only” children of US parents are citizens by birth, and did not say that children of non-citizens were “not” citizens from birth. Language not needed to resolve a case is non-binding dicta. It left the issue to be decided later. Wong Kim Ark resolved that children of alien parents are citizens by birth. That is the majority decision, and is binding until reversed by the Court or Constitutional Amendment.
It is exceedingly strange that you can discuss the issue of the citizenship of children born in the United States without mentioning Wong to your readers.
Nice to see you here Leo. If you continue posting here Vince will be your fevered debater.
Under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, the accused has the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. In the age of McCarthyism, jobs, livelihoods, and liberty were lost to secret allegations by nameless accusers, before the Supreme Court outlawed that practice.
According to wiki, “McCarthyism is the politically motivated practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence.” Originally coined to criticize U. S. Senator Joe McCarthy, “McCarthyism” soon “took on a broader meaning, describing the excesses of similar efforts. The term is also now used more generally to describe reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries.”
bvm is nothing but an accumulation of soulless electrons on a server, spewing reckless false and anonymous charges without a scrap of substantiation or evidence. It is not worth the electricity to emp it, and its malicious charges and allegations do not deserve the dignity of an answer if it does not identify itself.
Leo can’t blip answers here.
If the police officers violated the War Crimes law of the Nuremberg Trials they they are NAZIS AS OBAMA AND HIS MINIONS.
The War Crimes law of the Nuremberg Trials is also part of the U.S. Constitution so Obama and his minions have also violated the Constitution and U.S. War Crimes laws.
Obama is one of the biggest criminals in history along Bush, Cheney, Biden, Hitler and Goering.
For the record, I answered George’s actual question above, and it can be found at Jul 22, 8:30 AM.
George and rcampbell. Birth to a single US citizen parent outside the US does not automatically confer citizenship. The parent must meet certain residence requirements that have changed over the years.
From Leo’s site, in bold:
“It’s hardly a fringe concept to expect and demand that the Commander in Chief was never a citizen of another nation.” http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/29/the-relevant-obama-admission-2/
We didn’t do so badly with George Washington, Leo.
BVM,
Still waiting for your answers as to what instrument you play, who are the other muscians affiliated with you, what music you’ve published, what records, or any other work you have produced, that gives you the right to solicit funds or business. To be honest I think you don’t even have an office and hang out at the food court of the mall listed below, where I understand they have good free wifi.
http://www.lbvfs.com/
Someone, above, asked about Leo’s charge that Obama had been guilty of falsely swearing, twice.
Well, Leo has changed his story, and now it is just once. Leo’s claim? “Obama – the famed brilliant Constitutional scholar – had to be aware that the most directly on point US Supreme Court case in our nation’s history [Minor v. Happersett] directly stated that there were doubts as to his nbc status. Yet, regardless of these doubts expressed by the highest court in the land, Obama went ahead and swore – under oath – that he was eligible to be President.” http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/obama-is-guilty-on-at-least-two-counts-of-false-swearing/
Leo, Obama is a better constitutional lawyer than you.
In fact, he is a far more brilliant, experienced and knowledgeable constitutional lawyer than you.
He, I am sure, was aware, unlike you, that the Wong case later held that children born of alien parents in the United States are citizens by reason of their birth, and concluded, in good faith, along with the vast majority of constitutional scholars throughout history, that they are natural born citizens of the United States, eligible for the Presidency if they are 35 years old and have resided here for 14 years.
Mike, thanks for your interest but we have all the business we want currently.
We like the food court and free wifi idea
and the single guys can watch the single gals !! woooooo woooo
Over at his blog, Leo is quite proud of his quote from Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874): “By its own words it raises doubts as to native born persons born of foreign parents. In one paragraph it strips the O supporters of their 14th Amendment argument and denies that native born = natural born. This is not my opinion, it’s a direct SCOTUS quote.”
Leo might have given readers some authority more recent than 1874. Here is a case from last year denying an individual standing to sue to remove McCain from the NH primary:
Those born “in the United State, 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 (1989), and this eligible for the presidency, see Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165 (1964) (dicta).
Hollander v McCain 566 F.Supp 2d 63, 66 (D.N.H. 2008)
http://media.nashuatelegraph.com/assets/08NH129P.pdf
See Schneider: “We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, 1.” 377 U.S. 163, 165.
Also see Wong: It was the law before 1866:
“Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the civil rights act of 1866 or the adoption of the constitutional [169 U.S. 649, 675] amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.” 169 U.S. at 674-75.
And mort from Wong: It was the same after 1866 and the words “not subject to any foreign power” were omitted from the 14th Amendment
By the civil rights act of 1866, ‘all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed,’ were declared to be citizens of the United States. In the light of the law as previously established, and of the history of the times, it can hardly be doubted that the words of that act, ‘not subject to any foreign power,’ were not intended to exclude any children born in this country from the citizenship which would theretofore have been their birthright; or, for instance, for the first time in our history, to deny the right of citizenship to native-born children or foreign white parents not in the diplomatic service of their own country, nor in hostile occupation of part of our territory. But any possible doubt in this regard was removed when the negative words of the civil rights act, ‘not subject to any foreign power,’ gave way, in the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, to the affirmative words, ’subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’ 169 U.S. at 688.
“Ain’t nobody here fraid of no Minor case.”
The conservatives out there ought to read, reflect upon, and take to heart today’s posting at the National Review. Obama has released his real birth certificate. There is no secondary document, only state records used to generate it. This is the certificate needed for a passport. It has been verified by reporters and state officials, and it is identical to the so-called vault copy.
Repeat, this not from main stream media, but from NR, founded by William Buckley, the most prestigious, long standing conservative publication in the country.
Quote:
The fundamental fiction is that Obama has refused to release his “real” birth certificate. This is untrue. The document that Obama has made available is the document that Hawaiian authorities issue when they are asked for a birth certificate. There is no secondary document cloaked in darkness, only the state records that are used to generate birth certificates when they are requested.
If one applies for a United States passport, the passport office will demand a birth certificate. It defines this as an official document bearing “your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records.” The Hawaiian birth certificate President Obama has produced—the document is formally known as a “certificate of live birth”—bears that information. It has been inspected by reporters, and several state officials have confirmed that the information in permanent state records is identical to that on the president’s birth certificate—which is precisely what one expects, of course, since the state records are used to generate those documents when they are requested. In other words, what President Obama has produced is the “real” birth certificate of myth and lore. The director of Hawaii’s health department and the registrar of records each has personally verified that the information on Obama’s birth certificate is identical to that in the state’s records, the so-called vault copy.
Unquote
Read the entire posting at:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTRjMTFhMzQxYmEzNjA2YWIwOTU4YWVjNzRmODE2NTI=
Summary judgment for Mr. Treacy. Unfortunately, we have no authority to award him well-deserved attorney’s fees.
Did somebody say Blackstone?
“Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.. . .
“When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king,…might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.”
Welcome aboard, Blackstone.
Thank you, Sir William.
How do you think your quoted writings affect the topics of our discussion?
Whereas Barry Soetoro (a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama) has not provided proof of his U.S. citizenship he is declared an Undocumented Immigrant or Illegal Alien and is guilty of Treason and Mass Fraud against the American people. The U.S. Military is resisting this usurpation and his arrest is imminent.
Is 2005 Obama ethics violation connection to big Donor George W. Haywood connected to swine flu scare? One of Obama’s biggest donors, Haywood owns almost 6 million shares of bio firm AVI Bio Farma Inc. Bio Farma will be one of the big producers of Swine Flu vaccine. United States just purchased 200 million doses.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/07/us/politics/07obama.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print
Illinois received a ZERO rating in a report released on Wednesday that concludes the state is worst in the nation when it comes to information available online about how federal stimulus money is being spent. The worst in the country. “This will be the most transparent administration” Barack Obama
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/States-rate-poorly-on-apf-2683281390.html?x=0&.v=2
Obama’s personal doctor says Obama health care plan has no cost control, and will be really expensive- “bound for failure”
Maybe he will tell us if the president is healthy. After Obama fires him.
http://hotairpundit.blogspot.com/2009/07/obamas-personal-doctor-in-chicago.html
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Obamacare-could-kill-AARP-8036046-51988312.html
Isn’t it time to put the Birther nonsense to bed?
It looks like Leo responded to Vince’s claim about Kim Wong Ark and the 14th Amendment.
Here’s the link.
Justice Horace Gray Clearly Indicated Wong Kim Ark Was Not a Natural Born Citizen.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/justice-horace-gray-clearly-indicated-wong-kim-ark-was-not-a-natural-born-citizen/
Rafflaw yes it is time. Now all we need to know is where to put the Plaque.
The posting Bdaman 1, July 29, 2009 at 9:58 pm does not belong here, because it is about health care.
The posting “Bdaman 1, July 30, 2009 at 7:03 am Are Birthers Nuts?” at “Offcer Admits” should be at this thread:
Are Birthers Nuts?
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/07/29/are-birthers-nuts/
BIRTHER BYRNE,
I have already seen Leo’s post, and it will be answered here.
It belongs at the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu, Hawaii, United States.
The Birther issue has exploded in popularity on the Internet and onto mainstream media!
FactCheck.org has posted “The Last Word? We Wish,” July 28, 2009:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/the-last-word-we-wish/
bvm has in the past made the charge that the COLB was not recognized by the Hawaiian government, nor by the Home Lands agency.
Both charges have been proven false. Home Lands accepts the COLB, which is also good for all purposes in Hawaii, including a driver’s license, good for a U.S. passport, and good under the full faith and credit clause for a fishing license in North Carolina.
Do not expect bvm to acknowledge its mistakes.
Postings by Bdaman , July 29, 2009 at 9:52 pm , Bdaman , July 29, 2009 at 9:53 pm , and Bdaman , July 29, 2009 at 9:55 pm are also about health care, not birth.
“Whereas Barry Soetoro (a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama) has not provided proof of his U.S. citizenship”
BVM,
Are you an American citizen, or some foreign terrorist trying to destabilize America? We have no proof that you’re not and considering your treasonous statements there is good circumstantial evidence. Your website purports to be:
“About Us
We are an independent label located in Winston-Salem, NC.
History
Our group consists of musicians, radio and TV people who share a dream of Truth and beautiful music.
Goals
We are an activist music company involved with getting broad publication of “The Truth about God”, ending the war, abolition of death penalty, free universal healthcare, stopping – big money control of the media / corporate corruption and we are working for a fair music market. Also, we only wish to market the best music available with emphasis on intelligent lyrics and betterment of society.”
Yet you offer no names of “musicians, radio and TV people”
affiliated with you, which given the nature of media is quite peculiar, unless you are lying and there is no one there but you. Strangely, for a site soliciting business you also list no accomplishments or successful projects. Yet you solicit donations, but what are people supposed to donate for? I’m coming to believe that you are a foreign terrorist acting against this country and I have forwarded your link to Homeland Security to have you checked out. A copy is also being sent to the Attorney General in North Carolina requesting that your “business” could possibly be a fraudulent scheme. While I can’t, thus won’t say for sure that this is true of you, I think it is my duty as a citizen to inform the authorities of your suspicious behavior and the possibility that your organization is falsely soliciting donations. Have a nice day.
bdaman,
do you realize that you are cornering the market for posts that are non-sequitors?
All the Pro-Obama tripe here doesn’t rise to the level of hogwash.
It is obvious Obama cannot prove his U.S. Citizenship. Therefore he is an undocumented immigrant. He should be arrested immediately.
Mike, thanks for distributing the Mall’s site address.
If you would like to send further emails here is a list:
http://www.buenavistamall.com/EmailAddresses.htm
Thanks, but no thanks. I’ll be sending them to the right places and not a list of the other people you pester but just ignore you.
Yes I know Mike, but hey, if you guys can talk about aliens, BVM can post what he post, I might as well go in my own direction.
Yes, by all means. Sent them to the ‘right places’ Please send as many as you can. Thanks again
Glad to be of service, as Buddha would say.
Vince, I really don’t think you can deny that my prediction that I made, in which I said the BC issue was heating up, has done just that. Although I am convinced the president was born in Hawaii, I will tell you, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Mark my words. It’s coming. Either the original will be produced or a court case is going to set this issue on fire. Listen to me now or you will have no choice but to believe me later.
I forgot to add if thats your real name.
In case you miss this on the other thread.
Bdaman
1, July 30, 2009 at 10:45 am
Vince while you are acting as the Blog Police can you tell us Where Buddah’s and Mike Spindle and others discussion of Aliens goes. Which thread do they belong under. For someone who seems so smart as you, you sure act childish when it comes to how people are suppose to comment. your quote un quote your wanting to censor BVM accusing others of posting under a different name ect. ect. I will go out on a limb and say you are not who you say you are. I am willing to bet that you have taken on the Idenity of Vince Treacy lawyer from DC when in fact that aint you. Prove me wrong Vince.
U.S. military personnel are disobeying orders and refuse to participate in two illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Imposter Obama is a Warmonger / War Criminal. Here are some of the U.S. laws he and his minions have violated;
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441
§ 2441 > War Crimes
(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a grave breach of common Article 3 (as defined in subsection (d)) when committed in the context of and in association with an armed conflict not of an international character; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.
(d) Common Article 3 Violations.—
(1) Prohibited conduct.— In subsection (c)(3), the term “grave breach of common Article 3” means any conduct (such conduct constituting a grave breach of common Article 3 of the international conventions done at Geneva August 12, 1949), as follows:
(A) Torture.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.
(B) Cruel or inhuman treatment.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions), including serious physical abuse, upon another within his custody or control.
(C) Performing biological experiments.— The act of a person who subjects, or conspires or attempts to subject, one or more persons within his custody or physical control to biological experiments without a legitimate medical or dental purpose and in so doing endangers the body or health of such person or persons.
(D) Murder.— The act of a person who intentionally kills, or conspires or attempts to kill, or kills whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause.
(E) Mutilation or maiming.— The act of a person who intentionally injures, or conspires or attempts to injure, or injures whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, by disfiguring the person or persons by any mutilation thereof or by permanently disabling any member, limb, or organ of his body, without any legitimate medical or dental purpose.
(F) Intentionally causing serious bodily injury.— The act of a person who intentionally causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, serious bodily injury to one or more persons, including lawful combatants, in violation of the law of war.
(G) Rape.— The act of a person who forcibly or with coercion or threat of force wrongfully invades, or conspires or attempts to invade, the body of a person by penetrating, however slightly, the anal or genital opening of the victim with any part of the body of the accused, or with any foreign object.
(H) Sexual assault or abuse.— The act of a person who forcibly or with coercion or threat of force engages, or conspires or attempts to engage, in sexual contact with one or more persons, or causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, one or more persons to engage in sexual contact.
(I) Taking hostages.— The act of a person who, having knowingly seized or detained one or more persons, threatens to kill, injure, or continue to detain such person or persons with the intent of compelling any nation, person other than the hostage, or group of persons to act or refrain from acting as an explicit or implicit condition for the safety or release of such person or persons.
(2) Definitions.— In the case of an offense under subsection (a) by reason of subsection (c)(3)—
(A) the term “severe mental pain or suffering” shall be applied for purposes of paragraphs (1)(A) and (1)(B) in accordance with the meaning given that term in section 2340 (2) of this title;
(B) the term “serious bodily injury” shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(F) in accordance with the meaning given that term in section 113 (b)(2) of this title;
(C) the term “sexual contact” shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(G) in accordance with the meaning given that term in section 2246 (3) of this title;
(D) the term “serious physical pain or suffering” shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(B) as meaning bodily injury that involves—
(i) a substantial risk of death;
(ii) extreme physical pain;
(iii) a burn or physical disfigurement of a serious nature (other than cuts, abrasions, or bruises); or
(iv) significant loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; and
(E) the term “serious mental pain or suffering” shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(B) in accordance with the meaning given the term “severe mental pain or suffering” (as defined in section 2340 (2) of this title), except that—
(i) the term “serious” shall replace the term “severe” where it appears; and
(ii) as to conduct occurring after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the term “serious and non-transitory mental harm (which need not be prolonged)” shall replace the term “prolonged mental harm” where it appears.
(3) Inapplicability of certain provisions with respect to collateral damage or incident of lawful attack.— The intent specified for the conduct stated in subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F) or paragraph (1) precludes the applicability of those subparagraphs to an offense under subsection (a) by reasons of subsection (c)(3) with respect to—
(A) collateral damage; or
(B) death, damage, or injury incident to a lawful attack.
(4) Inapplicability of taking hostages to prisoner exchange.— Paragraph (1)(I) does not apply to an offense under subsection (a) by reason of subsection (c)(3) in the case of a prisoner exchange during wartime.
(5) Definition of grave breaches.— The definitions in this subsection are intended only to define the grave breaches of common Article 3 and not the full scope of United States obligations under that Article.
Bdaman,
Well I guess the jig is up. Yes I am really Vince Treacy, what you are unaware of is that my Grandfather Judge Crater was abducted by aliens. Buddha, is actually Siddhartha Gautama, an immortal who has been alive for at least 3,000 years, but only began preaching 2,500 years ago. Now while our discussions were off topic, admittedly, given the alien and immortality issues raised by our revealed histories, they are relevant in a universal sense.
“wanting to censor BVM”
Find me one instance where I have asked for BVM’s censorship and I’ll forgive your lousy attempts at irony and humor.
Mike S, not you Vince, he is constantly telling me what I can and can’t do. Hence, Blog Police I can’t post this here, have to use quote unquote, ect ect. He acts childish while presumably knowing case law. I SEE no other person here complain about anybody else in the way he does with the exception of the chick thats a drunk and tried to run Jill off or whomever.
“July 30, 2009 at 8:04 am It looks like Leo responded to Vince’s claim about Kim Wong Ark and the 14th Amendment. Here’s the link
Justice Horace Gray Clearly Indicated Wong Kim Ark Was Not a Natural Born Citizen.”
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/justice-horace-gray-clearly-indicated-wong-kim-ark-was-not-a-natural-born-citizen/
Leo tells us that one passage from Wong has “long been confusing for me,” but that “it finally became clear today. The words of the passage suddenly re-arranged the focus of the majority’s intent.” He then quoted an edited, uncited passage.
QUOTE The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’UNQUOTE
Here it is, cited, in full:
QUOTE The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’ UNQUOTE 169 U.S. 649, 694-95 (emphasis supplied to show portions quoted by Leo), http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649
Now let’s listen to Leo, quoted in full so that nothing is taken out of context or twisted.
QUOTE ON It appears at first glance that the passage claims children of aliens born on US soil are themselves natural-born citizens. And that’s certainly the hard line taken by Obama eligibility supporters. But a closer inspection reveals this is not what the court held.
Have another look:
“…and his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”
Justice Gray does a very revealing compare and contrast here:
- he compares two children
- on the one hand, he mentions the US born child of a resident alien
- on the other hand, he mentions the “natural-born” child of a citizen
Do you see the difference?
He clearly states that only one is natural-born: the child of the citizen.
He says that both are citizens. But only the child of the citizen is natural born – for this is what he is comparing the other one to.
– The Court does not say that the child of the alien is a natural-born citizen.
Had the court intended to state that both were natural born, they would have said:
“…and his child, if born in the country, is as much a natural-born citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”
But that’s not what they said.
- By the Wong Kim Ark decision, both children – the alien born and the natural born – are entitled to the same rights and protections as citizens.
- But only one satisfies the requirements to be President: the natural born child.
- This is because natural born citizen status is only required for one purpose: to be President. There’s no other legal attachment to nbc status.
Being eligible to be President is not a right or protection of citizenship. For example, not all natural born citizens can be President. Those who are not 35 years old and/or have not been residents in the US for 14 years – though they may be natural born citizens – are NOT eligible to be President.
QUOTE OFF
At the outset, note the Court’s words that ”The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens.” There are two kinds of citizens, those born here and those naturalized here. The case settled the legal principle that children of alien parents who are born here are citizens by birth. Citizens by birth are natural born citizens who can be President, while citizens by naturalization cannot.
Now, Justice Gray said that a citizen or subject of another country, who is domiciled here, is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Grey quoted with approval Coke’s words that the allegiance is strong enough to make a natural subject, and the alien’s issue here is a natural-born subject and child. So Gray concluded that any child born to an alien here is a natural-born subject, and his child, and as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen. I think his words mean that the natural born child of a foreign subject is the same kind of citizen as the natural born child of a citizen.
Leo writes QUOTE Had the court intended to state that both were natural born, they would have said: “…and his child, if born in the country, is as much a natural-born citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”
UNQUOTE
The problem here is that Leo snipped out the part of the sentence in Gray’s opinion that describes the child of that alien as natural-born, as a “natural-born subject, ”and thus distorted its meaning by his editing.
It would have been redundant for Gray to say “as much a natural born citizen as the natural born child of a citizen” when he had already described the child in the same sentence as “natural-born”.
Leo says that Gray “compares two children – on the one hand, he mentions the US born child of a resident alien [and] – on the other hand, he mentions the ‘natural-born’ child of a citizen.” Leo omits the fact that Gray had already described the child of the resident alien as “natural-born.” Gray said that the natural-born subject who was the child of an alien is just as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen. The words “just as much a citizen” say that both are the same kind of citizens, of equal dignity in all respects, with no distinctions, so that both can be President.
And do not get side tracked by the terms “subject” and “citizen.” Almost everyone in American, except for diplomats and hostile alien occupying forces, is a subject as well as a citizen, in the sense that a “subject” or “national” is subject to its laws, rules, regulations, and courts, including arrest, subpoena, and jurisdiction. Those subjects who were born or naturalized here are also citizens, while resident aliens awaiting citizenship, and non –resident aliens like students, are subjects but not citizens. So, depending on the context, subject and citizen are interchangeable.
The child of an alien born here is a natural born subject (“subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” 14th Amd, cl. 1) who is also a citizen by birth, and therefore a natural born citizen eligible for the Presidency. The child of two citizens born here is also a natural born subject (“subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ” 14th Amd, cl. 1) who is a citizen by birth, and therefore a natural born citizen eligible for the Presidency.
In short, Gray said that the natural born child of an alien is just as much a citizen as a natural born child of a citizen.
Readers here will no trouble arranging Gray’s words, just as long as they look at all of his words, not just the ones that Leo want to give them.
“Mike S, not you Vince”
bdaman,
I’ve already told you: I am Vince.
At his own site, Leo Donofrio is master of his domain. He moderates all posts, snips the stuff he does not like, requires that you give him your email, posts the comments in gray on black background, and puts his own repostes in gold and bold.
He has come to the Turley blog, but his last post was an embarrassment. He did not even understand the question asked about overseas birth to a single citizen parent, and pasted up his Minor quote about US born children of aliens. He has not been back.
In one post today he says “They compared the native born child of an alien to the natural-born child of a citizen and decided both were entitled to the same rights of citizenship, but they clearly indicated that only one was natural-born.” No, Leo. Readers here now know that Leo is wrong. Anyone can see that the Court, in the stuff Leo left out, compared “natural-born” child of the alien to the natural born child of the citizen. Apples to apples. There is no “native born” in there, Leo.
Let Leo come to the Turley blog, a level, neutral playing field, with no delay of posts and no censorship or snipping, with black type on a white pages, and all disputes under the jurisdiction of Professor Turley, who Leo says he respects.
I am Vince.
No, I am Spartacus!
Now I plead; please, back on topic.
Bowing to your command, Spart.
Thank you kind, intelligent Spock for considering my *plea* which was not a command.
Vince Treacy said “There are two kinds of citizens, those born here and those naturalized here.”
And then there is a subset of those born here.
1. Those that are citizens by virtue of the 14th Amendment. (Still just citizens)
2. Those that are born here, and their father was a citizen of this country.
“And do not get side tracked by the terms “subject” and “citizen.” -NOTE TO READERS: Vince wants to DIRECT you. Take notice of his post. He arrives at conclusions without establishing how he arrived at the conclusion. i.e. Vince stated “At the outset, note the Court’s words that ”The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens.” There are two kinds of citizens, those born here and those naturalized here. The case settled the legal principle that children of alien parents who are born here are citizens by birth. Citizens by birth are natural born citizens who can be President, while citizens by naturalization cannot.
TAKE NOTICE: Vince made a statement of his opinion that is contrary to the opinion of Leo. Vince tries to portray his opinion as fact. It is not. It is JUST VINCES OPINION.
“And do not get side tracked by the terms “subject” and “citizen.” LAW STUDENTS LOOK IN YOUR DICTIONARIES. Does the legal definition of “subject” match the legal definition of “citizen”? Of course not.
I hope readers will grasp just how insidious, undemocratic and bizarre is Leo’s position that a sitting President of the United States could be removed by writ of quo warranto based on his idiosyncratic theory of dual jurisdiction.
Here is what would happen.
The single District Court judge for the US District Court for the District of Columbia could issue the writ and order the President removed, to be replaced by the Vice President.
An appellate panel could affirm by 2-1 vote.
The Supreme Court could affirm by a 5-4 vote.
The Court would not even have to issue an opinion on Leo’s theory. The affirmance could be per curiam without opinion.
Even worse, six Justices could vote to deny cert. without opinion.
There may not even be a Supreme Court decision discussing his notions one way or the other.
So. Everyone else thinks the two-thirds of the Senators present must concur in conviction and removal (Art I, sec. 3, last cl.).
But not Leo! Leo would allow eight or nine judges and Justices to set aside the votes of tens of millions of people.
A recipe for a coup.
Fortunately, Leo’s theory is crackpot. If the writ is good for anything, it is only for city officials and minor muinicipal functionaries. I have already posted an excerpt from a 19th century treatise on this.
Leo’s theory is a plot for a very bad science fiction movie.
Excuse me, but where exactly did I say the word “fact”? Just asking.
It is a fact that Leo cropped a quotation.
The rest is my opinion. The readers can judge.
Law students, do get back to us to discuss “citizen” and “subject” and “national.”
We all would be interested.
“Even worse, six Justices could vote to deny cert. without opinion.”
Oh how we cry when justice works against us, but when justice works for us, it’s all good.
Vince, did you cry about the Court not granting Cert when the cases that you didn’t want to be heard weren’t heard? I’ve looked, but I just do see that comment from you.
Also, my emphasis did not make it to the site when I pasted the Court’s FULL quotation.
“But not Leo! Leo would allow eight or nine judges and Justices to set aside the votes of tens of millions of people.”
The Court would not be “setting aside the votes of ten million people”.
The votes would still stand. The qualified president, Joe Biden, would hold the office.
The Twentieth Amendment provides a constitutional answer to your dilemna.
Vince, your statement would suggest that the instant majority should trump the Constitution. Is that really what you mean?
Stop changing the subject, BIRTHER BOYLE.
Do you or do you not want less that a dozen unelected judges to unseat a President?
I do not care what you say, or whether you answer at all.
I will answer your question. I do not want the courts to exercise the power to remove this or any other President, because that would be unconstitutional.
If there is a problem, the Constitution says that removal of the President is by Impeachment and conviction by two-thirds of Senators present
.
The House has the SOLE power to impeach, and the Senate the SOLE power to try and convict and remove. READ THE CONSTITUTION!
The courts dismissed all those cases because they were frivolous, failed to state a legal claim for relief, presented no case or controversy, were filed in the wrong courts, by parties with no standing to sue, and for many other reasons.
The Constitution did NOT give the courts the power to unseat the head of another branch of government. It cannot unseat a Senator or Representative, because that is reserved to each House. READ THE CONSTITUTION!
The courts cannot unseat a President, because that is reserved to the impeachment process. READ THE CONSTITUTION!
The people did not elect Biden President.
What planet are you calling in from?
“Vince, your statement would suggest that the instant majority should trump the Constitution. Is that really what you mean?”
No, the majority voted in accordance with the Constitution. The majority voted for Obama for President, not for Biden or anyone else.
Birther Boyle’s theory is completely undemocratic.
Nine judges plus a Vice President could reverse an election.
To set the election aside would trump the Constitution.
To adopt the cockamamie theories of Leo, Mario, Orly and birther would trump the constitution.
I have written before that the birthers are trashing the constitution with this theory that the President must be born to two US citizen parents.
That is not in the Constitution. They are trashing it by trying to put their own words in there.
No one yet has pointed to any words that require or imply any such requirement.
Gee, just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water Jim Byrne reappears as birther, not a shark mind you, but a big, ugly jellyfish.
Yea thats what they said Bush V Gore. Do you think the court would go agaisnt tens of millions of people. Good one Vince.
The people voted for Obama as President, and Joe Biden as Vice-President. The Twentieth Amendment was in place at the time of that election. The Twentieth Amendment states that “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified”.
If the vote was constitutional, so are the results of that vote.
Officers Run Background Check On Obama; Placed On Leave
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/20218458/detail.html#
“Officers Run Background Check On Obama; Placed On Leave”
Bdaman,
You have a problem with this? Why? If not why post it?
“The people voted for Obama as President, and Joe Biden as Vice-President. The Twentieth Amendment was in place at the time of that election.”
Well birther/Jimmy boy you finally get something right. For you a 2% hit rate is probably very good.
BIRTHER ”The people voted for Obama as President, and Joe Biden as Vice-President. The Twentieth Amendment was in place at the time of that election. The Twentieth Amendment states that “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified. If the vote was constitutional, so are the results of that vote.”
BirtherBoyle is grasping at straws, The time for the sentence quoted has passed. Read 20th Amd, sec. 3. IF, AT THE TIME FIXED FOR THE BEGINNING OF A TERM … the President elect shall failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified.” The beginning of the term is long past. Nothing like ripping words out of context.
In fact, the voters consented in advance to Joe Biden as President, but if, and only if, the Presidency becomes vacant BY EXPRESSLY DESIGNATED EVENTS. The Vice President may become President in case of removal of the President from office by death (numerous occasions) or resignation (Nixon). 25th Amd, sec.1. The VP becomes Acting President under sec. 2 or 2, if the President is unable to discharge his duties.
No one consented to the VP to become President because of a court order by a single District Judge, affirmed by as few as eight appellate judges and Justices, and nothing in the Constitution expressly or by implication allows such a procedure. The quo warranto QW process would be extra-constitutional, and illegal under the Supremacy Clause. Congress had no authority under the Constitution to enact such a procedure statutorily to remove constitutional officers.
Do Leo and birtherBoyle also have the crazy idea that a QW could be used to remove a Member of Congress, in the teeth of Art 1, sec. 5, that “each House may … with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.” Of course not. And a QW cannot be used to remove a federal judge. For 220 years, impeachment has been the exclusive means for removing judges, who “hold their offices during good Behavior.” Art. III, sec. 1, and QW has never been used.
READ THE CONSTITUTION!
(BTB still has not answered whether he supports removal of a President by court order of a single unelected judge, affirmed by unelected judges. I am not holding my breath. I do not think he wants to answer that question. As to Bush and Gore, neither of them was President at the time. I think the history books show that Clinton was the President back then. No one suggested a QW in the Monica affair).
Mike S.: “The people voted for Obama as President, and Joe Biden as Vice-President. The Twentieth Amendment was in place at the time of that election.”
“Well birther/Jimmy boy you finally get something right. For you a 2% hit rate is probably very good.”
No, Mike, he completely and totally screwed up again. It is the 25th Amendment, not the 20th, that now provides for VP succession to the Presidency during the President’s term. It also provides for VP succession in case of the removal of the President form office. The terms of Art. II clearly say that the President “shall be removed from Office on impeachment … and conviction.”
There is no provision for removal by court order, and any such provision would be unenforceable under the Constitution, since it would be beyond the authority of Congress and the courts.
READ THE CONSTITUTION!
This is getting embarrassing.
And for those scoring at home, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution provides that the Electoral Votes are counted under the direction of the President of the Senate (the VP), and their determination that a President has qualified is final. There is no role for the courts in the 12th Amendment.
Vince,
Glad to have you around to take care of business. I should have known better than to trust him on anything.
Another lie by Leo: “My analysis above doesn’t conclusively establish that Obama is not eligible to be President. His case is distinguished from Wong Kim Ark’s in that Obama’s mother was a US citizen. His father was never a US citizen and as such Obama (admits) he was governed by Great Britain at birth.”
Obama was never “governed” by Great Britain or Kenya at birth, and never admitted that. Leo is making it up.
Obama had citizenship from GB and Kenya. He was NEVER “governed” by Great Britain Kenya at birth or at any other time. He was never subject to their laws, rules, police power, regulations, court jurisdiction, or any other of the elements of jurisdiction. He was a conditional citizen by virtue of his birth overseas to a Kenyan citizen, but that citizenship lapsed when the conditions were not met by age 21. This has all been set forth. Leo and the birthers persist in twisting and distorting this information.
Obama was born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and thus was born a citizen of the United States, a natural born citizen. He has been a natural born citizen of the United States for all of his life. He was never subject to the jurisdiction of GB or Kenya.
QUOTE when Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children:
British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.
In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.
Obama’s British citizenship was short-lived. On Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:
1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…
2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
As a citizen of the UKC who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UKC status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), it follows that Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship after 1963. So The Rocky Mountain News was at least partially correct. UNQUOTE
But the paper failed to note that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982. UNQUOTE
Source: factcheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html
Sorry Vince, but I’ve totally lost track of the score (although I wonder if there should have been some sort of mercy rule). Thanks for pointing out exactly what Birther/Jim B and Leo are advocating it really lays the motives and hypocrisy of the birthers bare – they want to correct what they (falsely) see as a coup by President Obama by staging a judicial coup of their own. Stay classy, guys…
Birther, I have noticed a tendency in your posts to simply repeat the statements of others without any sort of independent analysis or research of your own. As far as I know, “Donofrio on Constitutional Law” is not a publication.
Vince T. was eminently correct in pointing out that Mr. Donofrio has a habit of selective quotations, by which I mean quoting a portion of a paragraph so that the context is missing and left to be supplied by Mr. Donofrio. What he did with the Wong Kim Ark decision is a good example. I can assure you that this sort of thing is unprofessional, intellectually dishonest and very irritating to judges.
You have also raised for the umpteenth time the red-herring of the “citizen-subject” distinction. It has already been explained to you by persons on this site, with reference to specific original sources, that the underlying English common law rule of citizenship was adopted by this country (as was much of English common law). In a monarchy, children born within the country and subject to the jurisdiction of the crown are called “subjects.” In the United States, a constitutional republic, children born here and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. are called “citizens.” There is nothing mysterious or complicated about it. You have refused to address that point in any of your posts, preferring instead to simply restate what you said before, as though monotonous repetition of a false argument miraculously converts it to the truth. Indeed, it is for that reason, that the birthers have essentially been reduced to citing each other as authority. Are you genuinely surprised that serious-minded jurists have no interest in listening to unsupported redundancies passing as argument?
Vince T. has done an incredible amount of work on this issue because battling absurdity requires more time and patience than does dealing with logical arguments of rational people. That’s why lawyers prefer to deal with other lawyers rather than with pro se litigants, who are routinely maddening. Most of the people on this site genuinely welcome well-reasoned alternative views of the law and justice. Try presenting some.
Lou Dobbs?
How about Jon Stewart Presents: Cable News Right Wing Crazy Contest,
brought to you by Josh Marshall’s TPM:
http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=3077133
Here are more laws OBAMA / BIDEN and their NAZIS have violated. These are part of the U.S. Constitution.
Principles VI and VII of the Nuremberg Tribunal, 1950
Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:
Crimes against peace:
Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
Principle VII
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principles VI is a crime under international law.
The Congressman Castle / Obama birth certificate video is up to 772,336 views!! BO’s lack of birth certificate is burning up the wires on the Internet!!
From Orly’s site:
“Over 44,000 saw an official Colbert video, probably 10 times more saw the reprints- and all this happened in 1 day!!”
BVM, taped car accidents get even more hits on YouTube, but I’m still not convinced that car accidents are the most important thing happening on any given day. Of course, if I were selling corn flakes, my views might be different.
Vince said “Do you or do you not want less that a dozen unelected judges to unseat a President?”
What I want or don’t want is not the issue.
The law is the law.
You don’t seem to understand that an act repugnant to the Constitution has no authority. Removal of an illegitimate president is not the removal of the president; it is the removal of the actor.
BirtherBoyle says “The law is the law.”
How would you know the law? Up above, you sounded as if you never got past the 20th Amendment in your reading.
Vince,
An act that is repugnant to the Constitution has no force or effect from the onset. The swearing in of a illegitimate president is an act repugnant to the Constitution.
I believe the 20th will apply.
We’ll have to see what the District Court Judge determines.
If one of the states had the balls to enforce the provisions of the Constitution (as the Framers would have expected), we would have a need to worry about the decision of a lone judge. If a state were a party, the Supreme Court would have original jurisdiction.
type-o
“we would have a need” should be we wouldn’t have a need.
BIRTHER/BOYLE.
READ THE 25TH AND THEN COME BACK.
I have found more stuff at Leo’s site. He derives the authority for the quo warranto law from the District of Columbia Clause of the Constitution. This is preposterous. The District Clause, also known at the Seat of Government Clause, only gives Congress authority over the affairs of the District and its Government. It is a municipal power, giving it the role of an all-powerful state legislature and city council for the District. The District Clause might authorize a statute that allowed the court to remove a meter reader or school principal or stuff like that. It is not authority for legal removal of officers of the National Government. That authority has to be found elsewhere in the constitution.
The District Clause does not confer powers over the National Government. Professor Turley is now the nation’s foremost constitutional authority on the District Clause. He has concluded that it does not allow Congress to authorize a voting House Member for the District, nor two Senators, because the Clause does not allow Congress to alter the structure of our federal government. It follows that the Clause does not authorize a court to remove tenured federal judges, Members of Congress or the President. The structure of the Constitution reserves their removal to Congress
Turley was also called as an expert on Impeachment ten years ago. I doubt if he thought at the time that quo warranto was a substitute for impeachment. His GW Law Review article is linked on this site:
http://jonathanturley.org/2008/02/18/too-clever-by-half-the-constitutional-argument-against-the-current-voting-bill-for-the-district-of-columbia/
This idea is almost as disturbing as Leo’s account of his trip here to DC in disguise to file with the Supreme Court. Some of his reasoning is bizarre: “The [quo warranto] Statute exists in the District of Columbia Code, the same Code which includes the United States Constitution.” Say what? The Constitution is reprinted in the DC Code, but that does not expand the authority of the District Clause.
I have to modify a posting above. Leo thinks that there would be a jury trial, so that 12 DC jurors would be added to the 8 or nine judges needed.
I would like to be called for THAT jury duty.
His last sentence below is correct in stating that Congress is “the only branch which has the authority to remove a sitting President,” but not for Leo’s reasons. Congress has that authority under the Impeachment Clauses, which are the exclusive means of removing a sitting President. How do we know? What part of the word “sole” does Leo not understand?
QUOTE FROM LEO DONOFRIO’S SITE, NATURAL BORN CITIZEN: There exists a statute enacted by Congress wherein it exercised Constitutional authority to challenge the credentials of, and/or remove, a sitting President found to be a usurper by failing to possess Article 2 Section 1 qualifications for holding the office of President of the United States. The Statute exists in the District of Columbia Code, the same Code which includes the United States Constitution.
District of Columbia Code Section 16-3501 states:
§ 16-3501. Persons against whom issued; civil action.
A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.
This is the only statute in the entire body of United States federal law which specifically provides for removing all officers of the United States located in the District of Columbia, whether appointed or elected. In Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17, Congress was given broad sweeping authority over every possible legal case involving offices of the Government of the United States located in the District of Columbia. The office of President of the United States is in the District of Columbia and is certainly governed by the United States Constitution. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 states:
“The Congress shall have Power To… exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States…”
Due to a little thing called “SEPARATION OF POWERS”, Congress is the only branch which has the authority to remove a sitting President….
UNQUOTE
BIRTHER/BOYLE. “We’ll have to see what the District Court Judge determines.”
I PREDICT IN WRITING THAT THE JUDGE WILL SAY CASE DISMISSED.
SIGNED
Vince Treacy, July 30, 2009
KathyW July 20, 2009 at 12:11 am
‘Do any of these “birthers” have any evidence AT ALL that Pres. Obama was born somewhere else?’
Nope.
An interesting read:
Alexander Hamilton
BIRTHER,
Are you a licensed attorney? The reason I ask is that you are debating with at least 2 attorneys who use their *natural born* names. Having attorneys speak on legal issues lends authority and credence to what they posit. While that does not guarantee that they are always correct, they are willing to place their credentialed reputations on the line against your abject anonymity.
Thanks.
We know the Prof is. Who else is a licensed attorney.
WARNING UPON ENTERING THIS BLOG:
Ever picked up a rock and there were many creepy, slimy bugs under it? Well, you have picked
up a rock by entering this blog to find many creepy, slimy OBAMA NAZI sympathizers. Law
students / lawyers, all take note as they try to justify OBAMA the MASS MURDERER / WAR
CRIMINAL..
Here is the Colbert video link which was scrubbed off Youtube:
“Stephen thanks Orly Taitz for being one of the few people willing to compare the Obama
administration to Nazi Germany.”
“Obama is completely illegitimate for presidency because he is not a natural born citizen.”
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/229691/july-28-2009/womb-raiders—orl
y-taitz
Do not go to troll bvm’s links.
THERE MAY BE A VIRUS
It’s the old virus fear tactic to keep you from learning the truth. Don’t be fooled by these fools.
Vince Treacy
1, July 29, 2009 at 3:31 pm
The conservatives out there ought to read, reflect upon, and take to heart today’s posting at the National Review. Obama has released his real birth certificate. There is no secondary document, only state records used to generate it. This is the certificate needed for a passport. It has been verified by reporters and state officials, and it is identical to the so-called vault copy.
Repeat, this not from main stream media, but from NR, founded by William Buckley, the most prestigious, long standing conservative publication in the country.
Vince that was the wrong link, here is the correct one. Law students take note please.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmJhMzlmZWFhOTQ3YjUxMDE2YWY4ZDMzZjZlYTVmZmU=
The slimy Obama bugs are caught in the sunlight and they are squirming and scattering.
Thank you, bdaman, for the new link.
My link connected to the NR editorial when I tried it a minute ago. I hope both links are good.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTRjMTFhMzQxYmEzNjA2YWIwOTU4YWVjNzRmODE2NTI=
webguru and the slimy Obot bugs stepped in Obama poo. Don’t let them track it into your living room.
Okay BuenaVistaMall, your last several posts are completely inappropriate and lend nothing to the discussion.
“Here is the Colbert video link which was scrubbed off Youtube:
“Stephen thanks Orly Taitz for being one of the few people willing to compare the Obama administration to Nazi Germany.”
“Obama is completely illegitimate for presidency because he is not a natural born citizen.”
BVM,
This alone shows how ignorant you are and how much anything you do is not worthy of respect or being taken seriously.
Stephen Colbert is a satirist of the Right Wing and in this case the birther movement. His character is a takeoff on Bill O’Reilly. A satirist makes fun of ridiculous opinions sometimes, by pretending to agree with them. If you watch his show regularly and don’t understand that then you truly are a moron. BTW the reason his clip was removed from YouTube is a dispute that Comedy Central, for whom Colbert works, has with Youtube about running clips from their shows.
BVM, You really should take some time off to educate yourself, if you are going to make yourself look as stupid as you do for taking Colbert’s satire as a real comment.