A Government Unto Himself: Obama Administration Creates New Sweeping Exemption Under The ACA [UPDATED]

President_Barack_ObamaI recently testified (here and here and here) and wrote a column on President Obama’s increasing circumvention of Congress in negating or suspending U.S. laws. This week, President Obama went even further with the announcement of a new sweeping exemption that not only has no foundation in the federal law but directly contradicts the law. It also happens (again) to be a change debated but not accepted by Congress. The exemption appears an effort to blunt growing criticism of Obama for a false assurance given to citizens before the enactment of the ACA. It is also coming at a time of new polls indicating that Obama is not only hitting a record low in popularity but Republicans appear poised to gain seats in both houses (and potentially could retake the Senate as well as add seats in the House). [Update: The White House is now denying that it will implement the hardship exemption despite the article in the Wall Street Journal and other media]


The individual mandate has long been the most controversial part of the ACA. That controversy magnified after millions of people lost their insurance plans despite assurances from Obama that no one would be forced to give up plans that they like. Even the Washington Post declared the statement to be false and a case of consistent and repeated misrepresentation.

The political damage over the ACA is clearly growing. That damage was greatly magnified by the mismanagement of the rollout by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and her staff. Such political costs of federal law however are not a basis for regulatory changes, even when such changes are allowed under the federal law. In this case, the President has far exceeded any plausible claim of statutory or regulatory authority. The individual mandate is the heart of the ACA and was the subject of heated and careful drafting. There is no provision for an exemption, but Obama has now rewritten much of the act with a series of extra-legislative changes — no fewer than 13 such executive changes to the law.

This last change will allow virtually anyone to avoid the individual mandate requirement — precisely the option that the White House successfully blocked when proposed in Congress.

The new change would allow individual to claim a “hardship exemption” to avoid paying a penalty for not buying insurance. That would fundamentally change the operation of the law. Not only does this contradict the law but the Administration fails to clear define what a “hardship” would be. It only says that such an exemption can be claimed if citizens “experienced another hardship in obtaining health insurance.” It seems designed to allow the maximum number of people claim the exemption, particularly given the rather forgiving standard that the person should “submit documentation if possible.”

The President continues to operate well off the Madisonian map — inventing exemptions and granting suspensions where no provision is made under the law. Most importantly, he is ordering changes proposed and rejected in Congress.

These changes are unlikely to receive serious judicial review if past cases are any measure. The Administration has repeatedly relied standing challenges to block review. Since the Rehnquist Court, standing has steadily shrunk to the point that constitutional violations are now being left unreviewed for lack of standing. The courts have long been, in my view, absent without constitutional lead as discussed in prior testimony (here and here and here).

Democrats continue to enable this shift of power to the Executive Branch with no concern for the changes that they are making to our balance of power. They continue to yield power to the Executive Branch even as evidence mounts that they are headed to a possible electoral disaster. It is the ultimate example of personality overwhelming principle. It is not just incredibly short sighted but self-destructive. A future president can easily claim the same inherent authority to suspend or grant exemptions to environmental or anti-discrimination law or suspend tax burdens for the top one percent. It would also mean that a president is virtually unlimited in being able to amend or suspend laws. It makes the legislative process merely a discretionary stage for presidents.

The animus toward the Republicans is blinding Democrats to the implications of what President Obama is creating in this new uber presidency. The President is appealing to that animus in taking these steps and aggrandizing power in his branch. It is part of “all is fair and love and politics” approach to constitutional law. It would take offline the stabilizing elements of the system and reduce the system to little more than raw muscle plays by politicians. Under our current system, there is only so much harm that any branch can do if it remains within the constitutional lines. It is designed to be idiot-proof and we have truly tested that design. However, once one branch goes outside of the lines, the system is left as little more than politics at any means.

While there will be many who applaud the latest insular change either for its political or practical benefits, it will join a troubling mosaic of unilateral and unchecked executive power. There will come a day when people step back and see the entire mosaic for what it truly represents: a new system with a dominant president with both legislative and executive powers.

237 thoughts on “A Government Unto Himself: Obama Administration Creates New Sweeping Exemption Under The ACA [UPDATED]

  1. Let’s get started. With all due respect to you, Professor Turley. Until someone can convince me otherwise, the judicial branch of the federal government is impotent to do anything to check the abuse of power by the Executive. Hence, the concept of co-equal branches of government is a fiction. I don’t buy “the long-standing rule that the judiciary is adverse to get in the middle of a political food fight. That’s crap. The judiciary has a constitutional obligation and responsibility to get involved. The over-paid, pampered justices need to get off their lazy asses and do something. We ONLY have a constitutional crisis looming here, folks. Thanks.

  2. I like to look @ issues and think of them in different terms. What is happening here is akin to the person who plans on dieting January 1st and so they binge eat from Thanksgiving to NY Eve.

    Great piece, Mr. Turley. But you must be a freakn’ conservative!!!

  3. What’s the solution? What can be done? What should be done? How can these overreaches be legally dailed down to force a President to remain within his Constitutional role? The problem has been publicized, discussed in Congressional hearings, what’s next? I’m a Democrat, I know we could once again have a Republican president.

  4. Jonathon: you are absolutely correct, now let us do something about the abuse of authority. I like you love this country and can not stand the Aulinsky type of politics Obama is practicing . Why don’ t you give congress a nudge and advice . I have asked our Rep. Peter Roskam to get a hold of you and hire you to advise the congress.
    A proud American
    God Bless America!

  5. He feels the need to do this to try and forestall a severe backlash in November. He will get away with it because it is what the people want.

    As long as he “gives the people their bread” Caesar can successfully subvert the system. It is at some point after Caesar’s reign that the republic fully ceases and the empire begins.

    “Our age…inherited the Republic like some beautiful painting of bygone days, its colors already fading through great age; and not only has our time neglected to freshen the colors of the picture, but we have failed to preserve its form and outlines. For what remains to us, nowadays, of the ancient ways on which the commonwealth, we are told, was founded? We see them so lost in oblivion that they are not merely neglected, but quite forgot. And what am I to say of the men? For our customs have perished for want of men to stand by them, and we are now called to an account, so that we stand impeached like men accused of capital crimes, compelled to plead our own cause. Through our vices, rather than from happenstance, we retain the word “republic” long after we have lost the reality.” Cicero

  6. Interesting too, how Democrats need to be “scared” with the notion of a Republican president in order to get them to sit up and take notice. It seems to indicate that a Republican president grab yet more power. Should we be more frightened by a Republican president and Congress?

  7. nick : if you were now in Obama’s shoes with a congress in complete logjam and boasting about their main focus basically to ‘DO IN’ this president (the choice of the US people) – what exactly would you do ?
    He wants to try and get this healthcare plan as operational as possible, it IS the Republican’s plan (that is until Obama proposed using the same idea !) – now 60%+ of the population do not want this healthcare plan cancelled because they know this is a good base to start with.
    The US is the only ‘civilized’ country without a public health care system (the existing system is #24 in treatment outcomes!) – this is the best Obama could get FOR THE MOMENT- I am crossing my fingers that more of the working population realizes one day which political party is actually on THEIR side (hint : it is NOT the Republicans!) and vote accordingly – amazes me completely what I hear every day from the right – what a bunch of ignorant people they are – Americans should be ashamed of the rhetoric coming from that side. As a woman I am particularly aghast at their ‘conservative’ ideas also !
    We are almost at Taliban level from these nuts.
    I guess you will give me a lecture about guns and ‘freedom’ so I will wait now to get the frenzied furor back !!!

  8. Veronica:

    I don’t consider myself ignorant just because i happen to disagree with you.But as an independent American, I believe the so-called Republicans are looking out for the country by opposing Obamacare. But we agree that the United States does not have a national healthcare system is outrageous and reprehensible.

  9. Eleazor : “He will get away with it because it is what the people want. ”
    SO – that’s something that should be STOPPED eh ?
    When you vote what are you expecting – that YOUR vote will count but the votes of the ‘OTHERS’ not count ?
    New rules are being written inb lots of states to prevent the ‘low life’ from voting – this will NOT be a democratic republic any longer once they have got that done – what will you think when it is YOUR vote that you find is not being counted – no reason to suppose you are immune from that policy is there ?
    Those who consider themselves ‘upper class’ were always a problem in Europe and had to be squashed by those who wanted their own rights – does this sound familiar yet ?

  10. Times to be afraid in…. Congress doesn’t do what’s in the peoples best interest…. The Sct are bought and paid for the gift of lifetime appointment….. The executive branch is trying to do what he thinks is right…. But going about it all wrong…. There is very little separation of powers left…. I long for the days of cases like Marbury vs Madison……… Where there was finally an agreement what each branch should do…. Though this case dealt with quasi recess appointments…..

    Until we dump all that are presently in power out…. Nothing will change but the name…..

  11. I have said it in other articles, but it bears repeating. Until and unless we get money out of politics, don’t expect a change in the way things are done. Whether it is a Congress that shirks its responsibilities and blocks any meaningful legislation or programs or an over reaching Executive branch.

  12. “He wants to try and get this healthcare plan as operational as possible,”

    That is a bizarre statement. The action we are discussing here actually delays implementing the plan. It would seem that delaying the mandate is, in fact, specifically preventing the health care plan being as operational as possible.

    Not only is the method used by the president questionable and troubling. It appears to be motivated by purely political considerations. The sole consideration seems to be what is good for the party in coming elections not what is good for the country, what is good for health care, or what is good for individuals who might be eligible.

  13. Justin L. Petaccio : how exactly are you so NOT in support of what this health care system offers – it is a STEP in the right direction that YOUR party proposed (the Heritage Foundation created the plan!)
    I suspect it is the Obama name that you are fighting, you just can’t help it – sorry you haven’t yet realized that you actually have a really classy president who has suffered the most outrageous, disgusting behavior against him that I have seen in the 30 years I have been in this country, and he and his wife have smiled and shown sweet tolerance in a way that I would NOT have been able to do !!! When you spout hate you are actually destroying YOURSELF – that is why the rhetoric has been getting worse and worse over the past 5 years – amazing the low level that people will let themselves descend to in the attempt to be spiteful against the lawfully elected Presidential choice of the people.
    God help this democracy – there will be another black president one day. let’s hope you will grow up by then !

  14. “We COULD once have a Republican President.” No, we WILL once have a Republican president. This President is using Dick Nixon’s tactics, added a Chicago flavor, and makes any Republican prez to date, look like a ham n’ egger.

  15. nick spinelli: “Who will be the first, “Yeah but, Bush/Republicans” to comment here?”

    I wouldn’t even go there if Professor Turley hadn’t said that Obama is worse than Bush. He’s not.

    “That controversy magnified after millions of people lost their insurance plans”

    Following the next link we see that what Professor Turley refers to as “millions of people lost their insurance plans” is really “as many as 2 million people may need to get a new insurance plan.”

    How disingenuous from the guy who hates Presidential misuse of power yet supports Citizens United. Talk about cognitive dissonance.

    And how about the fact that most, if not all, of those people who “lost their insurance plans” will get better ones?

    “Democrats continue to enable this shift of power to the Executive Branch with no concern for the changes that they are making to our balance of power.”

    Lumping all the Democrats together isn’t very accurate. Not all Democrats like these moves, and some progressives have spoken out against them.

    “It is the ultimate example of personality overwhelming principle.”

    Really? Trying to make a health care law work better is the worse than what Bush did?

    It’s getting harder and harder to take you seriously, professor, and that’s a shame.

  16. Veronica:

    What party? I just stated, unequivocally, that I am an independent. Is there an independent party? I’ve been calling for universal healthcare since 1985. It is not what the president is doing, it is how he is doing it. There are laws, and those laws must be respected. He doesn’t get it. He is a constitutional professor who has taken his knowledge of the constitution and twisted to fit his distorted view for the future of my country, America. Grow-up? I’m 64, how much more do I need to grow up?

  17. Veronica, I have no “furor” for you. You and I just disagree. When the minority party, Dem or Rep, only control one branch of Congress, this is what often happens. When you ram through a monstrous bill, that controls 1/7 of the economy, on a party line vote, it is naïve to think the back benchers won’t become intransigent. Obama is doing it the Chicago way where there is NO opposition party. It doesn’t work in DC.

  18. Justin, As you know, when you’re an independent, both sides think you’re “With them.” Tiring and tedious, isn’t it?

  19. Veronica:

    “Eleazor : “He will get away with it because it is what the people want. ”
    SO – that’s something that should be STOPPED eh ?”

    The end does not justify the means.

    As difficult a thought as it may be for democratic partisans, Obama will not be the last President. If the system is subverted then at some point all that will matter is sheer power and the republic that has so long protected Americans will be gone.

    I applaud Turley for his greater love of Constitution than party goals. I wish Republicans had had the same conviction in past years and that Democrats today in Congress would as well. Neither have. They have, as you do, more desire for what they each perceive people want today than for the security the people will need in future years.

    This short-sighted vision will, if not corrected, one day leave the beautiful painting that is our Constitution as dim as the document itself currently is under the protected glass.

  20. Don’t worry, be happy, the House just voted for the 52nd time to repeal, stomp, pinch, cut, maim, and destroy health care for Americans (a.k.a. ACA). After 52 rounds these competent marksmen surely hit their target in the U.S.eh?

  21. Justin : ” it is how he is doing it. There are laws, and those laws must be respected. He doesn’t get it”
    I am NOT seeing anything untoward in what the President is doing – when Bush just went into Iraq with NO lawful reason – THAT was illegal – I stood in front of my TV aghast saying “what on earth do they think they are doing?”
    IF the Pres’ IS doing something unconstitutional – then impeach him – but no one has really got that evidence have they ? Just another big waste of everybody’s time – sickening !!

  22. Raff,

    I really think Obama is fairly intelligent…. I think he’s getting thwarted every turn he takes…. Unlike Clinton…. He’s not politically acute to expect the unexpected…. He gets no free passes like the idiot bush got…. He ran on the issue of transparency…. I did not vote for him… I voted Nader…. I defended his right to do what was necessary to get things moving in the right direction…. But when the platform became no worse than the rest… I didn’t feel compelled to defend him anymore….. Some actions that he gets blasted for I will stand up for him…. Other actions…. He’s on his own….

    All along Jill was saying not to trust him…. I like lots of others was willing to give him benefit of the doubt…. I am just amazed at how far down he will go to exercise office…..

  23. and even Fox news has said the policy cancellations were a result not of the Prez but of the private insurance companies. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/11/05/insurance-cancelled-dont-blame-obama-or-aca-blame-america-insurance-companies/
    This seems to be more a screed against the president and the democrats. The “animus” towards the republicans is deserved. If they did the work for which they were hired the president would not need to enact executive orders, less then George Bush and other presidents by the way. Their obstructionism, from the first day of inauguration is what has brought us to this point.

  24. Veronica,

    I was just wondering what the principle you held was behind what you are saying. What I hear from you is that you agree with Obama on this issue. You strongly feel he is doing the correct thing. You think that Congress is stopping his excellent plan from working. Because Congress won’t do what Obama wants, you feel Obama needs to go around Congress and make the law he wants in place, be in place.

    So I wondered how you would feel if our nation elects a fundamentalist Christian to office who hates LGGT people. He feels, and the people who elected him strongly feel that it is not acceptable to have LBGT equality in the US. Congress is not going along with the president on denying LBGT equality. The majority of people feel strongly that the president is correct, just as you feel the current president is correct. The president creates his own law denying equality to LBGT people. The president says he is giving more rights to straight people, so he is increasing their rights and benefits.

    Would you object? If so, what is the basis of your objection? You just said the president has the right to unilaterally create a law that you approve of. What happens if another president creates a law you don’t approve of? What if this president is also black, perhaps even a black female. Would you be a racist if you objected to the president making a law?

  25. “Corporations United,” means citizens divided and marginalized. Way past time to stop taking cynical Orwellian euphemisms at face value.

    And Professor Turley has become positively hysterical in demanding that the Democrats stop toadying to the Republicans and actually start behaving like an independent party with lofty principles instead of the junior corporate faction of the Property Party that they became under Bill Clinton. No meaningful politics left of right exist in the United States, and so Professor Turley should stop fantasizing that any such counterbalance to corporate totalitarianism — or crony corporate crypto-fascism — will somehow ride into town on a white horse and save the day. With the Democrats and President Obama so pathethic and useless, better to demand that the Republicans show some class for a change and actually do something beneficial for the country.

    Now if only Presdient Obama would get an illicit blow job from a White House intern, then Professor Turley could call for his impeachment. We all know how well that workded out the last time.

  26. Professor Turley has studied and taught The US Constitution for years. He has argued his many cases in defense and support of the Constitution. I am happy to see the Lone Ranger (Mr. Turley) has put his party affiliation aside to alert the public of the danger our country faces if we continue to defend this executive offender, or stick with our partiality to our chosen party and not support the constitutional documents that have made our country the envy of so many other countries.

    The big and main question is, WHAT CAN WE DO TO CORRECT WHAT THIS PRESIDENT HAS DEMOLISHED IN REGARDS TO THE CONSTITUTION?

    It is time to take off the rose colored glasses that this president is going to make the U.S. great. HE HAS NOT AND IS NOT GOING to contribute to making this a better country to live in. During his five years in service, he has thrown good money after bad with his bailouts, his empty promises, his idea of helping the poor, his failure to educate the poor and train for jobs. His idea is to pump more money for welfare without really helping the poor. He shoved, kicked, and pushed a healthcare bill through, without knowing what was in the bill, nor having a committee to work at getting it right. He hasn’t been transparent, he didn’t close GITMO as promised, he didn’t bring all our soldiers home as promised, , he didn’t get the economy on its feet as promised and he hasn’t improved education as promised. Pull him aside and ask him about CORE Standards, and he wouldn’t be able to tell you what’s in it. In the foreign policy arena, he is a joke. He has lost trust and respect from most of our foreign allies, and he has made our country laughable to the enemy. The negatives go on and on.

    Show me what good things he has accomplished–please, I’ve racked my brain trying to find something to give positive credit to this guy. Even Prof. Turley says he likes some of his policies–what policies?

    To those liberals all I’ve got to say is that you voted him into office TWICE without enough experience. He never did anything significant in Congress. You didn’t know him, he was never properly vetted, but he was black and Democrat–and that’s all you cared about. The best thing I can say for him is that he’s a suave and debonair sweet talking bamboozler, who has pushed for a socialistic society–and is coming awfully close to changing our country in that direction.

  27. I’ll include in my next phone call to my House Rep:
    “I know you voted for the ACA. I’m curious as to where I can find your vote on the amended aspects of the ACA? You did vote to expand coverage of bad plans, didn’t you? Did you? How’s THAT anything resembling Law making?”

  28. Jill,
    LOL
    Instead of LGBT people as your example just use the 300 million Americans spied upon. Did Congress repeal the Fourth Amendment? They did pass a Patriot Act and, as Michael Murry noted above, it’s Orwellian by nature and the purpose is to get the average Joe to nod in agreement, “See, it says Patriot right there in the title so that means it’s patriotic to spy on Americans.”
    So the agencies under the charge of the White House interpret just that. And do so. There’s only about 9 million of us that this Patriot Act hasn’t reached, ya know.

  29. Exactly right, liberals wanted a Public Option. However money spoke louder than principles. How did Republicans help reform health care? They didn’t.

  30. Giovanna,

    Obama is not a socialist. If you go to the socialist party sites you will see real criticism of Obama’s policies, especially concerning health care but also foreign policy (and many others). Obama is a corporatist. He counts among his advisors, appointments and best friends, not one socialist, but many corporate leaders. Someone gave Jamie Dimon a pair of presidential cuff links which he wore before his Congressional hearing! Our nation is closer to something like fascism than anything else.

    I say this because the idea that Obama is a socialist is, I believe, very successful propaganda used against the public so we cannot see the truth. (I am not accusing you of using it as propaganda. I’m saying it is used as propaganda.) People on the right and the left believe it equally, even though it is completely counter factual.

    Obama told Congress what he wanted in that bill. He even had advocates for single payer banned from all meetings and finally, arrested at the WH. So I can’t agree that he did not know what was in his bill. There’s another thing you may never have heard of with this bill. That is the Christian Health Care exemption.

    Only a few companies, high paying donors to the political class, received this type of religious “rights” exemption in the bill. It gives a pastor who oversees your plan the right to determine whether you have given the proper tithes, attended church long enough and often enough, that you don’t get pregnant, etc. or your policy is then canceled. This happens only after you have paid enough premiums to get the owners quite a bit of money! This exemption was so well tailored it could not have come as a surprise to Obama or the Well point executive, turned Max Baccus staffer who wrote the bill.

    The health care bill helped insurance corporations get new customers. Congress had actually put out a single payer, universal health care idea, but it was the WH who slapped that down. Single payer, universal care would be closer to what you are calling socialism. Those are the people Obama had arrested. He’s not a socialist!

  31. Max-1, are you sure there are 9 million not spied on!

    Annie, how did Republicans and Democrats help health care reform? They didn’t!

  32. Veronica
    “but no one has really got that evidence have they ?”
    He’s got the 9000 pages hidden. Torture.
    Cover for the sins of his father, Bush.
    Can we say Obstruction of Justice?
    How can the Senate give the President a report to declassify based on evidence with held by the President, never reviewed by the Senate?

  33. Sadly, Jill. I agree. However there are Democrats in Congress right now that with the correct leadership would change that and reintroduce Medicare for All. Not any Republicans signing on to anything that resembles a Public Option. NEVER will. That is one of the reasons why I will continue to be a Democrat, and any woman who thinks the Republican Party will defend their reproductive rights, think again.

  34. Outside of sports, I’ve try my darnedest to stay away from comparisons. However if Obama and company allow the fundies to control both houses in 2014(and further demolish the state houses), can there be any worse?

  35. Oh yes, let’s not forget freedom from religion, separation of church and state. Where does the Religous Right stand on those? How about discrimination against homosexuals? Gays in the military, where did they stand on that? Equal pay for equal work, Lilly Ledbetter ring a bell?

  36. Annie, certainly support the person of your choice who will help in bringing about universal, single payer health care. However, I am not sure why Democrats believe so strongly that Democrats will protect women’s reproductive rights. It really depends on the Democrat. Obama took the ability to obtain insurance which would cover abortion away from the poorest and sickest women. He is a Democrat.

    So I would suggest to stop worrying about party affiliation and look at actions. It’s a big distraction from work that needs to be done.

  37. Annie, again, you seem to be unaware of how religiously right many in the Democratic party are, to include the president. Obama said he wanted to bring the Kingdom of God on earth. He supports a military which openly calls for a religious crusade against Muslims. That’s about as fundamentalist as it gets. However, his overlords are equally religious in this way.

    I guess it must be important for people to believe in their party but I really think this is a distraction to understanding what is going on and how to confront it.

  38. Jill, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Democrats. There are other principled Democrats that I would choose any day over most any Republican. I will vote for anyone who would further issues hat I feel are essential to a succesful society. So ga Republicans have made a MUCH MUCH worse showing than Democrats. Since there are two parties, I will vote for the one that most closely is aligned with my own ideas for a society that benefits all, not just the rich.

  39. Annie, I can’t agree that Sanders, who is actually a socialist, is principled, nor do I think Warren is principled (although she has a wonderful propaganda machine behind her and may well be Advertising Age brand of the year in 2016). But I also do not think I could ever convince a strongly partisan person that perhaps it is not very helpful to worry so much about elections. So we will just part company at this point of disagreement.

  40. ” How did Republicans help reform health care? They didn’t.”

    I think the fact that ACA is a rehash of a plan devised by a right wing think tank and the GOP intransigence on ACA gives a lot of support to the idea that GOP has lost its way by opposing everything proposed by the administration regardless of principle, application or effect.

    The party of ideas has become the party of NO.

    That is really too bad. Democracy works better when parties put forth their best ideas and compromise to implement practical solutions.

  41. Jill, not NEARLY so much as in the Republican Party. You cannot seriously believe that Democrats are driven by the Religious Right as are Republicans. All one has to do is look a who donates whose campaigns. Where does the Religious Right’s money go?

  42. bfm, Obama wanted this plan, it’s exactly what he asked for. Why do you think Obama is supporting a Heritage Insurance Plan? It’s Romney care–a known failure as far as getting people health care and keeping people from going bankrupt. Why on earth is that the plan Obama supports? Don’t you wonder?

    As to Republicans opposing the plan–yes, what is the problem. Does it need to go back to being called Romney care? I think what we are seeing is one party giving the two party dog and pony show. It’s really the only explanation which makes sense. This is a pro-corporate bill.

  43. Annie, I’m a person who has consistently held positions no matter who is in office, from what party. You did not, nor will you ever see me change my positions because of my affiliation with a party. So no, I am not a partisan.

  44. OF COURSE I wonder. I did not toe for him in 2012. I still will not ever vote for a Republican, UNLESS they drastically change their platform.

  45. Annie, I here is some information to look up. Check out Jeff Sharlot on “The Family”. I think you like Maddow– she interviewed him. It’s fundamentalist and it’s non-partisan. It’s even world wide.

  46. Jill,I watched it, I know what you are speaking of. The Family is associated wih mostly Republicans. They are also involved with ALEC.

  47. Without public campaign reform and striking down the nonsense that money is the same as free speech, this country’s gallop into the swamp of history can only get worse.

  48. No, incorrect. It is about Republicans, Democrats and all other retrograde “leaders” around the globe. I keep wondering why it is so important for you to think that the only bad people are Republicans. I think this is a mistake, foremost because it isn’t truthful and secondly, because it will keep everyone focused on the small picture while missing the big picture.

    As to voting, by all means, vote. I do. It’s just not the be all and end all of being a citizen and trying to make a more just nation.

  49. ” Why on earth is that the plan Obama supports? Don’t you wonder? ”

    Despite his campaign talk, Obama’s economic policies are right of center.

    Obama talks like he is transformational.

    If anyone has not noticed, a comparison of Obama’s senate and campaign positions with his administration policies demonstrate that Obama is an opportunist with a clear understanding of where the money and power lie.

    For many of us the question is not whether Obama supports our principles. The question is whether we can exert enough pressure that he will support some of our positions. That’s a maybe.

  50. Jill, I am a nurse. I follow what is called Evidence Based Medicine. I also can add up two plus two and come to the conclusion that Republican policies, because of evidence based knowlege of their policies, do NOT reflect what I hold dear and how I want our country run.

  51. Oops almost forgot voter supression laws that are hurriedly being shoved through Republican majority state governments, like mine here in Wisconsin. Another reason I reject the Republican platform and conservatism.

  52. Annie

    Do you recognize that this is a generic problem about a president abusing his constitutional authority and thwarting Congress? Bringing up this issue as Democrat vs. Republican only serves to cause senators and representatives to fight amongst themselves and not take action against the president’s unconstitional actions, which further allows the president to continue unilateralism

  53. Darren, yes I do. It wasn’t I that initially brought up Democrats vs. Republicans, but I most assuredly did respond to comments that focused blame onto Democratics. My first comment on this thread was asking what is to be done? wha CAN be done. One seems to have the answer, only accusations.

  54. Darren, If you don’t accept the premise that Dems are hardworking, smart and caring; and Rep are lazy, stupid and heartless, then you’re just yodeling in the canyon.

  55. I read the post but not all of the comments, so perhaps this has been discussed. But what I don’t get is why aren’t other constitutional scholars objecting? I remember lots and lots of op-eds in major papers about how the actions taken after 9/11 in the name of fighting terrorism were unconstitutional and how Bush was becoming an “imperial president”. Where are those distinguished constitutional scholars today? Is it that they don’t care about the abuse because they like the result? An “ends justify the means” mentality?

    Perhaps if more opinion shapers were publicly expressing outrage then the citizens would be less passive and start registering their angst in protests, rallies, etc. It’s just stunning how passive everybody seems to be as our elected representatives are marginalized and the laws they duly enact are ignored and unilaterally “amended” at will. I think it was Sheila Jackson Lee who went so far as to say that she’d write executive orders for President Obama. It’s all surreal.

  56. Max
    I was wondering the same thing. I think he has no principles and will go whatever way he thinks will benefit him. Although he did surprise me when he yelled at The TeaPublicans, “Are you kidding?!!” That was awesome.

  57. annie,
    Dr. Martin handed Sen Burr him a roughed up arse…
    “I know that there are 45 thousand in America who die waiting because they don’t have insurance at all.”

  58. Congress is lame. It is an easy phrase. Congress is lame brained as well. Even with the short amount of time they actually spend On The Hill, they can not even vote up or down on nominees to Executive positions or to Judiciary positions. They can not put together a budget. The claim that the President is being heavy handed is like saying a guide dog who picks up his human who fell on the ground is heavy pawed. If the President does not implement Executive actions then nothing gets done. Then the RepubliCons will say that he was a do nuthin President who is only half white. I would like the President to ask Congress to repeal their law which gives them free medical care for life. They need to be on the streets with the rest of us. If I was President I would address some of the lame Congress practices by calling Special Sessions when they are off on holidays. This country is going to hell in a hand basket and it is not the fault of the President. It is the Do Nuthin Congress, the DNG.

  59. Professor Turley, where were you when the President was a candidate? Please correct me where I am wrong. I heard a rumor that a candidate for the highest office in the land was required by the Constitution to be a “natural born citizen” which was defined in the “Law of Nations” as a citizen with two or both parents who are citizens in order to “avoid foreign allegiances.” It was said that the Founders transposed the phrase to the Constitution from the “Law of Nations,” the major law text of the era, from which they learned as law students, which was accepted throughout the Western hemisphere. Certainly and unequivocally the candidate had a father who was not an American citizen and who absolutely was a citizen of a foreign country with the aforementioned attendant “foreign allegiances.” A consequence very well may be the current turbulent state of global affairs.

  60. Veronica: If one branch is failing its constitutional duty, the solution is not to have another brance breach its constitutional obligations. Two wrongs do not make a right, they double the wrong.

  61. Veronica, Our “upper class” includes those of the career political elite, union bosses, corporate cronies and the various lobbyists. A specious argument that voter ID would repress voting. Voter ID should certainly be no deterrent to folks voting. One needs an ID to do just about anything, including going to a doctor and getting medications. Please look at this issue objectively vs. through the talking points.

  62. … Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, REGARDLESS of the citizenship of their parents.

    Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.” The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

  63. The solution is this: national ID. And right away I know what you’re thinking: SS storm troopers goose-stepping up to innocent citizens and barking, “Papers, please.” Tea partiers fret that a national ID requirement would be an intolerable expansion of government. Civil libertarians worry that it would be an intolerable invasion of privacy. “We’re not only talking about fingerprinting every American, treating ordinary Americans like criminals in order to work,” American Civil Liberties Union legislative counsel Chris Calabrese told [1] the Wall Street Journal. “We’re also talking about a card that would quickly spread from work to voting to travel to pretty much every aspect of American life that requires identification.”

    That sounds scary. But step back for a moment and listen to Anantharaman Muralidharan, a native of Singapore writing a few months ago about the identification card required of all residents there. It “doubles as a library card, it serves as identification when I apply for overseas visas or want to open a bank account. Someone’s IC also allows me to identify the other party if I get into an accident.” Hear any SS overtones? I don’t.

    And it’s not just Singapore. Most European countries produce ID cards for their residents, and they’re compulsory in Belgium, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands, among others. This hasn’t turned any of those countries into police states, and it’s not likely to in the future. Here in the United States, each of us has a Social Security number, and most of us have a state-issued driver’s license—and those two things are enough to allow the government to monitor and track us already, just as easily as if we all had national ID. As Robert Kuttner, cofounder of the liberal American Prospect, notes [2], “The real issue is not whether government and business collect databases on citizens”—they already do that—”but whether there are adequate protections against abuses.”

    The reality of national ID is really pretty simple: It’s just a way of identifying people. It’s not a way of stopping terrorism. It’s not a way of stopping identity theft. (The critics are right about that.) But it would be a way for employers to make sure they hire only legal residents. It would be handy for the poor and the unbanked who don’t have ready access to secure ID. It might even make emergency medicine easier if it allowed more reliable access to digital medical records.

    dog voting [3]
    Charts: UFO Sightings Are More Common Than Voter Fraud [4]
    What Happens When Digital Voting Machines Fail? [5]
    Why a National ID Card Is the Quickest Way To Put the Voter Fraud Wars Behind Us [6]
    The Dog That Voted [7]
    The GOP’s War on Voting Comes to Washington [8]
    Rick Scott Concerned About Non-Citizens, Citizens Voting [9]
    But its greatest advantage might come at the ballot box. With a national ID card, voter registration—whose only purpose is to ensure that you’re eligible to vote—is a thing of the past. Just show your ID, which confirms that you’re 18 and a citizen, and you get to vote. If you’ve moved, all you need is your ID along with evidence of your new address. If states want to prevent, say, felons from voting, it’s up to them to make lists of ineligible voters for poll workers. But the burden is on them.

    In a functioning national ID system, the government should go out of its way to make ID easy to get. At a designated age—maybe 16, maybe 18—you get your card. If you have trouble with your birth documentation, the government helps you. If you lose your card, it gets replaced. Cards are available at every post office and every federal building. Live in a small town that has neither? No problem—roving ID-mobiles roll through each village and hamlet once every month or two.(and it would be free for people in poverty!)

    Who would do all this? The Commerce Department doesn’t really have much of a mission anymore [10]. This would give them one. If not Commerce, maybe State or Treasury.

    Instead, we’re barreling headlong toward the worst of all possible worlds: a system with all the downsides and none of the upsides of true national ID. The 2005 Real ID Act [11] requires all 50 states to tweak their driver’s licenses to meet federal standards on things like machine readability. The states hate it, implementation has been postponed three times, and when (or if) it’s all said and done we’ll still have 50 different cards managed by 50 different bureaucracies. What’s the point? If we’re going to do this, we’re better off doing it right. National ID can be simple, convenient, and free. And it would make cries of voter fraud a thing of the past.

    Source URL: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/national-id-card-voter-fraud-solution

  64. For all of the complaints about partisan deadlock in Congress, there has been remarkable cooperation between Democrats and Republicans in the willingness to cede power to the executive branch. This process has occurred over decades; it did not begin with the Obama presidency. When we elect weak and fearful individuals to govern, they will gratefully surrender their authority, and the accompanying responsibility, in times of perceived danger. That is why the transfer of power accelerated during the Bush/Cheney years in the aftermath of 9/11. So while the executive branch carried out programs of torture, rendition and secret prisons, Congress sat on its collective rear end and pretended that all was well in the Republic. President Obama ratified the lawlessness by continuing many of the same abuses and declining to even investigate the crimes committed in our name. And when congressional Republicans decided that the Obama presidency should not be permitted any legislative accomplishments, the President ultimately decided that he would act without legislative validation.

    And that is where we are. Forget the nonsense about socialism and citizenship. The President is not a socialist and he is not the antichrist come to destroy a Christian nation. Indeed, there is no left left in this country. The importance of the notion of separation of powers is its function in preserving the rule of law. And the rule of law is all we have.

  65. Swarthmoremom,
    That’s a bit of a twist for Republicans, I thought in principle, they were all for allowing states to make their own laws regarding such things. Once again it seems that if Obama is for something, they come out against it. They should enforce their own principles.

  66. annie, They seem to invoke the “rule of law” rather selectively…..obamacare, marijuana and immigration law enforcement.

  67. Congress is a self morphed entity which cannot tie its shoes. While we don’t need them to spend time making new tax breaks for the Koch Brothers, we do need them to vote on nominees for judgeships or for executive jobs. If they sit on nominees for a year then we need more recess appointments. Presidents get criticized for Recess Appointments but critics like Prof. Turley do not criticize Congress for being out of the Halls of Congress. I do not know if the cathouses are on C Street or K Street in DC. I am sure that the Professor would know. But, we need to have some observers on the street to film Congressmen with their lobbyists and hookers. As someone who is an outsider to DC but who visited a few times, I cannot recall the correct name of the street that we frequented at night but we were not yakking with lobbyists. Yet the hookers seemed to know a lot of Congressmen and their staff. Since Congress has pretty much abdicated its role in approving judicial nominees and executive nominees, maybe that portion of the Constitution needs to be amended. Maybe let them impeach a judge but not approve an appointment. They never seem to want to do either.

  68. Evidently, all the time debating the law could have been 5 minutes and 2,600 pages less. Simply stated, the law should have merely said, “The President shall be empowered to create and change any and all laws pertaining to all heath insurance in the United Sates of America.” Is that not what we got?

  69. JILL-you responded to my comment stating that Obama is not a socialist. I beg to differ with you. Perhaps I should have said Reformed Marxism. If you compare President O to Germany’s Social Democrats, or the French and Spanish Socialist–he is ABSOLUTELY a socialist. Just as these groups of people promote a welfare state, so too does our current president.
    A reformed Marxist:
    * Favors universal health care and education
    * Progressive taxing
    * Redistribution of wealth
    * No incentive to succeed
    * protection of all people through welfare and food stamps
    * extended unemployment benefits without retraining and incentive to work
    * taxation to coerce businesses to promote socialist brand of “general welfare”
    * state run everything
    All these Marxist ideas are on Obama’s agenda
    Obama also wants more Carbon taxes, higher energy prices, restrictive drilling at the cost of jobs and growth. This is Socialism at it’s best.
    Obama is also chipping away at religious rights, degrading the constitution by running the government his way.
    Even his friends and connections lead him to Marxist company. It time to connect the dots and realize he truly is a “Reformed Marxist.”

  70. One moonbat politician does not constitute “They.” Being an independent, I would challenge anyone who stated Maxine Watters represents the Dem “They.”

  71. Nick, it’s just not one moon-bat politician and that’s why “they” has been used. But I sincerely appreciate and agree with your post.

  72. Mike A.,

    Bingo…. If we don’t have the rule of law…. We have nothing left to fight for…. Spot on with power being ceded all along….

  73. Eddie Stinson, please read the “Law of Nations” circa 1758 below. For Christ’s sake man! Do you know truth and fact? What version of corruption would you like us to accept? Because judges make corrupt “decisions,” the Constitution doesn’t say two or both parents? Kennedy wasn’t shot from the front either, right? The Founders learned and transposed from this legal reference of the era. You “interpret.” Where in the Constitution do you elitists get that right? America has been deprived of the freedom literally extant in the very plain and simple English employed deliberately by the Founders. Read it. Try the Preamble. It limits government to security and infrastructure, promoting the General Welfare while deliberately excluding individual welfare or redistribution in any form, while securing for ourselves the “blessings of liberty” which are our private sector endeavors, businesses and industries, including those of education, charity and healthcare, without interference from any government. Alas, no “commoner” is capable of reading English or understanding it according to you. Oh hell no! We can’t read English.

    “Law of Nations”

    “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.”

    Excuse me, it’s my passion.

  74. “SO – that’s something that should be STOPPED eh ?” Yes- the United States *is not* a democracy and *does not* operate on the basis of a majority vote. The United States is a republic. The difference is not merely semantics.

  75. annie,
    The ‘States Rights’ argument is predicated on a few basics:
    Oppression of minorities and women. Oh, and the NRA!

  76. Giovanna,
    degrading the constitution by running the government his way
    I found something to agree on!

    The rest, hogwash.
    He’s a Corporatist… borderline Fascist!

  77. John,
    Can a Nation build bridges with workers dying from diseases?
    What do you say about State University Hospitals?

  78. Jonathan, how do you respond to this from the above mentioned Media Matters article:

    “The hardship exemption was written into the ACA at the law’s outset, with the intention of exempting certain individuals from the shared responsibility payment — the “individual mandate.” As the law was written, exemptions and exclusions from this penalty would be granted to a range of groups in addition to those experiencing hardship and an inability to find an affordable plan…

    However, as HHS has repeatedly warned and the non-editorial side of the WSJ reported, an application with a declaration of hardship does not necessarily guarantee an exemption. It must be reviewed and approved before an exemption certificate is issued. Like other government attestations, this exemption application form requires a signature under threat of penalty of perjury and the various categories of hardship have differing documentation requirements.”

    WRITTEN INTO THE LAW. I mean, seriously I have lost so much respect for you, “Even the Washington Post…” – that Liberal bastion! Ha! – linking to Hot Air? Cripes! You are letting your passions get in the way of reason.

  79. John:

    I’m afraid that you’re about four years late to the natural born citizen party. That debate was played out ad nauseam on this blog. Search the archives if you’re interested.

    Vattel’s work was primarily concerned with relations among nations. Our concept of citizenship was not derived from continental law, but from the common law of England, as one would expect. You’re better off reading Blackstone and early American treatises on the issue.

  80. John,

    By your logic the first seven presidents were illegitimate. Why, the very legitimacy of the constitution is in question!

  81. Most the bills the House proposes never make it to the Senate floor, they are stopped by Harry Ried. You say a do nothing congress get your head out of your A$$.

  82. Angelfoot, the subject is not the first seven presidents, the subject is the current one, the one in my lifetime and our relationship to the Constitution. That erroneous “decisions” were made in the past does not interest me. Are you sure you’re not missing the “time of adoption” phrase. Please eddify me; thanks.

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

  83. Mike Appleton, by what authority do you ignore the language of the “Law of Nations” which you certainly understand (i.e. parents). By what authority do YOU declare that the Founders did NOT study, reference and accept the “Law of Nations?” By what authority do you declare English common law a differing basis for eligibility influencing the Founders? If I can read English, Vattel described the phrase “natural born citizen” as one whose parents (i.e. plural) were citizens. Would the Founders have considered the “Law of Nations” or spontaneously generated the phrase “natural born citizen” in the same decade? Seriously? You can torture the words of the Founders and those they learned from but you can’t change the English lanuage, unless I’m missing something.

  84. Obama is not a socialist. If he was the American people would have affordable healthcare, homeless people would be sheltered, the hungry would be fed, the elderly allowed to retire, students would have good public schools, city infrustructures would be maintained. No, Obama is NOT a socialist. Look up the word and learn the meaning. Socialists want the entire society to be healthy. America will never be a socialist society as long as money controls the government to the benefit of the super wealthy leaving the rest of us to die off.

    If Obama is increasing the powers of the executive branch just so he can get laws through the do nothing congress – then before he leaves office, it seems logical that he would reign that power back in so the “balance” is restored in our system. If his true intentions are to create an executive branch with unchecked power he will leave the door wide open for abuse by the next president.

    As long as big money controls US government, nothing will change no matter who gets elected.

  85. Jill wrote…

    “Obama told Congress what he wanted in that bill. He even had advocates for single payer banned from all meetings and finally, arrested at the WH. So I can’t agree that he did not know what was in his bill. There’s another thing you may never have heard of with this bill. That is the Christian Health Care exemption.

    Only a few companies, high paying donors to the political class, received this type of religious “rights” exemption in the bill. It gives a pastor who oversees your plan the right to determine whether you have given the proper tithes, attended church long enough and often enough, that you don’t get pregnant, etc. or your policy is then canceled. This happens only after you have paid enough premiums to get the owners quite a bit of money! This exemption was so well tailored it could not have come as a surprise to Obama or the Well point executive, turned Max Baccus staffer who wrote the bill.

    The health care bill helped insurance corporations get new customers. Congress had actually put out a single payer, universal health care idea, but it was the WH who slapped that down. Single payer, universal care would be closer to what you are calling socialism. Those are the people Obama had arrested.”

    Jill, how do you know this? This is completely the opposite of what Obama promised the American people. It can’t be true, can it?

  86. You mean to tell me that America was established to have the government control and plan for industry? Why that sounds like something mandated by the Communist Manifesto. Are the Preamble/Constitution and the Manifesto the same? Maybe free healthcare and insurance industries were provided for by the Founders and we simply can’t understand the language they used. Boy, call us stupid. Maybe freedom and self-reliance were established and expected by the Founders. Boy, call us stupid!

  87. Re: ” By what authority do YOU declare that the Founders did NOT study, reference and accept the “Law of Nations?””

    Answer: Yes, they did read Vattel’s book “THE Law of Nations,” but then they read a lot of other things too. In particular, they read BLACKSTONE, and he said that the meaning of Natural Born refers to the place of birth and that every child born in the country is Natural Born, and there is no evidence whatever that the writers of the US Constitution used any other definition other than that in the common law that was described by Blackstone. And, guess what, they did not mention Vattel or “The Law of Nations” even once in the Federalist Papers—while they mentioned the common law about twenty times, and always with praise.

    BTW, if you read “The Law of Nations” yourself, and you really should, you will find that it NEVER says that the leader of a country should be even a citizen, much less a citizen with citizen parents. In fact, Vattel gives several examples of countries picking their leaders from the nobility of other countries, and he never said that doing that was a bad thing.

  88. OK. Excellent. We’re making progress. To be sure, the Federalist Papers are not the Preamble or the Constitution. Are you saying that the Founders were a confused bunch that did not know what they were saying when they wrote the final versions of the Preamble and Constitution? My aren’t you something. I guess YOU, not the historical facts or the written word are the final meaning of the American foundation. I’ll stick with the words of the Founders in the Preamble and Constitution which are the same as the text they transposed from, the “Law of Nations,” including the phrase “Natural Born Citizen” defined as having “parents” who were citizens.

    Let’s focus. Blackstone used two words, Natural Born. Vattel, three words. No more. No less. “Natural born citizen.” Are those words used in the “Law of Nations” and the U.S. Constitution within a few years; in the same era? Yes. The phrase was accepted and used in the era to mean a certain thing.

    The “Law of Nations” and the U.S. Constitution did not have competing phrases. One was the original and one was a copy. The Founders used the phrase, natural born citizen, because of its accepted definition in the legal text of the day – a text that was studied and referenced by the Western legal community. To say that there are other words in the “Law of Nations” is a clear indication that you simply want to rationalize and make eligible a candidate that is clearly not eligible. These particular words and phrases don’t lie. They have one source and one meaning.

    Methinks thou dost protest too much.

    The emperor has no clothes.

  89. SMR Straus et. al., at the peril of your arguments, you completely ignore the obvious – the highest office in the land requires the highest standards. There are three possibilities. The candidate has NO parents that are citizens, ONE parent that is a citizen or TWO parents that are citizens. The highest standard here is the requirement for two parents (plural) that are citizens. It is not possible that the secondary or lowest standard would be applied.

  90. Re: “Are you saying that the Founders were a confused bunch that did not know what they were saying when they wrote the final versions of the Preamble and Constitution.”

    Not at all. I am saying that IF the writers of the US Constitution translated Vattel’s ONE word “indigines” which was not translated into English in any volume of The Law of Nations until ten years after the US Constitution was written, and IF they had translated Vattel;’s ONE word, “indignes” as Natural Born Citizen and used that and not taking the Natural Born from the common law and adding it to Citizen—they would have TOLD US, but they didn’t.

    Moreover, if you do a search in the writings of the members of the Constitutional Convention, you will never find them EVER using either Natural Born or Natural Born Citizen to refer to parents—not once. They used the term to refer to the place of birth, as it was used in the common law. Moreover, they had two friends, who wrote about the meaning of Natural Born Citizen in books, and BOTH of them used the term exactly the way that it was used in THE COMMON LAW.

    “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

    (Notice that the above refers only to the PLACE of birth, not to the citizenship of the parents. And, once again, Tucker and Rawle were friends with the members of the Constitutional Convention.)

    “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

    And finally, there is the letter from John Jay to George Washington, which appears to be the very first use of the term Natural Born Citizen. John Jay was AN EXPERT IN THE COMMON LAW, so if he had intended to use Natural Born differently from in the common law—HE WOULD HAVE SAID SO, but he didn’t.

    So: (1) Vattel is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers; (2) His word “indignes” was not translated as “Natural Born Citizen” until TEN years after the Constitution; (3) the writers of the US Constitution did not give any examples of using the term Natural Born to refer to parents; (4) Their friends Tucker and Rawle used Natural Born Citizen exactly the same way that Natural Born was used in the common law; (5) John Jay was an expert in the common law–and BTW, he wrote the first Constitution of the state of New York which makes THE COMMON LAW the law of New York State unless changed by a New York statute..

    Moreover Vattel himself NEVER recommends that the leader of a country even be a citizen, much less a citizen who has citizen parents.

    Re: ” Vattel, three words. No more. No less. “Natural born citizen.”

    Answer: As discussed above, only a TRANSLATION (and some say a BAD translation) of Vattel says “Natural Born Citizen.”

    He used the single French word “indignes” in his book. And, IF “indignes” had for sure meant “Natural Born Citizen,” they when people translate the US Constitution into French, they would use “indignes” to mean Natural Born Citizen—but NO translation does.

    And, as noted, the translation with the “Natural Born Citizen” in it did not come along until ten years after the Constitution was written, so IF the writers of the US Constitution had used Vattel, they would have had to have translated his word themselves. This they could have done, since they were highly literate—but the notion that they BOTH translated Vattel’s word, and used that translation WITHOUT TELLING US that they got the term from Vattel is far-fetched—to put it mildly.

  91. annieofwi, thank you for the practical demonstration that the “interpretation” that the Constitution does NOT require a presidential candidate to have two parents as citizens is ENTIRELY a point of a political agenda with absolutely NO objective, “judicial” bearing. I apprecate that.

  92. Re: “The highest office in the land requires the highest standards.”

    That is “reading into” the Constitution something that it does not say—that’s not allowed in strict construction interpretation, you know.

    Actually, the example of the Constitution is that it sets minimal standards, allowing the voters to make the final choice. Did you know that a convicted murderer is eligible to become president? Serial killers can become president, so long as they are Natural Born Citizens, so can atheists, communists, fascists and even former Tories (remember the Tories, the guys who fought against the patriots in the American Revolution? Well, there is not a word barring them from becoming president.) Did the writers of the Constitution want Tories and serial killers to be president? Of course not, but they figured that the voters would be smart enough to figure such things out—and if they didn’t—well, the responsibility should be on the voters, not on some guys in Philadelphia who were likely to be dead when the election was held.

    That said, the criteria for becoming president IS the highest of all eligibility criteria in terms of age and residency. Also, it requires that the president be a citizen at birth, not a naturalized citizen—which is allowed for members of Congress. But you are “reading into” the Constitution that the citizenship requirement goes beyond not being a naturalized citizen. If the writers of the Constitution had wanted the president to have two citizen parents (or even one), they would have told us—and they didn’t.

  93. Re: “. And, IF “indignes” had for sure meant “Natural Born Citizen,” they when people translate the US Constitution into French, they would use “indignes” to mean Natural Born Citizen—but NO translation does. ”

    That should read: “. And, IF “indignes” had for sure meant “Natural Born Citizen,” THEN when people translate the US Constitution into French, they would use “indignes” to mean Natural Born Citizen in the French translation—but NO translation does. “

  94. OK. No American of the era ever heard of Vattel or “The Law of Nations.” It was impossible to obtain the English version. Was it also impossible to obtain a decipherable version of the Bible? Did they have a clear understanding of the Ten Commandments?

    Also, the phrase and definition of “natural born citizen,” requiring “parents” (plural) as citizens, was originated by the Founders spontaneously upon consideration of the composition of the Constitution, having NO knowledge of the works of Vattel? Preposterous! The phrase, not variations on the theme, was verbatim transposed according to contemporary representations of translations (presumably, you perceive the translators you referenced to be nefarious felons).

    You can’t be serious that everyone involved in a novel, representative form of government would not want the best candidates available, who aligned with the highest standards, to hold office and that they would hold candidates for the highest office to the highest standards. Is it conceivable that they would want murderers and thieves to attain high office? That’s really reading something into the mix. If we look at the effect, those who actually held office were of the highest standards, in deed.

    Finally, is it not true that the standards for candidacy, for the office of president, were imposed to avoid “foreign allegiances?” I believe I heard a reference to that effect. Where did I hear that phrase? Would not having a father who was an eminent citizen of a foreign country have high potential to engender “foreign allegiances?” May one only guess at that?

    P.S. Weren’t McCain et. al. born on diplomatic “U.S. soil” in a foreign country? Were they not born on “effective” American soil? Come on now, let’s be honest here. You guys are sneaky.

  95. “A person must be a citizen at birth to be a natural born citizen. Senator McCain was born in the Canal Zone in 1936. Although he is now a U.S. citizen, the law in effect in 1936 did not grant him citizenship at birth. Because he was not born a citizen, he is not eligible to the office of president.
    “http://www.michiganlawreview.org/articles/why-senator-john-mccain-cannot-be-president-eleven-months-and-a-hundred-yards-short-of-citizenship

  96. SMSStrauss, this may demonstrate intent as to “foreign allegiances:”

    The purpose of the natural born citizen clause is to protect the nation from foreign influence. Alexander Hamilton, a Convention delegate from New York, wrote in Federalist No. 68 about the care that must be taken in selecting the president: “Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.”[5] St. George Tucker, an early federal judge, wrote in 1803 that the natural born citizen clause is “a happy means of security against foreign influence”, and that “The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against.”[6] Delegate Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina said in a speech before the Senate, “to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible.”[7]

    There was also a perception that a usurper from the European aristocracy could potentially immigrate and buy his way into power.[8] Constitutional scholar Akhil Amar points out that the laws of England specifically allowed a foreign-born head of state, and that this had been an unhappy experience for many who had immigrated to the United States.[8]

    If we establish “foreign allegiance” as anathematic, to completely avoid that, the standard for candidacy for the office of president would have to have been NO PARENT as a foreign citizen. Thus, BOTH parents would have to be citizens.

    P.S. The requirement for the secondary position of U.S. Senator is simple citizenship. That delineates definitively a HIGHER STANDARD for the HIGHEST OFFICE, which can only be that the candidate is a citizen born of parents (plural) as citizens, which is, coincidentally, the wording of Vattal in his definition of “natural born citizen.”

    Very enjoyable. Thank you.

  97. Re: “It was impossible to obtain the English version. ”

    Now you are showing how loony you are. There was an English language version, and had been a translation since 1760, but it does not use the phrase “Natural Born Citizen.” It says “the natives, or indigenes (italics indigenes) are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.” The term “Natural Born Citizen” was not substituted for indigenes until the translation of 1797.

    So the requirement is still that IF the Constitutional Convention were using Vattel and not the common law, they would have had to have translated the French word “indigenes” either from the French edition or from the existing English Language edition, and they would have had to have done it themselves—and not told anyone that they translated it themselves—which is hardly likely.

    The use of the common law, which had been around for 300 years and which virtually all of them were experts in, is far more likely—and, after all, it’s in English. To be sure, they COULD have translated “indignes” as “Natural Born Citizen”—but to do so and NOT TELL that they did, is not likely. Moreover, it may not even be a good translation. Remember it says that the natives, or indigenes—so indigenes were natives, and in America natives are Indians.

    Re: “OK. No American of the era ever heard of Vattel or “The Law of Nations.”

    Answer: Again you are wrong. That is neither true, nor did I say it. Vattel’s work was popular—but BLACKSTONE was vastly, vastly, vastly, MORE POPULAR. Vattel’s work was almost entirely devoted to INTERNATIONAL LAW, Blackstone concerned domestic law, which makes up the bulk of cases—and lawyers NEED to know it. The idea that the writers of the Constitution would consult an expert on international law on the DOMESTIC matter of the criteria for a leader (especially when Vattel DOES NOT SAY that a leader must even be a citizen, much less one with two citizen parents) is simply absurd. Blackstone does not give criteria for leaders either, but his use of Natural Born is the same one that had been in the common law for 300 years—and which referred to the place of birth, not the parents.

    Re: “The phrase, not variations on the theme, was verbatim transposed according to contemporary representations of translations (presumably, you perceive the translators you referenced to be nefarious felons). ”

    Answer: Once again, the term Natural Born appeared in Blackstone and the common law. The phrase “Natural Born Citizen” did not appear in Vattel, only the French word “indigenes.” In 1797, the translation with “Natural Born Citizen” in it appeared, but that could not have affected the Constitution, which was written a decade before.

    Re: “You can’t be serious that everyone involved in a novel, representative form of government would not want the best candidates available, who aligned with the highest standards, to hold office and that they would hold candidates for the highest office to the highest standards. Is it conceivable that they would want murderers and thieves to attain high office?”

    Answer: is it conceivable that they would want a seven-year-old Russian kid to be the Chief Justice of the USA? Answer: Obviously not, but there are NO requirements of any kind to be a chief justice or any justice. Why no requirements? Because the writers of the Constitution realized that they had to TRUST the future leaders who picked justices not to pick seven-year-olds, and they had to trust the voters not to pick criminals too. Criminals are not excluded because they are good, they are excluded to allow us to CHOSE, and the same goes for the US-born children of foreigners. The writers of the US Constitution were worried about FOREIGN BORN US citizens being loyal, but there is no evidence whatever that they worried about the US-born children of foreigners being loyal. IF they had said that they worried, if they had said that they thought that the US-born children of foreigners were not as likely to be good citizens as the US-born children of US citizens, that would be a different matter. But they never ever did.

    Re: “Finally, is it not true that the standards for candidacy, for the office of president, were imposed to avoid “foreign allegiances?” I believe I heard a reference to that effect. Where did I hear that phrase? Would not having a father who was an eminent citizen of a foreign country have high potential to engender “foreign allegiances?” May one only guess at that? ”

    Answer: The common law holds that a person can have only one allegiance, to the country of the place of birth. Get it? Regardless of the citizenship of the parents, under the common law—and indeed according to current US law—a person born on US soil (except for the children of foreign diplomats) is considered to have allegiance ONLY to the USA. A person born in the USA who had two citizen parents and was a dual citizen who fought against the USA in a war would be tried for treason because he violated his allegiance. A person born abroad to two citizen parents who fought against the USA in a war MIGHT be tried for treason, or might not, but there is no question that every child born on US soil has allegiance to the USA, and that allegiance cannot be divided.

    Re: “P.S. Weren’t McCain et. al. born on diplomatic “U.S. soil” in a foreign country? Were they not born on “effective” American soil?”

    Answer: I agree with you, a US naval base is US soil, even if it were on leased territory. But, that, of course, does not change the facts that (1) Obama and Rubio and Jindal were all born on US soil with one or two parents who were not US citizens at the time of their births; (2) they are all Natural Born US Citizens. Cruz, having been born in Canada, is not clearly a Natural Born Citizen.

    Re: “The purpose of the natural born citizen clause is to protect the nation from foreign influence.”

    Answer: Yes, no question about it. IF you were born on foreign soil, you have foreign influence. If you were born on US soil, you don’t. See discussion of allegiance above.

    Re: “St. George Tucker, an early federal judge, wrote in 1803 that the natural born citizen clause is “a happy means of security against foreign influence”,

    Answer: That’s right. If you were born on foreign soil, and naturalized, you were considered subject to foreign influence. But, if you were born on US soil, you WEREN’T. Try to grasp the fundamentals. IF the writers of the US Constitution thought that a child born on US soil who had two or one foreign parent was likely to be have so much foreign influence as to be distrusted and barred from the presidency—–THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US—and they didn’t.

    Re: ” laws of England specifically allowed a foreign-born head of state.”

    The current King of Thailand, Bhumibol, was born in Boston about 90 years ago, and if he had not specifically renounced US citizenship, he’d be eligible like everyone else born on US soil. He would have been excluded from US citizenship IF his parents were diplomats—but they weren’t.

    Re: “If we establish “foreign allegiance” as anathematic, to completely avoid that, the standard for candidacy for the office of president would have to have been NO PARENT as a foreign citizen. Thus, BOTH parents would have to be citizens. ”

    Answer: Once again, you are “reading into the Constitution” something that it does not say—-which is not allowed under Strict Construction interpretation. If the Constitution does not specifically say that BOTH or even one parent is required, they aren’t required. If it was possible—indeed likely—that the term comes from the common law, and the writers of the US Constitution did not SAY that it came from Vattel or that two or one citizen parents are required, they aren’t required.

    Re: ” That delineates definitively a HIGHER STANDARD for the HIGHEST OFFICE, which can only be that the candidate is a citizen born of parents…”

    Answer: The only difference in the standard between Senator and President is that a Senator can be a naturalized US citizen, and the president cannot be naturalized.

    Re: “coincidentally, the wording of Vattal in his definition of “natural born citizen.”

    Answer: There’s no coincidence. Birthers want Obama (and maybe Rubio and Jindal) to be not considered eligible, and so they found the 1797 TRANSLATION of Vattel, which they think shows that they aren’t eligible. But that is only true if there is EVIDENCE that the writers of the Constitution used Vattel and not the common law—which was, duh, much more common—and there ISN’T ANY.

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

    More reading on the subject:

    http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012

  98. SMStrauss

    THE
    LAW OF NATIONS
    OR
    PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF
    NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS
    FROM THE FRENCH OF
    MONSIEUR DE VATTEL.

    § 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.

    I am very sorry but you appear to be contradicted by history, at least according to:

    THE NEW EDITION, BY
    JOSEPH CHITTY, Esq. Barrister At Law
    WITH ADDITIONAL NOTES AND REFERENCES,
    By EDWARD D. INGRAHAM, Esq.

    Clearly this text quotes Vattel as coining the phrase “natural born citizen” and defining it as those born of parents who are citizens. You may quibble with the authors about their abilities or lack thereof. They present these words as fact. When they retract, I will concede.

    You appear to believe that the Founders were the teachers, not the students as Vattel was the student, not the teacher. How can you live with yourself knowing that this translation exists? Why have you not made it your quest to have this publication withdrawn? Have you discussed the subject with this publisher?

    I presume you have immutable confidence in the capacity and capabilities of all the Senators and Congressmen who disagree with the Vattel-as-teacher hypothesis. I don’t. As I recall, it was the inestimable Nancy Pelosi who said of the Affordable Care Act that she “had to pass it to find out what is in it.” Priceless. And I should be concerned that most “elected officials” have a different opinon than I and Joseph Chitty, ESq. Barrister At Law on the words of Vattel.

    According to you, Vattel said that

    “the natives, or indigenes (italics indigenes) are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”

    Of course, you know “natives” referred to contemporary, not original, citizens of the country and that they were born of parents (plural) who were citizens. I presume you don’t infer that Vattel confined his publication to the perspective of original populations excluding subsequent populations? The natives Vattel refers to are not a nation’s original population but the subsequent, contemporary population, wouldn’t you agree?

    Blackstone influenced the Founders. Why did they not quote his phrase? You state that Blackstone was vastly, vastly, vastly MORE POPULAR, and yet the Founders quoted Vattel or, do I have that wrong, Vattel quoted the Founders posthumously?

    It is very interesting that you admit that the Founders studied Vattel but did not study his definition of citizenship. If it turned out that the Founders read Vattel, would they have read that his essential description of a citizen required parents (plural) as citizens? Would they have learned that Vattel was concerned that the FATHER (not mother) constituted negative influence as a foreign citizen?

    I find no response to my inquiry about any disagreements you may have with translations of the Bible. How is it that we can accept the English translations of that work but not the “Law of Nations.” Have not multiple languages, some obsolete, been ascribed to the verses of the Bible? It seems that the anomaly there is that there are no anomalies. It is not plausible that translations can be so erroneous as to be felonious and still enjoy publication.

    Just to be clear. Did Blackstone use the phrase “natural born citizen?” What is the first publication of that phrase? Why do publishers attribute the phrase to the American Founders and Vattel in the “Law of Nations?” There does appear to be a connection that you are deliberately ignoring while Blackstone did not use the phrase.

    Loony. Is that related to the moon or the bird? Whatever, it seems to have challenged you.

  99. SMStraus, would you agree that the Founders would have found Vattel’s positions on citizenship “state of the art” or the most advanced “point of the spear” thinking in the legal realm of the era? You stated that common law, Blackstone, et. al. had existed for 300 years which would have made it seem out of date to most people. Vattel would have lead, not followed the Founders into nationhood.

  100. P.P.S.
    SMStrauss, I can’t get the concept out of my mind (loony) that the Founders conducted a revolutionary war against the British Empire only to happily carry on its very British traditions including their 300 year old common law (i.e. stale, anachronstic). These seemed like people looking for a change, perhaps a change from Blackstone even. The Constitution doesn’t say, “we’re following Blackstone, ver batim,” does it? Seems a bit odd. Then, 1760, along comes Vattel with the latest concepts in nation building. Well how about that?

  101. John:

    Save yourself unnecessary work and read the archives on this issue. Your argument is dead and buried.

    As for the common law, check your state statutes. You’ll likely find that one of the first laws enacted by your state legislature following admission to the Union was a provision adopting the common law of England.

    I appreciate the fact that you’re not a lawyer, but you should read some legal history in any event. Vattel was a fine scholar, but smrstrauss is absolutely correct.

  102. Mike Appleton has it absolutely right.

    We can assume that many of the writers of the Constitution read Vattel. But we cannot assume that they followed THE CHITTY translation of Vattel, which was written well after the Constitution.

    We also know that the Constitution does not follow all that Vattel recommended. For example, Vattel recommended that every country should have a state religion and force people to join it or make them leave the country. We did not adopt that. So, what makes you think that we adopted the two parent (or even one parent) requirement?

    Once again, they COULD have translated Vattel’s word “indigenes” as “Natural Born Citizen” themselves and used it instead of the common law. But if they did that, THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US. And, of course, they didn’t. They never said “we translated Vattel and we used his definition.” They never said that parents were required. In their writings before and after the Constitution, they ONLY used Natural Born the same way that the common law did——to refer to citizenship due to the PLACE of birth. There are NO examples of them using it the Vattel way.

    Sure, they wanted to protect the USA from foreign influences, but they did not consider children born on US soil to be foreign. They considered them to be AMERICAN. IF they had considered children born on US soil to foreign parents to be foreigners, or lower-class citizens than the children born on US soil to US parents, THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US—and they didn’t.

    Re: ” Then, 1760, along comes Vattel with the latest concepts in nation building. Well how about that?”

    Answer: That is as likely as their adopting his recommendation on state religion. They did not adopt his recommendation on every country having a state religion. So, they did not adopt everything that he recommended, not by any means. But, They DID use concepts from the common law—such as Habeas Corpus, and ex post facto—throughout the US Constitution and referred to the common law about twenty times with praise in the Federalist Papers.

    And, not only is there NO evidence that they adopted Vattel, but there is the EVIDENCE of their two friends, Tucker and Rawle, that they used the term Natural Born Citizen to refer to the place of birth and that EVERY CHILD born on US soil (except for the children of foreign diplomats) is a Natural Born Citizen. Surely, IF they had used Vattel and not the common law, they would have told Tucker and Rawle—but they didn’t.

  103. Oh, by the way, I see that I quoted Tucker twice above, and failed to quote Rawle, who was a friend of both George Washington and Ben Franklin. Here he is:

    “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

  104. Thank you. Why did Chitty translate “natives” to “natural born citizen?” Why and how was Chitty allowd to continue to publish anything; why was his license not revoked? This makes absolutely no sense. A publisher is allowed to arbitrarily change the meaning of a text by changing its translation.

    One of you is wrong. You or Chitty. Which is it? Why was Chitty published?
    Why haven’t you corrected Wikipedia for one? If I recall correctly, Wiki quoted Chitty.

  105. Re: “Thank you. Why did Chitty translate “natives” to “natural born citizen?””

    Answer: Publishers publish bad translations all the time.

    But, say that there is a remote possibility that Chitty (whose first edition was in 1834) got the translation vaguely right. Well, even if he did, that DOES NOT MEAN that the writers of the US Constitution used Vattel.

    If they had used Vattel, they would have said so—and they didn’t. And the Federalist Papers did not mention Vattel at all, while it mentioned the common law about twenty times and always with praise. For them to have used Vattel, they would have had to have translated the French word “indigenes” as “Natural Born Citizen”—and then used that translation, without saying that they had made the translation or that they had used Vattel—-that is not very likely, is it. The common law was, duh, far more common.

    So, regardless of what Vattel may have thought, there is NO evidence that the writers of the Constitution relied on him They certainly did not rely on his advice that every country should have a state religion and force people to join it or make them leave the country. So, what makes you think that they adopted his two-citizen-parent idea?

  106. I appreciate your ability to digress and obfuscate but it would be more productive to remain on topic which is the phrase “natural born citizen.” Can you refer a use of this very phrase by Blackstone or any other source? I would be very interested in knowing the reason that phrase, in particular, was used in the Constitution.

    The Founders did not copy, ver batim, English common law or any other source. Many sources show Vattel as the first use of this particular phrase. You don’t agree with that. All of your speculation and conjecture do not provide facts. The friends the Founders had and their deliberations, while interesting to readers, are NOT material or relevant to the final phrase the Founders actually used – no one knows precisely and exactly what decisions ultimately occurred in the minds of the Founders who penned the phrase “natural born citizens.” For all we know, the participants could have simply acquiesced out of exhaustion.

    Please address the phrase “natural born citizen,” not any other words, combinations or forms. It appears Blackstone did not use the phrase, ver batim, nor did English common law. The Founders used the phrase “natural born citizen” which ONLY directly connects with Chitty’s, et. al., translation of Vattel.

    Where in history do we find the ver batim phrase, “natural born citizen?” Until we find an irrefutable source of the phrase, the best evidence is Vattel’s use (translated).

    It continues to be a source of wonderment how the words of the Bible have been generally accepted considering that fact that translating the various languages and meanings therein must have been exponentially more difficult than the work of one man, Vattel. It is interesting that on this political website there are vicious attacks on the translators but very little, in fact much agreement, when it comes to the, presumably, more important and impactful Bible.

  107. Re: “Many sources show Vattel as the first use of this particular phrase. ”

    Since Vattel wrote in FRENCH, and the phrase was not translated into English until ten years after the Constitution, he could not have been the one who used it first.

    Apparently, the first use of the term was in the letter from John Jay to George Washington, in which he recommended that the commander in chief should be a Natural Born Citizen. And, wait for it, John Jay was AN EXPERT IN THE COMMON LAW.

    Re: “Where in history do we find the ver batim phrase, “natural born citizen?” ”

    Answer, once again, in John Jay’s letter.

    Re: “Until we find an irrefutable source of the phrase, the best evidence is Vattel’s use (translated). ”

    Answer: Would you like to buy a bridge? I have a bridge to sell you, a pretty one. If you buy the myth that a translation after the Constitution was the source of a term in the Constitution, you’ll buy anything.

    The fact that a translator ten years after the Constitution was written used the same three words as used in the Constitution is what is known as A COINCIDENCE. The term does not come from Vattel. The writers of the Constitution took the common law term Natural Born and added Citizen, and if they had used Vattel, THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO—and they didn’t.

    The evidence of their friends Tucker and Rawle was that they used the term Natural Born exactly the same way as it was used in the common law. And there are NO examples of the members of the Constitutional Convention ever using the terms Natural Born or Natural Born Citizen to refer to PARENTS, only as in the common law, to the place of birth.

    Re Bible. What does that have to do with Natural Born Citizen status? It certainly DOES NOT SHOW that the writers of the Constitution used Vattel. The later translations of Vattel’s “indigenes” as “Natural Born Citize” might or might not be accurate, but the fact that translations AFTER the Constitution affected the Constitution is loony. The only way that Vattel could be the source of the term would be for the members of the Constitutional Convention to have translated “indigenes” themselves, and translated it as “Natural Born Citizen”—and then used it. But it is hardly likely that they would have done that WITHOUT TELLING US THAT THEY DID, and they didn’t.

  108. You have your version and Chitty has his. We seem to be at an impasse. You say “native” Chitty says “natural born citizen.” Chitty is published to this day. You are not.

    The”Bible” has to do with accurate translation. The Bible came from exponentially more sources and there is infinitely less confusion and disagreement about the words used and ideas presented therein.

    You seem to say that the Founders had FULL exposure to the “popular” Vattel definition which requires parents (plural). Then you say, during their educational and formative years, the Founders had no translation of Vattel. You appear to contradict yourself. Did they or didn’t they read the translated version of Vattel? Did they READ Vattel’s requirement for parents (plural) or not? If they read “parents,” then “parents” (plural) was in their minds. If it was in their minds, they could have used Vattel’s definition without telling their friends, acquaintances or colleagues. They might, even, have not told you. I would have been very surprised at the time that the Founders would not have had some new, groundbreaking ideas. I would have been very surprised, at the time, that they would not have had some surprises.

    You suggest that considering or writing any basic law would have been moot as the immutable practice was to transpose English common law without modification or amendment every time a new hamlet was erected. The Founders, according to you, had no work to do other than the task of transference. These weren’t thinkers, they were bearers, beasts of burden. Through familiarity with Vattel, the Founders may very well have meant that a “natural born citizen,” from that point forward, would have been defined as having parents (plural) as citizens, which would have been consistent with people who were setting the foundations of an entirely new form of government, with great expectations, and attempting to insure against any negative influences from foreign allegiances (precluded somewhat by requiring two parents as citizens), using the newest ideas in contrast to those that were 300 years old.

    You present friendships and acquaintances but you don’t present facts and direct evidence of the use of the phrase, ver batim, “natural born citizen.” It does not exist in English common law or Blackstone’s writings. You may have an argument with Chitty and I don’t want to come between you two parties. I can read that use of the phrase is assigned to Vattel and the Founders. That is all. Please present what you can prove related to the ver batim use of the phrase “natural born citizen.”

    If you can’t do that, you don’t appear to have standing.

    P.S. Did you say I was not a liar or not a lawyer? I’m not sure how to take that, exactly.

  109. Re: “direct evidence of the use of the phrase, ver batim, “natural born citizen.” It does not exist in English common law or Blackstone’s writings..”

    No, but Natural Born did.

    It takes a leap, a leap of stupidity, to think that the writers of the US Constitution translated Vattel’s French word “indignes” as “Natural Born Citizen” and then used that translation—AND never told us that they did that. They were mainly lawyers, familiar with THE COMMON LAW. They got the meaning of Natural Born from the common law. IF they had gotten it from anywhere else, THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US—and they didn’t.

    There is nothing “verbatim” about “indigenes.” The fact that a translator ten years later said that that French word meant “Natural Born Citizen” is a COINCIDENCE.

    And we know that the writers of the US Constitution did NOT accept other things that Vattel recommended—-such as state religion—so there is no evidence that they accepted his idea about parents either. Moreover, their friends Tucker and Rawle used Natural Born Citizen the way that Natural Born was used in the common law. That is a FACT. It shows that the writers of the Constitution were using THE COMMON LAW, not Vattel.

    Re: “but you don’t present facts and direct evidence of the use of the phrase, ver batim, “natural born citizen.”

    Answer: BOTH Tucker and Rawle use the exact verbatim phrase Natural Born Citizen, and both of them use it exactly the same way as Natural Born was used in the common law:

    “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

    “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

    Do you see “Natural Born Citizen” in Tucker? He says that it is made up of “those born within the state”—the place of birth, not the parents. Do you see “Natural Born Citizen” in Rawle? He says that EVERY person born in the USA is one regardless of whether the parents are citizens or aliens. And, guess what, there is NO example of the writers of the US Constitution ever using either Natural Born or Natural Born Citizen to refer to the citizenship of the parents, only to citizenship due to the PLACE of birth.

    Re: “You seem to say that the Founders had FULL exposure to the “popular” Vattel definition which requires parents (plural).”

    Answer: NO, I said that SOME of them had read the book. But I also said that they also read other books and did not accept everything that he suggested (such as a state religion). And I also said that they read either the original French or the translation that used the word “indigenes”—which some of them, but not likely all, might have translated as Natural Born Citizen. But IF they did, all that they would have thought was “it’s VATTEL’s definition of NBC—not the one that comes from the common law—so why should I use it?—but IF I do use it, then for sure I’d tell people that I used it”—and they didn’t tell anyone that they used Vattel.

    Re: “You suggest that considering or writing any basic law would have been moot as the immutable practice was to transpose English common law without modification or amendment every time a new hamlet was erected.”

    Answer: No I said that the use of concepts from the common law was, duh, common (like Habeas Corpus and ex post facto), and that if they had used a new definition of a common law term, a meaning that came from a SWISS philosopher (and in Switzerland they use jus sanguinus and not the jus soli that the British and Americans were familiar with) and did not use the common law, which was, duh, common—then they would have told us that they did, and they didn’t tell us.

  110. Re: “the Founders may very well have meant that a “natural born citizen,” from that point forward, would have been defined as having parents (plural) as citizens, which would have been consistent with people who were setting the foundations of an entirely new form of government, with great expectations, and attempting to insure against any negative influences from foreign allegiances (precluded somewhat by requiring two parents as citizens), using the newest ideas in contrast to those that were 300 years old. ”

    Answer: IF they had done that, THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US—and they didn’t.

    It’s not allowed under strict construction to “read into the constitution” something that you think MAY have happened. If they did not say, “we are not using the common law, we have switched to Vattel,” they did not switch to Vattel.

  111. OK. Allow me to take another leap of stupidity and ask what you mean by “friends” regarding Tucker and Rawle – do you mean every electron of cogitation was automatically conveyed to Tucker and Rawle and vice versa, by whom, the Founders, the Writers, whom? Exactly how close were these “friends?” Was there a regulation that the thoughts of Tucker and Rawle and the Founders had to be exchanged and those events reported. You’re making statements that you haven’t proved.

    Was, then, the phrase “natural born citizen” coined by Tucker and Rawle?

    To be clear, you are the one who broached the subject of “translation” or mistranslation. And you haven’t explained why no entity has challenged the nearly 200 year old translation of Vattel that quotes him as writing “natural born citizen” that currently exists, for example, on Wikipedia. You persist in ad hominem attacks against me when the alleged culprits are the likes of Chitty. You have failed to establish your prevalence over the that ilk. At this point it’s a he said, she said.

    When you finally establish that all parties referred to herein became, at a minimum, familiar with Vattel, you will be compelled to admit that they assimilated a new definition of “natural born citizen” that required two parents as citizens which would have placed this idea in the collective consciousness and put it in play, which may have been deliberately and surreptitiously insinuated into the Constitution for reasons we will never know precisely. You cannot prove otherwise, I presume.

  112. Re: “OK. Allow me to take another leap of stupidity and ask what you mean by “friends” regarding Tucker and Rawle – do you mean every electron of cogitation was automatically conveyed to Tucker and Rawle and vice versa, by whom, the Founders, the Writers, whom? Exactly how close were these “friends?” Was there a regulation that the thoughts of Tucker and Rawle and the Founders had to be exchanged and those events reported. You’re making statements that you haven’t proved. ”

    Answer: You think that maybe BOTH of them were wrong? Well, then explain why there isn’t a single quotation from any member of the Constitutional Convention—or from John Jay or John Adams or Thomas Jefferson, all of whom were leaders at the time but not in Philadelphia—that EVER uses Natural Born or Natural Born Citizen to refer to parents. They only used Natural Born the way that it was used in the common law—to refer to citizenship due to the place of birth.

    Re; “Was, then, the phrase “natural born citizen” coined by Tucker and Rawle? ‘

    Answer: Since both of them were discussing the CONSTITUTION, which you can see yourself if you look at the names of their books, they got the phrase Natural Born Citizen from THE CONSTITUTION. In contrast, John Jay—an expert in THE COMMON LAW—used the phrase before the Constitution. And, duh, he never said that he got the phrase from Vattel. BTW, I have noted several times, but you never noticed, that (1) the writers of the Constitution ignored several things that Vattel recommended, such as a state religion; (2) Vattel’s book itself never says that the leader of a country should even be a citizen, much less a citizen with two citizen parents.

    Re: ” And you haven’t explained why no entity has challenged the nearly 200 year old translation of Vattel that quotes him as writing “natural born citizen” that currently exists, for example, on Wikipedia.”

    Answer: The translation MIGHT be right—but, guess what, when they translate the US Constitution into French, they never use the word “indigenes” as the translation of Natural Born Citizen. Or, it may be wrong. IF it is right, it is simply VATTEL’s idea of what a Natural Born Citizen should be, not that of the writers of the US Constitution. If they had said that they agreed with Vattel on the matter—-and NONE of them ever did—-that would be different. But they didn’t.

    Re: “When you finally establish that all parties referred to herein became, at a minimum, familiar with Vattel…”

    Answer: As I said, SOME were, but they read other things too, and they did not accept all that Vattel recommended, such as a state religion.

    So the notion that they accepted Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen has nothing going for it. Not a shred of a hint of evidence, and there are the writings of Tucker and Rawle and the fact that Vattel was not mentioned in the Federalist Papers and the fact that no member of the CC ever used the terms Natural Born or Natural Born Citizen to refer to parents that go against that notion.

  113. SMStrauss,

    A google search consistently produces the “Law of Nations” with “natural born citizen” requiring parents (plural). Below are references with attribution that place the “Law of Nations” squarely at the birth of this nation.

    With all due respect, you have produced no evidence, much less the best, to contradict the possibility if not probability that the Founders were entirely familiar with and embraced the “Law of Nations.” It seems your task is to remove all the published historical references to the relationship between the founders and Vattel’s ideas. Your argument is not with me, it is with fraudulent publishers or history itself.

    Your indirect, circumstantial and peripheral data is voluminous and you have a keen grasp of it, however, it proves nothing in light of the numerous opposing sources that establish unequivocally, in the era, the prominence and acceptance of Vattel’s “natural born citizen” requirement for parents (plural). Yours is not even the worst evidence, it is not evidence at all.

    You are adept at changing the subject, such as your irrelevant obsession with Vattel addressing theocracy, to expend time as you evade the question. There is but one issue and that is were the Founders familiar with Vattel and his definition of citizenship which required “natural born citizenship,” ver batim, with parents (plural) as citizens. You’ve discussed, “friends,” Natural Born and state religion to deliberately digress and obfuscate.

    The question is “natural born citizen,” it’s origin, why the Founders used it and their familiarity with it. You have not proved that they didn’t read it, know it in those words and that they didn’t, ultimately, use it, perhaps without revelation which they may have deemed unnecessary. It seems, like the 2nd Amendment, there were many things they thought all parties understood and accepted without mention.

    There are many multiple sources for Vattel’s “natural born citizen” with the parents (plural) requirement, the following are from Wikipedia:

    Centuries after his death it was found that United States President George Washington had a number of overdue library books dating back over 221 years. One of them was The Law of Nations.[1][2]

    Swiss editor Charles W.F. Dumas sent Benjamin Franklin three original French copies of the book. Franklin presented one copy to the Library Company of Philadelphia. On December 9, 1775, Franklin thanked Dumas:[3]

    It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary to frequently consult the Law of Nations.

    Franklin also said that this book by Vattel, “has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting”.[4]

    It provides at least a partial legal basis for modern conscription in the United States.[5] In the Selective Draft Law Cases (1918), upholding the Selective Service Act of 1917, the court stated:

    It may not be doubted that the very conception of a just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it. Vattel, Law of Nations, book III, cc. 1 and 2. To do more than state the proposition is absolutely unnecessary in view of the practical illustration afforded by the almost universal legislation to that effect now in force.

  114. Re: “possibility if not probability that the Founders were entirely familiar with and embraced the “Law of Nations.”

    Yes, they read that book, but then they read a lot of other things too, and they did not accept the idea that we should have a state religion, so why should any rational person think that they accepted Vattel’s two citizen definition (rather than the far more commonly known definition in the common law) WITHOUT TELLING ANYONE THAT THEY WERE USING IT?

  115. Re: “Centuries after his death it was found that United States President George Washington had a number of overdue library books dating back over 221 years. One of them was The Law of Nations.[1][2]

    Swiss editor Charles W.F. Dumas sent Benjamin Franklin three original French copies of the book. Franklin presented one copy to the Library Company of Philadelphia. On December 9, 1775, Franklin thanked Dumas:[3]”

    Answer: NO question about it, some of them did read Vattel—but, once again, they read other books too, and they did not accept Vattel’s recommendation for a state religion—so they did not for sure just accept everything that he suggested. So, for us to believe that they used Vattel’s definition, which meant a switch away from the principle of jus soli that they were familiar with to the jus sanguinus used in Switzerland and France WITHOUT TELLING US THE THEY WERE DOING IT and without a single example of them ever using the term Natural Born or Natural Born Citizen to refer to parents——is laughable.

    Laughable, loony, nutty.

  116. And yet refer to parents (plural) is exactly what Vattel did.

    You infer, infer and infer. You have no spread sheet of the specific and precise cognitive activity of the Founders. You offer no direct evidence because you have no direct evidence. The best evidence is the ver batim phrase “natural born citizen” which current presentations attribute only to Vattel and the Founders; to the “Law of Nations” and the Constitution.

    You continue to digress into “state religion” which reminds me of the historical account, the “Bible,” which concludes with a tale of ethereal resurrection into heavenly, mystical realms. Undoubtedly.

    Please, let’s deal in facts without reliance on subjective inference.

    The facts are that the Founders, as did the contemporary legal community, not only possessed but studied the “Law of Nations” with the “parents” (plural) requirement and they employed precisely the same phrase that is currently attributed to Vattel by other authorities. It is also a fact that the Founders were making history in terms of governance as was Vattel. We can easily infer that great change was inherent in that historical inflection point. Why would we expect or infer anything less than an overturning of traditional practices?

  117. Re: “And yet refer to parents (plural) is exactly what Vattel did.”

    Answer: Yes, Vattel may have thought that having parents (plural) who are citizens is what Natural Born Citizen means. But that is not what the writers of the constitution meant. They disagreed with Vattel on other things and they did not mention his “two citizen parent” idea in any of their writings, nor did they ever use Natural Born Citizen—or even just Natural Born—to refer to parents, only the same way that it was used in the common law, to refer to citizenship due to birth in the country. And they did not mention Vattel in the Federalist Papers AT ALL, while they mentioned the common law about twenty times and always with praise.

    Re: “…the ver batim phrase “natural born citizen” which current presentations attribute only to Vattel….”

    Answer: Well then they are wrong. The phrase was used first IN ENGLISH by John Jay, an expert in THE COMMON LAW, who if he were using the phrase any differently than Natural Born was used in the common law, would have said so—but he didn’t.

    Re: “You continue to digress into “state religion”

    Answer: That is to counter your nutty idea that the writers of the US Constitution adopted all of Vattel’s ideas simply because he was one of the many books that they read.

    Re: “The facts are that the Founders, as did the contemporary legal community, not only possessed but studied the “Law of Nations”

    Answer: Yes, some of them did. But they read and studied other things too, an they got their ideas from many sources. Since the writers of the US Constitution did not accept Vattel’s idea about a state religion, there is no evidence that they accepted his two-parent idea either, and they certainly did not say that they did, nor did they give examples in their own writings of ever using Natural Born or Natural Born Citizen any differently than Natural Born was used in the common law—to refer to citizenship due to the place of birth.

    Re: “We can easily infer that great change was inherent in that historical inflection point….”

    Answer: You are not allowed to infer based on strict construction conservative legal principles. That rule holds that if a law or the constitution does not say something, it does not mean it. And it certainly does not say—nor do any of the writings of the framers—that two citizen parents (or even one) are required in order to be a Natural Born Citizen. And the most common use of Natural Born at the time, by far, was in the common law, which referred to citizenship due to the PLACE of birth, not the parents, and included even the children of foreign citizens as Natural Born. That is also the way that Tucker and Rawle, who were friends of the members of the Constitutional Convention, used the term. IF the writers of the Constitution had really followed Vattel or wanted two (or even one) citizen parent, THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO—-and they didn’t.

  118. It seems we’re at an impasse.

    “Natural born” is NOT “natural born citizen.” One was of the past and one was of the future. There is not necessarily a connection between the two. You arbitrarily and deliberately commingle these completely different phrases.

    The Founders did not say one or two parents. They used the new phrase, “natural born citizen” which many current sources attribute to Vattel and his Section 212 clearly states that parents constitute the requirement. Your argument is with those sources, one of which is Wikipedia. Something led many sources of history to believe that Vattel originated the phrase, “natural born citizen.” You disagree. It seems that if you are correct and that other sources are wrong, you would oppose them and prevail, yet they persist. Apparently, your authority exists only on web pages and not in the halls of academia. It would be inordinately more effective and appropriate for you to effect the elimination of these erroneous historical accounts if possible.

    You are stating that you know what the Founders meant by deduction, not by the presentation of direct evidence. If the Founders used Vattel’s thesis without attribution based on a new understanding, they meant parents. It is entirely plausible that they employed a new paradigm in their history making endeavors.

    It appears that the Founders “understood” that the phrase they used constituted a zero, one or two parent requirement. The should have used the well worn, according to you, phrase, “natural born” but they used the groundbreaking “natural born citizen.” Somehow, they used a phrase that many attribute to Vattel which clearly required two parents.

    The Founders studied Vattel and Vattel required parents (plural). The Founders studied contemporary thinking and must have incorporated it to some degree. As you theorize, it may be theorized that the forward thinking and revolutionary Founders broke with tradition and incorporated the newest ideas which would have included Vattel’s. The Founders did NOT literally require zero or one, they presumed the requirement existed in the phrase and Vattel’s “Law of Nations” had an extant requirement of “parents” (plural) which we know to be two.

    Somehow it is difficult to believe that the American Revolutionaries and Founders were going to continue on in the old ways without variation…that they were impervious to change.

  119. Clause 5: Qualifications for office[edit]

    Beginning of the clause in the 1787 document
    Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as president of the United States:

    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    The difference between a “natural born citizen” and a “citizen at adoption” is that one has parents that are citizens and the other does not. Ergo, the requirement for President is parents (plural).

    Clearly there are different levels or degrees of citizenship. A lesser degree or level of citizenship is sufficient for the office of Senator and insufficient for President. It is irrefutable that a higher level of citizenship, presumably the highest, is required for the highest office.

    The Founders perceived a need for a rising citizenship requirement commensurate with the rising level of office. The Founders learned from Vattel, if no where else, that “parents” was the highest. The highest requirement was included in the most advanced form of the phrase “natural born” which was “natural born citizenship.” Vattel’s definition may well have been perceived as the most contemporary with the highest, most contemporary requirement which was parents.

  120. Re: ““Natural born” is NOT “natural born citizen.” One was of the past and one was of the future. There is not necessarily a connection between the two. You arbitrarily and deliberately commingle these completely different phrases. ”

    Answer: IF one was of the past and one of the future in the eyes of the writers of the US Constitution, THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US ABOUT IT. If there was no relationship between the Natural Born in the common law that they were familiar with as LAWYERS (and they were mainly lawyers and justices), and Natural Born Citizen, THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US ABOUT IT—and they didn’t.

    Re: “Vattel’s definition may well have been perceived as…”

    Answer: Under strict construction interpretation principles, you are not allowed to make such inferences.

  121. Re: “If the Founders used Vattel’s thesis without attribution based on a new understanding, they meant parents.”

    Answer: Yes, IF they used Vattel’s thesis. But (1) they did not say that they used Vattel’s thesis; (2) they did not use Vattel’s thesis in other things such as a state religion; (3) they did not mention Vattel AT ALL in the Federalist papers; (4) they never gave a single example in any of their writings that they were using Natural Born Citizen to refer to parents; (5) they used many examples of the common law in the Constitution and always referred to it with praise in the Federalist Papers.

  122. Re: “It is irrefutable that a higher level of citizenship, presumably the highest, is required for the highest office.”

    Answer: NO question about it, senators and congressmen can be mere naturalized citizens. Presidents cannot be naturalized citizens and can only be Natural Born Citizens. ALL children born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats are Natural Born Citizens.

  123. The requirement for President is “natural born citizen.” That requirement was reduced to the lesser “citizen” “at the “time of the adoption.” At the “time of the adoption,” the highest requirement was “parents.” The only lesser requirement would have been parent. The highest requirement would apply to the highest office, President.

    Ergo, the requirement for President was parents (plural).

  124. In Commentaries on the Laws of England, Volume II, Blackstone refers to parents (plural) and natural born “subjects.” He demonstrates a grasp of Vattel’s “parents” requirement as if it is unspoken and understood. Also, he appears to say that those born of something other than “parents” are “subjects” not citizens.

    “The children of aliens, born here in England, are generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.”

    Here again, parents (plural) “are, GENERALLY SPEAKING (exceptions?), natural born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such (i.e. subjects).” This clearly differentiates “subjects” and “citizens.” They are different. They are not the same.

  125. Re: “At the “time of the adoption,” the highest requirement was “parents.”

    Answer: If a parent or parents were involved in Natural Born Citizen status, they would have told us—and they didn’t. IF they were switching the meaning of Natural Born from the PLACE of birth to parents (or even a parent), they would have told us—and they didn’t.

    Re: “This clearly differentiates “subjects” and “citizens.” They are different. They are not the same.”

    Answer: In terms of Natural Born status they are the same. Citizens and subjects are different, but not in all things. Most citizens and most subjects have two legs, put their pants on one leg at a time, etc. So, where citizens and subjects differ, the writers of the Constitution would tell us, and they never told us that citizens had to have citizen parents to be Natural Born where subjects only had to be born in the country. IF there had been a switch in the Natural Born requirements from place of birth for subjects to two (or even one) citizen parents for citizens, THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US—and they didn’t.

  126. Both Blackstone and Vattel used and were full of knowledge of the value of the a requirement for some various number of citizen parents. Blackstone in “Commentaries on the Laws of England, Volume II” and Vattel in the “Law of Nations, 212.” Simply being born within a nation’s borders would equate with zero citizen parents. Unless the Founders were severely cognitively limited, they would have been eminently capable of traversing this concept over their synapses and determining that it was not necessary to communicate every atom of that process to colleagues and countrymen. Logic would provide an understanding by all that the number of parents was the lowest common denominator in the equation. Thus:

    -Two parents.

    -One

    -Zero

    The HIGHEST requirement applies to the HIGHEST office.

    The requirement for President is “natural born citizen.” That requirement was

    reduced to the lesser “citizen” “at the “time of the adoption.” At the “time of the

    adoption,” the highest requirement was “parents.” The only lesser requirement

    would have been parent. The highest requirement would apply to the highest

    office, President.

    Ergo, the requirement for President was parents (plural).

    Is this not self-evident?

  127. Re: “Both Blackstone and Vattel used and were full of knowledge of the value of the a requirement for some various number of citizen parents. Blackstone in “Commentaries on the Laws of England, Volume II” and Vattel in the “Law of Nations, 212.”

    Blackstone said that every child born in the country except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders is Natural Born.

    Re: “Simply being born within a nation’s borders would equate with zero citizen parents. ”

    Answer: Yes, zero is correct. Rubio and Jindal both had zero US parents at the time of their births, yet because they were born on US soil, they are Natural Born Citizens. Why so? Because EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders. The word “parents” is not mentioned in the Constitution nor does ANY of the writings of ANY of the members of the Constitutional Convention ever say that two (or even one) citizen parents are required in order to be a Natural Born Citizen, and if they had thought so, they would have told us—but they didn’t.

  128. Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency…”

  129. Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

    Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”

  130. Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”

    Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”

  131. Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”

    And on October 1, 2012, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of the last of the rulings shown above, the Farrar case, which had ruled that “children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” By rejecting the appeal, the US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court to STAND.

  132. A following quote: “unrivaled among such treatises in its influence on the American founders. How about you. I’m very concerned with your accuracy and honesty. Your bona fides seem in question. You might peruse this bit of history:

    Influence[edit]

    Vattel was one of a number of 18th century European scholars who wrote on international law and were “well known in America” at the time, including Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, Cornelius van Bynkershoek, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, Thomas Rutherforth, and Wolff. The Law of Nations has been described as “unrivaled among such treatises in its influence on the American founders”.[7][8]

    Obviously the highest office demanded the highest prerequisites and the highest prerequisite is “parents.” Represented numerically, that would be two.

    And your last presentation is exacly the point. The entire judicial system from the SCOTUS to the Night Shift Traffic Court is totally corrupt.

    Read CITIZENS (not natural born citizens) below:

    14th Amendment
    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

    “As you can see from the intent of the Founding Fathers to the Supreme Court decision that “a natural born” is the child of citizens. A natural born citizen is not the child of an alien. In this there is no doubt. The question now that we seek answered is that Barack Hussein Obama, II is both the child of an alien who never had any intention on becoming a naturalized citizen and the child of a citizen minor. If Barack Hussein Obama, II was in fact born in Hawaii, he is a citizen under Jus soli and afforded all rights any citizen has. But he is not a citizen under Jus sanguinis, because we have laws that dictate how Jus sanguinis citizenship can be transferred.”

    “If Barack Hussein Obama, II cannot claim citizenship under Jus sanguinis then he is not a natural born citizen.”

    Did you read that: “the child of a citizen minor?”

    A citizen has one citizen parent (not a minor).

    A natural born citizen has two citizen parents.

    Because you can infinitely present frivolous pseudo legal verbalizations does not mean you can rewrite the Constitution to suit your political agenda.

  133. John,
    I don’t know how to break this to you, but Barack H. Obama is the President of the United States, and has been for the past six years. He will continue to be the President for another two years. I am sure you are familiar with the term, fait accompli. Regardless of how many theoretical gymnastics are performed by the birthers out there, or how many historical documents are pored over, nothing changes. Does the term stare decisis ring a bell?

    As far as trying to get him removed from office by impeachment, I refer you to an excellent reference book, “The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote of La Mancha” by Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra.

    As far as removing him from office by force, I have two words: Secret Service..

  134. All your precedential citations above cause me to burst out laughing – huge guffaws. What a preposterous joke, to think that a political party can nullify the Preamble and Constitution by perverting and corrupting them through a centuries long effort to pack the courts. The Judicial Branch was intended to be HONEST, TRUTHFULL and OBJECTIVE above all, and succeed in its effortless, elementary duty to apply the simple and clear English language of the Preamble and Constitution, “interpret’ it and nullify those sacred documents. You can win through deceit, but you will never be correct or right.

    Seriously, that is hilarious.

  135. Charlton S. Stanley, PhD, ABPP, I hope you don’t mind if I describe you as bizarre for a degreed professional. My only concern is the correct understanding of the words of the American Founders and the direction and mode of this country. In my old age, I’m astounded that the Preamble and Constitution could represent self-reliant individualism and freedom and the fact would be complete collectivism, blatantly employing the principles of the Communist Manifesto. How did you communists get Americans to buy into your ideology? You patiently boiled the frog after starting him in cold water, right? What did de Tocqueville, say that democracy would lead to its own demise by voting itself largess? Now we have the yoke of the dictatorship of the proletariat. What would the Founders say to that?

  136. john

    you are absolutely right. you go right on to washington and you run them all right outa town. don’t wait until tomorrow, do it now, tonight.

    run john run.

  137. Re: “Vattel was one of a number of 18th century European scholars who wrote on international law and were “well known in America” at the time, including Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, Cornelius van Bynkershoek, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, Thomas Rutherforth, and Wolff. The Law of Nations has been described as “unrivaled among such treatises in its influence on the American founders”.

    Answer: Vattel’s work was on INTERNATIONAL LAW. The selection of a leader of a country is a matter of domestic law, not international law. His influence was unrivaled in INTERNATIONAL LAW, but he was not mentioned in the Federalist Papers AT ALL—so his influence on the Constitution was probably limited to his advice on INTERNATIONAL LAW, which is contained in the section on piracy and maritime law.

    IF the writers of the US Constitution had used Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen and not the far more common definition that came from the term Natural Born in the common law, THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US—and they didn’t.

    Re: ““As you can see from the intent of the Founding Fathers to the Supreme Court decision that “a natural born” is the child of citizens. A natural born citizen is not the child of an alien. In this there is no doubt….”

    Answer—why didn’t you say who said it? Whomever did is entitled to her or his OPINION, but it is certainly not as good an OPINION as the US Supreme Court’s opinion in the Wong Kim Ark case, or that of the ten appeals courts, or the Heritage Foundation book. Birthers and two-fers tried to get the members of the US Electoral College to change their states’ votes after the 2008 and 2012 election claiming that Obama was either not born in Hawaii (He was, and the evidence is overwhelming) or that two citizen parents are required in order to be a Natural Born Citizen. Not one single vote was changed. No rational person believes that the writers of the US Constitution switched the meaning of Natural Born from jus soli to jus sanguinus WITHOUT TELLING US THAT THEY DID—and they didn’t.

  138. smstrauss

    “…it was unrivaled among such treatises in its influence on the American founders.” Charles G. Fenwich, “The Authority of Vattel.”

    The Constitution itself assigns greater and lesser criteria for the office of President and Senator. Any exercise in logic will lead all human beings to the conclusion that the highest requirement must be applied to the highest office. The Constitutional requirement for President is “natural born citizen” and for Senator it is “citizen.” The highest, two parents and the lower, one. The criteria are ultimately zero, one or two parents. The Founders had to arrive at the same mathematical conclusion and they were exposed to Vattel’s “unrivaled…influence” which included his position on the requirements for the office of President which were “parents.”

    The Founders WOULD HAVE TOLD US THEY DISAGREED WITH THE REQUIREMENT FOR “PARENTS” (PLURAL) – and they didn’t. We infer, infer and infer. Is it possible that some things are understood and simply go unspoken. Did the Founders not KNOW and UNDERSTAND, at the time, that Americans had and would continue to “keep and bear arms?” And yet that went understood and unspoken, requiring a later amendment.

    As a previous poster broached the subject of the current officeholder, his mother was of an age that required a formula for citizenship of the child. Why did you evade that discussion?

  139. The Founders, Blackstone, English Law, Vattel, etc., et. al., must have had an innate understanding of numerical values, apropos to grades or levels of citizenship, ancillary to a semantic description. The Founders required different levels or values of citizenship for different elected offices which demonstrated their understanding. When the Founders used the phrase “natural born citizen” as a requirement for the highest office, they used the highest semantic reference which only equates to the highest numeric value of TWO parents. This, clearly, must have been understood at the time of the writing and has been argumentatively tortured and manipulated ever since for the purpose of achieving a political agenda, not comprehending the written words of the Founders. There are no two ways about this semantic/numeric value relationship.

    Natural born citizen Highest Two (parents)

    Citizen Middle One

    Naturalized citizen Lowest Zero

    Subject (?)

    None of these levels is the same and they are all different. All of these levels have distinct definitions.

  140. smstrauss, sorry, the site reformatted the columns of my chart. Trust me, it was beautiful. You would have been impressed.

  141. Re: “When the Founders used the phrase “natural born citizen” as a requirement for the highest office, they used the highest semantic reference…”

    NO question about it. Members of the US House of Representatives can have been born in a foreign country. Members of the US Senate can have been born on a foreign country. But the US president must have been born on US soil—that is what Natural Born Citizen means in the common law. And, if they had switched from the common law—which was, duh, common—-to some other way of determining Natural Born status, THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US, and they didn’t.

  142. The Founders definitively were not into CHANGE! I gotcha. Maybe we should ask the British.

    And they knew nothing of Vattel and his “parents” criterion – I gotcha:

    “…it was unrivaled among such treatises in its influence on the American founders.” Charles G. Fenwich, “The Authority of Vattel.”

    And Vattel (attributed by multiple current sources) wrote only of international law and nothing of national issues (“in the country”):

    “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

    Without a doubt the Founders had no concern with foreign allegiances or requiring the highest standard for the highest office. They had much more compelling cogitations than simple logic; to hell with that.

    Let’s not forget the ubiquitous “they would have told us and they didn’t.” Oh yeah, except they did:

    “Age and Citizenship requirements – US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

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

    You conveniently ignore all the facts and infer to suit your political agenda. I can’t say that I blame you. What is a person supposed to do when he has no facts on his side?

  143. One further point worth consideration. The college transcripts of the current officeholder have been deliberately suppressed and hidden from the scrutiny of the Congress.

    How would the Founders have viewed that? Did they deem certain data information the Congress should not have when considering eligibility? Perhaps you have knowledge that Congress saw those transcripts in a secret session.

    All information and records related to the birth location were released but all information and records related to the college transcripts were not? That dudn’t make any sense. You stated that you saw voluminous, incontrovertible proof from the state of Hawaii related to the birth location. You must have incontrovertible proof that the college transcripts were necessarily, appropriately or legally withheld, or not.

    You must know of friends of the Founders who told them that the Congress and voters didn’t need ANY AND ALL information regarding a candidate for the highest office.

    The FOUNDERS WOULD HAVE TOLD US if the Congress and voters should consider the candidate comprehensively and in his entirety, but THEY DIDN’T.

    Right?

  144. Below is a quote from your reference material which quotes John Jay requiring “parents” to avoid foreign allegiances and this is the opposite of what you said related to Jay:

    “So the Economist thinks that an Indiana state court ruling overrides the Constitution of the US. Interesting. Has there been a constitutional amendment to override Art. 2 that I haven’t heard about? Of course, that is nonsense. It takes very little research to determine the intent of the authors of the Constitution regarding the singular requirement of the Presidency. John Jay, the first US Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, wrote a letter to George Washington(yes that one- the one who wouldn’t tell a lie and who became our first Pres.) The letter specifically deals with the concept of natural born citizenship, meaning being born to citizen parents. Jay states this is necessary so that there can be no question that the Commander in Chief could have dual allegiances. Apparently, the Economist is too lazy to discover the truth, or their motives for promulgating this fiction is less than honorable.”

  145. Re: “Below is a quote from your reference material which quotes John Jay requiring “parents” to avoid foreign allegiances and this is the opposite of what you said related to Jay:”

    Answer: John Jay never said any such thing. He said that a Natural Born Citizen was required and that that would keep the USA away from foreign entanglements. But he never use the word “parents.” The word “parents” does not appear in the John Jay letter, so that the BIRTHER that you quote was, wait for it, LYING.

    John Jay, an expert in THE COMMON LAW never used the term Natural Born or Natural Born Citizen to refer to parents. Nor did John Adams or Alexander Hamilton or George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or ANY of the members of the Constitutional Convention. The meaning refers simply to the place of birth. John Jay and the other members of the Constitutional Convention believed that children born on US soil REGARDLESS OF THE CITIZENSHIP OF THEIR PARENTS AT THE TIME would be good citizens of the USA—just as good citizens as the children of US citizens. If they had thought that the US-born children of foreigners were foreigners, or that they were lower level citizens—more likely to be security risks than the US-born children of US citizens——-THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO, but they never said anything like that at all.

    Here are John Jay’s words:

    “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

    Do you see any mention of PARENTS?????? Do you see anything indicating that a US-born child was a foreigner?????

  146. Re: ” The college transcripts of the current officeholder have been deliberately suppressed and hidden from the scrutiny of the Congress. ”

    Answer: Are you intentionally TRYING to show the world how poorly informed you and others like you are??

    Obama did not show his college transcripts because, wait for it, presidents and presidential candidates never show their college transcripts. (Bush’s was leaked by a source at Yale, but the point is that BUSH did not show it.) Neither did John McCain or MItt Romney or Clinton or Bush41 or Reagan or Carter or Ford or Nixon or LBJ or JFK or Eisenhower or Truman or FDR or Hoover.

    They did not show their transcripts—–so why should Obama?

  147. Re: “And they knew nothing of Vattel and his “parents” criterion – I gotcha: ”

    Answer: IF they had used Vattel, they would have said that they used Vattel and not the common law——which was, wait for it, far more common——-and they didn’t.

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

    Answer: The meaning of Natural Born in the common law—-which was far more commonly used than Vattel at the time—–referred to the PLACE of birth, not the citizenship of the parents.

  149. Is there record of any president presenting his transcript – to what body or authority?

    Seems to me I recall conjecture about Kennedy being sort of middle of the class. But, didn’t he have a thesis published ‘Why England Slept’ or something like that – so every body could make up their own mind about what his ability might be.

    On the other hand it might be a good idea for members of congress to present their transcript at the same time they are tested for drugs – better yet just give them a pass fail test for mental acuity and stability when they pee in the cup. Anyone want to wager how many will call in sick that day?

  150. There are many multiple references in Wikipedia with which you disagree. I have stated that I have used Wikipedia as a source. Wikipedia presented Vattel as a legal reference of the highest reputation of the era with whom the Founders were well acquainted. Wikipedia assigned the use of the phrase “natural born citizen” to Vattel. You really should correct Wikipedia if you are the definitive source of the value of the firing of every last synapse in the minds of the Founders. It seems that Wikipedia persists as a popular reference despite your incessant protestations.

    The Founders imposed the HIGHEST REQUIREMENT for the HIGHIEST OFFICE using the HIGHEST REFERENCE: PARENTS, PRESIDENT, NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. The Founders knew well of Vattel and Vattel required “parents.” The highest semantic phrase (i.e. newest) for citizenship requirement was “natural born citizen.” The Founders differentiated between President and Senator regarding citizenship requirements. The highest office has the highest standard unless you believe the Founders required a lower standard for President than for Senator.

    You imply that the Founders did not write one novel word or phrase without attribution. I’m not so sure. Did the Founders comprehensively describe their introduction and use of the phrase “natural born citizen” which you stated was never used before, specifically by Vattel?

    It is the duty of the Congress to scrutinize candidates for eligibility. If a candidate’s eligibility is in question, that candidate, and that candidate specifically and in particular, must make all relevant material available.

    It may well have been that the citizenship of other candidates was not in question and that college transcripts would not bear, but that is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is the eligibility of the current officeholder during the term of candidacy. Is there a compelling reason for your attempt to obfuscate?

    Are the phrases Natural Born and Natural Born Citizen the same or are they different? They seem about 30% different to me. If they are different, by how much? Can you assign a degree? Because that degree may have been just enough for the Founders to have meant something entirely different. You can’t expect anyone to take seriously your contention that you and you alone know exactly and precisely what the Founders were actually thinking and whether or not they intended to perpetuate English tradition or break with it. Many described them as “revolutionary.”

  151. You might begin your revelation of liars by impeaching, with evidence, the veracity of the quote of the Jay letter below:

    “John Jay, the first US Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, wrote a letter to George Washington(yes that one- the one who wouldn’t tell a lie and who became our first Pres.) The letter specifically deals with the concept of natural born citizenship, meaning being born to citizen parents. Jay states this is necessary so that there can be no question that the Commander in Chief could have dual allegiances.”

    Clearly, a requirement of two parents as citizens is imperative if the goal is to avoid all foreign allegiances.

  152. Re: “You might begin your revelation of liars by impeaching, with evidence, the veracity of the quote of the Jay letter below:”

    Answer: NO problem. Here is a link to an image of John Jay’s letter in his own handwriting. Notice that there is no mention of PARENTS:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=john+jay+letter&client=firefox-a&hs=j0M&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=aqU5U6W-Aur42gXrnIGYDw&ved=0CD4QsAQ&biw=1024&bih=607#channel=sb&q=john+jay+letter+to+george+washington+june+27+1786&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=_O-QeGXCc8p7nM%253A%3BVGHPCNch9WS4LM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.greschak.com%252Fessays%252Fnatborn%252Fjtwj25sh.gif%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.greschak.com%252Fessays%252Fnatborn%252F%3B1633%3B1482

    Re: “Clearly, a requirement of two parents as citizens is imperative if the goal is to avoid all foreign allegiances.”

    Answer: Since the writers of the US Constitution did not consider the US-born children of foreigners to be foreigners, there is no evidence that they considered that they considered that the US-born children of foreigners had “foreign allegiances.”

  153. Re: “the issue at hand is the eligibility of the current officeholder during the term of candidacy. Is there a compelling reason for your attempt to obfuscate?”

    Answer: I see, so you were not interested in the grades but in Obama’s place of birth. IF so, wait for it, you should know, that college transcripts do not show the place of birth or whether or not a person is a foreign student. Transcripts only show the courses and the grades in them.

    And, since other presidents and presidential candidates did not show their grades, Obama does not have to either.

  154. The Founders imposed requirements thusly:

    HIGHEST REQUIREMENT – HIGHIEST OFFICE – HIGHEST REFERENCE

    PARENTS – PRESIDENT – NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

    The Founders knew well of Vattel and Vattel required “parents.” The highest semantic phrase (i.e. newest) for citizenship requirement was “natural born citizen.” The Founders differentiated between President and Senator regarding citizenship requirements. The highest office has the highest standard unless you believe the Founders required a lower standard for President than for Senator. Perhaps, you believe the Founders eschewed the highest standard and employed only the lowest.

    You imply that the Founders did not write one novel word or phrase without attribution. I’m not so sure. Did the Founders comprehensively describe their introduction and use of the phrase “natural born citizen” which you stated was never used before, specifically by Vattel?

    It is the duty of the Congress to scrutinize candidates for eligibility. If a candidate’s eligibility is in question, that candidate, and that candidate specifically and in particular, must make all relevant material available.

    It may well have been that the citizenship of other candidates was not in question and that college transcripts would not bear, but that is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is the eligibility of the current officeholder during the term of candidacy. Is there a compelling reason for your attempt to obfuscate?

    Are the phrases Natural Born and Natural Born Citizen the same or are they different? They seem about 30% different to me. If they are different, by how much? Can you assign a degree? Because that degree may have been just enough for the Founders to have meant something entirely different. You can’t expect anyone to take seriously your contention that you and you alone know exactly and precisely what the Founders were actually thinking and whether or not they intended to perpetuate English tradition or break with it. Many described them as “revolutionary.”

  155. Re: “The Founders knew well of Vattel and Vattel required “parents.””

    Answer: If the Founders had switched to Vattel from the common law, they would have SAID SO. Instead they did not mention Vattel in the Federalist Papers AT ALL, while they mentioned the common law about twenty time and always with praise.

    Re: “the issue at hand is the eligibility of the current officeholder during the term of candidacy. Is there a compelling reason for your attempt to obfuscate?”

    Answer: I see, so you were not interested in the grades but in Obama’s place of birth. IF so, you should know—wait for it—-that college transcripts DO NOT show the place of birth or whether or not a person is a foreign student. Transcripts only show the courses and the grades in them.

    Re: “You can’t expect anyone to take seriously your contention that you and you alone know exactly and precisely what the Founders were actually thinking and whether or not they intended to perpetuate English tradition or break with it. Many described them as “revolutionary.”

    Answer: What do you mean :”you and you alone.” What I stated is EXACTLY the same thing as what (1) Tucker and (2) Rawle; and (3) the Lynch v. Clarke decision; and (4) the Wong Kim Ark Decision, and (5) the Heritage Foundation book ALL SAID.

  156. I’m sorry. I meant comprehensive college records including applications for financial assistance, other forms requiring personal history, etc. that indicate citizenship or national origin. Congress (i.e. the people) has a duty to scrutinize candidates for eligibility.

    Personal history must have been in question since there was extended residence in Indonesia, complete with statue (since torn down). Is a citizen with only one citizen parent (a minor) a natural born citizen and retain that status if that natural born citizen becomes a citizen of another country and travels on a passport issued by another country?

    Since this thread broached the subject of the current officeholder’s history, how does a person become a citizen of a foreign country (i.e. Indonesia) without denouncing his citizenship of a previous country? In that it goes to the point of citizenship, which country issued a passport for international travel by the current presidential officeholder, demonstrating citizenship at that time?

  157. Re: “I’m sorry. I meant comprehensive college records including applications for financial assistance, other forms requiring personal history, etc. that indicate citizenship or national origin. Congress (i.e. the people) has a duty to scrutinize candidates for eligibility. ”

    None of the other candidates showed those things EITHER. And, btw, it is supremely nutty, truly loony, to think that there was even a rational chance that Obama was born anywhere else than IN HAWAII:

    For Obama to have been born in a foreign country:

    (1) Obama’s relatives would have had to have been rich enough (and they weren’t. In 1961 Obama’s grandfather was a furniture salesman, and his grandmother was a low-level employee in a bank [she did not become a vice president until 1970], and his father went from Kenya to Hawaii on a free flight) and dumb enough to send their daughter at high risk of stillbirth to a foreign country to give birth—-—despite there being fine hospitals in Hawaii;

    (2) Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled overseas ALONE (since WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961) and somehow got Obama back to the USA without getting him entered on her US passport or getting a visa for him (which would have had to have been applied for in a US consulate in that country and the records would still exist);

    (3) Obama’s relative would have had to have gotten the officials in Hawaii to record his birth in Hawaii despite (as birthers claim) his being born in another country and somehow got the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley to lie (and since the woman’s father’s name really was Stanley, Obama’s relatives would have had to have found one of the very few women in Hawaii with fathers of that name to do it).

    If you sincerely believe that Obama could have been born in a foreign country, then you could answer all three points. For Obama to have been born in a foreign country, all three would have had to have happened.

    So, the question is, what are the chances that all three happened?

    (Oh, and there isn’t even proof that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961, and very very few 18-year-olds did, and EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad late in pregnancy in 1961 because of the risk of stillbirths. Yet birther sites hope that a few GULLIBLE people will just assume that she was one of the few to have a passport and one of the extremely few women to travel abroad late in pregnancy, and that the birth certificate is forged and the officials of BOTH parties who have confirmed it and the Index Data and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers and the teacher who wrote home are all lying. )

    Re: ” if that natural born citizen becomes a citizen of another country and travels on a passport issued by another country? ”

    Answer: The simple fact is that Obama NEVER became a citizen of Indonesia nor did he have a passport from that country, as a simple telephone all to the INDONESIAN EMBASSY will confirm (Phone (202) 775 – 5200——-and ask for the press officer.)

    Re: “which country issued a passport for international travel by the current presidential officeholder, demonstrating citizenship at that time?”

    Answer: The answer to the question “which country” is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THAT country issued Obama a passport, and there is no evidence that any other country did, and Indonesia says for sure that it DIDN’T DO SO.

    Obama had his own US passport from the time that he returned from Indonesian ALONE (so he had to have his own passport), and it had to be a US passport because if it was the passport of any other country HE WOULD HAVE NEEDED A US VISA on it, and there has never been any evidence that he applied for a US visa in Jakarta (or anywhere else), and it would be EASY for such an application to have been found, if there were any, since the Bush Administration was in charge of the US State Department for eight years up until January 2009.

  158. Your focus, entirely, has been on the ignorance or rejection of Vattel’s two parents requirement by the Founders. Was Vattel’s presentation of the “parents” requirement completely missed? Was Vattel widely criticized for introducing the concept of “parents?” Was Vattel verbally rejected for proposing “parents?” Why would they have been so adverse to the obvious benefit of “parents?”

    Did the Founders write why they ignored or rejected the idea of maximally addressing national allegiance regarding eligibility for high office through the two “parents” requirement? Why and how were the Founders so OBLIVIOUS to self-evident and logical measures? Who originated the concept of “foreign allegiances” related to citizenship if Washington, Jay, et. al. ignored or rejected it? Why did the Founders address the fact that many, of the era, would not have been natural citizens and provide the waiver of insufficient status before “the time of adoption” of the Constitution? It seems somebody missed something somewhere in this overall process.

  159. I have no idea or proof where the current officeholder was born. I find the “natural born citizen” and Vattel’s “parents” subject interesting and unresolved. You evaded my question if Vattel was castigated for daring to introduce a new concept of “parents,” eschewing the 300-year-old citizen by in-country birth, and what the Founders’ reactions were.

    Anecdotes exist that there is no American passport; that travel was done on something other than an American passport. As Nixon had an 18 minute gap and Oswald was a patsy set-up with a job in the Depository, the following is historical fact, that Brennan interceded with records – these and the college records have been manipulated and suppressed:

    “In July 2008, the State Department’s Office of Inspector General issued a 104-page investigative report on the passport breach incidents, stamped “Sensitive But Unclassified.” The report was so heavily redacted, it was virtually useless to the public. Scores of passages were blacked out entirely, including one sequence of 29 consecutive pages that were each obliterated by a solid black box that made it impossible even to determine paragraph structures.

    Investigative reporter Kenneth Timmerman said a well-placed but unnamed source told him that the real point of the passport breach incidents was to cauterize the Obama file, removing from it any information that could prove damaging to his eligibility to be president.”

    What say you?

  160. Apparently James Madison was aware of British governmental tradition and he was acutely aware that different opinions prevailed in the U.S. It is not possible that this man had no knowledge of Vattel, his “parents” requirement and foreign allegiances when the Founders employed the novel phrase, “natural born citizen.” When he assigned different grades of citizenship to different offices, he must have assigned the highest, “parents,” to one of them. If not, he surely would have told us why and he would not have provided the waiver for those whose status preceded the date of “adoption.”

    Read the Madison text of this date and tell me this man skipped over even minor details.

    “…Privileges of the people are unguarded in the British constitution…a different opinion prevails in the United States.”

    James Madison, June 8, 1789

    “Some policy has been made use of perhaps by gentlemen on both sides of the question: I acknowledge the ingenuity of those arguments which were drawn against the constitution, by a comparison with the policy of Great-Britain, in establishing a declaration of rights; but there is too great a difference in the case to warrant the comparison: therefore the arguments drawn from that source, were in a great measure inapplicable. In the declaration of rights which that country has established, the truth is, they have gone no farther, than to raise a barrier against the power of the crown; the power of the legislature is left altogether indefinite. Altho’ I know whenever the great rights, the trial by jury, freedom of the press, or liberty of conscience, came in question in that body, the invasion of them is resisted by able advocates, yet their Magna Charta does not contain any one provision for the security of those rights, respecting which, the people of America are most alarmed. The freedom of the press and rights of conscience, those choicest privileges of the people, are unguarded in the British constitution.

    But altho’ the case may be widely different, and it may not be thought necessary to provide limits for the legislative power in that country, yet a different opinion prevails in the United States.”

  161. Forget the transcripts, let’s have the records that go to citizenship, natural born or otherwise:

    The Postman
    Retired United States Postal Worker Allen Hulton recently signed a sworn affidavit for the Maricopa County, Arizona Cold Case Posse convened by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, attesting under oath, to conversations with Mary Ayers, the mother of Bill Ayers. He made his testimony public in a three hour long taped interviewed on March 19th, 2012. Mr. Hutton, by signing an affidavit has subjected himself to laws regarding perjury, not something to be taken lightly as telling the truth is now for him a requirement of law.
    His testimony states Mary and Tom Ayers (Parents of Bill ”I don’t regret setting bombs” Ayers) were sponsoring Barack Obama as a foreign student, and financially supporting his education.
    This is a huge revelation on not one, but two separate fronts.
    Bill Ayers of dubious “Weatherman” fame, was not just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood”, as then candidate Obama brushed aside. The video linked here comes from a televised DNC Debate in the summer of 2008. As Hillary Clinton revealed then, Obama served in a paid position on the Woods Foundation with Bill Ayers and the two were involved in several projects dispersing millions of dollars over several years.
    Realistically, the Ayers family could be said to have adopted Barack Obama, if not as a son then certainly as a kindred Marxist spirit, and treated him to one of the finest educations possible.
    There is little doubt Mr. Obama has been less than honest with regard to the Ayers family and their significance in his life.
    As disingenuous as this is, it is by no means the most important revelation.
    If correct, and Obama was introduced to Hulton as a Foreign Student, this means Barack Hussein Obama would have been using a Foreign Passport to get and prove his foreign student status for entrance into Occidental College, Columbia, and later Harvard Universities. Because Hulton has signed an Affidavit, this cannot be disregarded as mere hearsay; it is instead evidentiary in nature.
    The significance of this development may not be immediately apparent until one recognizes American law regarding citizenship status. Citizenship laws as expressed in Title 8 of the United States Code states the use of a Foreign Passport constitutes adult recognition of relinquishment of American Citizenship:
    8 USC 1481
    (a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
    (1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; 8 USC 1481
    Using a foreign passport in order to obtain status as a foreign student is precisely that, proof of naturalization in a foreign state.
    The child Barack Obama became an Indonesian Citizen when he was adopted by his stepfather Lolo Soetoro and the family’s subsequent relocation to Indonesia.
    Young Barack by law needed Indonesian Citizenship in order to attend school, and his adoption provided this. Indeed, in young Barack’s situation adoption was necessary to gain it.
    In his defense, Obama supporters have claimed for years if the president had lost his American Citizenship as a child, he did not in fact lose it because the actions of a parent cannot permanently remove a child’s American natural born citizenship status. This fallacious argument once had some validity within the confusing morass that is American Citizenship law, the nature of which is a challenge for immigration attorneys even today.
    However, Hulton’s story and sworn affidavit would confirm that Barack Obama renounced what American citizenship status he had as an adult over the age of 18, by attending college as a foreign student using a foreign passport.
    This would explain the president’s refusal to release his college records. These records will easily prove or disprove his status as a Foreign Student. This is the importance of U.S. Postal worker Allen Hulton’s testimony. Unless Obama formally renounced that foreign citizenship, there is the distinct possibility he is not an American Citizen, let alone a Natural Born Citizen.
    In reality, due to his father’s British heritage, Mr. Obama was never a Natural Born Citizen to begin with, and admitted precisely this on his “Fight the Smears” website, stating that he was born under the British Nationality Act of 1948. This website “http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshome/” has since been removed from the live internet to re-direct to Attackwatch.com “http://www.attackwatch.com/”. Clearly Mr. Obama has relied upon confusing the American people as much as possible in order to make the truth as difficult as possible to ascertain.
    Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/barack-obama-foreign-student-american-media-threatened-into-silence/#J7s6864A9bVdYCJ2.99

  162. Re: “His testimony states Mary and Tom Ayers (Parents of Bill ”I don’t regret setting bombs” Ayers) were sponsoring Barack Obama as a foreign student, and financially supporting his education.”

    They said that they were sponsoring A foreign student. But they did not say that it was Obama. There is no evidence whatever that Obama, who was born in Hawaii and attended a US high school, entered college as a foreign student. And he certainly was NEVER an Indonesian citizen, since the Indonesian government says that he wasn’t. Since Obama never gave up US citizenship—-which BTW, a child cannot do AT ALL, and an adult can only do IN WRITING before the appropriate US government official (overseas, a US consul), Obama remains what he was when he was born, a NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN.

    Birthers and two-fers were not able to get a single member of the US Electoral College to change their votes to vote against Obama in either 2008 or 2012 with the nutty stories that Obama was born in a foreign country or gave up US citizenship or the loony constitutional theory that two citizen parents are required in order to be a Natural Born Citizen. Obama won 356 electoral votes in the 2008 general election, and he received the votes of 356 electors. He won 332 electoral votes in the 2012 general election, and he received the votes of 332 electors. Not one changed. And he was confirmed by the US Congress UNANIMOUSLY after both the 2008 and the 2012 elections, and that included the votes of Rep. Michele Bachmann and Rep. Ron Paul. Not one of them believed that Obama had been born in a foreign country, or gave up his US citizenship———or that two citizen parents are required in order to be a Natural Born Citizen.

  163. I wonder if involving Mr. and Mrs. Ayers was titling fraud. Whaddaya think? A little misdirection?

    OK. I gotcha. Bill Ayers, et. al., is a pillar of the community, not a radical, the ends justify the means, communist ideologue. I think the point you missed was that the record was scrubbed by Brennan, thus the Osawld as Patsy, 18 minute Nixon gap reference. Mysterious things just happen, right?

    You’re absolutely correct about the Congress and Senate that allowed that fraud to be perpetrated on the American people. That’s a very good point. Those objective and honest elected officials need admonishment.

    And you said not a word about Madison’s declaration that “a different opinion prevails in the United States.” Seems like he was extremely knowledgeable when it came to the law, perhaps Vattel, and breaking with tradition, especially that of the British and its 300 year-old common law. Would a man in that situation not be concerned with “foreign allegiances?”

    Was Vattel criticized for his “parents” requirement?

    Do you have that image of the American passport?

    And what ever happened to the citizenship status of a child born to a minor mother and a father that was a foreign citizen?

  164. When Madison said “a different opinion prevails in the United States”’-he was NOT saying that the Constitution is using the Vattel definition and not the common law definition. No member of the Constitutional Convention ever said that or used the term Natural Born or Natural Born Citizen to refer to parents—EVER—only to the place of birth.

    Ayers was probably a louse, but that does not mean that he said that he was providing financial aid to a foreign student and that that foreign student was Obama. He simply did not say it, and there is no other evidence whatever that Obama applied to college as a foreign student. In fact, the story comes from AN APRIL FOOL’S ARTICLE, published on April 1, 2009, which was exactly five years ago today. Are you in the habit of believing April Fool’s articles.

    (The same article also said that Obama’s eligibility question had “quietly” reached the US Supreme Court—which is, duh, obviously false because nothing reaches the US Supreme Court “quietly.” Everything that reaches the US Supreme Court is public, and in fact every birther case that ever reached the US Supreme Court was turned down. So that part of the story was WRONG, and the part about Obama getting a Fulbright Foundation scholarship was wrong too—Fulbrights are available only to graduate students. And the allegation that Obama applied as a foreign student was wrong TOO.)

    Obama really was born in Hawaii, not Kenya, and really is a Natural Born US citizen, and the US Congress simply recognizes that fact—as it showed by its UNANIMOUS vote. It is a fact, no matter how much you may not like it, it is a fact.

  165. Re: “Do you have that image of the American passport?”

    Obama has posted his CURRENT US passport online, but the one that he used to return from Indonesia to Hawaii in the 1970s is old and has expired and was probably put away or lost years ago. But he must have had one because (1) he returned from Indonesia to Hawaii ALONE; (2) if he had used any other country’s passport other than a US passport, he would have needed a US visa on that passport, and there is no evidence that he applied for such a visa—which, if it had existed—would easily have been found by the Bush Administration in its eight years in charge of the State Department. (Are you saying that the Bush Administration was part of the plot????)

  166. Not many facts there. How about that, a missing passport? What a coincidence. What kind of Indonesian citizen was the current officeholder? An illegal alien? That statue says a lot. Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.

    What is the difference between the citizenship degree required for president and senator; between natural born citizen and citizen? Why did Vattel quantify that difference with “parents?” Was Vattel the original two-fer?

    It seems Vattel was the respected and studied authority with a “parents” requirement. The LONANG site attributes native, or “natural born citizen” to Vattel.

    Wikipedia attributes “natural born citizen” to that famous historical two-fer, Alexander Hamilton and friends who seem to have been of the opinion that having “parents” as citizens would preclude “foreign allegiances:”

    “The purpose of the natural born citizen clause is to protect the nation from foreign influence. Alexander Hamilton, a Convention delegate from New York, wrote in Federalist No. 68 about the care that must be taken in selecting the president: “Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.”[5] St. George Tucker, an early federal judge, wrote in 1803 that the natural born citizen clause is “a happy means of security against foreign influence”, and that “The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against.”[6] Delegate Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina said in a speech before the Senate, “to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible.”[7]

    There was also a perception that a usurper from the European aristocracy could potentially immigrate and buy his way into power.[8] Constitutional scholar Akhil Amar points out that the laws of England specifically allowed a foreign-born head of state, and that this had been an unhappy experience for many who had immigrated to the United States.[8]

    You have quite the difference of opinion with many, don’t you?

  167. Re: “. What kind of Indonesian citizen was the current officeholder?”

    Answer: Obama was never an Indonesian citizen, as the Indonesian Embassy will confirm.

    Re: “It seems Vattel was the respected and studied authority with a “parents” requirement. The LONANG site attributes native, or “natural born citizen” to Vattel.”

    Answer the site is wrong, the first use of the term Natural Born Citizen in English that has been found was John Jay’s letter to George Washington, and John Jay was an expert in THE COMMON LAW. The writers of the US Constitution did read Vattel, but they did not mention him at all in the Federalist Papers, and they did not adopt his suggestion that every country should have a state religion, so there is no evidence whatever that they used Vattel’s idea that parents were involved in Natural Born Citizen status. IF the writers of the Constitution had switched to Vattel from the common law—which was, duh, common—-they WOULD HAVE TOLD US, and they didn’t.

    Re: “The purpose of the natural born citizen clause is to protect the nation from foreign influence….”

    Answer: No question about it. Foreigners cannot be president, and naturalized citizens cannot be president. But the US born children of foreigners are not foreigners and they are not naturalized citizens. They are Natural Born US citizens and hence the Natural Born Citizen clause is not an attempt to protect against them. If the writers of the US Constitution had thought that the US-born children of foreigners were not Natural Born US citizens at birth, THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US—but they never did. If the writers of the US Constitution had thought that the US-born children of foreigners were lower-level citizens than the US-born children of US citizens, THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US—but they never did.

    That is why your nutty theory was not agreed with by Tucker and Rawle, who were friends of the writers of the Constitution, or by the famous Lynce v. Clarke ruling in New York, or by the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case, or by the Heritage Foundation book, or by scores of other books and articles, or by the US Electoral College or by the US Congress (which voted to confirm Obama’s election twice UNANIMOUSLY and that included the votes of Rep. Michele Bachmann and Rep. Ron Paul) or by TEN appeals courts, or by the current US Supreme Court which on October 1, 2012 turned down an appeal of one of those ten appeals court rulings—which had held that EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen—and by turning down that appeal, the current US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court, and the other nine appeals courts TO STAND.

    None of the quotations that you have provided says anything about two citizen parents (or even one) being required in order to be a Natural Born Citizen. None says that the writers of the Constitution switched the definition from the common law to Vattel.

  168. Is there a difference between citizen and natural born citizen? Why is the requirement for senator, citizen and for president, natural born citizen?

    Jay did say that natural born citizen precluded foreign allegiances. He must have believed that natural born citizen imposed the maximum requirement.

  169. Re: “Is there a difference between citizen and natural born citizen? Why is the requirement for senator, citizen and for president, natural born citizen? ”

    Answer: YES. The difference is that the category citizen includes naturalized citizens and Natural Born Citizens. The category Natural Born Citizen cannot include any naturalized citizens, but it does include every citizen born on US soil regardless of the citizenship of the parents.

    Re: “Jay did say that natural born citizen precluded foreign allegiances…”

    Answer YES. That is precisely right. If you are born on US soil and not the children of foreign diplomats or enemy invaders you cannot have any foreign allegiances no matter what the citizenship of your parents were and no matter what foreign laws say about the matter. So, to John Jay being born on US soil precluded foreign allegiances.

    If he had said: “Under the Vattel definition, not under the common law” (which he was a specialist in), that would be a different matter. But he didn’t. He was referring to the common law, as did the CONSTITUTION——-as the Tucker and Rawle books and the Lynch v. Clarke ruling and the Wong Kim Ark ruling, and as the Heritage Foundation book and the Congressional Research service and the US Electoral College and the US Congress UNANIMOUSLY all have recognized.

  170. I agree that elected officials have acquiesced on eligibility making the point moot. The Founders, however, employed citizen and natural born citizen differently. The only difference is parentage.

    Jay was obviously concerned with foreign allegiances and it is not plausible that he did not mean two parents. It is an oxymoron to say your goal is unqualified allegiance, then bestow the highest office to the offspring of a foreign citizen or citizens. Jay MUST have read Vattel’s reference to “parents” and Jay must have been aware of the effect of “parents” and Jay must have been aware of the effect he was attempting to capture when he presented a concern for precluding foreign allegiances.

    You will infer whatever you please. I know the Founders were not fools.

    We will have to disagree. A presidential candidate is a natural born citizen with citizen parents. A senatorial candidate is a citizen with one parent a citizen, or a naturalized foreign citizen or naturalized alien. For the purposes of candidacy, there are quantifiable distinctions and differences in citizenship.

    Natural born citizen and citizen cannot be the same. The difference is one or two parents. If birth in the country was the sole criterion, the requirement for senator would be secondary and lower at naturalized citizen. The requirement for president would be natural born citizen AND citizen. You posit that birth in the country, no matter the status of the parents, establishes both natural born citizenship and citizenship – candidacy for president and senator. Impossible.

    There are only two levels of citizenship, natural born citizen and citizen, mentioned as eligibility. NATURALIZED CITIZEN is not mentioned for eligibility. Naturalized citizen cannot be the same as citizen. The difference is CITIZEN and NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

    Are Natural born citizen and citizen the same?

    Are citizen and naturalized citizen the same?

    NATURAL BORN CITIZEN – President

    CITIZEN – Senator

    NATUALIZED CITIZEN

    If citizen and naturalized citizen are the same, a naturalized citizen is eligible for candidacy for senator. IS NATURALIZED CITIZEN ELIGIBLE IN THE CONSTITUTION? Are natural born citizen and citizen the same? Not in the eligibility requirement in the Constitution.

    “Parents, Sir, parents!”

  171. Re: “The Founders, however, employed citizen and natural born citizen differently. The only difference is parentage.”

    Answer: You are wrong. The difference is the PLACE OF BIRTH. All naturalized citizens are born outside of the USA. They cannot be Natural Born. ALL Natural Born Citizens are born in the USA. Tucker and Rawle and the Lynche v. Clarke ruling and the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court ruling and the US Electoral College and the US Congress are right—–and you are wrong.

    Re: “Jay was obviously concerned with foreign allegiances and it is not plausible that he did not mean two parents.’

    Answer: If he meant parents, he would have said parents—but he didn’t, and neither did John Adams or Thomas Jefferson or James Madison or Alexander Hamilton—or ANY member of the Constitutional Convention.

    Re: “I know the Founders were not fools….”

    Answer: You are precisely RIGHT. So if they had meant “two citizen parents,” they would have said so. If they had meant “we are switching from the common law to Vattel,” they would have said so. But these very intelligent men, not fools at all NEVER SAID SO.

    Re: “. Naturalized citizen cannot be the same as citizen.”

    Answer: Naturalized citizens are, of course, citizens, and they are eligible to become members of the US House of Representatives and the US Senate. But they are NOT eligible to become president. But they are citizens. ALL persons who are citizens are eligible to become members of Congress, both naturalized and natural born, but only Natural Born Citizens, who cannot have been naturalized, are eligible to become president. Schwartzenegger, who was naturalized, is not eligible, neither was Henry Kissinger. But Obama, and Rubio and Jindal, all of whom were born on US soil with one or two foreign parents, are all Natural Born Citizens due to being born on US soil.

    IF the writers of the Constitution had meant that two citizen parents (or even one) were required in order to be a Natural Born Citizen, they would have said so. If the writers of the Constitution had switched the meaning of Natural Born Citizen from the common law that they were familiar with as lawyers and justices, they would have said so. BUT THEY NEVER DID.

    Re: “If citizen and naturalized citizen are the same, a naturalized citizen is eligible for candidacy for senator. ”

    Answer: That is correct. I’m not aware of any senator who was naturalized, but there have been several congressmen who were naturalized.

  172. The Constitution addresses candidates who were merely CITIZENS at the time of the ADOPTION providing them with a waiver. Were they foreign born? Can you name them? There must have been a few foreign born, naturalized candidates whom the Constitution addresses with a waiver, “time of adoption,” who were not citizens or natural born citizens who were naturalized and eligible for candidacy through the “waiver.”

  173. According the Jay, there was considerable concern for security against foreign allegiances in high office. If a person born here had two parents that were foreign citizens, because his birth site was America, he was a natural born citizen who was eligible for the presidency AND HE WAS COMPLETELY SUBJECT TO FOREIGN INFLUENCE AND ALLEGIANCE through his two foreign citizen parents.

    That dudn’t make any sense!

  174. By contrast, the very French, Vattel, required “parents.” Thus, Vattel and the French vigorously addressed potentially adverse “foreign allegiances” while the inept Americans left them to fate.

    That dudn’t make any sense either!

  175. 1. Below, you will find Wikipedia presenting LEGITIMATE TRANSLATIONS of Vattel’s use of natural born citizen and native in 1758. They are synonymous and defined by two parents.

    2. Wikipedia presents Joseph Story as having used “native” for “natural born citizen.” Both of these terms were attributed to Vattel in this context.

    3. Wikipedia quotes Alexander Hamilton writing “nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed…from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.”

    This is very forceful from Hamilton and can only mean he expected the HIGHEST POSSIBLE REQUIREMENT FOR ELIGIBILITY TO PRECLUDE FOREIGN INFLUENCE. That is two parents, which was Vattel and the French. Your interpretation of natural born citizen allows a person born to two foreign citizen or alien parents to become president. Hamilton, et. al., did not allow that. The Founders took eligibility seriously and knew of Vattel’s “parents” requirement.

    VATTEL
    An English-language translation of Emerich de Vattel’s 1758 treatise The Law of Nations (original French title: Le Droit du gens), stating that “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens”, was quoted in 1857 by Supreme Court justice Peter Vivian Daniel in a concurring opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford,[29] as well as by Chief Justice Melville Fuller in 1898 in his dissenting opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.[30]

    JOSEPH STORY
    Joseph Story (1779–1845), an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1811–1845), wrote in his 1840 guidebook to the Constitution, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, about the natural-born-citizen clause:

    “It is not too much to say that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be intrusted with an office so vital to the safety and liberties of the people.[31]”

    HAMILTON
    The purpose of the natural born citizen clause is to protect the nation from foreign influence. Alexander Hamilton, a Convention delegate from New York, wrote in Federalist No. 68 about the care that must be taken in selecting the president:

    “Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.”[

  176. Your theory would allow two illegal alien parents to enter the country, give birth, and the child would be eligible for the presidency. Is that correct?

  177. “Citizen” in early drafts was strengthened to “natural born citizen” in the Constitution. All Presidents, except one, have been “natural born citizens.” “Natural born citizen” is the strongest possible form because nature requires a mother and father for birth and to be an American President, the candidate must be born naturally or through the natural birth generated by two parents. Natural born means what it says – nature. CERTAINLY WE ARE ALL FAMILIAR WITH NATURE.

    Understanding that, Hamilton’s and Jay’s exhortations to oppose with “every practicable obstacle…foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils” and ” provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners to the administration of our national government,” required the highest possible standard for eligibility, a natural born citizen would have been one born in America, naturally, to two parents in and of the same country with citizenship therein – comprehensively avoiding ALL FOREIGN ALLEGIANCES.

    There is no greater obstacle or stronger check than being born, naturally, in America to two parents that are citizens – birth is natural to a man and a woman – a natural born child is one with two parents. A birth can take place anywhere. The nature of birth is the combination of two parents. The nature of birth is not geographic. Naturally, two citizens of the same country produce a birth. It is a rare exception to the rule that two citizens of different countries produce a birth. A candidate for the office of the Presidency of the United States would have been of sufficient caliber and standing that it would have been presumed and understood that he had two parents that were citizens of the same country and that country must have been America.

    Natural birth occurred with two parents and marriages that produced presidential candidates were composed of citizens of acceptable or high repute.

    The NATURAL in “natural born citizen” refers to nature, or two parents who are citizens being married and having children. All Presidents except one have been exactly that, natural born citizens born to two married parents who were citizens.

    Nature is natural and it is natural for birth to occur between two citizens of the same country.

    Sounds natural to me. That may have been Vattel’s point.

    You have to believe that the goal of the American Founders was to LOWER THE STANDARDS.

    Natural born presumes or understands two parents as citizens and it always has.

    Does common law say that births are immaculate or that most children are born bastards out of wedlock? Was that the standard in 1789, out of wedlock and parents as citizens of different countries.

    Natural born means children born of two parents, naturally, who are citizens and in the same country.

  178. Re: “Your theory would allow two illegal alien parents to enter the country, give birth, and the child would be eligible for the presidency. Is that correct?”

    YES.

    (BTW, Natural Born criminals are eligible to be president too. The principle is that the voters get to chose so long as the person is over 35 has resided in the USA for 14 years, and is a citizen who had not been naturalized. EVERYONE who falls into that group, regardless of the citizenship of the parents, regardless of dual nationality, regardless of whether the parents were legal or illegal immigrants, is a Natural Born US Citizen. That just means that there are hundreds of millions of people to chose from, and we—the voters—get to pick.)

    Re: “The purpose of the natural born citizen clause is to protect the nation from foreign influence. ”

    Answer: Agreed. But a US-born child is NOT a foreign influence—what gave you the idea that she or he would be? (Millions of Americans who had foreign parents fought and died for the USA in two world wars, and there is not a particle of a hint of any evidence at all that they were any less loyal to the USA than the US-born children of US-parents.)

  179. Re: “The Founders took eligibility seriously and knew of Vattel’s “parents” requirement. ”

    IF the writers of the Constitution had followed Vattel, they would have said so, and they didn’t. They did not follow his advice on having a state religion, so the mere fact that they had read his words does not show that they followed them. The Heritage Foundation book and the US Electoral College and the US Congress and ten appeals courts and the current US Supreme Court, which turned down an appeal of one of those cases leaving its ruling STANDING, all are right—-and you are wrong.

  180. Re: “AND HE WAS COMPLETELY SUBJECT TO FOREIGN INFLUENCE AND ALLEGIANCE through his two foreign citizen parents.”

    IF John Jay wanted to say “nobody who does not have two [or even one] US citizen parent should get that job,” he would have said so, but he didn’t—and he was a specialist in the common law, which defined Natural Born status as coming from the place of birth, not the parents.

    And, as noted, millions of US-born children of foreign parents fought and died for the USA in two world wars, and there is not a shred of evidence that they were any less loyal than the US-born children of US parents. And there is not a shred of evidence that Washington or Franklin or Hamilton or any of the members of the Constitutional convention thought that the US-born children of foreign parents would be any less loyal than the US-born children of US parents. If they had thought so, they would have said so—-but they didn’t.

  181. ‘YES.’

    Yep. That’s what they taught us in the 4th grade. And Ms Pafford probably dated some of the founding fathers so I pretty sure she knew what she was talking about.

  182. Re: “Ms Pafford probably dated some of the founding fathers…”

    Regardless of her age, she was right. The US-born child of one or two illegal aliens is just as much a Natural Born Citizen as the US-born child of two US citizens.

  183. Re: “The NATURAL in “natural born citizen” refers to nature, or two parents who are citizens being married and having children. All Presidents except one have been exactly that, natural born citizens born to two married parents who were citizens.”

    Are you saying that just because a president was born before the Constitution he could have TWO foreign parents but would be a loyal president, but if he were born after the Constitution the same two foreign parents would make him disloyal?

    Well, Andrew Jackson, one of our most fiercely loyal presidents, had TWO foreign parents. To be sure, he was under the grandfather clause, which is why you say that “ALL presidents have been born two two citizen parents.” But that is false. It is only the presidents after the Constitution who mainly had two citizen parents. But not even all of them did.

    Chester A. Arthur’s father was not a citizen (birthers say that Arthur hid the fact that his father was not a citizen—but there is no evidence of that at all). There is also NO evidence that James Buchanan’s father was ever naturalized. And the first presidential candidate of the Republican party, John c. Fremont, proclaimed that his father was not a citizen in his campaign biography. Well, he did not win—but it wasn’t because his father was not a citizen. And, of course, if he thought that having a father who was not a citizen would not make him eligible, Fremont would not have written it in his campaign bio.

    Fremont believed, as did Tucker and Rawle and the Lynch v. Clarke ruling before him, and the US Supreme Court ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case after him, that EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born US Citizen. Fremont as born on US soil. Andrew Jackson was born on US soil. Rubio and Jindal were born on US soil. Obama was born on US soil, in Hawaii (as has been shown overwhelmingly). ALL of them were or are Natural Born Citizens.

  184. 1. Only congress has STANDING to scrutinize for presidential eligibility.

    2. The narrative of the Chester A. Arthur fraud:

    How a British subject became president of the United States.
    By A. P. Hinman.

    3. All Presidents except Arthur were born to citizen parents.

    4. Chester A. Arthur knew that two citizen parents were required and
    that previous Presidents had “parents.” Arthur knew he was not eligible.
    Arthur lied and perpetrated a fraud to obscure that fact. Arthur’s
    actions acknowledged that the “parents” requirement was presumed
    and understood by the Founders and Presidential candidates.

    5. Jay and Hamilton did indicate that NO foreign influence or allegiance would
    be tolerated in high office. Jay and Hamilton indicated that they would place
    insurmountable obstacles in the path of any who sought high office. Jay
    Hamilton said they would use the strongest measures to assure,against
    “foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.” It is
    inconceivable that Jay and Hamilton intended for eligibility requirements
    to allow a child of aliens or foreign citizens to be eligible for high office.

    You know that the Founders presumed and understood that the maximum level of eligibility requirement was intended because that is what they wrote and that is what they did in subsequent elections.

    You can see what the Founders wrote and intended, and that the Founders “LIVED” the highest standards for the highest office. Not only did they write that way but they lived that way – the way of “parents.”

    You know that the Founders never intended for subsequent interpretation to allow for the eligibility for the presidency, of a child born in America to two illegal aliens. You know that from reading the Jay letter and Hamilton’s piece. You know that something compelled Presidential candidates to have citizen parents. You know there was precedent as all Presidents complied with the “parents” requirement and the one that didn’t lied about it and concealed the fact that his parents were not citizens.

    You know that the Founders lived in an era when it was typical, usual and traditional for most people, and certainly people with ambitions for position and high office, to be married citizens who bore children in their country and that that would assure against foreign influence and allegiances in high office.

    You know that the understood two-parent requirement is what candidates did in deed. You know that the “parents” requirement was the cause and the effect.

    I know that you are absolutely correct that 535 elected officials have acquiesced on the issue.

  185. Re: “Only congress has STANDING to scrutinize for presidential eligibility.”

    Answer: You are wrong, the Constitution gives that job to THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE, but say that you were right, well the evidence is that the Congress confirmed Obama’s election UNANIMOUSLY, showing, duh, that it did not have any doubt about Obama’s eligibility.

    Re: ‘ 2. The narrative of the Chester A. Arthur fraud:”

    An enemy of Arthur wrote that. It is true that Arthur’s father was not a citizen. But it is NOT TRUE that Arthur hid that fact, and neither did John C. Fremont (the first presidential candidate of the Republican party.)

    Re: “ 3. All Presidents except Arthur were born to citizen parents.”

    Answer: Not true. Andrew Jackson had two foreign parents. (You mean all presidents since the expiration of the Grandfather Clause—but even that is not true since there is no evidence that James Buchanan’s father was naturalized.)

    Re” “ Arthur lied and perpetrated a fraud to obscure that fact.’

    Answer: NO he didn’t.

    Re: “Jay and Hamilton did indicate that NO foreign influence or allegiance would be tolerated in high office.”

    Answer: Neither of them said that foreign born parents were a foreign influence. If they had thought so, they would have said so, but they never did.

    (And the US born children of foreigners have proven themselves just as loyal as the US-born children of US citizens in two world wars—and there is NO evidence whatever that the members of Constitutional Convention EVER thought that the US-born children of foreigners would be more disloyal than the US-born children of US citizens, and you know, they were right.)

    Re: “You know that the Founders presumed and understood that the maximum level of eligibility requirement was intended because that is what they wrote and that is what they did in subsequent elections.”

    Answer: They never wrote a thing about two citizen parents being required (or even one). So the maximum level of eligibility was not being a naturalized citizen—which is not required of US Congressmen and US Senators.

    Re: “Not only did they write that way but they lived that way – the way of “parents.”

    Answer: Then didn’t write it and they didn’t live it either. And Andrew Jackson had two foreign parents, and he was perfectly loyal.

    Re: “You know that the Founders never intended for subsequent interpretation to allow for the eligibility for the presidency, of a child born in America to two illegal aliens. “

    Answer: Since they did not bar Natural Born criminals from becoming president, I DO NOT KNOW ANY SUCH THING.

    I suppose they would not have liked a former (or current) nude dancer to be elected president—but THEY DIDN’T SAY that a former or present nude dancer was not eligible—so she or he IS eligible (but you do not have to vote for that candidate). The principle is that the VOTER gets to chose, and that we get to decide whether to vote for the nude dancer or not to, or for the children of illegal immigrants or not to. Unless the Constitution specifically says that something is not allowed, it is allowed—and there is nothing in the Constitution that bars criminals or nude dancers or the children of illegal immigrants from becoming president.

    Re: “You know that something compelled Presidential candidates to have citizen parents. “

    Answer: Most did, but Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan, Chester A. Arthur, John C. Fremont didn’t. Obama has only one citizen parent. Jindal and Rubo do not have any (like Andrew Jackson).

    Re: “You know that the Founders lived in an era when it was typical, usual and traditional for most people, and certainly people with ambitions for position and high office, to be married citizens who bore children in their country and that that would assure against foreign influence and allegiances in high office.”

    Answer: And until the first Catholic president was elected, they were all Protestant, and until the first woman will be elected, they were all men.

    Re: “You know that the understood two-parent requirement is what candidates did indeed. You know that the “parents” requirement was the cause and the effect.”

    Answer: If there were a parent requirement, they would have told us—but they didn’t.

    Re: “I know that you are absolutely correct that 535 elected officials have acquiesced on the issue.”

    Answer: And not only that, but 535 elected officials did it TWICE. Plus ten appeals courts all ruled the same way; plus the current US supreme court turned down a birther appeal of one of those rulings, plus not a single member of the Electoral College changed her or his vote to vote against Obama out of the nutty idea that two citizen parents are required. They are right—and the Heritage Foundation book is right, and Tucker and Rawle are right—and you are wrong.

  186. CONCLUSION

    The Founders understood, presumed, intended and knew that “Natural Born Citizen” was defined by two citizen parents to effectively protect and safeguard the nation from foreign influence and allegiances, and that, in deed, the requirement was, subsequently, strictly complied with by Presidential candidates.

    1. “Native” and “natural born citizen” are synonymous, attributable to Vattel
    and equate to two citizen parents.

    2. The Founders were well acquainted with and influenced by Vattel.

    3. The Founders, Jay and Hamilton, with specificity, wrote that foreign influence
    and foreign allegiances would be opposed with the maximum effort saying,
    “every practicable obstacle…foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant
    in our councils” and “it would be wise and seasonable to provide a
    strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration
    of our national Government…”

    4. The Committee of Eleven changed “citizen” to “natural born citizen”
    raising the requirement after receiving Jay’s letter. These writers
    enhanced the text and increased the effect of the eligibility
    requirements on the basis of the intent expressed by Jay, Hamilton
    et. al. The eligibility requirement was expressed in the highest
    semantic form.

    5. All candidates for the office of President had two citizen parents or
    a “time of adoption” waiver.

    6. Chester A. Arthur, the single candidate without citizen parents, was
    compelled to fraudulently make it appear as if he had, which was described
    in the book by A. P. Hinman.

    Respectfully submitted.

  187. Re: “The Founders understood, presumed, intended and knew that “Natural Born Citizen” was defined by two citizen parents to effectively protect and safeguard the nation from foreign influence and allegiances, and that, in deed, the requirement was, subsequently, strictly complied with by Presidential candidates.”

    Answer: The Founders (actually, the writers of the Constitution are called “The Framers.”) never said that they thought that the US-born children of foreigners were “foreign” or had “foreign influences” or that there was any problem at all with their allegiances. And they were right because the US born children of foreigners have fought and died for the USA in two world wars, and there has never been a shred of a hint that they were any less loyal to the USA than the US-born children of US citizens.

    Re: “1. “Native” and “natural born citizen” are synonymous, attributable to Vattel
    and equate to two citizen parents.”

    Answer: If they were using the Vattel definition, they would have said so—but they didn’t.

    Re: “2. The Founders were well acquainted with and influenced by Vattel.”

    Answer: Yes, but they read a lot of other books too. And they certainly were not influenced by Vattels’ re recommendation that every country should have a state religion. We did not follow that recommendation of Vattel, and there isn’t a particle of evidence that we followed his two-citizen-parent requirement either.

    Re: “3. The Founders, Jay and Hamilton, with specificity, wrote that foreign influence
    and foreign allegiances would be opposed with the maximum effort…”

    Answer: Once again, they NEVER SAID that the US-born children of foreign citizens were “foreign” or “foreign influences”. And they never said that the US-born children of foreign citizens had foreign allegiances—and the common law says that people born on the soil of a country can have legal allegiance ONLY to that country. IF they had differed from the common law on that or on anything, THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO. But they didn’t.

    Re: “. The Committee of Eleven changed “citizen” to “natural born citizen”
    raising the requirement after receiving Jay’s letter.”

    Answer: John Jay was an expert in THE COMMON LAW. If he had used the term Natural Born Citizen any differently than in the common law—which referred to the PLACE of birth—-he would have said so.

    Re: “the highest semantic form.”

    Answer: The highest semantic form was “not naturalized.” There was NO mention of parents whatever.

    Re: “5. All candidates for the office of President had two citizen parents or a “time of adoption” waiver.”

    Answer: The time of adoption waver does not make someone loyal. If a president who had two foreign parents was perfectly loyal, then there is no proof that a president with two citizen parents would be disloyal—much less one with one citizen parent. Andrew Jackson had two citizen parents, and was perfectly loyal. There is NO evidence that James Buchanan’s father was naturalized, and there is no evidence that Chester A. Arthur hid the fact that his father was not naturalized, and both Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover had foreign mothers who only became US citizens automatically on marrying their US husbands but never swore an oath of allegiance to the USA or renounced their foreign citizenship.

    Re: “. Chester A. Arthur, the single candidate without citizen parents, was compelled to fraudulently make it appear as if he had, which was described in the book by A. P. Hinman.”

    Answer: That book was written by an enemy of C.A. Arthur. There is no evidence whatever that he hid the fact that his father was not naturalized, and the first presidential candidate of the Republican party, John. C Fremont, PROCLAIMED that his father was not naturalized——-so he could hardly have worried that the fact that his father was not naturalized would make him, Fremont, not eligible to be president.

    Fremont believed, correctly, along with Tucker and Rawle, and the Lynch V. Clarke ruling and the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case (years later) and the Heritage Foundation book and the Congressional Research Service (all still later) that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from THE COMMON LAW (not from Vattel), and that the term refers to the place of birth (not the citizenship of the parents), and that every child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen. They are right, and you are WRONG.

  188. Re: ” Andrew Jackson had two citizen parents…”

    That should read Andrew Jackson had two parents, neither of whom were citizens….” (and of course, he was perfectly loyal.)

Comments are closed.