« Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners | Main | "new humiliations for the IPCC" »

The L Word

At the Tea Party Convention this weekend, professional gadfly Andrew Breitbart got into it with some folks from World Net Daily about the "birther" issue. For those who've been living under a rock for the past two years, that's the term for those people who -- to put it charitably -- have unresolved doubts as to whether or not President Obama was actually born in Hawaii and is therefore Constitutionally eligible to serve as president.

Breitbart's main argument seems to be that it is a "loser" argument. And he's right.

Speaking strictly for myself, I am 99.44% convinced that Obama was born in Hawaii, is an American citizen by birth, and eligible to be president. And that's more than enough certainty for me.

The arguers against Obama's eligibility base their arguments on several grounds, and I'm not going to go into them in their obsessive meticulous detail. Suffice it to say that there is enough circumstantial evidence and supporting documentation that I really, really don't want to get into the issue on a "factual" basis. (I spent way too many years as an amateur scholar of the Kennedy assassination, and that burned up my conspiracy glands.)

But let's look at the "birthers" from a slightly more strategic level.

First up, what are they achieving now? Well, for one, they're giving Obama's supporters a ton of cover. While they're chasing this mythical "proof," they're NOT looking at what he's doing right now. By obsessing in what may or may not have happened on August of 1961 in Hawaii, or Kenya, or Indonesia, or Iceland, they're not paying attention to what's going on in DC today.

For another, they -- let's face it -- come across as silly. And that lets Obama's backers tar all of his detractors with a very broad brush, and distract from things that really matter.

For one more, I have to ask: what is their long-term goal? Let's play this out. Suppose they get proof that the Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth is faked, and they get proof Obama was born in Kenya. Then what?

Well, it's way, way too late to overturn the election. Obama was certified as the winner, and his administration has been running things for for over a year. McCain and Palin admitted defeat and have moved on.

Congratulations, birthers. You've just given us President Joe Biden. Smooth move, assholes.

I'd be willing to bet that President Biden wouldn't run for a term of his own, so we'd have a lame duck president in 2012. And at that point, we'd have an open presidency, like in 2000, The Democratic nominee would be able to distance himself or herself from the Obama/Biden administration's record, and wouldn't have to defend all the screwups they've made.

To the birthers: hang it up. It's over. You lost. It's not likely you ever had a chance of winning, and it's far less likely now -- if not impossible.

Put your energies into finding better candidates for 2012, for documenting all the failures, mistakes, flubs, and errors for that race, and fighting fights where you might actually win, and might actually win something.

'Cuz all you're doing here is making the big L on your foreheads even bigger and bigger.

And you're getting the ink on the rest of us, too.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/38175.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The L Word:

» Wizbang linked with "Birthers" And The Smell Test

Comments (57)

One question I've never see... (Below threshold)
klrtz1:

One question I've never seen any birther address much less answer is

"You remove a president from office via the process of impeachment. There is no other constitutional way to remove a president. How can you impeach Obama if he has a Democrat majority in the Congress?"

Can anyone answer this? Can any birthers, non-birthers, anyone answer this?

Very scary: "President Joe ... (Below threshold)
Illinois Alum:

Very scary: "President Joe Biden."

Two things, Jay -O... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Two things, Jay -

One - I agree it's a distraction, and at this point a silly one. Obama's in office, and no matter what's found on that issue he's going to be in office until he either gets 'promoted' to something more wonderous like 'Magnificent and Holy Emperor Emeritus of the United Nations' or until he loses the next election - or until he has a psychotic break and has to be confined to a rubber copy of the Oval Office, entering launch codes into a fake copy of the Football and chortling as all those who don't believe in his divine Unicorn-riding godhood are smited into dust.

Admittedly, that last one's got a low probability. They'll probably just pump him full of thorazine and carefully manage his photo ops while letting Biden take over the speechmaking for him...

Two - the reason it's a non-issue at this point is that Obama was NEVER looked at by the media with the same stringent standards that McCain or Palin' backgrounds were combed through. They failed, big-time, and there was only a certain period where their input would have been usable to the voters. (They were too busy digging through Palin's garbage, I guess, looking for something on HER.)

The expiration date on this has really, truely passed, and it was pretty iffy to begin with.

I'm not a birther but this ... (Below threshold)
John:

I'm not a birther but this Well, it's way, way too late to overturn the election. Obama was certified as the winner, and his administration has been running things for for over a year. McCain and Palin admitted defeat and have moved on. really bothers me.

There is no penealty for a fraud committed?

How about recinding every last Executive Order signed by Obama?

Regards

John, I didn't say I like i... (Below threshold)

John, I didn't say I like it, but I don't see a good solution. "Suck it up now, make damned sure it doesn't happen again" or "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame one me" might be cold comfort, but it seems the most realistic response.

J.

The statist stooge has lots... (Below threshold)
GianiD:

The statist stooge has lots of secrets. One would think if he had ANY integrity whatsoever, he'd release all of his personal records, birth cert, college transcripts, etc.

He has NO integrity!

World Net Daily is hardly a... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

World Net Daily is hardly a legitimate news source. Joe Farah has always taken himself way too seriously. We laugh our asses off at WND at our secret John Birch meetings.

Good place to go for miracle weight loss cures and cutting edge penny stock recommendations though.

You haven't a clue as to wh... (Below threshold)
Mick:

You haven't a clue as to what you are talking about. The issue is whether Obama is a Natural Born Citizen, not "citizen by birth". The requirement is a security measure inserted to make sure of the highest possibility of allegiance and attachment to country. In Vattel's Law of Nations (1753) (the Treatise on Natural Law from where the term of art came), Natural Born Citizens are born in the US of 2 Citizen Parentssss. Blood and soil are united and there are no foreign allegiances in Natural Born Citizens. It is Natural Law (which is our common law, see Article 1 Section 8 Clause 10--law of nations). Obama has admitted that his citizenship at birth was "governed" by Britain due to his father's Kenyan citizenship. At birth, he was a dual citizen, with dual allegiances, therefore he cannot be a Natural Born Citizen, even if born in the White House, because his father was never a citizen. This fact is already apparent. No further proof (Birth Certificate) is needed. There are 2 ways to remove a sitting POTUS, Impeachment and Quo Warranto in the DC District. This is not just about Obama, it is what comes next. He is attempting to change Article 2 Section 1 Clause 4,5 by precedent, and stripping a security measure designed to make sure that the leader of our armed forces is sufficient attachment and allegiance. He is a traitor.

So first the tea party spli... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

So first the tea party splits off of the main party - GOP - and now we see the tea party splintering into two separate warring factions.

That's so sad...

Steve, what's sad is that t... (Below threshold)
Chad:

Steve, what's sad is that the gop is no longer a conservative party. Fiscal conservatism must be returned to the party, but we'll never see that happen with Michael Steele in charge.

9. Steve Green - "So first ... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

9. Steve Green - "So first the tea party splits off of the main party - GOP - and now we see the tea party splintering into two separate warring factions.

That's so sad..."

No Steve, not sad at all. What's sad is that the GOP hasn't yet found it's way back to fiscal conservatism. What also sad is the rampant anti-semitism in western europe and among lefties here in the U.S.

So the Tea Party movement now distinguishes itself the the GOP. That's useful, it's a good thing. If the Birthers can't get over themselves and leave to tell their fantasies to each that's more than just useful, that's a really good thing.

Now tell me why being part of an anti-semitic mob is a good thing?

I agree with JLawson, it's ... (Below threshold)
kevino:

I agree with JLawson, it's a distraction and nothing more.

To answer John's point, if you could prove it, then certainly you could prosecute then ex-President Obama for fraud. The Presidency is worth a lot, grand theft through fraud would be easy to prove if you could prove he wasn't qualified to be President.

There is potentially a good thing in going after this. The people surrounding Obama have all of his records tightly sealed. They've expended a great deal of time and money keeping prying eyes away from his history, and the MSM has been complicit in this by refusing to investigate his early life. If anything about his early days (e.g. school records) does come out and contradicts his two autobiographies, it will be another black eye for the MSM. [What kind of a egomaniac writes two autobiographies!?]

RE: President Biden?
Granted, Vice President Biden is a buffoon, but I fail to see how Biden's teleprompter would govern worse than Obama's teleprompter.

"So the Tea Party moveme... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

"So the Tea Party movement now distinguishes itself the the GOP. That's useful, it's a good thing. If the Birthers can't get over themselves and leave to tell their fantasies to each that's more than just useful, that's a really good thing."

And over on World Net Daily they birthers are no doubt saying "if the non-believers can't get over themselves and leave that's a really good thing".

And the band played on...

13. Steve Green, "And the b... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

13. Steve Green, "And the band played on..."

On that one I'll have to agree. After all, you just chose to run your mouth about how everything on the right side of the aisle is falling apart instead of taking some moment to dissociate yourself from the anti-semitics standing all around you.

Oh well, birds of a feather I guess. At least now I know who you are. Good-bye.

Steve Green, what's so diff... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Steve Green, what's so different about the Democrats? There are numerous factions among the Democrats that are always jockeying for control, whether its the centrists, the Blue Dogs, the Yellow Dogs, the Progressives, the Greens, the Unions, the feminists, etc. The Democrat Party is having an identity crisis of its own in case you haven't noticed.

By the way Steve are you go... (Below threshold)
Eric:

By the way Steve are you going to respond to this question?

JT:"...that's the te... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

JT:
"...that's the term for those people who -- to put it charitably -- have unresolved doubts as to whether or not President Obama was actually born in Hawaii and is therefore Constitutionally eligible to serve as president."

I don't think that's completely true. Most of the Birthers do beleive that, but not all.
Some think there may just be something a little embarrassing on the certificate, like under race he is listed as 'white' or his father is listed as 'unknown' or someone else is listed as his father, etc...

I'm 99.44% sure that there is nothing to this, or if there is something it is so small it is not worth worrying about.

While it is very strange that the President hasn't released all the records, I think it is counterproductive to pursue it.

It's best to let this issue go away.

Mick gives me pause for reg... (Below threshold)

Mick gives me pause for regret.

I didn't specifically call the "birthers" by appropriate terms -- the politest is "bozo."

To properly express my feelings, I'd have to channel Rahm Emanuel.

Feel free to sell your crazy somewhere else, Mick. I'd tell you to take it to the nearest insane asylum, but since we shut down Wizbang Blue, there really hasn't been a convenient place to shove the whackjobs.

J.

Jay Tea, you're the only ot... (Below threshold)
Neoluddite:

Jay Tea, you're the only other person I know to use the Ivory Soap reference. Thank you!

I don't think it very stran... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

I don't think it very strange, Les - I think it totally in character for someone who hasn't got anything in his background that'd prepare him for what he's doing, and is trying hard to hide it - AND who has the power to do so.

Maybe we'll see his records after he's out, but I sure wouldn't hold my breath on it. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they never get released.

I'm sorry, but if Sarah Pal... (Below threshold)

I'm sorry, but if Sarah Palin is the candidate for president three years from now, It is going to make my life a whole hell of a lot easier. If she wins it will make my life a dream come true. As a blogger, I will never again have to touch my computer keyboard. These things will write themselves.

I know this sounds exceedingly selfish on my part and I am embarrassed to say it in so public a forum. I hope she never goes away. For the self-described political satirist, she is the gift that keeps giving and giving and giving....

I'm so ashamed.

.tomdegan.blogspot.com

Tom Degan
Goshen NY

Totally agree with you Jay,... (Below threshold)
pipster:

Totally agree with you Jay, but there is one nagging question that I wish would be resolved: who has legal standing to challenge a president's or a candidate's eligibility for the office? The Constitution is silent on the matter, and the Supreme Court has never had a relevant case either. This one (narrow) issue is one that I hope the birthers succeed in resolving.

Jay Tea,Obviously ... (Below threshold)
Mick:

Jay Tea,

Obviously your brain is too small to wrap around the concept of Natural Born Citizen. The same Vattel Law of Nations definition of the term is repeated in no less than 5 SCOTUS cases, The Venus (1817), Dred Scott (1854), Minor v. Happersett (1873), Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Perkins v. Elg (1929). These cases were all about citizenship issues, and the different types of citizenship are discussed (Natural Born, Born, and Naturalized), although there has never been an on point case relating to POTUS eligibility. There is NOT ONE SCOTUS case that defines Natural Born Citizen as anything less than Born in the US of 2 Citizen Parents. Maybe you should familiarize yourself with these cases you prove your ignorance again.

Kevino said"I agree ... (Below threshold)
Mick:

Kevino said
"I agree with JLawson, it's a distraction and nothing more."

It certainly is a distraction, purposefully perpetuated by Obama to shield the real legal constitutional issue that is not conspiracy; the fact that Obama's father was never a US citizen, thus Obama is not an eligible Natural Born citizen.

Re: "Wong Kim Ark (1898.)"<... (Below threshold)
smrstrauss:

Re: "Wong Kim Ark (1898.)"

You are wrong. The Wong Kim Ark case ruled that EVERY child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is Natural Born.

It said:

"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

EVERY CHILD.

AND that is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

"Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats." (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

"What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen." (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

And that is why Black's Law Dictionary has this definition: ""Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad." -- Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.

You said,"Re: "Won... (Below threshold)
Mick:

You said,

"Re: "Wong Kim Ark (1898.)"

You are wrong. The Wong Kim Ark case ruled that EVERY child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is Natural Born."

No read the conclusion of the case, it said that children born of Unnaturalizeable Resident aliens (The parents were Chines citizens barred from naturalizing because of the Chinese Exclusionary Acts, and Justice Gray compared them to children born of slaves on US soil before the 14 Amendment), are CITIZENS---it doesn't say they are Natural Born citizens. The case also quoted happersett directly in saying that the definition is NOT IN THE USC, that being 1873, so it couldn't be a "Born" Citizen of the 14 Amendment (1866) either. It also said that the CITIZEN child of an ALIEN has the same rights as the NATURAL BORN Child of a Citizen.

Obviously Hatch and Graham are merely not informed, and Blacks uses the British Common Law definition, we are not subjects, and our Common Law is Natural Law (see A1S8C10--law of nations). The Senate judiciary hearing said a lot more than that one quote you took out of context, and besides has no force in Law. Resolution 511 that proclaimed McCain as a NBC was a farce. NO ONE born outside of the US is a Natural Born citizen. McCain is not Natural Born either. Neither is Bobby Jindal (born in La. of Indian Immigrant Non Naturalized parents).

Commentary at Judiciary Hea... (Below threshold)
Mick:

Commentary at Judiciary Hearings have no force in Law. SCOTUS cases do.

Mick, you whiny git, keep w... (Below threshold)

Mick, you whiny git, keep wrapping yourself in arcane legalese bullshit. It's all meaningless.

What I'd be curious to hear is a practical resolution to your convulsions of intellectual Onanisms. Let's presume -- just for the sake of argument -- that every single thing you've said is true.

THEN WHAT?

What's the next stage of your game? What's your proposed resolution?

And it better be a realistic one. 'Cuz you ain't getting an impeachment out of THIS Congress, and you AIN'T getting a criminal prosecution out of THIS Justice Department.

Nor should you.

Get your hand out of your briefs and give a REAL solution to your dilemma, Mick.

J.

I didn't expect any birther... (Below threshold)
klrtz1:

I didn't expect any birthers to even try to answer my question in 1. Birthers have no idea how to remove Obama from office. So I'll tell you. Listen up, fools.

You can remove Obama from office by electing enough birther congressmen and senators so that impeachment becomes numerically possible. Your problem is you can't elect even one birther congressman or senator. At least the crazy wing of the Democratic party can elect congressmen crazy enough to call for the impeachment of George W. Bush. You don't even have one congressman.

Even Ron Paul doesn't agree with you. That's how crazy you are. Losers.

Everything I have said is e... (Below threshold)
Mick:

Everything I have said is exactly true. Nothing Arcane. For instance, here is what Minor v. Happersett (1873) said:

"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."

They said that it was doubtful that those born of aliens were even citizens, much less Natural Born Citizens (NBCs).

And here from The Venus (1814), Just 27 years after ratification of the USC.

""The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights"

Justice Story here DIRECTLY quotes Vattel. The Supreme Court has never defined NBCs as anything less.
The only avenue to unseat a putative POTUS is Quo Warranto within the DC Disdict Court. It has to be brought by someone who has an injury that is different from the general population (standing). Chrysler dealers that had their franchise agreements terminated when this adminstration took over Chrysler would be good candidates. Heard to believe that so called Conservatives are so OK with a Usurpation of the Presidency.

Re: "are CITIZENS---it does... (Below threshold)
smrstrauss1:

Re: "are CITIZENS---it doesn't say they are Natural Born citizens. "

This was not a case dealing with Article II. The key issue of the case was whether or not Wong was a citizen. The court ruled that he was a citizen and hence could not be barred from the country of his birth.

It also ruled that he, and EVERY child born in the country was Natural Born. When you are both a citizen and Natural Born, you are a Natural Born Citizen.

Re "subjects." The Wong ruling clearly says that the rules of Natural Born status applied in England (to subjects) and in the colonies (to subjects) but that they ALSO applied in the early states and under the Constitution, meaning that they applied to citizens as well as subjects.

It is important to remember that Natural Born at the time of the writing of the Constitution simply meant "born in the country." The common meaning was NOT from Vattel, the Swiss monarchist. It was from the common law and from the laws in the early states, and 60% or more of the writers of the Constitution were lawyers. I have done searches for the use of Natural Born in the writings of Adams, Jay, Hamilton and others, and cannot find one example of the phrase Natural Born used in any other way than "born in the country."

Re: "our Common Law is Natural Law (see A1S8C10--law of nations).."

That is absurd. I have already pointed out that 60% or more of the writers were lawyers. Another fact is that there were several other Natural Law philosophers besides Vattel, and generally they recommended different things. The Constitution is filled with common law words like Habeas Corpus and Bill of Attainer. And, Vattel recommended that every state should have a state religion. In other words, if Natural Law leads to "two citizen parents," it may also lead to state religions, and as we know the Constitution is opposed to state religions.

The common use of the phrase Natural Born at the time of the writing of the Constitution was simply "born in the country."

Kirtz1 said,"I did... (Below threshold)
Mick:

Kirtz1 said,

"I didn't expect any birthers to even try to answer my question in 1. Birthers have no idea how to remove Obama from office. So I'll tell you. Listen up, fools."

I am not a "birther". It doesn't matter if Obama were born in the White House, the reason that he is not a Natural Born Citizen is already apparent and admitted, i.e his father was never a Citizen. Impeachment can only be done for crimes and misdemeaners, and it is technically not a crime to run for office ineligibally. As I've explained here, Quo Warranto in the DC District (by what authority do you hold this office) is the only Constitutional way to unseat him. This fact was verified by the DOJ in it's response to Taitz in Judge Summers' court (Ca.).

Personally as a conservativ... (Below threshold)
klrtz1:

Personally as a conservative I'd rather be accused of being OK with the "Usurpation of the Presidency" than with "Ignoring the Constitution". You can't get the Supreme Court to hear your case until you impeach Obama. You can't impeach Obama while there is a Democrat majority. Why do you refuse to understand that?

Shorter Mick: "more gobbled... (Below threshold)

Shorter Mick: "more gobbledygook."

Solution: get a car dealer to argue the case!

And then...?

WHAT?

What is your END GAME here, you git? What is your ultimate goal? What is your desired outcome?

There is a huge list of things I don't give a rat's ass about. Sports, for one. Your "birther" legal mumbo-jumbo ranks several levels above that.

But let's play your pointless little exercise in political masturbation. You find a birther who is also a Chrysler dealer to file the suit. You get it heard, where you get to orgasmically spout all your legal theories and arguments. And the judge says "you're right."

THEN WHAT?

Well, once you put away the now-sticky sock, that is. I don't want the details on THAT part.

You got your decision. What will be the remedy?

J.

factcheck.org settled the q... (Below threshold)
Dodo David:

factcheck.org settled the question about President Obama's birth in it's article "Born in the USA - The truth about Obama's birth crtificate."

President Obama was born a U.S. citizen.

Re: "it was never doubted t... (Below threshold)
smrstrauss:

Re: "it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also."

The Minor case was overturned by the Wong Kim Ark case. Same with the Venus.

Now there is no doubt. The birthers tried to get some of the 365 electors from the Electoral College to vote against Obama on the grounds of his not having two US parents. Not one did. The birthers tried to get the Congress not to confirm him on the grounds of his not having two US parents; the confirmation was unanimous. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court swore in Obama (twice), and eight of the Justices attended a special meeting with him and Biden.

Two of the conservative justices had fathers who were not born US citizens, and although I believe it is likely that their fathers were naturalized before they were born, these two justices are likely to feel that they would be exactly as Natural Born if their fathers were naturalized after they were born instead of before they were born. AND, they are quite familiar with the fact that the common use of the term Natural Born at the time of the writing of the Constitution was simply "born in the country."

Andrew Jackson, by the way, had two parents who were not citizens at the time of his birth. To be sure, he fell under the grandfather provisions, but the fact is that under your definition if he was not under that provision, he would have been barred from being president. Since he was a good president and not disloyal in any way, this seems absurd.

By the way, th 14 Amendment... (Below threshold)
Dodo David:

By the way, th 14 Amendment says, "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."

smrstrauss said,"A... (Below threshold)
Mick:

smrstrauss said,

"Andrew Jackson, by the way, had two parents who were not citizens at the time of his birth. To be sure, he fell under the grandfather provisions, but the fact is that under your definition if he was not under that provision, he would have been barred from being president. Since he was a good president and not disloyal in any way, this seems absurd."

Ah Mr. strauss, here to lie and Obfuscate again. Andrew Jackson's parents were made citizens by treaty before Andrew was born.

The founders didn't consult Varttel?

"I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting.
--Benjamin Franklin, letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775"

British Common Law was what the founders fought against silly. Our Common Law is most certainly Natural Law (A1S8C10-- law of nations). Where do you think the Bill of Rights, Natural God Given Rights came from? duh

Kirtz1 said,"Perso... (Below threshold)
Mick:

Kirtz1 said,

"Personally as a conservative I'd rather be accused of being OK with the "Usurpation of the Presidency" than with "Ignoring the Constitution". You can't get the Supreme Court to hear your case until you impeach Obama. You can't impeach Obama while there is a Democrat majority. Why do you refuse to understand that?"

You comprehension is a little off. Impeachment is not an option--technically no crime is commited when running for office ineligibally. Qou Warranto in DC District is the only constitutional avenue.

Mick, please, PLEASE stop w... (Below threshold)

Mick, please, PLEASE stop with the intellectual masturbation. I'll cheerfully grant that you've spent zillions of hours poring over incredible minutiae of this issue, and would qualify for "expert" status on the issue.

I would like to note that I find it incredibly repugnant that you rejoice in arguing that there are different classes of citizens, and that all Americans are NOT created equal.

But I'm tempted to use my authority as an editor here to INSIST that you address the issue I keep raising: what the fuck is your ideal solution to the situation? How do you want this resolved?

J.

Re: "Andrew Jackson's paren... (Below threshold)
smrstrauss:

Re: "Andrew Jackson's parents were made citizens by treaty before Andrew was born."

What treaty? (A hint, Andrew was born before the Revolution. The colonies did not have treaties.)

Re the nice letter by Ben Franklin. That was about 15 years before the writing of the Constitution, and polite people write nice letters when they get free books. This does NOT mean that the writers of the Constitution used all that Vattel recommended. As I said before, Vattel recommended a state religion, and we did not follow that idea.

One thing that Vattel never recommended was elections for the leaders of a country. He was a monarchist. And, while he does use the two-parent definition, he never says that a leader of a country should have two citizen parents or even be a citizen. He gives several examples of countries picking their sovereign (king or emperor) from the nobility of other countries, and he never says that that was a bad thing.

Ben Franklin, by the way, had two illegitimate children. So, would he have been satisfied with the two-parent theory if it were merely the legal father of the child? Or would he have insisted that the real father, the DNA father, be proven. And, if so, would that require presidential candidates to get DNA tests and their assumed fathers to get them too? And if the father were dead, would that mean that his remains would have to be dug up and matched with the DNA of the candidate?

Fortunately, all this is unnecessary. The common meaning of Natural Born at the time of the writing of the Constitution was simply "born in the country."

Quo Warrento, Mick? That's ... (Below threshold)
klrtz1:

Quo Warrento, Mick? That's your way to remove Obama? Here's from the very first link returned by Google:

The common law writ of quo warranto has been suppressed at the federal level in the United States ...

http://www.constitution.org/writ/quo_warranto.htm
Read it and weep. Then give up this idiocy and turn your skills to something useful. You're a human being and admitting you're wrong is not only possible but even beneficial.

To Kirtz1,Constitu... (Below threshold)
Mick:

To Kirtz1,

Constitution.org? You believe it because it's oon the internet. That's like believing Snopes or Factcheck! Total BS site that claims that children born outside of the US can be POTUS. Get a clue. Google? the other propaganda engine.

A person that has never leg... (Below threshold)
old1 Author Profile Page:

A person that has never legally been President can not be impeached. Just like one can not get a divorce if they have never been legally married. This man is a usurper, he has no position, no power, and no ability to act or do anything within our Government. In all probability he is an illegal alien and should be deported immediately. Anything he has done, any bill or law he has signed, any treaty he has negotiated will be null and void. America will revert back to January 20 2008 and Botox Pelosi will take charge until such time we can elect a new POTUS. Hopefully the next one will be a Conservative American or at least an American.

smrstraus is a known Obot a... (Below threshold)
old1 Author Profile Page:

smrstraus is a known Obot and has been posting Obot lies and propaganda for months, probably paid by the Communist coup trying to take over our America.

you made some good points b... (Below threshold)
kepa poalima:

you made some good points but you did it like a 28yr old liberal - calling people you don't agree with a**holes, losers, saying "hang it up. It's over. You lost". you sound like barry

Also, it says it's been sup... (Below threshold)
Mick:

Also, it says it's been suppressed, not that it's invalid. If it has been suppressed at the Federal level, then why do you think that is? Because they don't want anyone questioning them?

Jay Tea said,"I wo... (Below threshold)
Mick:

Jay Tea said,

"I would like to note that I find it incredibly repugnant that you rejoice in arguing that there are different classes of citizens, and that all Americans are NOT created equal."

All citizens whether Natural Born, Born or Naturalized have the same rights. But only Natural Born Citizens are eligible for POTUS. It is a National security provision to ensure the highest possibility of allegiance and attachment to the US. You don't say that the USC is predjudiced towards 34 year olds do you (POTUS must be 35)? I don't "rejoice" in the argument, it is what it is, and the Framers were very smart. Failing to enforce the USC is the death of the Republic, what else do we have w/o the USC--the most perfect document of governess ever written--and what Obama calls "fundamentally flawed". The Wong Kim Ark case said that the Citizen child of an Alien has as many rights as the Natural Born child of a Citizen.
There is no "right" to be POTUS. I caught something in your tone that is a very common reaction to this realization. Were you and your children born of Citizen Parents?

smrstrauss said, "... (Below threshold)
Mick:

smrstrauss said,

"Re: "Andrew Jackson's parents were made citizens by treaty before Andrew was born."

What treaty? (A hint, Andrew was born before the Revolution. The colonies did not have treaties.)"


Excuse me you are correct, I confused him with another. But it does expose your dishonesty. You very well know that he was Gandfathered in by Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5
("or a Citizen..."). None of the POTUSs born before 1787 were Natural Born Citizens, I believe there were 11. But you knew that! Nice Alinsky tactis of identify , demonize , and ridicule on Vattel and B. Franklin too. You are exposed for what you are. A paid shill of the Usurper.

Jay Tea said,"You ... (Below threshold)
Mick:

Jay Tea said,

"You got your decision. What will be the remedy?"

First I am not a "birther", he could be born in the White House and not be qualified, because his father was never a citizen. Second, he would be removed from office and it would be like his Presidency never existed. The 20the Amendment would kick in ("If the President Shall not have qualified...")
Congress would appoint someone to serve as POTUS.

Dodo David said, "... (Below threshold)
Mick:

Dodo David said,

"factcheck.org settled the question about President Obama's birth in it's article "Born in the USA - The truth about Obama's birth crtificate."

President Obama was born a U.S. citizen."


Really? you believe it because it's on the Internet? First, you don't understand the question. It whether he was Born a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. There are citizens by birth born overseas to US Citizen parents that are not eligible to be POTUS. The whole US Citizen by birth argument is only sleight of hand BS. It doesn't matter if he was born in the White House w/ a Big Star overhead, he's not an eligible Natural Born Citizen because his father was never a citizen. He is exactly the type of man that the framers would have prevented from the Presidency. His lack of allegiance has been on full display. From his distaste for an "unfair, fundamentally flawed" America to his campaigning for cousin Odinga in Kenya (while he was an Ill. Senator), who committed genocide when he lost. Then we can observe him campaigning for the Presidency in Europe. Or maybe it was his willingness to sign a treaty subjecting the US to World Governess at the Climate Meeting. He has shown himself to those with their eyes open to not have attachment to America. But that's how he got elected isn't it? People like you that were willingly unobservant.

By the way, who's hands are in those factcheck photos w/ the COLB? Are they document experts? Wouldn't an Objective media want to know? What about the fact the Obama worked for Annenberg(owner of Factcheck). And which court of law or objective reporter accepts the anonymous word of an unsworn website?

smrstrauss said, ... (Below threshold)
Mick:

smrstrauss said,

"Fortunately, all this is unnecessary. The common meaning of Natural Born at the time of the writing of the Constitution was simply "born in the country."

No it wasn't Vattel's Law of Nations was written in the 1750s. Natural Born SUBJECTS are born in country. NATUAL BORN CITIZENS are Born in the country of Citizen PARENTSSS.

How many of you were aware ... (Below threshold)
Chilidog:

How many of you were aware that niether of Spiro Agnew's parents were citizens when he was born. His father was a greek imigrant, and his mother lost her U.S. citizensip when she married him (in accordance with the law at that time).

The 1920 census data on the Agnew family CLEARLY lists his parents as "ALIENS" a year after Spiro was born.

Chilidog said, "H... (Below threshold)
Mick:

Chilidog said,

"How many of you were aware that niether of Spiro Agnew's parents were citizens when he was born. His father was a greek imigrant, and his mother lost her U.S. citizensip when she married him (in accordance with the law at that time).

The 1920 census data on the Agnew family CLEARLY lists his parents as "ALIENS" a year after Spiro was born."


The extent of your lies proves who you are (Obama Bridgetender). Spiro's father was made a US Citizen by marraige to Spiro's mother (b. in Virginia) before Spiro was born. Thus 2 US Citizen Parents, Child Born on US Soil equals Natural Born Citizen.

Re: "No it wasn't Vattel's ... (Below threshold)
smrstrauss:

Re: "No it wasn't Vattel's Law of Nations was written in the 1750s. Natural Born SUBJECTS are born in country. NATUAL BORN CITIZENS are Born in the country of Citizen PARENTSSS."

Okay. Say that were true. A future candidate would have to prove that both his or her parents were citizens, right? No problem proving the mother was a citizen. But, how about the father? Are you saying that the father by marriage, or the one listed on the birth certificate is the one who influences the child.

Or, are you saying that the real father, the one who contributed the DNA, is the one whose citizenship should be proven? And, if so, then would the candidate have to take a DNA test and his presumed father take one too. Or, if the presumed father was dead, would his remains have to be dug up to do the test?

Do you think that the writers of the Constitution, some of whom were the fathers of illegitimate children, would have required such a test?

The evidence is that they did not. That is because the meaning of Natural Born at the time of the writing of the Constitution was simply "born in the country."

In parallel with this, or perhaps as one of the causes of it, they believed that birth in the country was the sole criterion for legal allegiance.

This is what Madison said:

"It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States." (In a speech before the House of Representatives in May of 1789.)

Re the difference between subjects and citizens. I cannot see how it affects the meaning of Natural Born, especially since the "born in the country" meaning of Natural Born was also used with Natural Born Citizen. In a draft of the peace treaty with Britain, Franklin, John Adams and John Jay used Natural Born Citizen as equivalent to Natural Born Subject. The words were that the British when in America should have the rights of Natural Born Citizens, while Americans in Britain would have the rights of Natural Born Subjects.

This went too far, and neither side wanted to give that much to the other, but the point is that the writers of this draft regarded Natural Born Citizens as equivalent of Natural Born Subjects, and as you yourself have said, Natural Born Subjects are simply those that were born in the country.

But, more important, it is the meaning of Natural Born that really counts, and it simply meant "born in the country."

Re Vattel. He was a Swiss monarchist who never recommended elections, and who never recommended that the leader of a country be even a citizen, much less a two-parent citizen. He gives several examples of countries picking their sovereigns (kings or emperors) from the nobility of foreign countries, and he never says that that is a bad thing.

Hey Mick, <a href=" <a hre... (Below threshold)
Chilidog:

Hey Mick, ">http://www.archives.gov/genealogy/naturalization/naturalization.html"> from the US Government archives web page on naturalization:

"The first major exception was that "derivative" citizenship was granted to wives and minor children of naturalized men. From 1790 to 1922, wives of naturalized men automatically became citizens. This also meant that an alien woman who married a U.S. citizen automatically became a citizen. (Conversely, an American woman who married an alien lost her U.S. citizenship, even if she never left the United States.) "

(Quote)Speaking strictly fo... (Below threshold)
-S-:

(Quote)Speaking strictly for myself, I am 99.44% convinced that Obama was born in Hawaii, is an American citizen by birth, and eligible to be president. And that's more than enough certainty for me.(End Quote).

My Comments:

You overlooked or omitted the other Constitutional requirement: to be "natural born."

Obama as he's reported himself is not natural born.

Thus, he's not Constitutionally eligible for the U.S. Presidency. Thus, his millions spent trying to deflect inquiries and bury his other defining records.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy