« The problem with Islam... | Main | Gibbs weighs in on health care summit »

"Birthers" And The Smell Test

Note to self: never underestimate the power of Andrew Breitbart.

At last weekend's Tea Party Convention, the professional gadfly took on the "birther" movement (those people who deny President Obama's constitutional eligibility to be president). Breitbart didn't engage them on their chosen battleground -- legal minutiae and 18th century semantics and other forms of arcanery -- but instead on a strategic ground: what do they intend to achieve, and what will be the ancillary damage caused by their victory?

It got me thinking, and writing -- and in the comments to the posting I made about it, we all got throughly lectured on the fine points of the issue (in such excruciating detail that the term "anal-retentive" was left in the dust after three sentences by first-time commenter "Mick."

I'm not going to recap Mick's arguments, because 1) I find them exceedingly tedious and his tone pedantic; B) he would instantly leap in and "correct" me on the slightest flaw I made in condensing them, bringing up the "tedious" and "pedantic" points again, and III) the point I wish to make here is not about the details themselves, but the fundamental nature of the argument. Besides, his extended diatribes and paranoid rants (I especially enjoyed his uncovering and denouncing of "smrstrauss" as "a paid shill of the Usurper" -- got copies of the pay stubs, Mickey?) took up 28% of the comments on that piece already.

No, I'm going to skip entirely past the merits of the argument and the appeals to "reason" and summarize the essence of the whole thing -- and then make my case not to your minds, but your guts.

The theory Mick puts forth is that Obama, by virtue of his father's non-American citizenship at the time of his birth, is not Constitutionally eligible to serve as president. Obama is not, by the ancient definition, not a "natural-born" American, but merely a "natural" American.

Think about that one for a moment. By Mick's argument, there are three classes of American citizens. There are naturalized Americans, who are those who were born citizens of another nation but came to this country and pledged their loyalty. They get nearly all the rights of other Americans, but with two key restrictions: they cannot ever serve as President or Vice-President, and they can be stripped of their citizenship as part of a legal sanction.

Then there are "natural born Americans." This is where most of us fall, I believe -- born here, and fully entitled to every single right and privilege of being an American.

And then there are what Mick described as "natural Americans." These are "natural born Americans" in every respect but one -- there was some flaw governing their birth that imposes some legal limitations on their rights. They can not serve as president or vice president.

In Obama's case, the argument goes, his father's status as not an American citizen at the time of Obama's birth represents such a flaw. And therefore, he must be stripped of office.

OK, so he's out. What next? This is literally unprecedented in history. Mick says that Congress must then appoint a president. I'd thought about the possibilities, and that one escaped me.

My first thought was that the presidential succession kicks in, and Joe Biden becomes president.

Then I wondered if Obama's ineligibility would taint the entire election, disqualifying Obama, and Nancy Pelosi would become president. (That one would almost be worth it. We'd get rid of Biden, Pelosi would be out of Congress, and we'd have an open presidency in 2012.)

Or, if the election could be overturned, and we'd have President McCain and Vice-President Palin.

Or we could hold a "do-over" election, with the Democratic National Committee selecting new nominees.

But back to the point here: Mick's entire argument is based on a single concept: that "natural" Americans are divided into two classes. That there are "real" Americans -- "natural born" citizens -- and "second-class" Americans. And unless you're a "super-American," you can't be president.

This is different from the "born" vs. "naturalized" status. I'm not overly fond of that one -- I'd like to see it changed to grant Americans who's been upstanding citizens for a few decades the full rights of natural-born Americans -- but I understand it. I can live with it. There's a certain amount of personal investment that goes with "this is my homeland" that is something that must be respected and honored.

There's more than a whiff of "are you American ENOUGH?" attitude in Mick's position. There's a bit more of a hint of "I'm more American than you are" underlying his arguments.

Over at Brietbart's "Big Journalism," Kurt Schlichter (now there's an un-American name if I ever heard one -- who the hell are YOU to tell US about what it means to be an American, you lousy Kraut?) points out that the "birthers" like Mick aren't interested in "discussing" the matter. They use the phrase "just asking questions," but simply will not hear the answers. No, the whole point behind their "question-raising" is to get their "questions" out there, smearing through innuendo.

Now there is a certain appeal to the "birthers" arguments. Much of President Obama's career is built on a similar tactic -- getting his opponents off the ballot before the race. He got several of his would-be rivals disqualified from the ballots, and convenient allies in the media embarrassed a couple out of the race by obtaining and releasing sealed records containing unfounded allegations. To have Obama fall victim to the same tactic that he used so well has a certain elegance and poetic justice to it.

But I'm not willing to pay the price for that.

I argued against Obama's election. I did not vote for him. I do not like many of his policies or appointments or positions. I am extremely unlikely to vote for him next time. I fully expect to support his opponent.

But as of January 20, 2009, he became my president. And -- pending circumstances that I do not want to even consider -- he will remain my president at least until January 20, 2013.

The path to remove him by this tactic goes through me, Mick. And Mr. Schlichter. And a whole slew of other Americans who are rejecting your paranoid, obsessive ranting -- including, I'd wager, the vast majority of the United States military. Those fine men and women took an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution" -- to them, Obama is their legal commander in chief, and they're going to defer to their chain of command and not a bunch of obsessive assholes on what is or is not Constitutional. Their default position is that Obama has been recognized as the legal president by both of the other branches of government (that would be Congress, through certification of the Electoral College vote, and the Supreme Court, whose chief justice administered the oath of office) and as such any appeals to them to get involved in your cause is tantamount to soliciting treason.

As I said yesterday, Mick, the whole 'birther" argument (and before you get sand in your knickers of the term, I define it to mean "anyone who makes arguments about Obama's eligibility for office based on the circumstances of his birth") is a loser. And those who keep making loser arguments are, by definition, losers.

So keep painting that big "L" on your forehead, Mick. It makes it so much easier to identify you.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/38196.

Comments (172)

Jay... I agree with you tha... (Below threshold)
GaryL:

Jay... I agree with you that the whole birther issue raises the question "what then?" However, you missed a key question in your post... and that is... "Why did the founding fathers make that distinction in the first place?"

Several people who supposedly know more about the Constitution that I do have stated it is because the founding fathers did not want the Commander in Chief to have divided loyalties. They even had to grandfather themselves in through the phrasing of that section.

Irrespective of what one thinks of the "birthers," Obama has already demonstrated by his actions in foreign affairs and his absolute disdain for the military, that he has such divided loyalties.

I just hope Congress puts up a better procedure for confirming this status in future elections, as it appears our current judiciary has little stomach for upholding our Constitution.

And I suppose you also reje... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

And I suppose you also reject the proof that George Bush was secretly behind the 9/11 attacks, too! What about all those suppressed photos I read about showing the tons of explosives being planted by all those furtive government ninjas in phony clown outfits?

Boy, Jay Tea. Have you no journalistic integrity at all? The proof is OUT there!

Wow, Jay, you've got a hell... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Wow, Jay, you've got a hell of a lot more patience than I would have had.

Liked your #40.

Out of curiousity, are the IPs for smrstrauss, mick, and old1 the same?

Technically, it is up to th... (Below threshold)

Technically, it is up to the Electoral College to determine eligibility. Like a jury determining guilt or innocence, our second-guessing after the fact is procedurally meaningless.

I believe we should leave i... (Below threshold)
william:

I believe we should leave it for now accept he is president but in 2012 we need him to prove his citizenship and right to be president to run again. If we find out he was not legally entitled to be president, I am sure that congress will pass a law to prevent it in the future.

Bobdog -What's eve... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Bobdog -

What's even more amazing about the stealth clown ninjas who wired both towers for demolition is that they apparently did such a thing over the course of 30 hours when the Port Authority 'upgraded' power and data lines in one tower.

Never mind it takes most demolition companies weeks to prep a building, getting to the support beams to put charges on - these guys did it in 30 hours (or less) AND made everything look normal afterward! All the sheetrock and paint, furniture and paintings/decorations looked just like it did before they placed the charges!

Those guys were GOOD - and they've been silent for the last 9 years!

Either that, or they were taken out to a pit in Area 51, killed and buried.

Yeah, they were probably silenced. You've seen how quickly info gets spread in Washington - no way a secret like this would have been kept without killing everyone who worked on the demolition... But then, they'd have to kill their immediate familes and relatives, and friends, and acquanitances to cover up the people going missing, and the also the movers who packed up and cleaned out their houses, and the real estate agents who did a quick sale, and the people who disposed of THEM, along with their immediate familes and relatives, and friends, and acquanitances, and the movers who packed up and cleaned out their houses, and the real estate agents who did a quick sale, and the people who disposed of THEM, along with their immediate familes and relatives, and friends, and acquanitances, and the movers who packed up and cleaned out their houses, and the real estate agents who did a quick sale, and the people who disposed of THEM, along with their immediate familes and relatives, and friends, and acquanitances, and the movers who packed up and cleaned out their houses, and the real estate agents who did a quick sale, and the people who disposed of THEM... OMG!

Man, I never realized it before, but the consiracy to take down the twin towers must have killed almost the entire population of the United States! (6 degrees of separation and all that...) I never realized I was actually dead and buried in a pit in Area 51 - along with most of the rest of the country!

Wow.

It should make rush hour easier from now on, though...

Lawson, you couldn't see it... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

Lawson, you couldn't see it, but I just gave you a standing ovation. Well done!

In my worst paranoid fever ... (Below threshold)
Meiji_man:

In my worst paranoid fever dreams I start wondering...
And Im just asking questions, not saying anything....
Since we know that the birther argument started on the left
see: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-02-08/the-secret-history-of-the-birthers/full/
Could the entire birther movement be nothing but a smoke screen but the MSMDNC to discredit the Right and draw attention away from the face that Obama has NEVER released his School records?
Any one remember seeing smrstrauss, mick, and old1 before the elections?
DO thier IP's trace back to DNC headquarters, The New Your Times or a Blue State?

We're through the looking glass here people.

Just asking....

Remeber Spiro Agnew? His pa... (Below threshold)
Chilidog:

Remeber Spiro Agnew? His parents were not citizens when he was born, and the nattering nabobs of negativity never nixed his elegibility.

What if our next president ... (Below threshold)
James H:

What if our next president is a Newcomer?

jlawson, let's not forget t... (Below threshold)
Chilidog:

jlawson, let's not forget the Freemen who prowl the landscape with their un capitalized names forever running from the gold fringed flags of the admiralty courts.

Hey, I heard Obama is going... (Below threshold)
Chilidog:

Hey, I heard Obama is going to make another "Special Speach" to elementary school kids.

This time, however, he will talk about, 'GASP' - EVOLUTION!!!!

Oh, the horrors.

You owe me a clean monitor ... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

You owe me a clean monitor and keyboard JL.
At least my coffee didn't spew out my nose...

That was the best deconstruction of the troofer argument I've read in some time.

Just a small free hint to the Birthers: "His *mother* is an American citizen."

Game, set and match.

Maybe the "birthers" believ... (Below threshold)
Matt:

Maybe the "birthers" believe it is a matter of principle that the president should be able, and willing to prove his eligibility. We would demand proof that a candidate that looked young prove he was 35 wouldn't we?

It is nice to paint birthers as losers, it allows us to move on without discussing how to really put it to rest, which is prove one way or the other. We shouldn't accept something as truth just because someone one a contest. We don't trust the government or politicians on almost any issue, why should we trust them on this one?

It might the losing side, not sure it is the wrong side (paraphrased).

Obama may be a citizen of s... (Below threshold)
Locomotive Breath:

Obama may be a citizen of some flavor but he sure as hell isn't acting like an American.

Remember Spiro Agn... (Below threshold)
Remember Spiro Agnew? His parents were not citizens when he was born, and the nattering nabobs of negativity never nixed his eligibility. (spellchecked by me)

9. Posted by Chilidog | February 9, 2010 9:22 AM | Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Actually, because of the "anchor baby" rule, Spiro Agnew is considered a "natural born citizen".

From Wikipedia:

Spiro Agnew was born in Baltimore, Maryland. His parents were Theodore Spiros Agnew, a Greek immigrant who shortened his name from Anagnostopoulos when he moved to the USA,[3][4] and Margaret Akers, a native of Virginia.

Jay Tea said

But back to the point here: Mick's entire argument is based on a single concept: that "natural" Americans are divided into two classes. That there are "real" Americans -- "natural born" citizens -- and "second-class" Americans. And unless you're a "super-American," you can't be president.

This is incorrect. The birthers are claiming that if the President was not born in the United States, and there were some technicalities involved with his mother (who was a citizen) and his father was not a citizen, and he might have been an Indonesian citizen, he is not a "natural born" citizen, but really a "naturalized" citizen.

In fact, some of them are claiming that since he did not go through a "naturalization process", because of the claim that he was born in Hawaii, then he may not even be a citizen.

Once he was born in Hawaii, then he would fall under the rules of an "anchor baby", like Spiro Agnew unless the rules of dual citizenship somehow intervene.

It does not even matter if Hawaii was or was not a state, when Barack Obama was born. Arizona was a territory when Barry Goldwater was born, and he was eligible to run for the presidency.

I should point out, that there were Democrats who tried to argue that since John McCain was born in the Canal Zone he was not a "natural born citizen". I think that they dropped that approach once Obama began running for the presidency.

In any case, most people in the United States would not care about the final result of all this. Barack H. Obama should not be President of the United States because of his ideology, ignorance, and indolence. That is more important than the "birther" argument.

On principle I agree with M... (Below threshold)

On principle I agree with Matt, but the Birthers are wrong when they suggest that there is any way to remove Obama as president right now. And consider what the consequences would be if someone tried to move legislation to require him to prove his eligibility before he could run in 2012 -- after all, even the Constitutional Amendment limiting presidents to two terms was not applicable to the man who was president at the time.

The political consequences of elevating the issue before the 2012 election would almost certainly be a second term for Barack Obama -- regardless of other, more pressing issues -- because it would create the (probably accurate) impression of his opponents as manifestly frivolous and unfit to govern. Hardly a preferred outcome.

At any rate, the hair-splitting over whether a certificate of live birth is a birth certificate just strikes me as of a kind with the claim by some conspiracy theorists that a U.S. flag with a gold fringe added to it, if displayed in a courtroom, implies that the proceedings are being held under double-secret martial law.

People with such fixations need to go back to believing in the Easter Bunny or something equally harmless.

The only thing I think is p... (Below threshold)
Pretzel Logic:

The only thing I think is possible is that Barry Soetoro was his official name at some point. Thus he lied to the Illinois Bar which is pretty serious but wouldnt remove him from office. It would ensure he doesnt run in 2012 however.

"Birthers" are like "Truthe... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"Birthers" are like "Truthers", you don't argue or debate or discuss with them. Just shake your head and walk off. Life is too short to waste on them.

With everything we don't kn... (Below threshold)
recoverd liberal democrat:

With everything we don't know and aren't able to know, i.e. college transcripts and documentation concerning how he paid for college, a majority of Americans elected him based on what we did know. He was woefully inexperienced. The things he takes credit for are hard to quantify and produced very little change if any. He held very radical beliefs by his own admission. He had many anti-American, radical friends as early supporters. On and on it goes. I am concerned by the "conspiracy" to keep his past a mystery but, I am concerned that he was elected in the first place.

Obama was born in America, ... (Below threshold)

Obama was born in America, but he has not lived in the country. Apparently, he spent a lot of time in The People's Republic of Illinois

The leader of each party in... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

The leader of each party in the House of Representatives signs off on their candidate's eligibility. Here you can see where John Boehner signs off on McCain and Pelosi for Obama:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9344926/Hawaii-Dems-and-Repubs-Say-Constitutionally-Eligible

It's basically just vouching for your own guy -- that's what makes a candidate legally eligible. There are no rules specifying what criteria to use in making that judgement.

Birthers are a small minori... (Below threshold)
Hank:

Birthers are a small minority getting way too much attention.

Thank you, thank you, Upset... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Thank you, thank you, Upset Old Guy, Chilidog, and Gmac -

Got on a roll on that one!

The democrats investigated ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

The democrats investigated the birth of John McCain to see if any legal minutiae, 18th century semantics, and other forms of arcanery would disqualify McCain from being president. If Republicans take control of the house in 2010 then it seems only fair that they similarly investigate Obama as we head into the 2012 elections. If there's a charge of "birther" to be made, it applies first to democrats for their investigation of McCain.

but instead on a strategic ground: what do they intend to achieve, and what will be the ancillary damage caused by their victory?

Assuming Republicans win the house and assuming they investigated Obama's birth and assuming Obama is not a natural born citizen, then he simply could not serve as President. If Obama's numbers are as low as they are today, then I doubt Republicans will investigate Obama's birth as they would have nothing to gain and could risk having to run against a tougher Democratic opponent.

By the way, this is a photo of a real billboard on interstate 35 in Minnesota.

Here's a <a href="http://me... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Here's a bigger photo of the billboard.

Basically most of your post... (Below threshold)
Mick:

Basically most of your post was not factual. NEVER did I say anything about "Natural" or "real" Americans. And I did explain the legal remedy (Quo Warranto) and what comes after (20th Amendment). I suspect, by your reaction to my posts that you and or your children may not be Natural Born Citizens (British?) and you may feel discriminated against, that is a natural reaction that I have encountered many times. There are 3 classes of citizenship described in the USC. 14th Amendment Born and Naturalized Citizens and Natural Born Citizens A2S1C4,5. Only Natural Born Citizens are eligible for the POTUS and VP position, as a national security measure, to ensure the highest probability of allegiance and attachment to country. I cited Vattel's Law of Nations, and 5 Supreme Court cases that have defined NBC exactly as Vattel did, Born in the US to 2 Citizen Parents. One reknowned justice, Story, repeated Vattel's definition VERBATUM in The Venus (1814--only 27 years after ratification).

By the way, Spiro Agnew's father was Naturalized by marraige to his American mother before Spiro was born, so born in the US to 2 Citizen parents makes him a NBC.

The USC is not a Suggestion. This is a serious blow to the republic if the very eligibility of the POTUS is made void by Usurpation. Obama has already shown his lack of allegiance. As an Ill. Senator he campaigned for his cousin Odinga in Kenya (who lost and committed genocide. He Campaigned for the US Presidency in Europe. He was willing to sign a treaty turning the US over to World Governess at the Climate summit. He is a Traitor.

You have not responded factually to any of my arguments, only by insult, but I understand, you feel discriminated against. Smrstrauss is a known Obama Bridgetender, I have encountered him and his Obfuscations at many sites.

By the way the article at B... (Below threshold)
Mick:

By the way the article at Breitbart is total BS. He has also ceded away his Objectivity by allowing that editorial. I now place him among the supposed conservative media that have been told or threatened to shut up about the NBC issue, for fear of social unrest and rioting. The question will never go away until it is answered. While I am not a Birther (doesn't matter where he was born, since Obama's father was never a citizen), what objective reporter or court accepts the word of an anonymous unsworn website as proof of anything? Whose hands are those in the Factcheck post with the COLB? Are they Document experts? Doesn't it matter that the website is run by an organization that once employed Obama? Everyone is totally suspended their disbelief.

"It's basically just vouchi... (Below threshold)
jim m:

"It's basically just vouching for your own guy -- that's what makes a candidate legally eligible. There are no rules specifying what criteria to use in making that judgement."

Adrian, you are wrong again. there are rules. Just because the rules are in the constitution doesn't mean they don't exist. I know that libs don't like the constitution but to assert that it doesn't exist as you just did is wrong.

Section 1 Article 2 of the Constitution:

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.

That being said, I see no evidence to suggest that Obama does not qualify to be president. Now, if you want to discuss his 'qualifications' i.e. his experience and beliefs, then that's a different story.

Jay You were making ... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

Jay
You were making a decent if not somewhat flawed argument before you went off on your rant. The rant showed that your approach was very bias and you had little concern about really looking at it logically.

Calling people names does not prove a point. You talk about others obsessive ranting then you go off on an obsessive rant yourself. Pot calling the kettle black?

Also it is not a very good argument to simply say "if you believe that then you must believe the world is flat". It is fine to use it in a way to point out that one should not to be fanatical but it needs to be follow by logical argument why it is conspiracy and logical argument of why it falls apart.

IMO Obama is probably a natural born citizen and haven't followed the arguments closely. However the claim that two newspapers announcement of "a" Barack Obama birth in Hawaii is not definite proof. It a good start but nowhere near definite. One would think it shouldn't be too hard to produce some more solid proof.

Do I care? Not really but it is amazing how the MSM examine McCain and Palin with a microscope but so much about Obama is unknown.


Oh, I almost forgot. If you disagree with me you a fanatic, ignorant, loser who needs to get a life ......etc. I can't pass up an opportunity to denigrate others.

Jimm said,"That be... (Below threshold)
Mick:

Jimm said,

"That being said, I see no evidence to suggest that Obama does not qualify to be president. Now, if you want to discuss his 'qualifications' i.e. his experience and beliefs, then that's a different story."

And of course you're wrong. He has to be a Natural Born Citizen (Born in the US to 2 Citizen Parents). It is already apparent that he doesn't qualify by his own admission that his father was never a citizen.

It's like a damn zombie mov... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

It's like a damn zombie movie. You get into the house, board up the windows, make sure the doors are barricaded - only to find the damn things coming up through the basement.

And the chainsaw just ran out of gas, dammit! Where's my boomstick!?

Mick -

I suggest you start your own blog. Blogspot.com has free blogs, 1and1.com has low-cost, high capacity/high volume hosting. (Or you can go to godaddy.com if you're looking for Danica Patrick.) Add in SixApart's Moveable Type SW, and you'll have yourself a heck of a site in no time.

Please use the link above when you go to 1and1 - I get a credit when you sign up. Go for the Business plan - you'll get six months free, three domain names, 250 GB space and unlimited bandwidth. Just the thing to store all the proof you've got, in multiple formats, both encrypted and open. They've even got a blog app, so you won't have to roll your own with MT. I mean, you're a busy man and all...

Have fun! Write if you find work, 'k?

jim m,The congress... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

jim m,

The congressional leader is vouching for the candidate, he or she is saying that their candidate is eligible according to the Constitution. They can use whatever criteria they want to (perhaps they just ask the candidate or perhaps they look at their birth certificate or perhaps it's just a feeling) in order to come to that conclusion.

Mick, by your argument ever... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Mick, by your argument every child of armed service parents born overseas is not a natural born citizen. Neither would any child born in the US of foreign citizens.

Such is not the current state of the law. Period. You are not just asking that Obama be ruled ineligible. You are asking that current legislation and jurisprudence regarding citizenship be changed. It's not gonna happen.

You may not think it's fair or right, but that's the way it is. Furthermore, everyone who disagrees with you thinks you are a total crackpot for pursuing this line of argumentation. I suggest reading Don Quixote for an apt parallel.

To jlawson, That'... (Below threshold)
Mick:

To jlawson,

That's all you have? No proof, cites, etc. Your ilk is the reason that the Usurpation has been allowed to happen. I have given all kinds of proof that justifies what I say. You? ZERO. Only insults. The Kryptonite that can disable Obama is staring those that are against him in the face, but they refuse to use it. That is what's dumb.

Adrian - OK. Just a plain ... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Adrian - OK. Just a plain reading of your earlier post suggested that it was dependent upon the whim of the party leaders. I agree with you that I doubt that anyone EVER looks into the issue. I think that if there were any real, serious contention it would be settled long before it got to the point of certifying a candidate.

We won the election and now... (Below threshold)
Montana:

We won the election and now these sore losers will continue to spew your hate with lies. The way our courts work is that you get a competent lawyer, verifiable facts and present them to a judge, if the facts are real and not half baked lies, then, and only then, you proceed to trial. The Birthers seem to be having a problem with their so called facts that they present. Let's face it no one will go along with you until you guys win a case, but until then, you will continue to appear dumb, crazy or racist, or maybe all three. Keep plucking that chicken.

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

jimm said,

"Mick, by your argument every child of armed service parents born overseas is not a natural born citizen. Neither would any child born in the US of foreign citizens."

Yes that is true. has been since the very first Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795. The 1790 Act made the children of Military personnel, born overseas, NBCs. But they realized they were ammending the USC without the Amendment process and repealed the Act of 1790 with the Act of 1795 which took out the words "Natural Born" and made them "Citizens". Look it up.
And yes that is correct children born in the US of Aliens are not Natural Born Citizens.
Really? Not the state of the current law? Show me the law that makes children of aliens Natural Born citizens. Another one with no proof only BS. By the way McCain was not a Natural Born citizen either (he was born in Panama). And Bobby Jindal is not either (born of unnaturalized indian immigrants).

Barack Obama was not born i... (Below threshold)
James H:

Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii. In reality, he was born in Austria. He came to America during World War II, smuggling out a family of singing children.

I like this:"While... (Below threshold)
jim m:

I like this:

"While I am not a Birther (doesn't matter where he was born, since Obama's father was never a citizen)"

Mick, I think everyone else would agree that questioning Obama's citizenship, whether it is based on where he was born or the status of his father, makes you a birther.

What you are suggesting is that anyone where the citizenship of the father cannot be affirmatively demonstrated is not eligible. So in the vast number of cases where no father is listed on the birth certificate these children would by your reasoning be ineligible.

Again that is not what the law says, what the courts say it says and what the people believe to be right.

James H said,"Barack... (Below threshold)
Mick:

James H said,
"Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii. In reality, he was born in Austria. He came to America during World War II, smuggling out a family of singing children."

He could have been born in the White House, his father was not a citizen, thus he is not a Natural Born Citizen.

Basically most of your p... (Below threshold)

Basically most of your post was not factual. NEVER did I say anything about "Natural" or "real" Americans. And I did explain the legal remedy (Quo Warranto) and what comes after (20th Amendment). I suspect, by your reaction to my posts that you and or your children may not be Natural Born Citizens (British?) and you may feel discriminated against, that is a natural reaction that I have encountered many times.

You can suspect all you want, you moron. You're wrong. I was born in New Hampshire, of two people also born in New England, during the first half of the 20 century, and I have no children.

I knew you would find something to nitpick about my summary, but I nailed it: to you, there are three levels of "Americanness." What you don't like is that I assigned values to them, based on subjective criteria, and names that you don't like.

"Naturalized" is the lowest, "Natural" is the next-lowet, and "Natural-Born" is the top, with the most rights. You don't like that I gave a mocking name to that last classification, but it's accurate enough.

Enough people in positions of authority and respect (regardless of how I feel about them individually) have concurred that Barack Obama is fully entitled to serve as president. There is also considerable documentary evidence to back that up.

As what you define as a "Natural-Born" citizen and I call a "super-duper American," I categorically reject your arguments about the qualifications and acknowledge that -- despite my best efforts to the contrary -- that my president is Barack Hussein Obama, born in August 1961 in the state of Hawaii, an American citizen with the full rights and privileges thereof.

And you will NOT argue to the contrary without being refuted and challenged around here.

Not on my watch.

J.

For what it is worth, I am ... (Below threshold)
smrstrauss:

For what it is worth, I am not paid by anyone. But there is nothing wrong with being paid. That is known as professional status, but I'm not.

Re: "it is because the founding fathers did not want the Commander in Chief to have divided loyalties. "

Yes that is undoubtedly true. However, it is also clear that they considered birth in the United States to be the only required protection against divided loyalty. That is because (1) at the time of the writing of the Constitution "Natural Born" meant born in the country (except for the children of foreign diplomats); and (2) because the framers believed that birth in the country was the criterion of allegiance.

For example James 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)

And Blackstone held that a person could have only one allegiance, to the country of his birth.

The result of this is clear. Foreigners cannot be president because they are not citizens. Naturalized citizens cannot be president because they are not Natural Born, but the children of foreigners born in the USA are natural born citizens.

Re: "They even had to grandfather themselves in through the phrasing of that section."

Judging by the writing at the time, this is not true. In fact, the exact reverse is true. The writers of the document, who were mainly born in the colonies, considered themselves natural born citizens. For example, St. George Tucker wrote that before the Constitution there were only two categories of residents of the early states, aliens and Natural Born Citizens because there was no naturalization.

This being the case, why the grandfather clause? As I said, just the reverse, to allow people who were NOT born in the USA to become president. One who qualified would have been Alexander Hamilton who was not Natural Born in the sense of Washington and Adams because Hamilton was not born in one of the 13 colonies. He was born on the British Caribbean island of Nevis.

However, the effect of the grandfather clause was to allow many other people who were not born in the USA to become president. I have seen some historic research that estimates that as many as 60,000 naturalized persons who were not born in the 13 colonies or the early states would have been eligible to become president (http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1326&wit_id=3885).

This is a considerable number considering that there were only a few million American citizens at the time and that many of those were under the age of 35.

In any case, the reason for the grandfather clause was not to allow George Washington to become president. He was born in Virginia and hence was Natural Born. It was to allow Alexander Hamilton and others among the 70,000 to become president. Why? Well, it was argued that other leaders such as Hamiliton had fought for American in the Revolution and hence deserved the right to become president. Hamilton might have become president but unfortunately he died in a duel with Aaron Burr.

The real rub will come when... (Below threshold)
storyteller:

The real rub will come when some states pass laws requiring proof of citizenship for the 2012 election. What happens if Obama runs in 2012 and cannot certify that he is a natural born citizen? I am not saying he is NOT natural born but just a "What If?".

jimm said,"What yo... (Below threshold)
Mick:

jimm said,

"What you are suggesting is that anyone where the citizenship of the father cannot be affirmatively demonstrated is not eligible. So in the vast number of cases where no father is listed on the birth certificate these children would by your reasoning be ineligible."

I guess you are abandoning yourearlier supposition that Military children born overseas and children of aliens are Natural Born? Maybe you couldn't find that law (there isn't one). But you raise an interesting point with the father unknown BCs. If the mother is unmarried (which would certainly be the case) then it relies on the citizenship of the mother.

Sigh..United State... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Sigh..

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): states clearly that
1) the consitution does not define 'natural-born citizen'.
2)English common law recognized children of alien parents born within the boundaries of the country as 'natural-born citizens'

The court ruled 6-2 that children born of foreigners resident in the US were natural born citizens.

lastly as to children of US citizens born abroad:
According to an April 2000 report by the Congressional Research Service, most constitutional scholars interpret Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution as including citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens under the "natural born" requirement. This same CRS report also asserts that citizens born in the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are legally defined as "natural born" citizens and are, therefore, also eligible to be elected President.

Deal with it.

Well, you were fine on your... (Below threshold)
Just Plain Bill:

Well, you were fine on your article until about two thirds of the way through.

Then you went bonkers.
Who the hell are you to say what is an issue and what is not. And who are you to name call and dismiss so cavalierly.

If you want respect for your thoughts you have to be willing to give respect, and your name calling is really quite pathetic.

I suspect that the resolution to the succession problem is that Joe Biden becomes President and then appoints a Vice-President with the consent of Congress.
One final thought, if you have to dismiss an argument by demonizing and name calling, your argument is clearly weaker.

J said,"As what yo... (Below threshold)
Mick:

J said,

"As what you define as a "Natural-Born" citizen and I call a "super-duper American," I categorically reject your arguments about the qualifications and acknowledge that -- despite my best efforts to the contrary -- that my president is Barack Hussein Obama, born in August 1961 in the state of Hawaii, an American citizen with the full rights and privileges thereof."

Never did I say "Natural" or "Superduper " citizen. You have given no proof that those born in the US of non citizen parents are Natural Born Citizens. I have given all kinds of proof that they are not. You are a writer on this blog. Don't you think you should back up what you say.

Jay said,
"And you will NOT argue to the contrary without being refuted and challenged around here.'

You're not refuting anything, only insulting. Not very good manners.

"It's self-indulgent, it's ... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

"It's self-indulgent, it's narcissistic,...." Breitbart told one of Farah's minions, his frustration evident."

linked from :

"ANDREW BREITBART PRESENTS bigjournalism"

sister site of:

ANDREW BREITBART PRESENTS biggovernment
and
ANDREW BREITBART PRESENTS bighollywood

LOL!

But seriously, talk of American laws and mores prior to the Ellis Island influx of non-Northern Europeans makes many public Jews as nervous as a whore in church.

And neocons are an especially nervous group anyway.

Just trying to help you, Mi... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Just trying to help you, Mick. Chasing people around and shouting at them you've got PROOF of the Birther crap doesn't get them to listen. Set up in one place, let them find you. You'll be happier, we'll be happier, and much less angry at you.

As it is, you'll have a hard time persuading me (and most other folks, your followers notwithstanding) you're not a nut. You're emulating hard the folks who were spamming boards with Ron Paul boosterism before the election - getting people so pissed off that Ron Paul could have been handing out $1000 bills at campaign rallies and folks wouldn't have voted for him.

You damage your own case the more you push this.

Now, Jay Tea's a moderator, and he doesn't have much patience at all with fools. Entertaining fools he'll mock - annoying ones he bans. He's given you a clue - it'd probably be a good idea to take it.

jimm said, "Unite... (Below threshold)
Mick:

jimm said,

"United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): states clearly that
1) the consitution does not define 'natural-born citizen'.
2)English common law recognized children of alien parents born within the boundaries of the country as 'natural-born citizens'"

In WKA (1898) the quote about there not being a definition for NBC, is a quote taken directly from Minor v. Happersett (1873). Of course you didn't finish the whole quote, which said that it WAS NEVER DOUBTED that the children of citizen PARENTSSS were Natural Born Citizens, and that the question they were there to answer was if the children of Aliens were CITIZENS. If the definition of NBC wasn't in the USC in 1873 or 1898, then it is certainly not a "Born" Citizen of the 14th Amendment (1866). As a matter of fact it also said that the Citizen child of an Alien has as many rights as the Natural Born child of a Citizen. Clearly they made a distinction based on parentage.

Your number 2 quote is just from dicta, where he reguritates other decisions from lower courts, and has nothing to do with the decision, which was that Wong, being born of UNNATURALIZEABLE Resident Aliens was a CITIZEN not a NBC.

Who are "most Constitutional scholars"? Children born outside the US or it's territories are certainly not Natural Born Citizens.
Try Again?

Who the hell are you to ... (Below threshold)

Who the hell are you to say what is an issue and what is not. And who are you to name call and dismiss so cavalierly.

Look over to the right, under "editors." That's who and what I am to do so.

If you want respect for your thoughts you have to be willing to give respect, and your name calling is really quite pathetic.

The people who I am denigrating are people whose respect I am not overly concerned with.

As far as my name-calling skills... I'm normally quite proud of those.

J.

Now, Jay Tea's a moderat... (Below threshold)

Now, Jay Tea's a moderator, and he doesn't have much patience at all with fools. Entertaining fools he'll mock - annoying ones he bans. He's given you a clue - it'd probably be a good idea to take it.

Thanks for the kind words, JLawson, but nobody's even close to getting banned by me. You've really, REALLY gotta work at it to get em to ban someone -- and I usually give very clear warnings.

This isn't that emerald pigskin realm...

J.

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

smrstrauss said,

"Yes that is undoubtedly true. However, it is also clear that they considered birth in the United States to be the only required protection against divided loyalty. That is because (1) at the time of the writing of the Constitution "Natural Born" meant born in the country (except for the children of foreign diplomats); and (2) because the framers believed that birth in the country was the criterion of allegiance."

Editorializing history again? Law of Nations was written in 1753, and the Bill of rights is Natural Law (Natural God Given Rights). So obviously they thought highly of the concept, especially since it is imbedded in the USC (A1S8C10). The thought that they would use a British Common Law concept of Natural Born Subjects as the citizenship guide in the new country is laughable. They wanted to get away from the dictatorial aspects of BCL, although they did employ some useful aspects of it.
As for the Grandfather Clause, they knew that they were not Natural Born Citizens (most of them were born British subjects). Your Yarn is just that, a yarn. Hamilton was a citizen in 1787 because he lived in the colonies, just like the rest of them. If the objective of the NBC clause is national security, how can you say that anyone can crawl across the border and birth a child eligible for POTUS, it has no logic of purpose then. But i've seen all of these arguments and obfuscations from you before.

Why do I get the feeling Mi... (Below threshold)

Why do I get the feeling Mick also fell for the "monkeyfishing" hoax?

Jay said,"The peop... (Below threshold)
Mick:

Jay said,

"The people who I am denigrating are people whose respect I am not overly concerned with."

I always consider the source. No one here has disproven what I say (plenty of name calling though), including you. Hopefully I am educating some people with clear heads.

"Obama may be a citizen of ... (Below threshold)
914:

"Obama may be a citizen of some flavor but he sure as hell isn't acting like an American."

Right on! The emphasization on 1st African American President is telling. His policie's have been very anti-American. Thus He's half-n-half. Half American and half something else.

JLawson (# 6):You ... (Below threshold)

JLawson (# 6):

You just wrote what could be an outline for a future Dan Brown novel.

You really oughta go ahead and write it yourself and make a few millions; Dan doesn't appear to be hurting for money.

:-)

The context of the ruling i... (Below threshold)
jim m:

The context of the ruling in Wong was that English common law held that children born of resident aliens, where the parents were not subjects of an enemy power or foreign diplomats were considered 'natural born'. The ruling went on to state that since that was the state of English common law at the time of the American Revolution, that that therefore was the understanding of the founders and authors of the constitution. Therefore that was the understanding under the law in he United States.

Look, you can dislike it all you want, but the Supreme court ruled hat 6 to 2. Quit being a baby and face he fact that the Supreme Court ruled contrary to what you think should be.

As to the statement of 'most constitutional scholars'. That was the term used by the Congressional Research Service, not mine. take it up with them. But if you think that your argument is going to carry more credibility that the CRS you are sadly mistaken.

Re: The Wong Kim Ark case b... (Below threshold)
smrstrauss:

Re: The Wong Kim Ark case being allegedly "the decision, which was that Wong, being born of UNNATURALIZEABLE Resident Aliens was a CITIZEN not a NBC."

It ruled that Wong was Natural Born, and it ruled that Wong was a citizen. Put them together and what have you got? A Natural Born Citizen.

And by the way, it also clearly states that even aliens who are in the country temporarily can be the parents of persons who are Natural Born.

This is hardly surprising. The common meaning of Natural Born at the time of the writing of the Constitution was simply "born in the country." We get the word Naturalize from Natural Born, and it means to make someone who was not born in the country like someone who WAS born in the country. It does not mean that it makes someone who was not born in the country like someone with two citizen parents AND born in the country. That would be unnecessary.

McGehee said,"Why ... (Below threshold)
Mick:

McGehee said,

"Why dio I get the feeling Mick also fell for the "monkeyfishing" hoax?"

So prove me wrong, bigshot.

"Thanks for the kind wor... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"Thanks for the kind words, JLawson, but nobody's even close to getting banned by me."

Darn.

Well, a guy can hope. Mick was entertaining for about ten minutes... now he's well over into Paulite territory. And personally, his three categories of citizen smell more than a little of a 'purity test' mentality, with only the 'proper' people being allowed to be citizens and vote.

Before the election, I was interested in Obama's background, and grades and whatnot. Now? I'm just waiting for the next election cycle, and hoping Obama doesn't do too much damage in the mean time.

Mick, you need to explain t... (Below threshold)
klrtz1:

Mick, you need to explain to all these non-believers about quo warrento. That will convince them.

McGehee said,... (Below threshold)
jim m:
McGehee said,

"Why dio I get the feeling Mick also fell for the "monkeyfishing" hoax?"

So prove me wrong, bigshot.

So that's an admission that you DID fall for the monkeyfishing hoax? Because it sure sounds like it.

Yes but how much damage is ... (Below threshold)
914:

Yes but how much damage is too much damage JLawson? I know, I know, He's already done a tremendous amount and We must move on to mitigation but geez, this has been the longest damned political year I ever remember.

klrtz1- I don't th... (Below threshold)
jim m:

klrtz1-

I don't think you will find anyone who would agree that Obama's election was not valid, or that he has exercised power beyond those legally authorized.

I would suggest that the Birther contention does not apply in such a challenge as the idea of quo warrento requires showing proof of authority and Obama did win the election and was legally installed in office.

Mick -Like I said,... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Mick -

Like I said, man, don't forget to click on the 1and1 link above. I'd appreciate the credit.

Paul_In_Houston -

Back in the '90s, military sf/technothrillers (Tom Clancy and others) were quite popular. Nowdays? Not so much. It's all part of what the market will bear.

So - does anyone want to pay me for the concept? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

(Crickets....)

Sigh. Thought so! Good idea, but the timing sucks!

:)

I don't know if Obama is a ... (Below threshold)
btenney:

I don't know if Obama is a Citizen, nor do I care.
What bothers me is the rate at which he is destroying America while we argue about this Happy Horseshit.

"Yes but how much damage... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"Yes but how much damage is too much damage JLawson? I know, I know, He's already done a tremendous amount and We must move on to mitigation but geez, this has been the longest damned political year I ever remember."

You and me both, 914. But on the good side, I think that Obama's actions are going to prove a potent vaccine against 'progressive' ideology for decades to come. And when some dumb-ass lefty thirty or forty years from now starts talking about how we can do this and that and something else 'for the people' if we just take on a little bit of debt - someone's going to remember the debt that Obama ran up, all the while blaming everyone and everything but his own damn self, and cold-cock that son-of-a-bitch before he really gets started.

We won't be fooled again!

Jay Tea:See Amendm... (Below threshold)
Illinois Alum:

Jay Tea:

See Amendment XXV: If the President is removed from office, then the Vice President becomes the new President. No appointment by Congress or new election. So any argument to d/q BO would necessarily involve the concept of President Joe Biden. 'nuff said.

To smrstrauss,Here... (Below threshold)
Mick:

To smrstrauss,

Here is the decision from WKA. It is very specific. A US Citizen at birth is not a Natural Born Citizen, or else those born overseas of US Citizen Parents would be qualified. They aren't because they are born as a citizen of their birth country also. They owe foreign allegiance.

"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

It is very specific about Carrying on business and permanent domicile of aliens, which is certainly not the case of, say, a mexican mother that waddles across the border to have a baby on US Soil. Clearly this practice of granting "anchor babies" Citizenship is not condoned by this ruling, just like in Wong's case they did not say he was a Natural Born citizen.
Marbury v. Madison said that if one clause in the constitution makes another obsolete then that clause is innadmissable. So if the Born Citizen of the 14th Amendment is a Natural Born Citizen, then there is no need for A2S1C4,5, and that is an inadmissable argument.

Illinois alum said,<p... (Below threshold)
Mick:

Illinois alum said,

"See Amendment XXV: If the President is removed from office, then the Vice President becomes the new President. No appointment by Congress or new election. So any argument to d/q BO would necessarily involve the concept of President Joe Biden. 'nuff said."

That is correct. I erred in saying it was the 20th before. That one is only if the President ELECT shall not have qualified.

jimm said, "The c... (Below threshold)
Mick:

jimm said,

"The context of the ruling in Wong was that English common law held that children born of resident aliens, where the parents were not subjects of an enemy power or foreign diplomats were considered 'natural born'. The ruling went on to state that since that was the state of English common law at the time of the American Revolution, that that therefore was the understanding of the founders and authors of the constitution. Therefore that was the understanding under the law in he United States"

So now it's the "Context" of the ruling? I posted the conclusion above, it said no such thing. It said that children of Unnaturalizeable domiciled aliens were "Citizens". The body of the ruling is a reading of many different opinions, but British Common Law is certainly not our law. Our Law is the USC which is imbedded with Natural Law. In the 1800s many judges were loyalists to the British an stubbornly ruled on the basis of BCL, especially is circuit and state courts. The SCOTUS though is the sole interpreter of Constitutional terms. Although you bring up this one dodgily written case (Justice Gray may have been trying to cleanse the Non Natural Born status of Chester Arthur, who appointed him and was the only othe Usurper--by fraud), you ignore all the others that quote Vattel's definition exactly (Born in the US to US Citizen Parents). For one Perkins v. Elg (1929) was 30 years after WKA and specifically defined 3 subsets of citizens, Natural Born Naturalized and Citizen.

To Mick.<a href=" ... (Below threshold)
Chilidog:

To 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.) "


This applied to Spiro Agnew's parents. They were not U.S. citizens when he was born, yet becuase he was born in maryland, he was a natural born citizen.

End of the argument.

I agree with Jay Tea that b... (Below threshold)
Jim Addison:

I agree with Jay Tea that bringing this to the forefront of debate is a fool's errand. The Obama policies and performance are meeting with a growing disapproval from the American people, and his response is to double down on them. All we need to do is fight for common sense policies, and we'll be winning hands down.

mick says someone needs to "prove [him] wrong." Sorry, that's not the way it works, Chuckles. YOU're the one making the assertions of what these terms mean in ways which are contrary to the case law. The burden of PROOF is on YOU and no one else. Your fanatic obsession and repeated assertion isn't "proof," btw.

Mick,Does DNA factor... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

Mick,
Does DNA factor into your definition of Natural Born Citizen? How are you determining who Barack Obama's father was? Are you just going by who someone listed on some birth certificate? How does it work exactly?

Nice try chilidog, you had ... (Below threshold)
Mick:

Nice try chilidog, you had me wondering. But I also must wonder why you would lie. This is from the site that you cite.

http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1998/summer/women-and-naturalization-1.html

"Eventually it was decided that between 1866 and 1907 no woman lost her U.S. citizenship by marriage to an alien unless she left the United States. Yet this decision was probably of little comfort to some women who, resident in the United States since birth, had been unfairly treated as aliens since their marriages to noncitizens.(5)"

She married Mr. Agnew in the US. So 2 US Citizen Parents, and little Spiro born on US soil equals Natural Born Citizen.

Try Again??

Jim Addison said,<... (Below threshold)
Mick:

Jim Addison said,


I've provided plenty of proof that I am correct, including SCOTUS cases that directly quote Vattel's Law of Nations definition of Natural Born Citizen. NO SCOTUS case has said that it is any less than Born in the US to Us Citizen Parents.

Where is your proof that NBC is simply born in the US? Don't have any?

That didn't make his father... (Below threshold)
Chilidog:

That didn't make his father a citizen.

http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/2010/01/spiro-agnew.html

One thing that birthers fai... (Below threshold)
Chilidog:

One thing that birthers fail to realize about the Wong Kim Ark case is that Wong Kim Ark won the lower court cases. It was the U.S. Government that kept appealing the case.

From the appellant's brief (i.e. the U.S. lawyers argument):

The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated: Is a person born in the United States of alien parents domiciled within a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen, and on that ground holding him exempt from the provisions of the Chinese exclusion act and permitting him to land.


SCOTUS rejected the appellant's contention that the the lower court's ruling was in error:

Order affirmed.
An even more telling aspect... (Below threshold)
Chilidog:

An even more telling aspect of the Wong Kim Ark case is the argument by the government lawyers for why the court should not grant Wong Kim Ark citizenship by basis of his birth in the U.S. From the appellant's brief submitted by the government lawyer, George Collins:

For the most persuasive reasons we have refused citizenship to Chinese subjects; and yet, as to their offspring, who are just as obnoxious, and to whom the same reasons for exclusion apply with equal force, we are told that we must accept them as fellow-citizens, and that, too, because of the mere accident of birth. There certainly should be some honor and dignity in American citizenship that would be sacred from the foul and corrupting taint of a debasing lineage.

Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?

Ouch, Mick, that's gotta hurt.

For the rest of you, simply substitute the word "African" for the word "Chinese" in that second paragraph of that quote and you have the birther argument in a nutshell.

chilidog said, "T... (Below threshold)
Mick:

chilidog said,

"This applied to Spiro Agnew's parents. They were not U.S. citizens when he was born, yet becuase he was born in maryland, he was a natural born citizen.

End of the argument."

Fraid not chili! Theodore agnew emigrated here in 1897. I guess he married Va. born Margaret Akers a while after that in the US, Spiro Born in 1918.

Mick, SCOTUS rejected Colli... (Below threshold)
Chilidog:

Mick, SCOTUS rejected Collin's argument and rightly so.

There is no way that any court would ever interpret the WKA case to mean what you say it means.

If you want to change it, then go to law school, become a Supreme Court Justice and change it. Untill then,

Too bad, so sad.

Wow - Mick is pretty slow o... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

Wow - Mick is pretty slow on the uptake.

Here's a clue, Mick. The GOP was happy to hide behind the Tea Party movement when it gave them a convenient excuse to sit on their hands for the first year of Obama's administration -- but Sarah Palin and her fellow Republicans are now telling you and your ilk to FOAD -- they don't want to have anything to do with you.

Wow - buy a clue or something, pal. You've got no friends here.

But his father was not a ci... (Below threshold)
Chilidog:

But his father was not a citizen when Little Spiro was born.

So your two citizen parents argument is invalid.

Oh, this hurts.Ste... (Below threshold)

Oh, this hurts.

Steve Green is taking on Mick.

Does one of them HAVE to win?

J.

Re: "NO SCOTUS case has sai... (Below threshold)
smrstrauss:

Re: "NO SCOTUS case has said that it is any less than Born in the US to Us Citizen Parents."

The Wong Kim Ark case said that EVERY child born in the USA other than to foreign diplomats is Natural Born, and it said that Wong Kim Ark was both Natural Born and a citizen. Put them together you get Natural Born Citizen.

Since that time dozens of Federal cases have used the term Natural Born Citizen to mean someone who was born in the USA regardless of the number of her or his parents.

For example: 'Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as "natural born citizens" of the US):

Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.

As you can see, the parents are citizens of Romania, the children are Natural Born US citizens.

Another example: Liacakos v. Kennedy, 195 F. Supp. 630 (D.D.C. 1961) (holding that where evidence supported contention that person was born in US (to two citizens of Greece), he was a "natural born citizen" of the US):

"The plaintiff claims that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States, having been born in Wheeling, West Virginia, on July 14, 1900. He claims that when he was two or three years of age his parents returned to their native Greece...

The Court is of the opinion that, weighing the evidence on both sides, the plaintiff has established by a fair preponderance of the evidence that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States, and the Court so finds."

In short, a Natural Born US citizen does not require two US parents or one US parent. Simply being born in the USA is sufficient.

Jay Tea-Hah!!!! </... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Jay Tea-

Hah!!!!

ROTFLOL!

Adrian Brown said,... (Below threshold)
Mick:

Adrian Brown said,

"Does DNA factor into your definition of Natural Born Citizen? How are you determining who Barack Obama's father was? Are you just going by who someone listed on some birth certificate? How does it work exactly?"

There is an authenticated Divorce decree of stanley Dunham and Barack Obama 1 that lists Obama as their son, plus his life story as told by him. I guess the BC would be needed to actually authenticate everything if it came down to it.

http://www.plainsradio.com/obama1/IMAG004.JPG

God knows I hate playing th... (Below threshold)

God knows I hate playing the race card, Mick, but I have to ask you: does the fact that the person in question here is a half-black, half-white man named Barack Hussein Obama Jr. play the slightest factor in your fixation? If his father had been Patrick O'Shaughnessy of Norhtern Ireland, who spent time growing up in Bermuda, would you be this obsessed?

J.

To smrstrauss,Circ... (Below threshold)
Mick:

To smrstrauss,

Circuit courts and state courts opinions do not take precedence over the Supreme Court. Marbury v. Madison--- the Supreme Court is the sole arbitter of Constitutional terms. WKA never says that Wong is a Natural Born Citizen.
It only says that the children of unnaturalizeable resident aliens are citizens

Ahhhrrrr Mick!! Damnit!! I... (Below threshold)
Rich:

Ahhhrrrr Mick!! Damnit!! I was falling for it. I was leaning more and more to your side. Then it happened. You blew it all to hell. I feel so hollowed out,so empty inside. You called Mcgeehee. "Bigshot". Lost all credibility with me. Just had to call him a name. Shit. ;p

chilidog said,"But... (Below threshold)
Mick:

chilidog said,

"But his father was not a citizen when Little Spiro was born.

So your two citizen parents argument is invalid."

Wrong he was naturalized by marraige to mother.

Steve Green said,"... (Below threshold)
Mick:

Steve Green said,

"Wow - buy a clue or something, pal. You've got no friends here."

Don't care. I am sure some people with clear heads are getting educated.

Well, Mick, you've certainl... (Below threshold)

Well, Mick, you've certainly taught a lot of people about yourself...

J.

JT, are you suggesting that... (Below threshold)
max:

JT, are you suggesting that the birther movement is a manifestation of latent racism?

Jay said, "God kn... (Below threshold)
Mick:

Jay said,

"God knows I hate playing the race card, Mick, but I have to ask you: does the fact that the person in question here is a half-black, half-white man named Barack Hussein Obama Jr. play the slightest factor in your fixation? If his father had been Patrick O'Shaughnessy of Norhtern Ireland, who spent time growing up in Bermuda, would you be this obsessed?"

Right Jay that's it :)!!! Now you sound like the Leftists.

Rick said, "Ahhhr... (Below threshold)
Mick:

Rick said,

"Ahhhrrrr Mick!! Damnit!! I was falling for it. I was leaning more and more to your side. Then it happened. You blew it all to hell. I feel so hollowed out,so empty inside. You called Mcgeehee. "Bigshot". Lost all credibility with me. Just had to call him a name. Shit. ;p"

Sorry it slipped, been taking a lot of abuse.

Max said,I've also... (Below threshold)
Mick:

Max said,

I've also said and can back up that McCain wasn't a Natural Born Citizen either.

Re circuit court does not t... (Below threshold)
smrstrauss:

Re circuit court does not take precedence over Supreme Court.

Sure, but the dozens of uses of Natural Born to indicate birth in the country must be coming from somewhere.

They come from the Wong Kim Ark case in which the court ruled that EVERY child born in the USA is Natural Born, and it also ruled that Wong by virtue of being born in the USA is a citizen, and when you put Natural Born and Citizen together, you get Natural Born Citizen.

Yale Law Review wrote: "It is well settled that "native-born" citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born."

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)

But the key is still the way that the writers of the Constitution understood the term "Natural Born." And the evidence is overwhelming, in dozens of quotations written by such leaders as Adams and Hamilton, that Natural Born at the time simply meant "born in the country," and that was regardless of the number of parents who were citizens.

To all the Birthers, prove ... (Below threshold)
Montana:

To all the Birthers, prove it, Oh thats right you can't, just more of your unsubstantiated rumors you keep writing on your hands to help you keep up. You are just another Palin, just like "W", just like Quayle, just like Reagan. I love you guys. Keep plucking that chicken.

Barack Obama was not born i... (Below threshold)
James H:

Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii. Rather, he is part of a crack commando unit that was sent to prison for a crime they didn't commit ... If you bave a problem, and no one else can help, you call the O-TEAM!!"

Bum-bum-bum-bum-bum ... BUM-BUM-BUM.

I was hoping to get Mick to... (Below threshold)
klrtz1:

I was hoping to get Mick to explain how quo warrento was going to help him remove Obama from office but I guess he doesn't want to talk about it. If it's a secret, that's OK.

Nick wrote: <blockq... (Below threshold)
Chilidog:

Nick wrote:

Wrong he was naturalized by marraige to mother.

So then Barack Obama Sr was naturalized by his marriage to Ann Dunham?

There goes your argument.

Mick, I'm not accusing you ... (Below threshold)

Mick, I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm just asking questions.

Questions that you don't seem to want to answer...

(Is this how the game is played? I'm kinda new to it...)

J.

It's interesting.Y... (Below threshold)
jim m:

It's interesting.

You have a discussion about Birthers on a conservative website and you get a large majority of posters refuting the ludicrous claims of the Birthers.

I wonder if on a liberal site you were to have a discussion about truthers if they would find any opposition to their views at all.

Just wondering.

I wonder if on a l... (Below threshold)
Chilidog:
I wonder if on a liberal site you were to have a discussion about truthers if they would find any opposition to their views at all.

Oh, yes. I do it all the time.

I am an equal opportunity debunker.

I take on woo, no matter where it is hatched.

Truthers, Magic bulletheads, Apollo Hoaxers, Freemen on the Land, Birthers, Chemtrail sniffers, etc.

OK, just to recap.... (Below threshold)
Chilidog:

OK, just to recap.

Spiro Agnew's father was a Greek citizen. He married a woman born in the U.S. According to Mick, this naturalized him.

Barack Obama's father was a British Subject. He married a woman born in the U.S.. According to Nick, unlike Spiro's father, this did NOT naturalize him.

Mick, if you care to explain the difference here, I would be glad to see it.


Am I the only one who hears... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

Am I the only one who hears Twilight Zone music?

Nick said, ""wron... (Below threshold)
Mick:

Nick said,

""wrong he was naturalized by marraige to mother.""
So then Barack Obama Sr was naturalized by his marriage to Ann Dunham?
There goes your argument"


Sorry, nice try. Stanley Dunham was not old enough to confir citizenship.

Sorry, nice try. S... (Below threshold)
Chilidog:
Sorry, nice try. Stanley Dunham was not old enough to confir citizenship.

Care to cite the law on that?

show me the law that granted Spiro Agnew's father naturalized status for marrying a U.S. born woman.

Face it, you messed up. No amount of backpedalling on your part is going to change that.

chilidog said,"Tha... (Below threshold)
Mick:

chilidog said,

"That didn't make his father a citizen."

Amazingly those that don't believe what I say try and find ONE JUST ONE example of a POTUS or VP that did not have citizen parents, except for those grandfathered in by A2S1C5. From Charles Curtis, to Hoover , to Spiro Agnew, I debunk them all. Precedent is law. There is not ONE example that you can cite. Here you go to the extreme of a 90 year old HAND-Written Census report by a census worker (was acorn around then?). At this point Theodore Agnew had been in the US for 23 years. Chili also tried to claim that the mother lost her US citizenship by marraige to a foreigner, probably from that same website as the 90 year old census report. But I also debunked that. Isn't it curious that there is NOT ONE example of a VP or POTUS with less than 2 Citizen Parents and born on US Soil? Then they try to claim that ALL "Citizens by Birth" even those abroad are NBCs-- ridiculous!
To define NBCs as Citizens by Birth is simply Obfuscatory sleight of hand. It is a Term of Art that defies definition using a dictionary. Vattel's Law of Nations (law of nations-- Natural Law is imbedded in the USC as our common law in A1S8C10):

""Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens," meaning the "natives or indigines" are those born in the country of citizen parents."

chilidog said,"Face ... (Below threshold)
Mick:

chilidog said,
"Face it, you messed up. No amount of backpedalling on your part is going to change that. "


No you messed up. You said she lost her citizenship by marraige. I've been citing SCOTUS cases and Laws all day long while you present 90 year old hand-written census reports, and insults. I believe I have more credibility here.

Mick still won't address my... (Below threshold)

Mick still won't address my question about whether or not racism plays a factor in his motivations... I wonder what he has to hide?

j.

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

Jay said,

"Mick, I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm just asking questions.
Questions that you don't seem to want to answer...
(Is this how the game is played? I'm kinda new to it...)"

This is the internet. I could say that i'm sitting in front of my computer w/ a white hood on. Or I could say no way, some of my best friends are black! Just like you could say your relatives go back to the mayflower or that you are an illegal alien. None of my comments can be viewed w/ any sort of racial connotation. I cite proof of my contentions, most of you don't, but those that do are weak, and I've seen them many times.

I could say that i... (Below threshold)
Chilidog:
I could say that i'm sitting in front of my computer w/ a white hood on

Are you?

You guys must have read Ali... (Below threshold)
Mick:

You guys must have read Alinsky. When you can't win the argument ridicule and demonize.

Re: "Vattel's Law of Nation... (Below threshold)
smrstrauss:

Re: "Vattel's Law of Nations (law of nations-- Natural Law is imbedded in the USC as our common law in A1S8C10)>"

Vattel was a Swiss monarchist who never recommended elections and who never said that the leader of a country should be a citizen, much less a two-parent-born-in-the-country citizen. He gives several examples of countries picking their sovereigns from the nobility of other countries, and he never says that that is a bad thing. Moreover, he recommends that every country have its own state religion and force people to join it, or allow them to leave the country.

In contrast, the term Natural Born was commonly used by AMERICAN leaders at the time of the writing of the Constitution in dozens of quotations to mean simply "born in the country."

Sorry, Mick. But the fact ... (Below threshold)
Chilidog:

Sorry, Mick. But the fact is that according to the law at the time, Agnew's mother lost her U.S. citizenship when she married his father. The census report clearly indicates that his father was NOT a naturalized citizen when he was born.


Charles Curtis was also one with questionable citizenship. Under the laws at the time he was born, being part even the slightest part Indian or part African meant that you were all Indian or all African under the law. His mother was three quarters Indian and thus was not an American Citizen when he was born.

Your arguments are spurious and false.

No one is insulting you. Insulting your logic and your arguments, but not insulting you.


"You guys must have read Al... (Below threshold)
jim m:

"You guys must have read Alinsky. When you can't win the argument ridicule and demonize."

Sorry. You beclown yourself far more effectively than anyone here could.

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

smrstrauss said

"In contrast, the term Natural Born was commonly used by AMERICAN leaders at the time of the writing of the Constitution in dozens of quotations to mean simply "born in the country." "


Here to Obfuscate some more eh strauss. I already showed you the quote from Ben Franklin about Vattel's LON, which was written in 1757, and certainly was known to the framers, since they imbedded Natural Law into the USC (A1S8C10). Remember Scalia said that BCL is dead.

Mick won't answer a simple ... (Below threshold)

Mick won't answer a simple question...

I think that gives us our answer.

J.

I got an idea, instead of w... (Below threshold)
astonerii:

I got an idea, instead of worrying about Obama, we worry about the future of the country. In the future, all people who want to be placed on a ballot must present the evidence that they qualify for the position, to a credible, open and transparent process that can be reviewed any time during the election cycle by the people. For federal and state elections, the state would be required to get verifiable evidence before they could place a name on a ballot. That would solve all the real worries and leave Obama and charges of racism in the dust.

RedState does not agree, not sure about this site. Maybe the person who runs this site would actually make a better argument against my statement than a bunch of name calling.

Jay said,"Mick won... (Below threshold)
Mick:

Jay said,

"Mick won't answer a simple question..."

Your question doesn't deserve answering. Now where's that proof that just being born in the US make one eligible for POTUS. Nobody has shown it.

astonerii said,"I ... (Below threshold)
Mick:

astonerii said,

"I got an idea, instead of worrying about Obama, we worry about the future of the country."

This is the future. We are talking about all levels of Government complicit in attempting the destruction of the USC little by little (progressively), By nullifying A2S1C4,5 they are taking away a security measure inserted to prevent foreign influence, because they think it is unfair. The USC describes the limits of Govt. power over we the people, and Big Govt. wants more power. That is why Obama said that the constitution is fundamentally flawed, and restricts his agenda. Well the main reason it restricts him is that it should have prevented him from being POTUS. Both Major party candidates were not eligible Natural Born Citizens. What does that tell you? Neither party is in our best interest.

Put it this way, if just being born here makes one eligible then the son of Ajmadinedad
could impregnate an American woman, and that baby's birth on US soil would make him eligible for POTUS. Get it? It is not only about Obama, who has clearly shown his non allegiance, it is about who comes in the future. George Washington saw the dangers of Political Parties and Foreign influence 200 years ago. He was so prescient:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

chilidog said,"Cha... (Below threshold)
Mick:

chilidog said,

"Charles Curtis was also one with questionable citizenship. Under the laws at the time he was born, being part even the slightest part Indian or part African meant that you were all Indian or all African under the law. His mother was three quarters Indian and thus was not an American Citizen when he was born."

No Wrong again. Charles Curtis' mother bacame a US Citizen by marraige to US Citizen. Since she was not full indian, she had lived across from the reservation where Charles was born (not on the reservation, but what was US Kansas territory). @ US Citizen parents, Child born in US territory equal Natural Born Citizen.

Try Again??

chilidog said,"Sor... (Below threshold)
Mick:

chilidog said,

"Sorry, Mick. But the fact is that according to the law at the time, Agnew's mother lost her U.S. citizenship when she married his father. The census report clearly indicates that his father was NOT a naturalized citizen when he was born. "


I already proved you wrong on that one look back.

Try Again??

Put it this way, if just... (Below threshold)

Put it this way, if just being born here makes one eligible then the son of Ajmadinedad
could impregnate an American woman, and that baby's birth on US soil would make him eligible for POTUS. Get it?

Yes, it would. Because of Article III, Section 3, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution.

I take the Constitution very seriously. It's YOU that I simply can't take seriously.

You're fighting, over and over, a battle that was lost well over a year ago. You can't win it. And while you fight it, you aren't fighting other fights where you might make a difference.

You're a political LIABILITY, Mick. You're a distracting idiot. You are so obsessed with this one lost cause, you're utterly useless in places where you might make a difference.

You're a laughingstock who keeps insisting that we not laugh at your clown nose, your clown shoes, and would we please sniff the plastic flower on your lapel.

No, thank you.

Now go back to your circle-jerk with your fellow birthers. Some of us are actually trying to find ways we might make a difference and mitigate the disasters Obama is trying to inflict.

You. Are. Not. Helping.

J.

Jay said,"Yes, it ... (Below threshold)
Mick:

Jay said,

"Yes, it would. Because of Article III, Section 3, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution."

Why would it be treason? It is not treason to fall in love or have a child w/ a foreigner. Again, all insults and no proof. You have Obama's kryptonite in front of your nose, and you stubbornly refuse to use it. All eyes are on the BC when the real issue is already apparent. I have proved it with A2S1C4,5, A1S8C10, Vattel, the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795, Precedent (nobody can name ONE POTUS or VP not grandfathered in that has less than 2 US Citizen Parents and born on US soil), and 5 SCOTUS cases. You? NOTHING but one case that definitely does not support your position. So who is the fool?

Somehow, I KNEW you'd miss ... (Below threshold)

Somehow, I KNEW you'd miss the "corruption of blood" principle re: Ahmedinejad's theoretical son and go off on a tear so you could avoid the rest of my comment. I specifically didn't use the phrase to see if you'd take the bait and dodge the point -- thanks for being so transparent.

J.

Jay said, "Someho... (Below threshold)
Mick:

Jay said,

"Somehow, I KNEW you'd miss the "corruption of blood" principle re: Ahmedinejad's theoretical son and go off on a tear so you could avoid the rest of my comment. I specifically didn't use the phrase to see if you'd take the bait and dodge the point -- thanks for being so transparent."


So you are tying to say that the child could not be held liable for the treason of the mother, and that child would be eligible? OOH you're so cryptic, but you are wrong. That child would not be eligible because the father wouldn't be a Citizen.

This is one issue I wish wo... (Below threshold)

This is one issue I wish would go away! Assume for a moment that Obama IS a natural born citizen, but he wants a fringe-ey issue to divide his foes. What better way to keep a section of his political opposition stuck in an easily mocked conspiracy theory-like than to prevent his birth certificate from being released? Now the MSM can jeer at anybody even slightly tainted by a whiff of 'birther-ism' and marginalize them with the greatest of ease. Even if he's not natural born, or his father of record isn't his father, or was anonymous, or his real mother was a prostitute, or another of the various theories floating around...even if any or all of them are gospel truth, it does no good now to harp on about it. No matter how convincing the evidence, a majority of people in America wouldn't believe it. Even if you win you lose. So there is absolutely nothing to be gained by pushing on until you find the bridge is out and the water is cold but there's too much momentum to keep from getting wet.

It's a common fallacy of conspiracy theory thinking that knowing the truth will suddenly set you free. You're free when you take responsibility for yourself and your own actions, even if you're ignorant as a stump. Knowledge is necessary for freedom, true; but the most basic and important bit of knowledge is THAT YOU ARE FREE. So long as you believe your freedom is being held hostage by liars, well, it is. Believing yourself to be free instantly makes you free, even if you're in prison, a slave, or just stuck in a boring dead-end job.

So let's be done with this malarky. It doesn't matter anymore. There is literally nothing to be gained by following Farah and others over the cliff. I like Farah, but give it a rest already. Instead of drawing up petitions gather information and keep it dark until you can use it to keep Obama from being renominated if it's really that damaging. Haven't we got many excellent examples of the Dems doing just that over the last 40 years and more? Beating the dead horse till only bone dust remains won't make him run.

To Jim Wilson,I ap... (Below threshold)
Mick:

To Jim Wilson,

I appreciate the sentiment, but that is the reason that it is allowed to happen. Not enough people care about preserving the USC. The government is taking it away little by little. Notice that all of the ridicule is about the BC. They say nothing about the fact that his father was not a Citizen, because it's planned that way. If reporters stood up at the WH press briefing and kept asking the question, "since obama has admitted that at birth his citizenship was "Governed" by Britain, how can he be a Natural Born citizen eligible for the Presidency?" He would have to answer the question if enough reporters asked the question. Bloggers are even afraid to ask it. Conservative pundits are afraid to ask it. Something tells me that they have all been threatened in some way and told to be quiet for fear of some civil unrest. The similarity of the ridicule is too much of a coincidence. I will not shut up. Some people got educated here today, and that adds to the critical mass. Enough people have to ask the question. If you don't ask the question then you don't deserve the protection of the USC.

Mick, every night I get dow... (Below threshold)

Mick, every night I get down on my hands and knees and give thanks that our nation's security is secured by the University of Southern California.

What I meant by the "corruption of blood" is that you have no problem of depriving the child of an American citizen of rights simply because it chose the wrong father. That you have no problem in carrying your (entirely worthy) hatred of the president of Iran on to a child...

I guess you're the only True Believer here, Mick, in this land of heathens and traitors and liberals and deniers and paid stooges. Better get out, quick, while you can still preserve the sanctity of your precious bodily fluids...

J.

Re: "I already showed you t... (Below threshold)
smrstrauss:

Re: "I already showed you the quote from Ben Franklin about Vattel's LON..."

He wrote a nice letter about how he appreciated a gift of a book. He did not say that he would adopt all that the book said. Vattel was a monarchist. Franklin wasn't. Vattel recommended a state religion. Franklin and the other leaders who wrote the Constitution didn't.

So, what makes you think that they adopted the idea that Natural Born was the two-parent approach of Vattel and not the born-in-the-country approach that was already embraced in the laws of some states and was the common use of the term Natural Born at the time?

Re: " which was written in 1757.."

Big deal, Blackstone was even more popular than Vattel.

Re: 'Embedded Natural Law into the USC"

There were about six or seven prominent Natural Law philosophers including Locke, Hobbes, Montesqueu, Leibnitz, and even St. Thomas Acquinas was considered a Natural Law philosopher. They all disagreed with each other. So obviously the Constitution did not embrace them all, and it certainly did not embrace Vattel's recommendation of a state religion. So, what makes you think that it embraced the unique theory that a president has to have two US citizen parents and be born in the country WITHOUT SAYING IT.

If the writers of the Constitution had simply written "two parents and born in the country," we all would have known that was what they meant. But they said Natural Born Citizen, and the use of Natural Born at the time only meant "born in the country."

Re: "Remember Scalia said that BCL is dead."

The point is not that we embrace the meaning of Natural Born because that was the common law. The point is that at the time Natural Born meant what the BCL and the laws in the states at the time used the term to be, and that was "born in the country." If they had meant to use it in some uncommon way, some way that was not the OVERWHELMING use of the phrase at the time, they would have said so.

And, the Common Law was held in enormous respect by the writers of the Constitution. John Jay, for example, the one who first used the phrase "Natural Born Citizen" in the letter to Washington, was a lawyer and would become the first chief justice. AND John Jay was the main author of the first Constitution of the state of New York (1777), and that Constitution grandfathers common law into the laws of New York, saying that until changed by statute in New York the common law continues to apply.

This was a practical decision, of course. I merely use it to show how much the common law was on the minds of the leaders at the time. in the common law and in the laws of the early states and in dozens of quotations by the leaders at the time Natural Born is always used to mean "born in the country." It is never used to mean "born in the country and with two citizen parents."

Mick in our discussion of t... (Below threshold)
Chilidog:

Mick in our discussion of the citizenship of Spiro Agnews parents you said:

I already proved you wrong on that one look back.

Nope. You totally misread the page.

here, read this page:

Between March 2, 1907 and September 22, 1922 any woman who married a man of foreign birth automatically adopted her husband's nationality.

http://www.in.gov/icpr/2941.htm

You failed

chilidog said,"You... (Below threshold)
Mick:

chilidog said,

"You failed"


And of course he lies again. Who's side is he on? Here's the exact quote. The wife only loses citizenship if married abroad. Mrs. Agnew was married in the US. He tries awfully hard to find an exception. Just 1 POTUS or VP that doesn't fit the Vattel definition of Born in the US to US Citizen Parents. But try as he may, he cannot find just ONE.

"Eventually it was decided that between 1866 and 1907 no woman lost her U.S. citizenship by marriage to an alien unless she left the United States. Yet this decision was probably of little comfort to some women who, resident in the United States since birth, had been unfairly treated as aliens since their marriages to noncitizens.(5)"

Oh, here mr. chili, <... (Below threshold)
Mick:

Oh, here mr. chili,

This is the site. You shouldn't have to lie if you have the correct argument. Look down to #5,

"Just as alien women gained U.S. citizenship by marriage, U.S.-born women often gained foreign nationality (and thereby lost their U.S. citizenship) by marriage to a foreigner. As the law increasingly linked women's citizenship to that of their husbands, the courts frequently found that U.S. citizen women expatriated themselves by marriage to an alien. For many years there was disagreement over whether a woman lost her U.S. citizenship simply by virtue of the marriage, or whether she had to actually leave the United States and take up residence with her husband abroad. Eventually it was decided that between 1866 and 1907 no woman lost her U.S. citizenship by marriage to an alien unless she left the United States. Yet this decision was probably of little comfort to some women who, resident in the United States since birth, had been unfairly treated as aliens since their marriages to noncitizens.(5)"

The sad fact is that Mick i... (Below threshold)
ShawnF:

The sad fact is that Mick is the only one who is behaving decently and has a rational thing to say. Everyone else (with a few exceptions) - you know darn well that you sound EXACTLY like the Al Gore / Hollywood BS hangers-on.

What I have heard (it has been tedious to wade through so much vitriolic BS) has been mostly an attack on Mick's character. One continual stream of insult to his intelligence. He DOES have something to say and his point may or may not be valid. However, not one of you (I did skim the second half, but it probably wasn't different from the first half) had anything of any relevance to add to an actual discussion of the argument. My pet peeve for the last five years has been "Global Warming" I have been immersed in the science and struggle of that issue for such a long time. What I can bring to this discussion is that all of the people attacking Mick sound and act EXACTLY like the Warmists.

I guess the science is settled on the Birth Certificate issue then? We have no less than TWO microfiche copies of birth announcements. Also, we have an internet published PDF of something that looks like a short form birth certificate.

Oh yeah - we also have the story that he has told us himself. You can't find anyone more objective or honest than this fellow who would write two autobiographies before he has any accomplishments whatsoever.
---------
"Enough people in positions of authority and respect (regardless of how I feel about them individually) have concurred that Barack Obama is fully entitled to serve as president. There is also considerable documentary evidence to back that up."
Um.. News Flash:
He was never vetted. All of his records are sealed.
There were people that vouched for him - Pelosi, Reid, etc. If these people are your leaders then you should absolutely follow them off a bridge.

By the way, doesn't one of the birth announcements have an address that Mr and Mrs Barack H Obama lived in at the time of the birth? Wasn't a family with three children living in that residence at the time? Wasn't the birth announcement released exactly 10 days after the owner of the residence passed away? Wasn't the residence in question nowhere near the college. Oh, and wasn't this residence also in the absolutely most expensive location in Hawaii? I'm sure it is all coincidence and that there is NO REASON not to put our absolute faith and our LIVES in the hands of this man who ... well... he hasn't any background whatsoever. He might be Chester Cheeto for all I know.

By the way smart guys - the part of the issue that "Birthers" struggle with is specifically his Birth Certificate. There are big questions which are "where is it" and "what is on it". These are not trivial. If you want to make fun of the "Birthers" you can only do it if they are stating an opinion based on facts that they don't have. If, however, anyone raises the alarming fact that we have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER who this man is... then you are the fools for defending this possible fraud.

Fraud is exactly what is possible. From what I can tell the Al Gore like certainty that you people have is mostly based on what... the two birth announcements? The year that the announcements were made the two newspapers had decided to collaborate on all such announcements (the next year they combined officially). The two announcements that were made in those two papers were exactly the same for all of the announcements... except BHO's. One of them had an address to a place that he and his "parents" could not possibly have lived in. Gee, I wonder why I put "parents" in quotation marks. I mean, it is proven that his dad is BHO, Sr. because it was in that wonderful book written by that genius author right? The behavior of the players in the story - the timelines - and the events all match up so perfectly and are corroborated by so many people that it just HAS to be the truth. Right? Anyone? Does anyone even know the details that I'm referring to?

By the way, you can't call me a "Birther" since my issue isn't where he was born. My issue is that I've been lied to. If you want to deride me - "Truther" would be the most accurate term. Now, can anyone suggest a term for people who attack someone not because they actually know what they are talking about but rather because they follow the directions of the Administrative State?

Without even suspecting that you might need to think about things on your own it probably looks like some people are paranoid. After all - MSNBC said that anyone who looked into this stuff was paranoid right? Or... or were we racists? I can't remember. Will one of you please refresh my mind as to whether having a dissenting opinion made me paranoid, racist, or just ignorant? I can't possibly know what I'm thinking when I spend so many sleepless nights picking weevils from the grain in my underground bunker. Perhaps I should check with my betters to find out what my opinions are instead of becoming informed. Unfortunately, I'm a little to old to have learned how to do that in the modern Education System.

For you "Obama as Son of America" people - the burden of proof is on you to stake your claim. Good luck, there are no documents to go along with your claim. I tried to find something and it gets crazier and crazier the more you look. The best piece of evidence you folk have for behaving like hyenas is the birth announcements. Have any of you actually studied them? Do you attack people without knowing exactly what basis you might have for attacking someone? To suggest that Mick is a racist = weak. You people are really the bottom of the barrel. Have any of you even READ anything on the subject or do you just get your information feeds from MSNBC?

I'm looking over the Comment Preview and thinking what a tedious, repetitious lot of blather I've written. I have excellent points in there but very tedious.
On the other hand, it is still well above the quality of the comments on this blog so -

ShawnF, I'm not arguing WIT... (Below threshold)

ShawnF, I'm not arguing WITH you and Mick, I'm arguing PAST you. I'm saying that as far as I'm concerned, the whole question is moot. It's way, way, way too late to argue the point -- what's done is done. While you're arguing arcanities of fine legal detail over nuances of language from one or three centuries ago, the world is going on.

I see you "birthers" (and by that, I mean people utterly obsessed with finding some flaw in the circumstances of Obama's birth that would deny his legitimacy to the presidency, and you certainly qualify) as the political equivalent of the theologists who would argue about the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin. While they did that, the Church grew so corrupt that it eventually triggered the Reformation.

Your obsession with Baby Barack of 1961 comes at the expense of ignoring what Grown-Up Barack of 2010 is doing. You're doctors arguing about the proper way to improve a patient's diet and exercise regimen while he's dying of a heart attack. You're firefighters lecturing a man on having working smoke detectors and being responsible with his cigarettes while his family is trapped in his burning house.

YOU PEOPLE HAVE NO SENSE OF PRIORITIES. You are utterly fixated on this one notion -- that if you can somehow find this one magic flaw, you can undo the last year and magically erase the entire Obama administration. And you either don't understand or don't give a rat's ass about the violence you would do to the entire system were you to achieve your goals.

"Fiat iusticia, ruat caelum?" No, thanks.

There are many, many reasons to oppose Obama. I do so daily. I will NOT do so based on reasons that he had absolutely no say -- such as the circumstances of his birth. It is MOOT.

And those who keep fighting it are doing him the biggest favor they can do. They're wasting their energy on pointless matters, simultaneously tainting and distracting those of us who are trying to fight the fight here and now, and not endlessly re-hashing what may or may not have happened in August, 1961.

J.

Jay, I'm with you on this. ... (Below threshold)
Mike G in Corvallis:

Jay, I'm with you on this. To me the evidence overwhelmingly supports the claim that Obama was born in Hawai'i and is a "natural born citizen" according to legal precedent.

And you question of "if so, what then?" is telling. But turn it around: Obama apparently has spent nearly a million bucks on legal fees to keep his original long-form birth certificate (not the certificate of live birth, which was printed some time after 2000) hidden away from public inspection. He has also ordered his college records sealed. Why?

I can think of two plausible hypotheses, not necessarily mutually exclusive:

(1) To mess with the heads of his opponents. If so, it seems to be working ...

(2) To keep something other than place of birth hidden. (In the case of the college records, possibly many somethings, including grades, letters of recommendation, names of professors whose courses he took, etc. (Did he meet Bill Ayers at Columbia?)

So here's my Crackpot Theory:

Barack Hussein Obama was born with some other name. The newspaper birth announcements did not name the child, only the parents! Maybe he was named Barry instead of Barack -- his school records from Indonesia list him as Barry Soetoro. Heck, maybe he was named Stanley! His mother's name was Stanley Ann Dunham, named by her crackpot, egotistical father, Stanley Armour Dunham, after himself; it's conceivable that Ann's father cut her a deal -- name the kid after me, and I'll support you even though your deadbeat husband won't.

It's plausible to me that he changed his name to Barack Hussein Obama II to get "legacy" points for admission to Harvard as the son of Barack Hussein Obama, Exotic Kenyan Foreign Exchange Student. By the way, if you change your name, the Certificate of Live Birth can be amended to reflect this fact. (I know several people who have had this done, including my own mother.)

Doesn't Barack Hussein Obama II sound so much more impressive and authentic than Barry Obama or Stanley Barry Dunham?

Perhaps you wouldn't go to all that trouble and expense to conceal the fact that you'd changed your name ... but then, you aren't a narcissist.

"And those who keep figh... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

"And those who keep fighting it are doing him the biggest favor they can do."

Another way to put it, as you said, Jay, while we try to steer "birthers" in a direction that would better utilize that energy, the left uses people like Mick and others as a tool to paint the entire right as kooks.

Just like the guy with the racist pejorative on his sign at a Tea Party rally. The media and lefties have used him numerous times to paint the movement as racist. The fact that it's been proven the guy is a liar and a class-a idiot is completely ignored by those who continue to use him to delegitimzie the Tea Party.

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

Jay Tea said,

"ShawnF, I'm not arguing WITH you and Mick, I'm arguing PAST you. I'm saying that as far as I'm concerned, the whole question is moot. It's way, way, way too late to argue the point -- what's done is done. While you're arguing arcanities of fine legal detail over nuances of language from one or three centuries ago, the world is going on."


You still are ignoring an important point. I oppose Obama for the exact same reasons you do. Why do you think that this is the only issue, when I have mentioned others on this thread. What they all go back to is a lack of allegiance and attachment to this country, which is why he should have never been POTUS to begin with; it is the reason that he is not eligible, and the rationale for the requirement to be a NBC is absolutely coming true. You are not aguing past me. You and smrstrauss (a well known Obama bridgetender that you strangely side with) and jimm and chilidog have all been refuted in your reasoning for why I am wrong. You bring up one SCOTUS case that is known to be dodgy at best and a few circuit court case opinions to my 5 SCOTUS Cases, Naturalization Acts, Law of Nations, statements of writers of the 14 Amendment. Chilidog even tries to bring up examples of VPs and POTUSs that don't fit the Vattel definition, but I debunked ALL of them, even when he attempted to lie. It's amazing that not one in 200 years doesn't fit isn't it (except for Chester Arthur, which was fraud and thus not preceent).
The point is not "moot". Amazingly you cavalierly dismiss the fact the the POTUS is knowingly (it can only be knowingly, looking at all the secrecy, and the fact that he is a Constitutional Scholar) Usurping the office. He is attempting to change the meaning of a security measure in the USC as it relates to the POTUS by precedent. It is certainly not a moot point, and he can be unseated by Quo Warranto in the DC District Ct. (DOJ lawyers have admitted this fact). Who says that I cannot and that we all SHOULD oppose him on his eligibility as well as his policies, why should it be one or the other? Who made you the king? I am an Independent, beholden to neither Party, and if you are a Republican, then you are pigeonholed into certain responses, but not I. The issue of Dual Citizenship at birth being a disqualification of Natural Born Citizenship is not Arcane, and is well represented in SCOTUS Dicta going back to The Venus case only 27 years after ratification (decided by John Marshall, perhaps the greatest Chief Justice) and 3 distinct subsets of citizens are discussed in Perkins v. Elg (just as there are 3 substs mentioned in the USC). Obama's Kryptonite is staring you in the face, but you are so worried about MSM Alinskyan ridicule and demonization that you refuse to run with it. It is my belief that you are shirking your duty as a journalist for attacking this issue as craziness w/o knowing about it better (by your responses i can tell that you don't). I will never shut up, and the truth sets me free.

Mike G said, "Jay... (Below threshold)
Mick:

Mike G said,

"Jay, I'm with you on this. To me the evidence overwhelmingly supports the claim that Obama was born in Hawai'i and is a "natural born citizen" according to legal precedent."

The usual response "according to legal precedent" or "according to current law"; all nonsense. The is no legal precedent that says simply being born in the US makes one a Natural Born Citizen eligible to be POTUS or VP. A progressive misunderstanding of the term by the public over time maybe, but there is certainly NO "Legal precedent" or "current law" that says that.

Oyster said, "Ano... (Below threshold)
Mick:

Oyster said,

"Another way to put it, as you said, Jay, while we try to steer "birthers" in a direction that would better utilize that energy, the left uses people like Mick and others as a tool to paint the entire right as kooks."


Like I said, I oppose Obama for all the reasons that you do, and I say that he shouldn't be POTUS for the very reasons that the requirement of Natural Born Citizenship is in the USC. His lack of allegiance and attachment is apparent. His policies reflect an attitude that America is flawed and unfair, and that the government should control the wealth of the citizens and their means for producing it. I revel in the Alinskyan ridicule bestowed by the MSM and this administration, it shows that we are right. No One will tell me where to direct my energies. I am not pigeonholed by membership in either Party or "team".

Mick, you're just not liste... (Below threshold)

Mick, you're just not listening.

I have not once tried to refute a single point of your quasi-intellectual legalese masturbations. Because, to me, in the big picture, THEY JUST DON'T MATTER.

The matter is settled. Reality trumps theory every time, and the reality is Obama is president. Period.

"Obama's Kryptonite is staring you in the face, but you are so worried about MSM Alinskyan ridicule and demonization that you refuse to run with it."

Piss off. I fear nothing of the like. I worry about EFFECTIVENESS. And your tactic SIMPLY WON'T WORK. I personally find much of it repugnant -- the segmenting of citizens into "American" and "Super-Americans" turns my stomach.

"It is my belief that you are shirking your duty as a journalist for attacking this issue as craziness w/o knowing about it better (by your responses i can tell that you don't)."

Fuck off. I'm not a journalist, and I have no "duties" to that profession or you. I am a blogger, an opinionist, and my duties are entirely self-imposed and not open for debate.

I offer opinions. If you don't like them, feel free to take yourself elsewhere. You have yet to address the core precepts of my piece -- that on a purely pragmatic basis, your tactic is unlikely to succeed within a few years, and even then it's highly doubtful. In the meantime, while you're re-fighting what happened in August of 1961, the current administration is causing tremendous harm to the nation that your "remedy" won't do jack hit about fixing.

You've got your obsession and your area of self-educated expertise, and so you're fixated that you have the "kryptonite," the "silver bullet," that will fix it all.

It won't.

It can't.

It never will.

What you're trying to do is like the Gore 2000 legal fight, but infinitely worse. And we're STILL suffering the scars of that one.

And even if you succeed, who will have to clean up the mess of your victory? Everyone.

My goal is to minimize the harm Obama can cause before we turn him out of office in 2012. You are IN OUR WAY. With your fixation on re-fighting a battle you lost over a year ago, you're keeping our side from trying to mitigate the ongoing harm. And it's causing tremendous harm. More importantly, IT'S PISSING US OFF.

"I will never shut up, and the truth sets me free."

I can't shut you up, but I do have the ability to shut you up here. And it would only take a few clicks of the mouse.

Mick, Mick, Mick. You keep... (Below threshold)
Chilidog:

Mick, Mick, Mick. You keep trying and yet you keep winding up with a face full of fail.

As per our discussion of the citizenship status of Spiro Agnew's parents, you wrote:

And of course he lies again. Who's side is he on? Here's the exact quote. The wife only loses citizenship if married abroad. Mrs. Agnew was married in the US. He tries awfully hard to find an exception. Just 1 POTUS or VP that doesn't fit the Vattel definition of Born in the US to US Citizen Parents. But try as he may, he cannot find just ONE. "Eventually it was decided that between 1866 and 1907 no woman lost her U.S. citizenship by marriage to an alien unless she left the United States. Yet this decision was probably of little comfort to some women who, resident in the United States since birth, had been unfairly treated as aliens since their marriages to noncitizens.(5)"

You quote a law only applied until 1907. The Expatriation Act of March 2, 1907. U.S. Statutes at Large 34:1228 redefined the law as thus:

[A]ny American who married a foreigner shall take the nationality of her husband. At the termination of the marital relation she may resume her American citizenship, if abroad, by registering as an American citizen within one year with a consul of the United States, or if residing in the United States at the termination of the marital relation, by continuing to reside therein.

When Spiro's father married his mother, she was a widow with a child form her previous marriage. That child had been born in 1908, so Agnew's parents marriage was after 1907, thus the law quoted above applies.

This law was in effect until 1922.

I will repeat this for you one more time.

Based on your criteria of "two" citizen parents, Spiro Agnew would not have been a natural born citizen. The facts of his immigrant father background were well known, yet no one challenged his eleigibility to be vice president.

Eat FAIL, Mick.

Jay said,"I have n... (Below threshold)
Mick:

Jay said,

"I have not once tried to refute a single point of your quasi-intellectual legalese masturbations. Because, to me, in the big picture, THEY JUST DON'T MATTER."


Sure you have, for all your readers to see. And it absolutely matters, it's the USC.

Jay said,

"Piss off. I fear nothing of the like. I worry about EFFECTIVENESS. And your tactic SIMPLY WON'T WORK. I personally find much of it repugnant -- the segmenting of citizens into "American" and "Super-Americans" turns my stomach."

WOW, touchy are we? Sure it will work. This is the issue they are running from by perpetuationg the BC. Never said anything about "super- Americans". The eligibility for POTUS is not a "right", and is no more discriminatory than the requirement of being 35 years old. The fact that naturalized immigrants can have Natural Born Children shows that it is not discriminatory. The USC requires that they display attachment, by naturalization. If the USC sickens you that's your problem.

Jay said,

"Fuck off. I'm not a journalist, and I have no "duties" to that profession or you. I am a blogger, an opinionist, and my duties are entirely self-imposed and not open for debate.
I offer opinions. If you don't like them, feel free to take yourself elsewhere. You have yet to address the core precepts of my piece -- that on a purely pragmatic basis, your tactic is unlikely to succeed within a few years, and even then it's highly doubtful."

I guess truth means nothing to you, but hey it's your gig! I told you the remedy, it's Quo Warranto in the DC district Ct. (this is verified by DOJ attorneys). I don't think you know whether it will work or not, since you wont even consider it.


Jay said

"IN OUR WAY."
"IT'S PISSING US OFF."

What? you got a mouse in your pocket? I like your tactic though. If you can't win the argument, first ridicule, then deamonize, then say you weren't arguing. You should thank me for helping you present an informative posting!

Mick, I had you pegged the ... (Below threshold)

Mick, I had you pegged the instant you denounced smrstrauss as "a paid shill of the Usurper."

I like the capitalizing of "usurper." It shows a certain obsessive quality.

And your spelling of "demonize" as "deamonize" demonstrates creativity.

And finally, I reject your proposed remedy to what I consider a non-crisis because of the harm it would cause as the nation tries to figure out just who is running things, and other nations (especially those not our friends) exploit our chaos. While Obama is a bad president, he's literally better than nothing -- which is what we'd end up with for some time under your solution. I can make ready arguments for Biden, Pelosi, McCain, and even Hillary Clinton and Dick Cheney to take the Oval Office, and that's without even trying.

You make way, way too many assumptions, Mick. Strauss is a "paid shill" because you didn't like what you say. I'm a "journalist" because that would let you put a noose around my actions. And Obama is "the Usurper" because you need a Big Bad to satisfy your delusions of being the Champion Of The Constitution.

Take your crazy somewhere else, Mick. We've got more than enough of ours here.

J.

So prove me wro... (Below threshold)
So prove me wrong, bigshot.
That's not how it works, doofus. You're the one with the radical proposed explanation for what happened. The burden of proof rests squarely on your pointy little head, and yours alone.
chilidog said, "B... (Below threshold)
Mick:

chilidog said,

"Based on your criteria of "two" citizen parents, Spiro Agnew would not have been a natural born citizen. The facts of his immigrant father background were well known, yet no one challenged his eleigibility to be vice president."

And of course you are wrong again. Theodore Agnostopoulos emigrated to the US in 1897 and ran a popular Greek restaurant (who would thunk?). He worked for the Democratic Party. So he certainly Naturalized at some point, probably before they were married if it was after 1907. I may have been wrong about him being naturalized by marraige, but the point is he was still naturalized, and Spiro wasn't born until 1918 (21 years after his father emigrated from Greece). The proponderance of the evidence suggests that Margaret and Theodore did not get married subject to the Act of 1907. I am still trying to verify that absolutely (when he naturalized and when they were married). Itcertainly does not look like your smoking gun. Interesting history though.

Megehee said, "Th... (Below threshold)
Mick:

Megehee said,

"That's not how it works, doofus. You're the one with the radical proposed explanation for what happened. The burden of proof rests squarely on your pointy little head, and yours alone".


Yeah well that's the easy way out. I've given 200 years of historical fact. That you and others can't let loose of your preconceived notions is a denial of reality and fact.

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

Jay said,

"Mick, I had you pegged the instant you denounced smrstrauss as "a paid shill of the Usurper."
I like the capitalizing of "usurper." It shows a certain obsessive quality"


So you are saying that Obama doesn't have internet operatives? I think you are being naive. Smrstrauss is known to many sites as an Obama bridgetender, who seems to magically pop up whenever these NBC threads are active.
Why shouldn't I capitalize Usurper, he's the biggest Usurper there ever was? And let me go out on a limb about you, since you don't care if the POTUS is qualified, and since you are so "insightful" (like that silly corruption of blood nonsense- I did learn something tho). I am guessing, despite your denials that either you or your children are not Vattel defined NBCs. Your defensive reaction is common, but the eligibility for POTUS is not a "right".

Mick, back in 1920, the cen... (Below threshold)
Chilidog:

Mick, back in 1920, the census takers went around and talked to people and filled out the information.

I see no reason to doubt the information listed on the form.

It sais that Agnew's parents were aliens, not naturalized citizens, but ALIENS.


but hey, don't let me stop you. Go forth and preach your beleifs. Share your special knowlege with every elected official you can find.

Write angry letters to the editor, show up at town hall meeting and demand answers.

If you feel st strongly about this, go out and make some noise.

Acost strangers in the streets, buy a billboard, take out full page ads in the paper. go to tea party meetings and make sure that the birth certificate issue comes up at every meeting. Donate money to Orly Taitz. Go birther go!!!!!

Bub Bye.

to chilidog,This i... (Below threshold)
Mick:

to chilidog,

This is a page about Gargaliani, Greece, where Theodore Anagnostopoulos (Siro's father)was from.
It says he immigrated (sic emigrated) to Baltimore in 1906, which may indeed be the year that he became a Naturalized American, since we know that he came to America in 1897. Greece would have considered him a citizen until he gave up Greek citizenship, which this implies is 1906. So of course I didn't fail.

http://www.gtp.gr/LocInfo.asp?infoid=28&code=EGRPME40GAR&PrimeCode=EGRPME40GAR&Level=7&PrimeLevel=7&IncludeWide=0&LocId=10409

Try Again????

Theodore Agnew worked for t... (Below threshold)
Mick:

Theodore Agnew worked for the Democratic Party. He certainly was not an alien 23 years after coming to America.

Re: "Smrstrauss is known to... (Below threshold)
smrstrauss:

Re: "Smrstrauss is known to many sites as an Obama bridgetender, who seems to magically pop up whenever these NBC threads are active."

I am an Obama supporter, one of the 69 million voters who voted for him. However, I am not paid. I have nothing against being paid; I'm just not paid.

As for Obama being a "usurper." He was elected 69 million votes to 59 million votes. He received 375 votes in the Electoral College. Birthers and two-fers tried to get the electors to change their votes with allegations of birth outside the USA and allegations that Obama's father affected Natural Born Citizen status. Not one vote changed. Same at the confirmation by Congress. Again birthers and two-fers contacted the members of Congress asking that they vote against Obamas' confirmation. Not one did.

The reason is that there is solid proof of Obama being born in Hawaii, his official birth certificate was confirmed twice by the two top officials of the DoH of Hawaii, who are members of a Republican governor's administration. And the consensus of Constitutional scholars is overwhelming that a US citizen who was born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen.

With all due respect:... (Below threshold)
ShawnF:

With all due respect:
Firstly, I enjoy most of your writing Jay. I shouldn't have been so confrontational before but I am certain of the failing of your position. Mick has, as far as I can tell, been civil (like you mentioned in the article it is hard to focus that much on such a detailed argument).
That being said, you and the others who are arguing for why Obama should be left alone in this regard are every bit as pedantic (except for the cussing) and tedious. It's not fair to put that all on him.
Also, I hope that none of you who feel that the issue should be dropped ever sit on a jury. I desperately hope that you never sit on a jury for someone like Roman Polanski.
The resolution to this issue is moot - I agree. The ship has sailed and there's no use in wishing him away. However, there is quite a bit of validity in pursuing the issue.

There is something really, really wrong with this picture and I want to know what the hell it is. I agree that it is highly unlikely that we could get him out of office - it is a pipe dream. However, it is extremely important to know exactly what kind of fraud or crime may be taking place. Am I paranoid for thinking that it is likely that something illegal is happening? It is the most likely scenario. There are too many lies from that camp.

Oyster:
"Another way to put it, as you said, Jay, while we try to steer "birthers" in a direction that would better utilize that energy, the left uses people like Mick and others as a tool to paint the entire right as kooks."

I see your point, but I do not agree. They will call anyone that opposes them 'racist' regardless. Many people are discussing the issue of the failure of the Republican party as being 'Democrat light' simply because they are wishy-washy and cower against the verbal abuse that the Left will throw. Again, I (or anyone who does not fall in line with their authority) will be called Racist, Ignorant, Hateful, Hypocritical, etc.

I still wouldn't think of myself as a "birther" though. I do believe that there is something awful that is being withheld that WOULD deny him the ability to hold the office. I am not obsessed by it and I spend most of my time trying to learn about history and how/why we are here (I have been asleep on the subject until now). The issue is not a dead one though. There are many details (hard to find, but they do exist) that indicate that this man is not who he says he is. There are few, if any, facts that support the concept of his identity. Was he born in Hawaii - I believe he certainly was. But... what do we know about who he is? There is something really wrong here. I do not know what it is. I do not know or believe that I know that there is something specific regarding his birth certificate. I agree entirely that the concept of "natural born citizen" is an important one and if it has not been established legally yet then it should.

Shawn

I think I should shut up on this now. I'm surprised I even weighed in here. I find my own opinions tedious so you don't have to even go there.

"158. Posted by ShawnF"... (Below threshold)
astonerii:

"158. Posted by ShawnF"

Pretty much covers my concerns. Its rotten to the core, we cannot do anything about it today, but if we never allow ourselves to find out the truth, we are just asking to allow history to repeat itself.

I am surely not as ready as... (Below threshold)
Mick:

I am surely not as ready as you all are to give up on the constitution. The MSM and the D Party and the R Party can call me what they wish, but as far as i have seen none of them have an argument that disproves me. For anyone to say that our USC is based on British Common Law is just silly. To think that the founders of this country would have thought anchor babies could become POTUS is doubly silly. I do not accept all encompassing statements like "the majority of Constitutional experts say..." or "everyone says...". NO ONE has proved me wrong here, and I hope that some people have learned and will become part of the critical mass needed to oust the Usurper from office

Mick, you're latching on to... (Below threshold)

Mick, you're latching on to the political equivalent of the "smoke" theory of electronics or the "sand makes ice" argument.

We are well past the point where your arguments could do a damned bit of good, and well into the point where your triumph would cause tremendous harm.

But you don't want to address that. Instead, you want to just keep bleating your intricately-researched and obsessively-maintained arguments -- despite a complete lack of interest by the vast majority of the audience.

You're talking one language, I'm talking another, and you're crowing about "victory" when you've only chosen to fight on one battlefield -- and NOT the one established in my original article. Instead, you keep reinforcing my point about the utter futility of attempting to discuss reality with you and your fellow conspiracy theory adherents. "Reality," as in "how the real world works, and what would happen if you were -- by some astonishing miracle -- to win your argument and get Obama disqualified as president."

Short version, repeated because you are such a believer in "if I keep saying things over and over again, people might believe me:" a massive political power struggle that will utterly consume the entire nation at a time when we have serious crises going on. Whole factions backing Joe Biden (vice-president who would take over upon the removal of the president), Nancy Pelosi (if Obama's election is null, so is Biden's, and she's next in line), John McCain (becomes winner of the election by defalt), even Dick Cheney (still legally vice president when the election was nullified, and not Constitutionally banned from staying in office and assuming the presidency upon its vacancy).

And then there's your proposed solution, where Congress appoints a president.

Look up the metaphor about teaching pigs to sing. This is one pig that is going far beyond annoyed.

An argument can be made that both our arguments are valid, and of equal worth. But there's only one of us whose name is in the right column, and who has the authority to post articles. And it ain't you.

Feel free to expound your silliness on your own blog, Mick. Or on some other, more conspiracy-minded site. You're a guest here, and your welcome is wearing thin.

J.

The SCOTUS should uphold th... (Below threshold)
Mick:

The SCOTUS should uphold the USC "though the Heavens shall fall". I'm not sure what would happen, but we've been thru worse (Civil War?). If you (we) fail to uphold the USC because of some consequence then you (we) don't deserve it. I believe that there will be a Quo Warranto action brought by Displaced Chrysler dealers (by govt. owned Chrysler) with standing in the DC District. Will the court be of your mind and rule based on the perceived consequences? I don't know. I do know that there will be a whole lotta vettin goin on in the next election, and maybe that will right any wrongs. Maybe Obama won't even run. I do think that you can question his eligibility and his policies at the same time, and there is certainly an effort to wedge the issue and make it an either or proposition, by the MSM and the D party. You should not fall into that trap. The Dual Citizen issue doesn't get play for a reason, because they don't want it to. I appreciate your patience, and this will be my last word on this here (unless you approach it again, and you should).

Oh, my god, Mick, I didn't ... (Below threshold)

Oh, my god, Mick, I didn't get it the first 56 times you repeated your talking points, but now it's finally sunk in on the 57th repetition! It's all so clear now! How could I have been such a fool?

There's a definition of "insanity," Mick, that refers to doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results." I have repeatedly refused to engage you on the minutiae of your legalistic arguments, refuting you on an entirely different level, and yet you keep thinking that if you keep repeating your arcanery, eventually you'll find the magic words to sway me.

Ain't. Gonna. Happen.

I oppose you on grounds that you refuse to address. I wouldn't care if you came down from Mt. Rushmore with tablets engraved with messages from Washington, Jefferson, Jay, and Madison saying that you were correct.

Get. That. Through. Your. Head.

I will NOT engage you on your chosen grounds. I established the groundwork with my initial article, and will NOT leave that battlefield to play in your chosen sandbox.

J.

" "158. Posted by ShawnF"</... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

" "158. Posted by ShawnF"

"Pretty much covers my concerns."

yep.

" Its rotten to the core,"

yep.

"we cannot do anything about it today,"

yep.

"but if we never allow ourselves to find out the truth, we are just asking to allow history to repeat itself."

yep.

"159. Posted by astonerii | February 10, 2010 4:51 PM"

Scrolling down is like read... (Below threshold)
914:

Scrolling down is like reading "War and Peace", for cryin out loud!

Anyway's.. Last tag!!

So 0zero's a (united States... (Below threshold)

So 0zero's a (united States Constitutionally-defined) natural born American.

So far so good.

So why have he, his minders and his TelePrompTer loaders spent around Three Million Dollars -- and counting -- to defend against his spending Fifteen Dollars on an original Certification of his Natural Born American Birth?

Surely got me hanging!

And that's long long long before we get to the bizarre lengths to which the creepy bugger's gang has resorted to also secrete his kindergarten records through those of his present day -- and to lie and shuck and jive about his radical, treasonous, terrorist and various other un-and-anti-American associations.

Which brings me to the simple position that while the coke-headed sail-eared simpleton, the world's most dangerous-ever dullard, the marijuana-mumbling, mobbed-up Mussolini-modeled modified-Marxist murtadd-Muslim multiple-mummy's milquetoast pathologically- prevaricating pretender may be your "president," Mr and/or Ms Jay Tea -- he sure as hell is not mine.

And on nothing more nor less than just the strength of his post-January 20 2009 actions and activities?

Just as surely as Hell is not America's!

Brian Richard Allen
Lost Angels - Califobambicated 90028
And the Very Far Abroad

Mr. Allen, that three milli... (Below threshold)

Mr. Allen, that three million or so is chump change when you consider the return on that investment. Look how many truly passionate opponents have sunk so much energy into this birth certificate wild goose chase. Imagine if those people had put their energies into places they could actually make a difference.

Three million dollars for these results? Cheap at ten times the price.

J.

Three million dollars! LO... (Below threshold)
Chilidog:

Three million dollars! LOL LOL LOL

every single legal chalenge mounted by birthers has been laughed out of court.

How much do birthers think that it costs for a lawyer to file a motion to dismiss? (most of the lawsuits didn't even name president Obama as a defendant.)

I love it. Next week you will be posting that he spent 7 million dollars. How much will it be in April? $1 billion?

LOL

BTW, at least one of the lawsuits was dismissed with prejudice and the plaintifs were ordered to pay the defendant's legal costs.

Re: "to defend against his ... (Below threshold)
smrstrauss:

Re: "to defend against his spending Fifteen Dollars on an original Certification of his Natural Born American Birth? "

First, as noted several times above, Obama hasn't spent any large sum. In addition, as has not been noted, the lawsuits were not for the birth certificate; they were mainly to stop the election or stop the Electoral College from voting or stop the Inauguration.

However, you say that Obama has spent the money on lawsuits to protect against showing the original birth certificate. He has shown the OFFICIAL birth certificate, which was the one that Hawaii sent him in 2007, and it is the one that Hawaii sends to everyone these days. Hawaii no longer issues copies of the original birth certificate. (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html).

However, the short-form Certification of Live Birth is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and when it says on it "born in Hawaii" (as Obama's does), it is accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department and the branches of the US military.

The Wall Street Journal commented: "Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn."

(Quote Begings) "The theory... (Below threshold)
-S-:

(Quote Begings) "The theory Mick puts forth is that Obama, by virtue of his father's non-American citizenship at the time of his birth, is not Constitutionally eligible to serve as president. Obama is not, by the ancient definition, not a "natural-born" American, but merely a "natural" American." (Quote Ends).

My Comments:

JayTea, "Mick" is correct as you've iterated it there.

People in general are irritated when anyone so much as TRIES to respond or comment on any statements about it.

And as much as I like Breitbart, his snarl at the Tea Party was embarrassingly stupid, as he yelled to Farah (who'd spoken there about this issue), "prove it!" (as to Obama's eligibility, etc.).

It's not up to any citizen to prove the eligibility of any candidate for the Presidency, it's the candidate's responsibility.

And so far, Obama has not proven his eligibility. Though Congress certified the election...this issue implies gross misconduct by Congress (all, both parties) so I tend to think everyone party-oriented is demeaning this issue because the implications, if the eligibility issue is proven fraudulent, would be just monstrously damaging to both parties.

"Natural born" is one of th... (Below threshold)
-S-:

"Natural born" is one of the Constitution's requirements for anyone to be President of the U.S.A.

To be a citizen, to be at least 37 years old (I think it's 37), to have lived IN the U.S. x-number of years prior to candidacy, AND TO BE NATURAL BORN.

Natural born is not synonymous with being a citizen and vice-versa.

There exists reams of documents used as references for a long time now by Constitutionalists in and out of the government that all define "natural born" as a citizen who is born to a father who is a U.S. citizen and in some cases, to both parents who are.

In Obama's case, his declare father was not a U.S. citizen and his mother was 17 at the time of his birth and was, thus, not of age at which she could confer by her own any "natural born" status on Obama if his alleged Hawaii birth is legitimate in a Constitutional sense.

Obama has just squeaked into the Presidency, the Constitution has been defiled and everyone associated with him knows it. That's what I've concluded.

Suzy, you know I love ya, b... (Below threshold)

Suzy, you know I love ya, but I'm gonna go after you a little here. I still love ya.

"If you strike against a king, be sure to kill him." You're breaking that rule a couple of times here.

First up, it's 35 years old and 14 years resident. If you're going to argue the minutiae of presidential qualifications, you really oughta make certain you have all your facts in a row.

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.

If you're gonna argue about the meaning of the first clause, you damage your credibility if you don't know the actual wording of the rest of it.

And Suzy, I never argued once the details that Mick brought up. Instead, I argued other approaches: the sheer repugnance of the notion that there are stratified classes of Americans born here, of legal parents (and at least one American citizen), the notion that the age of his mother is relevant to "how much" of an American he is (if he's "American enough" to be president), and the the notion that there's no real remedy to the situation that would not cause huge, huge problems far, far worse than what we face now.

I ain't interested in that fight, for numerous reasons I've repeated time again, and I ain't about to change.

Sorry.

Still love ya, but I ain't going along with this one.

J.




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