Sunday, December 18, 2011

Did Putative President, Barack Obama, At the Behest of Malcolm X, His Alleged Biological Father, Live with Then-Indonesian President Sukarno When He Was a Young Boy?

Did Putative President, Barack Obama, At the Behest of Malcolm X, His Alleged Biological Father, Live with Then-Indonesian President Sukarno When He Was a Young Boy?


                                                By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                  December 18, 2011

Martha Trowbridge has published another article on putative President, Barack Obama, whose real name she contends is Bâri′ M. Shabazz. This article is entitled, “Obama History” Mystery Buffs: Sniff Here,” and can be accessed at http://terribletruth.wordpress.com/2011/12/18/obama-history-mystery-buffs-sniff-here/.
Ms. Trowbridge maintains that in 1961, when Bâri′ was just two years old, Malcolm X, Obama’s biological father, decided that it was in the best interest of little Bâri′ that he be sent off to Indonesia to be raised by Indonesian President, Sukarno. She adds that while the decision was painful for her to make, Jo Ann Newman, Bâri′’s biological mother, agreed for the sake of honoring Malcolm X’s wish that becoming part of Sukarno’s family was the best thing for her son, Bâri′.

She cites and quotes “Obama” saying that he moved to Southeast Asia at age two. She contends that in an AP interview entitled, Harvard Student Tackles Racism At Core, published May 3, 1990, “Obama” stated that he moved to Southeast Asia “[a]t age 2.”

Ms. Trowbridge explains why Malcolm X would have picked Sukarno to be a surrogate father to his son. Malcolm X idolized Sukarno, having a deep respect and admiration for the first President of Indonesia, a socialist revolutionary who rid Indonesia of its white Dutch oppressors. He could also offer Bâri′ things that he would not get back home living in East Elmhurst, NY with his mother, Jo Ann Newman. Some of those benefits included gaining a stand-in father, living in a presidential palace, good education, Moslem religious instruction, learning the local language and leadership skills, and living in a nation free from the racism of America. Sending little Bâri′ off to Indonesia also served Malcolm’s need to hide from the world that he, a black Moslem minister who preached hatred for whites, fathered a child with a white woman.

She lays out what Sukarno’s political, social, and economic policies were and concludes that Obama’s are not that much different today. These policies included, among other things, “guided democracy,” nationalization of major industries, and constituting a civilian army for the nation.

Ms. Trowbridge explains how Sukarno started losing power in October 1965 and that Army Major General Suharto eventually replaced him on March 12, 1967, becoming the new president. Bâri′ was 6 years old in 1965.

The question then is what happened to Bâri′? How and when did he make his way back to the United States? Where did he go? Did he really arrive in Hawaii? When did he arrive? With whom did he live? Why has Obama told us that he lived in Indonesia from age 6 to 10 when it looks like it was probably age 2 to 6?  I hope that Ms. Trowbridge will provide answers to these and other questions in her future articles.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
December 18, 2011
Amended December 19, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved



169 comments:

Robert said...

The fundamental point is that we just don't know much about the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Trowbridge could very well have discovered the truth. However, the door is still wide open for a lot of theories.

What we do know for certain is

1. That Obama has never presented any prima facia documentation of his parentage, place of birth, or nationality.

2. There are a lot of highly placed individuals who are well aware of and even complicit in Obama's fraud.

Regarding item 1: Even if such evidence exists, there is no reason to believe that it is exculpatory. In any case, Mr. Obama's decision to withhold it violates his responsibility under Amendment 20 to "qualify" for the office he currently usurps.

He is also disqualified by the felonious presentation of forged birth documents, use of an altered selective service registration, and multiple social security numbers not issued to him.

Regarding item 2: We need to find out who these people are and why they're involved. Why did they pick Obama?

Then we need to bring all of these perpetrators to justice and reestablish our Constitution and the rule of law.

Perhaps a professional investigator reading this column could give us some tips on how to root out the people behind the scenes and shine the light on their dirty work.

Obama is not the only person subject to legal action. If we go after the agents on the fringes sooner or later one will crack and Obama's whole house of cards will tumble down - including the puppet masters in the penthouse.

Joe said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

I tried to contact you about mounting a ballot challenge in in the State of MS. I believe the deadline is Jan 24th to file. So time is short and I am anxious to learn if you would consider doing the case. I understand you are a very busy person with probably 20 projects going on of your own. I would sincerely appreciate it if you would give the idea a thought and let me know as soon as you can if this is something you might be interested in.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

jd
901 496 1771
jdirt42@gmail.com

Puzo1 said...

For some reason, Dr. Conspiracy wants to make sure that we all know that Obama was 6 years old when he moved to Indonesia, not 2 years old.

Responding to Martha Trowbridge’s article, “Obama History” Mystery Buffs: Sniff Here,” accessed at http://terribletruth.wordpress.com/2011/12/18/obama-history-mystery-buffs-sniff-here/ , Dr. Conspiracy has written an article he calls, “Math anomalies in new article, accessed at his blog, http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/12/math-anomalies-in-new-article/#comments. He states:

“Looking at the actual newspaper article, the material in quote is not said by Barack Obama, but rather the article writer. The context is supposedly the age at which Obama went to Indonesia. The actual words of the article say “at age 2 when his parents divorced.” The date of the Obama divorce is known, and so it wouldn’t work for him to have really been two years (instead of 6) when we went to Indonesia. The article just made a mistake. The whole birther movement is a mistake.”

First, Dr. Conspiracy knows somehow that the AP writer made a mistake.

Second, what is more bizarre is how Dr. Conspiracy, a mathematician, does his math. Obama says he was born on August 4, 1961. Dr. Conspiracy says that the date of the divorce is known. Yes, we know that date to be March 20, 1964, when the Hon. Samuel P. King filed and entered in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit Court of the State of Hawaii, under docket number 57972, a Decree of Divorce divorcing Stanley Ann Dunham from Barack Obama Sr. But if we do the math, on March 20, 1964, Obama, born as he says on August 4, 1961, would have been 2 years old. Even if we use the date of birth of October 28, 1959, which Ms. Trowbridge says is Obama’s (his real name being Bâri′ M. Shabazz”) real date of birth, Obama would have been 4 years old.

So how does Dr. Conspiracy get that Obama would have been 6 years old when the Dunham-Obama divorce occurred which is also the time that he would have moved to Indonesia? Why does Dr. Conspiracy want Obama to be 6 years old rather than 2 years old when he moved to Indonesia?

SaipanAnnie said...

Mr. Apuzzo:

They need to keep his age at six to preclude the possibility that the truth about his stay at Sukarno's Palace is revealed.

If BHO was 6, and born in 1961, when he went to Indonesia, he doesn't arrive until AFTER Sukarno has been removed from power!

And who could possibly say he grew up with Sukarno??

But guess what? Game's over.

People who were there, who knew him as the American kid who grew up with the Sukarno children are coming out of the woodwork.

The Obama Campaign thought that presenting him under a different identity would also preclude recognition.

What fools.

cfkerchner said...

I believe the reason has to do with Obama's citizenship status upon being adopted. As I recall, the Hague Convention treaties covering the citizenship status of children in international adoptions has different rules for an adopted child age 6 and older than one age 5 and under. Thus the Obots want Obama to have been at least 6 when he moved to Indonesia and was alleged adopted there to be able to go to school because it likely is more advantageous to their arguments as to the debate as to whether Obama became an Indonesian citizen under international law and lost his U.S. Citizenship, upon his adoption by his Indonesian step father.

smrstrauss said...

Robert said:

"...Obama has never presented any prima facia documentation of his parentage, place of birth, or nationality.'

Actually, he has. He has shown his Hawaii birth certificate, which states right on it that it is prima facia proof of the facts on the document, that he was born in Hawaii in 1961. And the facts on Obama's birth certificate were confirmed by three Republican (and several Democrat) officials in Hawaii, and Obama's birth in Hawaii is further confirmed by the birth notices that appeared in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961.

(The notices were sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii. They were not advertising--Hawaii newspapers did not run birth notice ads in 1961--they only took their birth notices from the Hawaii government, which did not send out notices for births outside of Hawaii.)

MichaelN said...

Mario and those who are interested.

Here is a really good source of researched information on 'natural born Citizen' and Obama.

http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

MichaelN said...

Here's some more interesting points from .......

http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm#ref18

"In 1541, Parliament passed a naturalization act which, for the first time, granted "Englishman" status to foreign-born children of English parents. Children which were born abroad, of English fathers, shall be:

...from henceforth reputed and taken king's natural subject as lawful persons born within the Realm of England. (Statute 33 Henry VIII c.25, as quoted by Kim (2000), p.158)

The Naturalization Act of 1541 did not change the definition of "natural subject".

You were an actual natural subject only if you were a lawful person born on English soil.

Parliament merely decreed that the foreign-born children of English fathers shall be "reputed and taken" to be natural subjects.

In other words, such children shall be deemed natural subjects by law, even though they were not natural subjects in fact.

In 1604, Parliament decided that English-born children of alien parents are not Englishmen by birth. Such children are "denizens" (Englishmen by law):

'To place the Children, born within this Realm, of foreign Parents, in Degree for the first Birth or Descent only, as Aliens made Denizens, and not otherwise.'
(House of Commons Journal, Volume 1, 21 April 1604)

Later in English history, the word "denizen" would apply only to persons who became English subjects by letters patent issued by the king.

But in 1604, a "denizen" was any person who acquired English subjecthood by artificial means, whether by Parliament or the king.

English-born children of alien parents were denizens.

Such denizens were deemed natural-born subjects by law, but were not natural-born subjects in fact.

Denizens had to pay aliens' duties; English-born children of English parents did not. (See Question 23: English-born children of alien parents).

By the time Calvin's Case was decided in 1608, aliens' rights had already been curtailed.

Aliens could no longer possess English real estate, other than a house or apartment for personal habitation.

The English-born children of alien parents were no longer Englishmen by birth; such children were denizens.

As a general rule, one's personal status at birth -- whether subject, alien or denizen -- was no longer determined by birthplace alone; it also depended on the allegiance of one's parents at the time of one's birth."

Robert said...

smrstrauss,

The only documents that Mr. Obama has produced and presented for examination are proven forgeries which have only been released for examination as electronic files. The initial birth certificate appeared in more than one version on several websites. No source document was ever provided for any of the images.

The certificate that he put online last April was seen as a fake immediately and proven to be fake in less than 15 minutes. The paper document associated with the April electronic release was flashed around at a meeting, but no one was allowed to take it in hand and examine it.

The only person who has claimed to have held the actual original document in hand, Janet Fukino former director of the HDOH, described it as half written and half typed. We have yet to see a document or computer image that matches this description.

Tim Adams, former Hawaii elections official has signed an affidavit declaring that Hawaii has no birth documents for Mr. Obama.

Hawaii Governor Abercrombie promised that he would find Obama's birth certificate and end the controversy. He ended up telling a friend that he couldn't find any documents and promptly hid behind the ruse of privacy. I say "ruse" because Mr. Obama legally relinquished all such privacy claims by publicly releasing the information and of course by claiming the office of POTUS which according to Amendment XX requires disclosure and confirmation of qualifications prior to occupancy.

There are many questions about the newspaper articles that have not been answered. They are also questionable because they declare an address at which the Obama's never lived. In any case, they are not legal proof of birth in Hawaii even if partly true.

However, for the sake of moving things along, I am willing to accept all of the documents and newspaper articles in dispute as absolutely true.

For starters, if we accept them as fact, they prove that Obama was not born at either Kapi'olani Medical Center or Queens Medical Center. Perhaps that's why neither hospital claims to have ever had Stanley Ann Dunham/Obama or her son as a patient.

Be that as it may, Obama's place of birth is not important because of the following proof provided by the documents in which you have placed your trust. They prove that Mr. Obama was born under British jurisdiction via his British/Kenyan father.

This proof establishes that Mr. Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by our Constitution for the office of POTUS and as confirmed and defined as binding legal precedent by the Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett and as accepted by Mr. Obama and the Senate in SR511.

We may never see Obama's original birth certificate or newspaper listing.

However, we can see our Constitution, Minor v Happersett, SR511 and tons of documentation confirming that a natural born citizen is properly defined as one born in the country to citizen parents (plural).

We can also see without question that Mr. Obama's life narrative does not fit this definition.

smrstrauss said...

Robert said:

"The only documents that Mr. Obama has produced and presented for examination are proven forgeries which have only been released for examination as electronic files. The initial birth certificate appeared in more than one version on several websites. No source document was ever provided for any of the images."

The FACTS are that a number of anti-Obama and nutcase "experts" claimed that there was something wrong with Obama's birth certificate. They did not "prove" it. They were hardly impartial sources.

There are a lot of other experts who say that there is nothing wrong with Obama's birth certificate. However, the most important fact, which you have simply ignored, is that it is HAWAII that is the legal expert on whether its birth certificate is forged or not, and if Hawaii does not take action then as far as the law is concerned the birth certificate is valid.

And, as I am sure you know, Hawaii has never said that Obama's birth certificate is forged, or that there is anything wrong with it, or that it differs in any way from what Hawaii sent to Obama.

This fits with the fact that THREE Republican officials in Hawaii (and several Democrats) have confirmed the facts on Obama's birth certificate, and I can show you every citation for that. In addition to these officials there is another unnamed official, the clerk who filled out the form that generated the short-form birth certificate. She or he got the facts that were entered from the document in the files, that is how the system works.

smrstrauss said...

Continuing:

These experts say that there is nothing wrong with Obama's birth certificate:

http://gratewire.com/topic/tea-party-conservative-refutes-claims-of-obama-birth-certificate-forgery

And:

Dr. Neil Krawetz, an imaging software analysis author and experienced examiner of questioned images, said: “The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious.”

Nathan Goulding with The National Review: “We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it. … I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.”

John Woodman, independent computer professional, said in a series of videos that the claims of fakery that he examined were unfounded.

Ivan Zatkovich, who has testified in court as a technology expert, and consultant to WorldNetDaily: "All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document."

In fact, no real expert has called Obama's birth certificate a forgery.

Although I know only about some of the "experts" that have claimed that there is something wrong with Obama's birth certificate, their background is worth mentioning. One claims to have found the original altar of Abraham (want to see the citation?) and another has said that Obama did not attend Columbia (despite the fact that Columbia says that he did).

In short, you can continue to dream about Obama's birth certificate being forged, but there are no facts to back up the allegation. The MAIN reason that Obama's birth certificate is not forged, of course, is that there is no reason to do so, since he was born in Hawaii.

The idea that he was born in some place other than Hawaii, despite the birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials and the notices in the Hawaii newspapers (which were sent to the papers by the Hawaii government) is laughable. That and the Kenyan grandmother saying in the taped interview that he was born IN HAWAII (and in another interview saying that the first that Obama's family had heard of Obama's birth was in a letter from Hawaii).

In addition to all the above, there is a witness who recalls being told of Obama's birth (by the head of obstetrics at Kapiolani Hospital, not by the doctor who delivered him) in 1961 and WRITING HOME ABOUT IT. Why? Because her father's name was Stanley, and she wrote about a birth in Hawaii to her father who also was named Stanley.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "Tim Adams, former Hawaii elections official has signed an affidavit declaring that Hawaii has no birth documents for Mr. Obama."

Perhaps you did not know. If you don't believe, I can show you the citation, that the Hawaii election commission does not have access to birth certificate records.

Tim Adams is a member of a White Supremacist organization, and he is lying in his affidavit. He filed it in a case that was thrown out, so there is no danger to him that he will be charged with perjury. He, like the guy who claimed to have gotten Obama's "birth certificate" in Kenya (but who refused to show that he had gone to Kenya) is a LIAR.

Moreover, Tim Adams' actual statement was that "everyone knew" that there was no such birth certificate, and that he had been told this by other members of the Election Commission. But not one of them has substantiated this claim.

In contrast, THREE Republican officials (Fukino, Okada and the former governor) have said that there indeed is a birth certificate, and two of them made the statement IN WRITING at a time when a CONSERVATIVE Republican was the attorney general of Hawaii--meaning that they knew that if they lied there would be a good chance of them being prosecuted.

In addition to these three, there is the current head of the DOH of Hawaii, who stated in a letter (repeated in the press release of Hawaii; want to see the two citations?) that she had seen the long-form birth certificate in the process of being copied onto security paper, and that the copy was accurate.

In addition to the image of the birth certificate, there is--of course--also a physical copy. In fact, Obama has shown both the physical copy of the short-form birth certificate (which is shown front and back, with a detailed picture of the seal) on FactCheck' site (You may not like FactCheck, but the idea that it could have forged such a detailed image is absurd). And the physical copy of the long-form birth certificate (the one on security paper, with the seal) was handed around in the White House press room, and everyone there got a chance to hold it, examine it, and feel the seal. One even photographed it.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "There are many questions about the newspaper articles that have not been answered."

Answer: They are not articles; they are birth NOTICES, sent to the newspapers by the Hawaii government, and only done for births IN Hawaii, not for births outside of Hawaii. Hawaii newspapers did not take birth notice ads in 1961, nor did they take notices from anyone other than the government.

Re: "They are also questionable because they declare an address at which the Obama's never lived."

Answer: The address was the residence of Obama's mother's parents. And it is perfectly legal to list a mail address or a temporary address on a birth certificate. If Obama's mother and father had not yet picked out an apartment, they would of course list the address of Obama's Hawaii parents.

Re: "In any case, they are not legal proof of birth in Hawaii"

Answer. The LEGAL proof is the birth certificate. That is legal proof. The birth notices simply confirm that Obama had a birth certificate in 1961, otherwise the Hawaii government would not have sent birth notices to the newspapers.

Re: "I am willing to accept all of the documents and newspaper articles in dispute as absolutely true."

Answer: Good, they are, and they confirm that Obama received a birth certificate from the Hawaii government in 1961.

Re: "if we accept them as fact, they prove that Obama was not born at either Kapi'olani Medical Center or Queens Medical Center. "

Answer: That is absurd. The long-form birth certificate says right on it that he was born in Kapiolani. That is also what Obama said, and his sister said (she was misquoted once, apparently by UPI, but she always said Kapiolani) and the former governor of Hawaii said and the current governor of Hawaii said, and as the letter from Obama to Kapiolani Hospital said, and that was published on the Web site of Kapiolani Hospital. But most importantly, THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE SAID KAPIOLANI.

RE: "neither Hospital claims to have ever had Stanley Ann Dunham/Obama or her son as a patient.'

Answer. I was not aware that hospitals go around claiming that the mother's of presidents were their patients. Did you see such a claim for Bush's parents? Clinton's? Reagan's? And besides, under HIPPA, hospitals cannot disclose patient data. Kapiolani Hospital, however, did publish Obama's letter in which he stated that he was born there.

Robert said...

smrstrauss,
Okay, you win! Obama, by virtue of the documents you have clearly proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be true and accurate, is not eligible to be President of the United States.

The documents you so ferociously defend show that he was born to a British/Kenyan subject under British jurisdiction and subject to the British nationality act. He was not born under sole jurisdiction of and allegiance to the United States to two US citizen parents.

Our Constitution requires that the President be a natural born citizen which has been defined by our history and confirmed and secured as binding legal precedent by our Supreme Court as one born in the country to citizen parents.

So, now that our little argument is over, will you join the patriots of this nation in removing an illegal usurper from our White House?

smrstrauss said...

Re: "They prove that Mr. Obama was born under British jurisdiction via his British/Kenyan father."

So you accept the validity of the Hawaii long-form birth certificate? Good, because it is valid. Hawaii sent it to Obama, and it was passed around in the White House press room, and all the reporters there got a chance to hold it, examine it, and feel the seal on the back. One even photographed it.

The allegation that a parent's citizenship affects Natural Born status is also absurd. It is a birther DREAM. If it were true, than at least one of the 600 or so electors in the US Electoral College would have noticed it. Not one said anything about Obama not being eligible, much less change their votes to vote against.

If it were true, than at least one of the 535 members of Congress would have noticed it. Not one said anything about Obama not being eligible, much less vote against his confirmation.

If it were true, than the Chief Justice of the United States would not have sworn in Obama. If it were true, then the US Supreme Court would have taken at least one of the birther cases, instead of turning down every one.

If it were true than at least one of justices in the US Supreme Court would have asked Obama's lawyers to answer the brief of the plaintiffs in the birther case. But the Supreme Court never even asked for Obama to reply to the briefs of the other side.

IT is not true. The meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers only to the place of birth, not to the parents.

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President...."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

SaipanAnnie said...

smrstrauss:

From your extensive posts, I sense it is safe to assume you are as weary of the birth issue as we are, yes?

What do you suggest as a means of fair resolution?

smrstrauss said...

Re: "What do you suggest as a means of fair resolution?"

To treat Obama like George Bush, Bill Clinton and FDR, all of whom were born in the USA but did not prove it.

To accept that when the US Congress confirms and the US Electoral College elects a person as president, without a single member stating that there was a constitutional issue, that the person who was elected is the US president and that the "eligibility issue" is a fantasy.

To vote against him in the next election, if you desire, based on any reason or no reason, but not to try to stir up nuts with guns who actually might believe the fantasy that Obama actually was born outside of the USA or the legal myth that Natural Born Citizen refers to parents and not the place of birth.

Mick said...

Ah SMRStraus rears his treasonous head again. Are you an amalgamation of Obama Internet opertives or is that the moniker you must use when you "punch in"? Anyway, I guess you and you band of Bootlicker Bridgetenders are gearing up for the election. Are you ready for the onslaught of Challenges in State Primary and general elections that give absolute standing to Citizen Voters who challenge Obama's eligibility?
Until you can refute Minor v. Happersett you have nothing, and you can't refute it, since it is truth. So go on obfuscating, lying amd otherwise selling your soul. Those of us that have been awake are armed w/ the truth, which is acid in the face of a liar.

bdwilcox said...

Just so everyone's aware, smrstrauss is one of the most prodigious Obots on the net and most likely a paid misinformation agent. He will obfuscate, dodge, weave, prevaricate and make outrageously unfounded claims like he's made here all in the effort to persuade people who actually know what a natural born citizen is both legally and historically.

smrstrauss, go peddle your pablum and lying diatribes with people who might be fooled by your sophistry. Too bad Obama started all this "birther nonsense" with the Senate investigation of John McCain's NBC status and SR511. Now he and his soulless henchmen like yourself will have to live with it. Tsk, tsk. You also seem to forget the other presidents like Eisenhower who were challenged on their NBC status and had to prove it. But I guess your guy gets a pass because of the color of his skin, eh? Is that not the very definition of a racist?

Oh, and the only "nuts with guns" I've seen were Obama's BATFE agents as they handed them over to Mexican drug cartels.

Robert said...

smrstrauss,
Actually I was just conceding that arguing with you about the validity of Obama's documents is pointless. They are clearly fraudulent even to the eyes of an amateur. That you haven't found legitimate expert testimony available proving this indicates only that you need a little more experience with Google.

I was willing to concede his fraudulent documentation because of the fact already stipulated by Obama that he was born under British jurisdiction. This fact alone precludes him from being a natural born citizen and from qualifying for the office of POTUS.

We are not subject to British common law. We fought two wars over that.

"Natural born citizen" is a legal term of art derived from natural law and the law of nations; not from English Common Law. Its meaning is one born in the country to citizen parents.

This term was used by our founders who understood this meaning as a measure to ensure our national security. Its use is also the reason that the grandfather clause was necessary.

The meaning of this term was further recognized and established as binding legal precedent by the Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett, 1875.

It was later used by Mr. Obama and the Senate (sans McCain)when Obama sponsored SR511. Please note that in this case Obama specifically emphasized the citizenship of McCain's parents while minimizing his place of birth.

I will be really impressed to see the copy of the letter you wrote Mr. Obama to tell him how absurd it was for him to even mention the citizenship of McCain's parents in the Senate resolution.

Really!? To assert that the term "natural born citizen" has nothing to do with the citizenship of the parents is what is absurd. It has everything to do with the citizenship of the parents and the child's place of birth. Claims to the contrary are unfounded in our law and patently ridiculous.

Spend some time researching US Law, Natural Law, and the Law of Nations. Then show me the US citizenship laws pertaining to a newborn that have nothing to do with the parents.

SaipanAnnie said...

Gentlemen:

Obviously there are years of anger on both sides of this issue. And on both sides, justification for the anger. But if we are ever to come together as a country, we must learn to resolve our differences peaceably. The alternative is unspeakably horrid.

Smrstrauss has fairly called for caution against stirring up those who would resolve their anger by violence.

SaipanAnnie said...

Gentlemen:

Obviously there are years of anger on both sides of this issue. And on both sides, justification for the anger. But if we are ever to come together as a country, we must learn to resolve our differences peaceably. The alternative is unspeakably horrid.

Smrstrauss has fairly called for caution against stirring up those who would resolve their anger by violence.

MichaelN said...

SMRSTRAUSS said:
"The meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers only to the place of birth, not to the parents."

Garbage!

Even in the English common law case (that the Wong Kim Ark court relied on)Lord Coke in his report of Calvin's case, states that it is ESSENTIAL that the parent father be a 'subject' for his child, if born in England, to be a 'natural born subject'.

Lord Coke even stated that there were TWO essential qualities required to make a 'natural born'.

Quoting Lord Coke - Calvin's case:

"Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized by procreation and birth right,"

"that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject,"

"There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.
1. That THE PARENTS be under the actual obedience of the king.
2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion. And
3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered;"

Given the founders duty and imperative to secure the office of POTUS from any foreign influence and claim and given the PROFOUND INFLUENCE the writings and principles Vattel had on the founders, it is OBVIOUS the term 'natural born Citizen' was DELIBERATELY chosen in lieu of 'native born Citizen' as a means to describe a person with the highest imaginable faith, loyalty, dedication and allegiance to the new found republic nation and their parents.
It is absolutely absurd to suggest that the founders were derelict in their duty and imperative and also absurd to suggest they chose 'natural' with the intention for it to mean 'native'.

.

Mick said...

More on SMRstrauss:

http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2010/12/update-obot-smrstrauss-links-are-being.html

Mick said...

More on smrstrauss:

http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2010/03/smrstrauss-total-reveal-their-tangled.html

smrstrauss said...

Mick said:

“Until you can refute Minor v. Happersett you have nothing, and you can't refute it, since it is truth.”

Answer: There is no need to refute Minor v. Happersett. I can refute that it was a ruling that two citizen parents are required. The Minor v. Happersett ruling did not say that two citizen parents are required. A birther lawyer or two said that Minor v. Happersett said it Well, it didn’t.

The first and most obvious way to show that it didn’t is to point out that IF Minor v. Happersett had said what you think it said, then surely one of Obama’s opponents in the primaries, or John McCain would have pointed it out (or are they all part of the plot?)

IF Minor v. Happersett had said what you think it said, then surely one of the 600 or so members of the US Electoral College (who birthers had asked to change their votes in a letter writing campaign) would have pointed it out (or are they all part of the plot?)

IF Minor v. Happersett had said what you think it said, then surely one of the members of the US Congress, who confirmed Obama’s election UNANIMOUSLY, including Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann would have pointed out that fact and voted against Obama’s election (or are they all part of the plot?) The same, of course, goes for the Chief Justice of the United States, who swore in Obama, or is he part of the plot?

HOWEVER, there is a better way to show that Minor v. Happersett didn’t say it, and that is to quote the FULL Minor v. Happersett passage that birthers quote parts of. They quote parts of it to mislead you. You deserve to read the full section, which is:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

The important sentence, which birthers usually leave out, is the last one. “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” That says that the court DID NOT DECIDE.

To make it absolutely clear, here is an analogy. “It was never doubted, etc, etc, that all persons who wore both suspenders and a belt would have their pants held up. Some authorities go further and include people who wear only a belt or only suspenders. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

Get it? Everybody thought that both birth in the country and citizen parents makes a Natural Born Citizen. Of course it does, anyone who has both has at least one of the requirements. But the ruling DOES NOT say that there are two requirements, only that by having both you are unquestionably a Natural Born Citizen. But then it says that some authorities hold that only one of the criteria is sufficient. AND THEN IT SAYS THAT IT DOES NOT HAVE TO DECIDE.
When you say that lots of people thought X and some people thought Y but “it is not necessary to solve the doubts”–that says that you are not making a decision. The Minor V. Happersett case was not a decision.

smrstrauss said...

Continuing:

If it had been a decision (which it wasn’t), it would have been overturned by the Wong Kim Ark case, which was after Minor and which ruled that EVERY CHILD born in the USA (except for the children of foreign diplomats) is Natural Born.

A Natural Born Citizen is obviously a US citizen who is Natural Born. And Obama, Jindal and Rubio are all Natural Born under the US Supreme Court’s decision in Wong Kim Ark (six to two, one justice not voting) because they all were born in the USA. The citizenship of their parents does not matter. They were born in the USA.

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President….”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]


Re: getting paid and posting a lot. Well, I don’t get paid--—sadly. I wish I did. Lawyers who work for birthers and correspondents and reporters for WND get paid. I don’t. This is simply my hobby.

There is, by the way, nothing wrong with being paid. The writers for WND are paid, and you should look at their “facts” and decide whether or not they are true based on the facts themselves (which are absurd: Obama could not possibly have been born in Kenya or outside of the USA for that matter without there having been proof of that fact). I don’t post very much at all, compared with the birther blogs that appear every day.

smrstrauss said...

I repeat:

"The meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers only to the place of birth, not to the parents."

This is what Blackstone said:

“The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is alien.” http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/

(And the minor exceptions referred to in “generally speaking” refers to the children of foreign diplomats.)

Here is what the US Supreme Court said in Wong Kim Ark:

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

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

That says that the rule of the common law (not Vattel) applies to citizenship in the USA, and it says that every child born in the USA is Natural Born under the common law (except for the children of foreign ambassadors). And what, then is a Natural Born Citizen?

It is a citizen who is Natural Born, born in the USA. That is why there have been court rulings like these:

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.”

Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

“The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”

What makes the third daughter different from the other two children? She was born in the USA.

And there is this case, which birthers chose not to appeal to the federal court system (wonder why????):

“Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural born-born subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [ ] natural-born citizens.”--- Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 NE2d 678, 688 (2009), (Ind.Supreme Court, Apr. 5, 2010)

Greg Goss said...

Mario, you would do yourself and your readers a great service by dumping smrstrauss. He and his wife are from Mass and have been obotting since 08. They were outed a little over a year ago and seemingly diapered but I see they are back. I have also seen recently that their past post are being scrubbed. Just a word of advice. I think it is clear that there is no real contribution so...

smrstrauss said...

Re:

"We are not subject to British common law. We fought two wars over that."

You should read the first constitution of the state of New York, written mainly by John Jay. He was the guy who wrote about Natural Born Citizen in the letter to Washington, and since he was a lawyer there is little doubt that what he was talking about was the common law, which is the law that he learned.

The first Constitution of the state of New York makes the common law of England and the common law applied in the colonies of America the law of New York State unless and until it is replaced by a New York State law.

However, in this case you are right. It is not the common law that applies, it is the MEANING of the common law. Were the writers of the Constitution using Natural Born in the sense of the common law or in the Vattel sense. Well, since they were mainly lawyers and justices, and since Vattel is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers (while the common law is about twenty times), and since there are actual quotations from American leaders at the time of the writing of the Constitution using Natural Born Citizen the common law way, and not the Vattel way, the answer is clear.

Oh and by the way, there is still not a shred of proof that Obama's birth certificate is forged, and I have quoted about five experts who say that it isn't forged, and no official in Hawaii has said that it is forged or that it was changed from what was sent to Obama.

smrstrauss said...

Robert, who does not always think things out fully, has now claimed that Obama FORGED a birth certificate that showed that his father was not a US citizen, hence the document itself allegedly proving that Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen. Notice the logical problem?

In addition to there being experts that say that it was not forged, and the officials in Hawaii who state that the facts on it were accurate, the idea that someone would forge a birth certificate (twice actually, the short-form and the long-form) showing that he was ineligible is, wait for it, illogical. Yet that is the position that Robert holds.

And he holds this position without really believing that Obama was born in any other country than the USA.

If he really believed that Obama was born in a country other than the USA, he would be able to answer how Obama could have gotten from that country to the USA in 1961 without any US travel document and without having been checked into the USA by the US INS.

The fact that no such travel document or application for one or INS check in has been found is in addition to the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers (which were sent to the papers by the Hawaii government), the birth certificate itself, the confirmation of it by three Republican and several Democrat officals, the Kenyan grandmother saying that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter from Hawaii, and there are other proofs.

Since Robert does not say that he believes that Obama was born outside of the USA, and cannot explain the absence of the travel document or the INS check in or the birth certificate and the confirmations and the birth notices, he apparently believes that Obama was born in Hawaii and has a birth certificate from Hawaii, but that Obama forged his Hawaii birth certificate despite these facts—even though it was unnecessary to do so. Well, if he did, no official in Hawaii has said that there is anything different in terms of facts between Obama’s published birth certificate and the birth certificate that was sent to Obama.

I sympathize with Robert. It is good to be passionate about things. But the facts are the facts, and they show overwhelmingly that Obama was born in Hawaii and that his birth certificate is not forged.

MichaelN said...

And more on SMRSTRAUSS

http://roach1958.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/expose-obot-smrstrauss-finally-unmasked/

MichaelN said...

smrstrauss siad:
*my emphasis in upper-case and comments in [ ]*
"Some authorities go further and include as CITIZENS [NOT NATURAL BORN]children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents.
As to THIS CLASS [i.e. the children who have been included as CITIZENS and NOT natural born by some authorities]there have been doubts, but never as to the first.[i.e. the NATURAL BORN CITIZENS]
For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” [ the doubst about those who who are referred to as CITIZENS and NOT natural born]

The important sentence, which birthers usually leave out, is the last one. “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” That says that the court DID NOT DECIDE.
[the court decided that the child of US citizen parents was a 'natural born Citizen', but left in doubt whether a child of an alien was even a 'CITIZEN' (not the natural born)]

To make it absolutely clear, here is an analogy. “It was never doubted, etc, etc, that all persons who wore both suspenders and a belt would have their pants held up. Some authorities go further and include people who wear only a belt or only suspenders. [AS TO THOSE WHO ONLY WEAR A BELT OR A SUSPENDER THERE ARE DOUBTS]For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”[ABOUT THOSE WHO ONLY WEAR A BELT OR SUSPENDER]

Do YOU get it?

Puzo1 said...

smrstrauss,

Your appeal to what someone did or did not do is fallacious reasoning, for it does not prove the merits of anything. How can you even reasonably think that because the persons you have identified (the Electoral College, Congress, Chief Justice Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court) did not take any action against Obama on the “natural born Citizen’ issue proves your point as to what a “natural born Citizen” is? First, other than the courts telling us that they do not have jurisdiction to address the issue, the others have yet to tell us in any official manner why they refuse to address the issue. Second, those persons never addressed the merits of the argument as to what a “natural born Citizen” is or even put forth what their position is as to that meaning. So how can we even know that they addressed the issue or even that their position has any merit? Simply stated, they told us nothing and we therefore know nothing of the soundness of their position, should they have one.

Also, you continue to cite Edwin Meese for the argument that any child born in the United States who is a “citizen of the United States” is also necessarily a “natural born Citizen.” First, Edwin Meese said no such thing. It was James C. Ho who made that statement which was just printed in Mr. Meese’s book. Second, Mr. Ho, like Jack Maskell, is simply wrong. There is no such thing as a “longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli” that the Founders and Framers adopted for the United States. That is pure poppycock. There exists much historical and legal evidence which shows that the Founders and Framers did not adopt such a rule for citizenship in the United States.

Being guided by natural law and the law of nations and specifically by Emer de Vattel and his The Law of Nations, Section 212 et seq., the Founders and Framers in Article II made a clear distinction between a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States.” They, unlike Jack Maskell, did not conflate or confound the two classes of citizens. Only the former, defined as those who were born in the country to citizen parents, were made eligible to be President for births occurring after the adoption of the Constitution. The Founders and Framers considered only those who were born owing no allegiance to any foreign power or nation as “natural born Citizens.” And only those who were born in the country to citizen parents could have this special birth circumstance.

So, under our constitutional framework, as confirmed by the text and structure of the Constitution, natural law and the law of nations, our early Congresses, and several U.S. Supreme Court cases, anyone who does not meet the original American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen,” i.e., born in the country to citizen parents, and who is otherwise a “citizen” only by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment (which was the constitutionalization of an Act of Congress known as the Civil Rights Act of 1866), Act of Congress, or treaty is not a “natural born Citizen,” but rather only a “citizen of the United States.” Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President, but a “Citizen of the United States” is not. Hence, anyone who is a “citizen of the United States” but not also a “natural born Citizen” is not eligible to be President.

cfkerchner said...

Mick: Jeffersons Rebels did a follow on piece on the SMRSTRAUSS Obot disinformation team that works for a company that makes lots of money from the big government programs of Obama in which JR revealed their IDs since they are two cowardly to reveal it themselves.

http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2010/03/smrstrauss-total-reveal-their-tangled.html

Robert said...

smrstrauss,

I make no claims on the birth place of Mr. Obama because, contrary to your unfounded wishes and your blind experts, he hasn't produced any verifiable documentation establishing any such place. I will, for the sake of argument, accept any place you wish because it is moot to this issue. Mr. Obama fails to meet the definition of natural born citizen because he was born under British jurisdiction.

Is it illogical to produce a forged document proving one's own lack of qualifications? What choice did Obama have? He had already claimed in two books and other places that his father is Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. and that he was born under British jurisdiction. How is he going to change that? His best and only gambit is to try to direct everyone’s attention towards his place of birth, hide all of his other records, create as many red herrings as possible and cloud the definition of natural born citizen as much and as long as possible. (This, obviously, is where you come in.)

If he was born in Hawaii I expect that he will eventually document it properly. (This doesn’t excuse his felonious presentation of forgeries.) Chances are that he will withhold any documentation legitimately establishing his Hawaiian birth until he thinks he can leverage its release sufficiently to close the discussion and consideration of his equally critical and irrefutable parentage conflict, too.

This is exactly what Chester Arthur did. Obama is hoping that this strategy will work for him, too. Remember, Obama studied all of this at Harvard. Wouldn’t it be interesting if he finally released his college papers and we found that he had prepared a treatise on Chester Arthur?

Unfortunately for Obama his fraud is coming apart more every day. We Constitutionalists AKA "birthers" or "hobbits" aren't the least bit tired and are constantly reinforced with new members. Haven’t you noticed that the number of people in this country who know there are legitimate questions about Obama’s eligibility has risen in some polls to over 80%?

Ironically, your efforts are helping more than you know to unseat Obama. They help keep this issue alive and have motivated lots of people to do real objective research to find the truth that your manipulations are obviously trying to hide. I especially appreciate your help in keeping the issue of Obama’s citizenship at birth up front and freezing Obama’s birthplace gambit.

The more you and your fellow Obots try to hide the truth, the more pressure builds for it to get out. More people than ever are reading the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, The Federalist Papers, Vatel and as many other founding documents and court cases – especially those related to Obama’s eligibility - as they can find. More people are challenging their Representaves, Senators, and other officials every day. We even have people prepared to challenge Obama's placement on the ballots of every state.

Noticeably very few readers are fooled by you or agree with you. The arguments of Mr. Puzo, Donofrio, et al are much better researched and documented and infinitely more reliable.

So, thanks. I hope you keep posting and drawing people to these sites. I appreciate the help.

Maggie said...

here I go again and as a declaration, I am an Australian citizen who has American citizen cousins. I have always understood that my cousins were not eligible to run for POTUS because my aunt was not an American citizen when they were born.

SMSTRAUSS or who ever you really happen to be, this is the real point with regard to the man that I regard as Østupid.

Taking Østupid at his word, he is the son of a Kenyan father and a mother who is an American citizen. That makes him a dual citizen. It means he has divided loyalties and thus he was NEVER eligible to be POTUS because of his father's citizenship.

On top of that there is the complication of probable Indonesian citizenship when Østupid was living in Indonesia. He was adopted by an Indonesian citizen, and from the entry on the mother's passport, his name was changed to Soebarkah.

So far nothing has turned up to indicate that Østupid ever renounced that Indonesian citizenship. Therefore the situation is more than just dual citizenship because it is dual for Kenyan/British/US citizenship as well as dual for US/Indonesian citizenship with no evidence that the Indonesian citizenship was ever reversed.

Puzo1 said...

Maggie,

You are so right about Obama not being a "natural born Citizen" because of being born to a foreign father and therefore not eligible to be President.

Obama is not an Article II "natural born Citizen" under the laws existing in the early years of the Republic.

Just imagine the absurdity of the notion that the Founders and Framers, wanting to make sure that English foreign influence and monarchial rule did not recapture the new constitutional republic, would have allowed someone born after the American Revolution and the adoption of the Constitution who was a British "natural born subject" to be President of the United States.

Hence, there simply is no way that the Founders and Framers would have considered Obama to be an Article II "natural born Citizen" who would be eligible to be President.

Never in the history of our nation have we abandoned the Founders' and Framers' understanding and intent regarding what they considered to be an Article II "natural born Citizen," who under our Constitution alone is eligible to be President. This means that neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor any subsequent Act of Congress (not to imply that Congress has the power to make someone a "natural born Citizen") make Obama an Article II "natural born Citizen."

So, today Obama is not an Article II "natural born Citizen" and is therefore not eligible to be President. Regardless of where Mr. Obama was born or that he may be a Fourteenth Amendment “born . . . citizen of the United States,” he is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and not eligible to be President.

SaipanAnnie said...

Smrstrauss says:

I was not aware that hospitals go around claiming that the mother's of presidents were their patients. Did you see such a claim for Bush's parents? Clinton's? Reagan's?

Sir, with each of the aforementioned Presidents, the legitimacy of their claims of birth was never in question.

Thus, your analogy is not appropriate.

smrstrauss said...

SaipanAnnie said: “Sir, with each of the aforementioned Presidents, the legitimacy of their claims of birth was never in question.”

Who, other than birther sites, has claimed that Obama was not born in Hawaii? Did any official body? Answer: NO. Did any of the current Republican candidates for president? Answer: No (and they haven’t shown their birth certificates). Did McCain or Palin claim that Obama was not born in Hawaii? Answer NO.

If birthers claimed that the earth was flat, would that mean that there had to be an investigation of the claim?

Getting back to the proof of a birth place. Hospitals are forbidden by law from disclosing patient information. Moreover, the birth records of hospitals are not official documents. They are not accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department or the branches of the military. What is accepted as proof of birth in the USA? The birth certificate of a state.

Has Obama shown the birth certificate of a state? YES, twice. Is there anyone other than birthers who have claimed that Obama’s birth certificate is forged? Answer: NO. Have any officials in Hawaii stated that there is something wrong with Obama’s birth certificate or that it differs in any way from what Hawaii sent to Obama? Answer: No. Have three Republican (and several Democrat) officials in Hawaii stated that the facts on Obama’s birth certificate are accurate? Answer: YES.

Was there a birth notice published for Obama in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961? Yes. Could the birth notice have been created by relatives lying about Obama’s place of birth? Answer: NO.

Why not? Because newspapers in Hawaii did not take birth notice ads in 1961. Where did they get the information that a child was born then? From the Hawaii government, which sent out notices of births IN Hawaii. Did it send out notices of births outside of Hawaii also? NO. How do we know? Because in 1961 it did not even register the birth of someone who was born outside of Hawaii.

smrstrauss said...

Continuing:

Is there anything else suspicious about birthers’ claims that Obama could have been born outside of the USA? Sure. First, they fail to remind their readers that a child carried into the USA requires (and has required for decades) some kind of a travel document—such as being entered on the mother’s US passport or a visa on a foreign passport. Either that change to the passport or the visa would have had to have been applied for in a foreign country. Is there such a document for Obama? NO. Is there a record of an application for one? NO. Is there a record of Obama being checked into the USA by the INS in 1961? Answer NO.

Second, did one of the birther sites, WND, actually find out that the US INS checked on Obama’s place of birth TWICE in the late 1960s and early 1970s? YES.

Did it report that in each case the INS concluded that Obama was born in HAWAII? Answer: YES. Did WND then state that it was not explained how the INS concluded that Obama was born in Hawaii. Answer: WND did say that it was not explained how the INS made that conclusion.

What is the usual way for the INS to determine whether or not someone was born in the USA? By checking the birth certificate, of course. What is the chance that the INS concluded that Obama was born in the USA without seeing his birth certificate? About one in a zillion.

Have any of the Republican candidates for president, some of whom were born within a few hundred miles of the Mexican or Canadian borders (Hawaii is thousands of miles from any other country) shown a birth certificate? NO. Have they shown birth notices in the newspaper? NO. Have officials in the states confirmed the facts on their birth certificates? NO. Has anyone claimed that they were born outside of the USA? No, but the fact that left-wing nuts have so far been nicer than right-wing nuts does not affect the situation.

What are the odds that one of them was born in a foreign country? Maybe one in a hundred, maybe one in a thousand. What are the odds that Obama, with all the evidence shown, the birth certificate, the notices in the newspapers, the confirmations, the checks by the INS, the absence of a travel document in 1961, was born in a foreign country? In my view, one in a zillion.

Do birthers quoting their own claims that Obama was born outside of the country as differing Obama from George Bush and other presidents (none of whom have shown any evidence that they were born in the USA) make birthers look stupid. Answer: YES.

smrstrauss said...

Robert: The fact that birthers quote a list of “experts”—many of whom hate Obama—that the birth certificate is forged is not proof that the birth certificate is forged. Unless and until Hawaii says that it is forged or says that there is something wrong with it, it is a perfectly legal Hawaii birth certificate.

Have birthers attempted to get impartial document experts, such as the members of the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners or the American Society of Questioned Document Experts or the Association of Forensic Document Examiners to look at Obama’s birth certificate and give a truly expert and impartial opinion on its authenticity? Answer: NO.

Could they have done so? Sure. The legal copy of the long-form birthitzle certificate, with the seal and on security paper, was passed around in the White House press room and every reporter there got a chance to examine it and feel the seal. Are they experts? No. Does the passing around of the birth certificate prove that it exists? No, it could be a forgery.

But if a birther organization were to ask to see the officials physical copy and say that they intended to show it to the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners or the American Society of Questioned Document Experts or the Association of Forensic Document Examiners, and the request were refused, would that prove anything? It would be suspicious, to say the least.

Do birther organizations know this fact? YES. Why then haven’t they asked to see the physical document and show it to those organizations? Because they are already fooling birthers with the “expert” claims of forgery, and why take a chance of showing the document to REAL EXPERTS.

SaipanAnnie said...

Smrstrauss:

Though I am a latecomer to Mr. Apuzzo's blog, the enormity of your reputation has rendered you quite familiar.

That's why, reading your recent posts, I am puzzled.

Something is amiss. Your power of reasoning seems to have crumbled.

Are you not 'yourself' these days?

Puzo1 said...

smrstrauss,

That the political "establishment" has not taken appropriate action against Obama proves neither that he was born in Hawaii nor that he is an Article II "natural born Citizen. On the former, Obama has yet to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii. Internet images of his alleged birth certificate are not the best evidence. We need certified paper copies of this alleged Certificate of Live Birth to be presented to the American people via a controlling public authority, not to a room of self-serving reporters. On the latter, Obama is not an Article II "natural born Citizen," for he was born to a non-U.S. citizen father.

Records of hospitals are better evidence than a government birth certificate on the question of whether a baby was born in that hospital. The hospital record is created contemporaneously by health care professionals who are witnessing events as they are happening. The records are kept on both the mother and her baby. The records contain a number of witnesses to those events, including but not limited to doctors and nurses. Those records also contain objective tests done on patients which are strong evidence of persons being in any specified facility. In short, the people in hospital records were there at the time of the birth while the people who produce birth certificates were not.

The alleged birth announcements are only as good as the Department of Health's information. Also, these notices have never been authenticated. Provide for us what evidence you have that those notices are authentic. You have none.

The INS file does not prove Obama was born in Hawaii. There is no reference to any birth certificate in the file. There also is no copy of any such birth certificate in the file. That is rather strange, for INS always asks for a copy of a birth certificate and if they had one, it would have been copied like all the other documents were.

Both Republicans and Democrats throughout history have been the subject of eligibility challenges. McCain, a Republican, was challenged in 2008. Whether Obama is an Article II "natural born Citizen" deserves a legal answer, not a political one.

MichaelN said...

@SMRSTRAUSS

Have you realized your error (deliberate or innocent) in interpreting Minor v Happersett?

Are you going to acknowledge that you were innocently wrong or that you have been busted for being just plain DISHONEST?

waiting.............

Bob said...

Like taxes, laws are for the 'little people.' The Greek for 'little people' is 'hoi polloi,' and it is used in the New Testament translated as 'the many.'

So, the opposite is 'elite.'

Mario has demonstrated for all to see that it is the 'elite' who will bring down our Republic, because they see themselves as the exceptions. They are 'too big for fail,' they are 'above the law!'

They have 'stacked the courts' as their first line of defense, and then they deny access to the courts on the 'lack of standing.'

As Benjamin Franklin is quoted saying to the Maryland delegate James McHenry --

“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

The 'elites' don't want to 'keep it,' and that is what the legal issues here can be boiled down to.

Robert said...

smrstrauss,

While it may be of interest to you to compare and argue credentials of experts, I am more interested in observing the characteristics of the documents themselves. The documents posted by Obama, when opened in Adobe Illustrator, reveal enough information to determine that they are not simple xerox copies of an original 1961 document.

Contrary to the liberal/Obot mindset, it is not necessary to assemble a group of experts, officials, and politicians to distinguish a horse from a pig.

But, as I offered before, you can believe whatever you want about Obama's birth documents and place of birth. What remains without dispute is that Obama was born under British jurisdiction. He has stipulated and established this fact himself. He has also accepted that a natural born citizen is one born in the country to citizen parents (plural); a conclusion that he knows he can't dispute because of his own authorship of SR 511 and of the Supreme Court binding precedent established in Minor v Happersett along with centuries of historical records and established law.

The bottom line is that Obama is not eligible to be POTUS and there is nothing he or anyone can do to change that fact. So, he's relying on useful idiots to keep him in office while he undermines our Constitutional Republic.

James said...

There are some constitutional scholars and some real legal beagles on this board. You should all get with Mario Apuzzo and together construct a ballot election challenge for some state to keep Obama off the ballot there.

MichaelN said...

Seems like SMRSTRAUSS runs away when busted for DISHONESTY.

I am still waiting for a response from my prior post which said .....

@SMRSTRAUSS

Have you realized your error (deliberate or innocent) in interpreting Minor v Happersett?

Are you going to acknowledge that you were innocently wrong or that you have been busted for being just plain DISHONEST?

waiting.............

smrstrauss said...

Puzo1 said:

“We need certified paper copies of this alleged Certificate of Live Birth to be presented to the American people via a controlling public authority, not to a room of self-serving reporters.”

This sounds a lot like: “We need real convincing proof that the earth is round.” The fact that you, or someone, may believe that the earth is flat does not mean that anyone has to prove anything to you.

The FACTS are that Obama has shown BOTH images and physical copies of BOTH his short form and long form birth certificates.

After this happened, no official in Hawaii said that there was anything wrong with the documents or that Hawaii did not send birth certificates to Obama or that there was anything different about what Obama published in his birth certificate from what Hawaii sent to Obama.

For Obama to have been born anywhere else than in Hawaii THREE Republican officials (and several Democrats) must actually be lying about his place of birth.

Re: “Records of hospitals are better evidence than a government birth certificate on the question of whether a baby was born in that hospital. The hospital record is created contemporaneously by health care professionals who are witnessing events as they are happening. The records are kept on both the mother and her baby. The records contain a number of witnesses to those events, including but not limited to doctors and nurses. Those records also contain objective tests done on patients which are strong evidence of persons being in any specified facility. In short, the people in hospital records were there at the time of the birth while the people who produce birth certificates were not. “

Answer: Yes, but are hospitals required to keep those records for nearly 50 years?

Governments keep their records for many decades. Hospitals may or may not. Only if the official Hawaii birth certificate was actually proven to be false—using impartial experts at a court—would there be a call to see the hospital record, which might or might not exist.

So far no impartial expert has convincingly shown that there is anything wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, and several experts have stated that there is nothing wrong with it. As noted, HAWAII, which is the official expert on whether its birth certificates are forged or not, has never said that there is anything wrong with Obama’s birth certificate.

Re: “The alleged birth announcements are only as good as the Department of Health's information. Also, these notices have never been authenticated. Provide for us what evidence you have that those notices are authentic. You have none. “

Answer: The birth announcements were found in two (at least two) separate archives, and they are for two separate newspapers, and the newspapers have not said that there is anything wrong with them, nor have the archives said that their records were stolen or that the documents had been inserted into them, nor has any impartial forensic expert said that there is anything wrong.

Moreover, the notices in the newspapers need not be proof in themselves. They are confirmation of the facts on the birth certificate.

The facts are as follows:

1. Short-form and long-form birth certificates (images and physical copies) stating that Obama was born in Hawaii.
2. Confirmation of the facts on the birth certificates by the officials in Hawaii.
3. Further confirmation by the birth notices in the newspapers.
4. Further confirmation by the absence of a US travel document stating that Obama or his mother traveled in 1961.
5. Further confirmation by the Kenyan grandmother stating that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter from Hawaii (Hartford Courant interview).
6. Further confirmation by the WND report showing that the US INS twice in the 1960s and early 1970s checked on Obama’s place of birth and twice concluded that he was born in the USA (from looking at the birth certificate, how else?)

smrstrauss said...

Continuing:

Re: “The INS file does not prove Obama was born in Hawaii. There is no reference to any birth certificate in the file. “

AS I said, they provide additional confirmation of the facts on Obama’s birth certificate. It is unlikely that the INS has ever concluded that a person was born in the USA without asking to see the birth certificate. In some few cases, where the filed birth certificate may have been lost from the government files, the INS may seek other records, but it would never do that without trying to see the birth certificate. In any case, in those two checks in the 1960s and 1970s the INS concluded that Obama was born in Hawaii. Are you suggesting that the US INS was part of the plot, and that it was part of the plot in the 1960s and 1970s???

Re: “There also is no copy of any such birth certificate in the file. That is rather strange, for INS always asks for a copy of a birth certificate and if they had one, it would have been copied like all the other documents were."

Answer: All that it had to do was to look at the birth certificate, it did not have to copy it. Moreover, you are basing your statement that the birth certificate is not in the file on WND’s reporting. We do not even know whether WND asked to see all the documents in the file.

Re: “Both Republicans and Democrats throughout history have been the subject of eligibility challenges. McCain, a Republican, was challenged in 2008. “

Answer: Was he really? I thought that the US Senate passed a resolution that said that he was a Natural Born Citizen. And, guess what, they passed that resolution WITHOUT seeing proof that McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone (as he claimed) or that both of his parents were US citizens (as he claimed) or that McCain’s legal father was really his DNA father.

smrstrauss said...

Re: “Whether Obama is an Article II "natural born Citizen" deserves a legal answer, not a political one.”

Answer: I agree. But our desires cannot convince the US Supreme Court to take the case. It has the right to turn down any case it wants to, so long as four justices in the court do not ask that the case be called, and as you know the US Supreme Court has turned down every single birther case. To be sure, they did so for lack of standing. But the fact remains, they have not called a case.

Unless and until the US Supreme Court calls a birther case and finds for the birthers, what applies?

Answer: The results of the general election of 2008, the results of the election by the US Electoral College that followed, and the results of the confirmation of Obama’s election by the US Congress (unanimously, including Reps. Paul and Bachmann).

As to your claim that the Minor vs Happersett case actually said that two citizen parents are required. IF the US Supreme Court had actually ruled that two US citizen parents are required to become president, somebody other than a few birther lawyers would have noticed it by now.

As I pointed out, not one member of the Electoral College (some 600 members, mainly lawyers ) changed his or her vote to vote against Obama, and not one of them ever said that they thought that two citizen parents are required, and the same goes for all the 535 members of the US Congress.

Of course, they could all be dumb or part of the plot. As could the Heritage Society (They as the publisher of the volume and Meese as editor apparently still stand by the quotation that Natural Born status refers to the PLACE of birth).

And:

“Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural born-born subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [ ] natural-born citizens.”--- Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 NE2d 678, 688 (2009), (Ind.Supreme Court, Apr. 5, 2010)

And:

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)--Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

Bob said...

smrstrauss --

Senator Orrin Hatch is NOT a bona fde authority on 'natural born citizen.' He knows better -- in fact, he has tried for years to amend the Constitution, because he does not like the Vattel definition of 'natural born citizen,' but he cannot get his amendment through the Senate.

The fact is, they ALL know better, and are simply now trying out a 'de facto' amendment to the Constitution. They are just like (even worse actually)than the criminals who beg for mercy when they get caught.

Historically, the importance of the 'natural born citizen' clause is far wider than just the Presidency. In fact, it was this clause that was used to emancipate the slaves (there was no other available).

Blacks were considered by their birth on American soil from parents born on American soil as 'natural born citizens,' and therefore 'free.'

It was only this clause that overturned the extensive and wide-ranging arguments Chief Justice Taney argued in his infamous Dred Scott decision.

Bill Cutting said...

[Answer: The results of the general election of 2008, the results of the election by the US Electoral College that followed, and the results of the confirmation of Obama’s election by the US Congress (unanimously, including Reps. Paul and Bachmann).]

If one used such absurd logic, there would no such thing as eligibility laws. History is not on your side.

James said...

Mario,

Are you aware of this? I strongly encourage NOT to accept the challenge.
http://rcradioshow.blogspot.com/2012/01/rc-radio-natural-born-citizen-debate.html

Puzo1 said...

Smrstrauss,

Obama has not shown his certified true paper copy of his long-form Birth Certificate to any controlling legal authority.

You expect Hawaii officials to say something if Obama’s electronic image of his alleged birth certificate was not accurate. But who in Hawaii actually saw Obama original birth certificate?

“The first is that the original so-called ‘long form’ birth certificate — described by Hawaiian officials as a ‘record of live birth’ — absolutely exists, located in a bound volume in a file cabinet on the first floor of the state Department of Health. Fukimo said she has personally inspected it — twice. The first time was in late October 2008, during the closing days of the presidential campaign, when the communications director for the state's then Republican governor, Linda Lingle (who appointed Fukino) asked if she could make a public statement in response to claims then circulating on the Internet that Obama was actually born in Kenya.

Before she would do so, Fukino said, she wanted to inspect the files — and did so, taking with her the state official in charge of vital records. She found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files. She then put out a public statement asserting to the document's validity. She later put out another public statement in July 2009 — after reviewing the original birth record a second time.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42519951/ns/politics-more_politics/t/ex-hawaii-official-denounces-ludicrous-birther-claims/.

I have yet to see any Hawaii official announce that the internet image is authentic and the same as the paper birth certificate which it allegedly has in its possession.

If Fukino saw the original birth certificate in late October 2008, why did she in the run up to the election leave the American public in the dark about whether such a certificate existed and whether a real doctor actually delivered Obama in an Hawaiian hospital?

Who is the state official that Fukino took with her to view the certificate? Why have we not heard anything from this other official about her seeing the original birth certificate and vouching for what Obama has published on the internet to be his original paper long-form birth certificate?

“Fukino, who left office in December, said that during her term as health director, Obama's birth certificate was moved from a file vault, where bound books containing vital records line the shelves in handwritten, leather-bound ledgers, in colors chosen over the course of decades -- and placed inside the vault's five-foot-tall, grey, metal combination and key lock safe that holds money and other valuables. ***
But Fukino said the original document was actually moved some time earlier, in response to a resurgence of interest raised by comments by made by Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie on the issue, and ‘to abide by state law in protecting the document from unauthorized use or theft.’" Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/27/obama-birth-certificate-moved-secure-location-months-ago/#ixzz1iLfQKYxz

If state officials knew where the birth certificate was, why was Gov. Abercrombie not told about it when he was searching for it? I find it strange that lower-level state employees in the Health Department would know so much about it but the Governor would be left in the dark on the subject. We never received any reasonable explanation of why Gov. Abercrombie could not find Obama’s birth certificate.

Fukino has confirmed that, before his release of April 2011, she is “among the very few” to have ever seen Obama’s long-form Birth Certificate. Yet you tell us that everybody knew that Obama was born in Hawaii and that is why no one challenged him except for some misguided “Birthers.” So tell us, Mr. smrstruass, how did all those people know for sure where Obama was born when the place of his birth was a contested issue if only a “few” ever saw his long-form birth certificate?

Puzo1 said...

Smrstrauss,

You continue to cite Edwin Meese for the argument that any child born in the United States who is a “citizen of the United States” is also necessarily a “natural born Citizen.” Edwin Meese said no such thing. It was James C. Ho who made that erroneous statement which was just printed in Mr. Meese’s book. Now you try to hide your past error by saying “Heritage Society[,] . . . as the publisher of the volume and Meese as editor still stand by the quotation that Natural Born status refers to the PLACE of birth (your emphasis).” Apart from any claims of libel, it is rather absurd for you to put forth the proposition that a publisher and editor adopt as true the legal and factual content of what they, respectively, publish and edit. What is also absurd about your comments is that neither Heritage Society nor Mr. Meese have ever published anything regarding the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” So how do ascribe such authority to either of them? Why do you not produce for me someone with a real name and title, other than Jack Maskell, who has really studied the subject matter who supports your position. When you provide that name, be sure to provide us with that person’s written works supporting his or her position.

MichaelN said...

Join in.

http://rcradioshow.blogspot.com/2012/01/rc-radio-natural-born-citizen-debate.html?showComment=1325551882745#c536259572833597464

Puzo1 said...

Smrstrauss,

You say that hospitals are not required to keep records for 50 years. First, how do you know that Kapi’olani has absolutely no record in any form of Stanley Ann Dunham and Obama ever being there in August 1961? Second, did Obama give Kapi’olani Hospital consent for them to search their records for any evidence that either he or his mother was ever a patient in that hospital? We know that the answer is “no.”

MichaelN said...

Part 1 of 2 Parts

SMRSTRAUSS.

What have you to say to this?

The US Supreme Court defined in Minor v Happersett, that a "natural born citizen" was one who is born in US of US citizen parents and in the very same paragraph SCOTUS stated that there were doubts as to whether a child born in US to alien parents was even a citizen, let alone a "natural born citizen'.

Did you know this about the 14th Amendment?

In 1927 the US Supreme Court agreed with the SCOTUS doubts about citizenship of children born in US to alien parents as were expressed by the judiciary in Minor v Happersett, and SCOTUS went further to confirm that there was in fact no more doubt that those children born in US to (non-US citizen) alien parents were NOT "citizens of the United States".

U.S. Supreme Court
Weedin v. Chin Bow (1927)

Quote:
"By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited.

The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393), and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization.

The persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

The evident meaning of these last words is NOT MERELY SUBJECT IN SOME RESPECT OR DEGREE to the jurisdiction of the United States, BUT COMPLETELY SUBJECT TO THEIR POLITICAL JURISDICTION AND OWING THEM DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE ALLEGIANCE."

see Part 2

Puzo1 said...

Smrstrauss,

I said to you that the two newspaper birth announcements have yet to be authenticated. You responded that they were found in “two (at least two) separate archives.” Provide the source and link to these archives.

MichaelN said...

Part 2 of 2 Parts

@ SMRSTRAUSS

Furthermore regarding the SCOTUS reference to English common law in the Wong Kim Ark case, where Calvin's case was cited, the notion that a child born in the land to an alien was a "natural born subject" was observed, it can bee seen from a reading of Calvin's case, that this notion of alien parent + child born in the land = "natural born" was cherry-picked, omitting crucial elements in the case.

i.e. that the alien parent, visiting England was in fact considered a "subject", and if this alien parent was NOT a "subject" then his child can NOT be a "subject".

Quote from Calvin's case:

"that issue is NO SUBJECT to the King of England, THOUGH HE BE BORN UPON HIS SOYL, and under his meridian, for that he WAS NOT BORN UNDER THE LIGEANCE OF A SUBJECT..."

And we have this from the same Calvin's case that was cited by SCOTUS in WKA case, which shows the TWO ESSENTIAL qualities REQUIRED to make a "natural born"

"Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized by procreation and birth right...."

"There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.
1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.
2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion. And
3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered...."

As anyone can see, the "subject" status of the parent father was an ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT in determining a "natural born".

None of this was even mentioned in the Wonk Kim Ark case and consequently the FALSE belief that alien + child born in the land = "natural born" was set in motion.

Ergo: According to English common law AND the Supreme Court of the United States AND the framers of the Constitution of the US (who were PROFOUNDLY influenced by Vattel, diligently and with great wisdom CHOSE the term "natural born" RATHER THAN "native born" in their imperative and duty to secure and protect the highest office of president and commander in chief, from ANY foreign influence and claim.

The notion that the framers intended the term "natural" to mean "native" is ABSURD.

Puzo1 said...

Smrstrauss,

You know that the INS file is complete. The full file is on the internet. WND has nothing to do with it. Why do you imply that the file may not be complete and Obama’s birth certificate could still be in the full file? You simply have no evidence that anyone in INS ever saw any birth certificate. There is no statement in the full to that effect. But yet you put forth your speculation what should or should not have been done. You simply cannot point to anything in the INS file which in any way shows that any immigration officer saw any Obama birth certificate. Now is that not strange in light of the fact that Obama Sr. could have made a case for himself that he had a son who was born in the U.S. as non-resident, non-citizen people usually do who try to stay in the U.S.?

Also, do not try to ridicule my position by implying that I am suggesting that the INS was part of any “plot.” You simply do not have the INS evidence and you are now getting desperate by trying to attack me by putting forth such innuendo.

smrstrauss said...

Re: “, he has tried for years to amend the Constitution, because he does not like the Vattel definition of 'natural born citizen,' but he cannot get his amendment through the Senate.”

Answer: It is perfectly legal and constitutional to try to amend the US Constitution. The US Constitution allows it, and we have had 27 amendments so far.

People have been trying for DECADES to change the Natural Born Citizen requirement to allow naturalized citizens to run. In the 1950s, it was pointed out that Irving Berlin, the writer of God Bless America, was not eligible because he was naturalized. More recently, the goal was to allow Arnold to become president. Many people who have had naturalized relatives and friends who have been perfectly loyal have a strong desire to change the Natural Born Citizen requirement.

Vattel is not even mentioned ONCE in the Federalist Papers, while the common law is mentioned about twenty times. Moreover, I suggest that you actually read Vattel. He never says in his book anywhere that the leader of a country should be even a citizen, much less a person with two citizen parents. He gives several examples of countries picking their sovereigns from the nobility of other lands, and he never says that doing that is a bad thing.

Moreover, the words Natural Born Citizen did not appear in a translation of Vattel until a decade after the Constitution, while it appears over and over again in Blackstone, and always refers to citizenship due to the place of birth.

Don’t like Hatch? Well here are some other experts:

“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

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

And here is an actual example of how the phrase Natural Born Citizen was used in the USA (not Switzerland) in 1803, shortly after the Constitution was written:

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

As you can see, the meaning of the phrase referred only to the place of birth, not to the parents. Natural Born Citizens were “those born within the state.”

Others:

The American Constitution

Charles Herman Pritchett – 1968: “Every person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen and, of course, a natural-born citizen. “

The American Review, Johns Hopkins University, European Center of American Studies – 1960: “The Constitutional qualifications for President are astonishingly simple: he must be born in the United States and be thirty-five years of age. These are the only qualifications…”

smrstrauss said...

Continuing:


Still more:

“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.” James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW, pg. 258 (1826)
The statute of Pennsylvania regarding elections of 1799 clearly shows that Natural Born simply means citizen at birth because there are no alternatives, a person is either Natural Born, naturalized, or a foreigner who is not eligible to vote. There is no category of native-born but not Natural Born. it reads: "That the elector is required to take an oath, 1, that he is a natural born citizen of the state &c; or 2 That he is a natural born citizen of some other of the United States; or 3, that having being a foreigner or alien, he has been naturalized." (http://books.google.com/books?id=ERgvAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA251&dq=%22a+natural+born+citizen%22&lr=#v=onepage&q=%22a%20natural%20born%20citizen%22&f=false)

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.”

Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”
“It is clear that a child born within the physical borders of the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is eligible to run for President.” Statement of Senator Nickles, United sates Senate Judiciary Commitee, October 5, 2004.
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=19355
“The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject. The thing itself, or substantial part of it, is founded in reason and the nature of government; the name and the form are derived to us from our Gothic ancestors….” Blackstone Commentaries.
“It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization,” do not.” Jill A. Pryor. The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty – Yale Law Journal 1988

“Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”---The Wall Street Journal.

smrstrauss said...

Re: " If one used such absurd logic, there would no such thing as eligibility laws. History is not on your side."

Laws are interpreted by people, judges and legislators, and the overwhelming majority of them, as with the Congressional scholars quoted above, believe that (1) Obama was actually born in Hawaii, as his birth certificate and the confirmation of the Republican officials and the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers all show, and (2) That everyone born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born US Citizen, and that Natural Born refers to the place of birth, not the parents.

smrstrauss said...

Puzo1 said:

" Obama has not shown his certified true paper copy of his long-form Birth Certificate to any controlling legal authority."

No "controlling legal authority," which under the US Constitution is the Electoral College and the US Congress, which confirms, asked to see it. They did not ask to see it because all of the members of both bodies are as sure as 2+3=5 that Obama was born in Hawaii, as his birth certificate, and the confirmation of the Republican (and some Democrat) officials confirms, and as further confirmed by the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers and the absence of a US travel document and the absence of an INS check in for Obama in 1961, and the presence of an INS check of his place of birth, which concluded (how else but by the birth certificate? Do you think that the INS determines the place of birth by reading tea leaves????)

Re: " You expect Hawaii officials to say something if Obama’s electronic image of his alleged birth certificate was not accurate. But who in Hawaii actually saw Obama original birth certificate?

Answer: At least two Republicans appointees, Funkino and Okada, who stated in writing BEFORE THE 2008 election that they had seen Obama's birth certificate in the files, and subsequently in a second confirmation, that the birth certificate in the files showed that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Both statements are in writing and were issued at a time when the Attorney General of Hawaii was a Conservative Republican, who they could assume would prosecute them if they were lying (or at the very least get them fired).

IN addition to these two Republicans, there is the current head of the DOH, a Democrat, who stated in a letter and in a press release that she had seen the original long-form birth certificate in the process of being copied onto security paper and that the copy was accurate.

In addition to these three, there is a fourth person whose name we do not know. That is the clerk who prepared the short-form birth certificate. He or she got the information on the short-form birth certificate by copying the necessary facts from the document in the files. That is how the system works.

cpanon said...

sJoy!?
Is this what we have all, and Truth, been waiting for, one honest Judge.

smrstrauss said...

Puzo1 said:

"Yet you tell us that everybody knew that Obama was born in Hawaii and that is why no one challenged him except for some misguided “Birthers.” So tell us, Mr. smrstruass, how did all those people know for sure where Obama was born when the place of his birth was a contested issue if only a “few” ever saw his long-form birth certificate?"

I never used the term everyone. In fact, the three officials and the clerk who saw the long form birth certificate are sufficient. If they had seen some statement on the published birth certificate that was not on the document in the files, they would have told us.

Moreover, the attorney general of Hawaii and the police of Hawaii are responsible for ensuring that Hawaii documents are not forged. If either of those had a suspicion that there was something wrong with Obama's published birth certificate--anything at all, the font, the facts, anything, they certainly would have the right to look at the original document and compare the two--but no one did.


Why not? Because they know that there are ONLY birther "experts" (some of whom are recanting by the way http://rcradioshow.blogspot.com/2011/12/conversation-with-paul-irey.html) and others who believe that they found the original Altar of Abraham (http://www.vectorpub.com/Reality_Revealed.html) who claim that the birth certificate was forged.

smrstrauss said...

Puzo said:

"say that hospitals are not required to keep records for 50 years. First, how do you know that Kapi’olani has absolutely no record in any form of Stanley Ann Dunham and Obama ever being there in August 1961? Second, did Obama give Kapi’olani Hospital consent for them to search their records for any evidence that either he or his mother was ever a patient in that hospital? We know that the answer is “no.”

Answer: Equally there is NO proof that Kapi'olani still has the files from 1961. If it did, why should Obama ask them to show it? The birth certificate of Hawaii is the official document. It is prima facie proof of birth in Hawaii, and the facts on it were confirmed by the officials.

However, the point about the hospital may or may not having the records applies to other presidential candidates. None of the Republican candidates have shown her or his birth certificate. When and if they do, I will ask them why they did not show their hospital records?

The reason for government birth certificates is so people do not have to go to hospitals to get records and so that hospitals do not have to keep birth records for decades or generations. That is the job of the government.

You claim, without a shred of proof, that Hawaii really did not issue a birth certificate to Obama or that the birth certificate says something different from what Obama showed.

smrstrauss said...

Blogger MichaelN said...

"he US Supreme Court defined in Minor v Happersett, that a "natural born citizen" was one who is born in US of US citizen parents and in the very same paragraph SCOTUS stated that there were doubts as to whether a child born in US to alien parents was even a citizen, let alone a "natural born citizen'."

The full quotation reads:

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."

The key sentence is: "For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."

That is the court's way of saying that it was NOT ruling on the issue. It did not rule. It is not a ruling on the matter. The court said that everyone believed that X+Y makes a Natural Born Citizen, but that some believed that Y alone was sufficient, and "For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."

That is not a ruling. When someone says that everyone believed X but some believed Y and we do not have to decide" that is not a ruling.

HOWEVER, the Wong Kim Ark case, which was after Minor Vs Happersett, was a ruling, six to two, one justice not voting, and it ruled that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law (not Vattel) and that it refers to citizenship due to the PLACE OF BIRTH.

smrstrauss said...

Re: Weedin v. Chin Bow (1927)

Chin Bow was born in CHINA, not the USA. If he had been born in the USA, the Wong Kim Ark ruling would apply. But, he was born IN CHINA.

smrstrauss said...

Re: ", BUT COMPLETELY SUBJECT TO THEIR POLITICAL JURISDICTION AND OWING THEM DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE ALLEGIANCE."

The meaning of subject to the jurisdiction means simply that the person has to obey the laws. Foreign diplomats do not have to obey the laws, so they are not subject to the jurisdiction. Everyone else has to obey US and state laws, meaning that everyone else is subject to the jurisdiction.

smrstrauss said...

Puzo1 said: “I said to you that the two newspaper birth announcements have yet to be authenticated. You responded that they were found in “two (at least two) separate archives.” Provide the source and link to these archives.”

Answer: These are microfilm records, not Web records, so there cannot be a link.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php

Wikipedia puts it this way (here’s the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories) :

“In 1961, birth notices for Barack Obama were published in both the Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin on August 13 and August 14, 1961, respectively, listing the home address of Obama's parents as 6085 Kalanianaole Highway in Honolulu.[7][13] On November 9, 2008, in response to the persistent rumors, the Advertiser posted on its web site a screenshot of the announcement taken from its microfilmed archives. Such notices were sent to newspapers routinely by the Hawaii Department of Health.[13](The link to 13 is: http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2008/Nov/09/ln/hawaii811090361.html)

In an editorial published on July 29, 2009, the Star-Bulletin pointed out that both newspapers' vital-statistics columns are available on microfilm in the main state library. "Were the state Department of Health and Obama's parents really in cahoots to give false information to the newspapers, perhaps intending to clear the way for the baby to someday be elected president of the United States?" the newspaper asked.[73] (The link to 73 is http://archives.starbulletin.com/content/20090729_No_doubt_about_Obamas_birth)

So we have two separate birth notices in the microfilm files of each of the newspapers and in the main state library. That would be three---or maybe only two, perhaps the Star-Bulletin has both its and the Advertiser’s microfilm files. But there were at one time microfilm files for each of the papers and for the main state library.

Dr Conspiracy summed it up like this:

“As I said at the outset, newspaper ads [actually, they were birth notices, not ads] are not primary evidence; they are secondary evidence. What they prove, as contemporary public testimony, is that the Hawaii Department of Health registered a birth for Barack Obama’s son in 1961 according to its rules and procedures. Since there was no provision for out of state registrations in 1961, one must conclude that that registration is for a birth in Hawaii. The primary evidence for us is the Certification of Live Birth, consistent with the newspaper announcements, that shows Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961.

smrstrauss said...

Re: Calvin's case:

Do you really think that Lord Coke said that two subject parents are required????

If so, why did Blackstone say:

“The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is alien.” http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/

(And the minor exceptions referred to in “generally speaking” refers to the children of foreign diplomats.)

smrstrauss said...

Re: "the framers of the Constitution of the US (who were PROFOUNDLY influenced by Vattel, diligently and with great wisdom CHOSE the term "natural born" RATHER THAN "native born"

They considered Vattel an expert on international law. Elections and eligibility are domestic issues (and Vattel does not say anything about elections or eligiblity. As far as he is concerned a sovereign need not even be a citizen, much less a two-citizen-parent citizen).

The reason that they used the phrase Natural Born was that it was in common use at the time, while native born was used very rarely. I do not know why, but that is the fact. And when Natural Born Citizen was used in the USA (not Switzerland) it referred at the time to the place of birth.

Here is an example of how it was used in 1803, shortly after the US Constitution was written:

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

As you can see, that refers only to the place of birth, not the parents. Natural Born Citizens were "those born within the state."

smrstrauss said...

Puzo1 said:

"You simply have no evidence that anyone in INS ever saw any birth certificate. There is no statement in the full to that effect. "
I find the idea that the INS took Soetoro's word that Obama was born in Hawaii silly.

The normal practice is to request the birth certificate and to look at it (but not necessarily to file it, much less to show a copy of it to WND). The FOI Act applied to Soetoro because he is dead. If there is a birth certificate for Obama in that file, that is another matter, and whether it released it or not is far from clear.

Leo Donofrio, a birther at one time but now strictly a two-fer, accepts the fact that the INS checked on Obama's place of birth and that it concluded that Obama was born in the USA. He regards this as overwhelming confirmation of the birth certificate and the confirmations by the officials in Hawaii. (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/09/recent-wnd-inquiries-appear-to-have-established-obamas-birth-in-hawaii/)

He says, in part: "So here we see the US Government looking into an application for Visa extension by Soetoro. Further review of those documents reveal that the officials did not trust everything in Soetoro’s application. Therefore, the Government officials wanted to establish whether Obama Jr. was truly a US citizen. They made a direct inquiry on this very issue. And they concluded that Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Again, this was established by “W.L. Mix” of the central immigration office.

Having taken such an exhaustive look into Soetoro’s application, and especially considering the government’s examination of Obama’s citizenship, I don’t see how the government officials involved would have overlooked the fact that Stanley Ann Dunham would have been out of the US and far away in Kenya on the date W.L. Mix established as DOB for Obama – if Obama had been born in Kenya.

Furthermore, a report today by WND, “Documents show marriage of Obama’s parents a sham“, illustrates that a similar investigation as to Obama, Sr. was conducted when he was also applying for a Visa extension. Those official documents include a handwritten memo from the file, written by (presumed) INS official William Wood, which states that Obama Sr.’s son, “Barack Obama II”, was born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961.

Moreover, in today’s WND article, Jerome Corsi concludes, as a result of reviewing all of the relevant INS documents, that if President Obama was born in Kenya, Dunham must have traveled there without Obama Sr., who was definitely in the US on August 4, 1961, according to these US Government records. This analysis by Corsi is correct. Obama Sr.’s presence in the US at the time of Obama’s birth is now sufficiently documented. This fact alone adds very heavy weight to President Obama having been born in the US.

I don’t see how two sets of US government officials, independently investigating the relationships between Soetoro and Dunham on one hand, and Obama Sr. and Dunham on the other, could both fail to reveal that Dunham would have been in Kenya at the time of Obama Jr.’s birth. The government officials would’ve had access to Dunham’s passport files. The contents thereof were relevant to the investigations since she was married to both men, and the marriages were relevant to immigration status, as was the issue of children."

Those who persist in accusing Obama of not being born in Hawaii do so in light of official government investigations, between 1961 and 1966, which established his birth, to the satisfaction of inquisitive government immigration officials, as having taken place on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.

As far as I’m concerned, the issue is settled with a massive presumption of authenticity. I do not see how the information published by WND regarding US immigration official W.L. Mix’s investigation into Obama’s US citizenship flew so far below the radar. That is the single most important fact I have come across that establishes Obama’s birth in Hawaii."

smrstrauss said...

Puzo1 said:

"We never received any reasonable explanation of why Gov. Abercrombie could not find Obama’s birth certificate."

Here is the explanation, based entirely on facts. ABERCROMBIE NEVER SAID THAT HE COULDN'T FIND IT.

WND said that he said it, and he didn't.

You are correct in saying that Fukino and Onaka saw the original birth certificate in the files, and so stated:

Here is the first of the confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.

http://www.kitv.com/r/17860890/detail.html

Notice where it says that there is an original birth certificate filed. Well, in 1961 foreign birth certificates, even those from other states, could not be filed in Hawaii. So the birth certificate in Obama’s files must be a Hawaii birth certificate.

Here is the second of the confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm

Notice where it says that the document in the files VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii. So, not only is there an official Hawaiian birth certificate in the files, but it says right on it that Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii has never allowed the Department of Health to issue a birth document of any kind that says on it that anyone was born in Hawaii unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii, and that is what the officials in Hawaii have confirmed twice.

And here is the confirmation by the former governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican, that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html

And here is the statement of a witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, in 1961, and writing home about it (to her father, named Stanley, about the unusual event of a woman named Stanley giving birth that day):

http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article137495.ece

smrstrauss said...

Robert said...

"The documents posted by Obama, when opened in Adobe Illustrator, reveal enough information to determine that they are not simple xerox copies of an original 1961 document."

Here is the response from WND's own hired expert:

Ivan Zatkovich, who has testified in court as a technology expert, and consultant to WorldNetDaily: "All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document."

Is it illegal to enhance the legibility of the document? Answer. NO.

Has any legal authority in Hawaii or elsewhere stated that there is something wrong with Obama's birth certificate? Answer: NO.

Puzo1 said...

smrstrauss,

Notwithstanding all your arguments about birth certificates, elections, politicians, the English common law, Wong Kim Ark, and Ankeny v. Gov. of Indiana, the conclusion is inescapable that an Article II "natural born Citizen" is a child born in the country to citizen parents. This means that a "natural born Citizen" is a child born in the United States or its jurisdictional equivalent to a father and mother who at the time of the child's birth are either "natural born Citizens" or "citizens of the United States."

Let us assume that Obama was born in Hawaii. We also know that Obama was born to a mother who was a "natural born Citizen." But we also know that Obama was born to a father who was neither a "natural born Citizen" nor a "citizen of the United States." Consequently, Obama is not an Article II "natural born Citizen" and is therefore ineligible to be President.

MichaelN said...

smrstrauss said...

"Re: Calvin's case
Do you really think that Lord Coke said that two subject parents are required????"

>> Lord Coke said that it was an essential requirement that the parent father be a "subject" for his child to be a "subject", if that child is born in the realm.

The status of the mother was not mentioned.

The POINT IS, that the father had to be a "subject", for if he was not a "subject", then the child could not be a "subject", even if born in the realm. >>

smrstrauss said...
If so, why did Blackstone say:

“The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is alien.” http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/

(And the minor exceptions referred to in “generally speaking” refers to the children of foreign diplomats.)"

>>How would I know why Blackstone said anything?

Blackstone was generalizing and stating a half-truth, much like was stated in the Wong Kim Ark court.

The FACT remains that for a child born in England to be a "natural born subject", the child had to have been born to a alien or non-alien "subject" father.

Do you accept and acknowledge that this is what Lord Coke said? <<


.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "Blackstone was generalizing and stating a half-truth, much like was stated in the Wong Kim Ark court."

Regarding Lord Coke. I'm not sure at all what he said. I am not an expert--but then neither are you.

When the US Supreme Court and Lord Coke disagree, who wins? The US Supreme Court, of course.

Its interpretation of what the common law says, is the official legal interpretation in the USA, which is why all the constitutional experts write things like:

"There's some people who say that both parents need to be citizens. That's never been the law."--Ronald Rotunda, Professor of Law at Chapman University,

And, Eugene Volokh, Professor of Law at UCLA, found "quite persuasive" the reasoning employed by the Indiana Court of Appeals, which had ruled "that persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."

And Daniel Takaji, Professor of Law at Ohio State University, agrees the citizenship status of a U.S.-born candidate's parents is irrelevant.

The belief that the meaning of Natural Born in the common law refers to the PLACE of birth, not the parents, goes back before the Wong Kim Ark ruling.

"Our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic." Attorney General Edward Bates (Lincoln's Attorney General)

"Every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity." William Rawle, 1829

As you can see, both Bates and Rawle wrote before the US Supreme Court opinion in Wong Kim Ark, which was in 1898.

smrstrauss said...

Continuing:

For two-fers to win, the US Supreme Court would have to reverse Wong Kim Ark, meaning five votes that Natural Born Citizen requires two citizen parents, which is hardly likely when four justices will not even call a birther case.

And, as you know, it only takes one justice to require a side to respond to the brief of the other side, but that has not happened in any of the birther cases.

Here is what it REALLY boils down to. For two-fers to win, they have to get five justices to believe that the writers of the US Constitution really thought that a US-born child of a foreigner was a lower class citizen, one who would be a security risk to the country, one who should not be eligible to become president. They would have to believe this despite the fact that NOT ONE of the writers of the US Constitution or any of the American leaders at the time wrote any such thing.

And, they would have to believe it despite the fact that the Declaration held: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

To be sure, they didn't really believe that all men were created equal--slaves and Indians were certainly not considered equal. But, unless one of the writers or the American leaders at the time actually said that he considered that the US-born children of foreigners were not equal to the US-born children of US citizens, the justices will find that there is absolutely no evidence that they believed any such thing.

I agree with you that it would be WONDERFUL if the US Supreme Court called a case on the two-fer issue. The two-fer side would lose nine to zero, or at best eight to one.

But the US Supreme Court will not call a nutty two-fer case, any more than it will call any of the thousands of annual cases that claim that the Income Tax is unconstitutional.

Unless and until the US Supreme Court calls a case and decides for two-fers, what is the law? The law is that TWO constitutionally mandated bodies, the US Electoral College (which votes) and the US Congress (which confirms) have picked Obama as president of the United States. And he was sworn in by the US Chief Justice. He is the president.

smrstrauss said...

Puzo1 wrote:

"the conclusion is inescapable that an Article II "natural born Citizen" is a child born in the country to citizen parents. "

Who told you that? It is wrong.

Puzo1 said...

srmstrauss,

Professors Rotunda, Volokh, and Takaji have not provided any convincing authority for their positions. If they have, provide the citations and links here. I am surprised that you did not tell us about Professor Solum. Why not?

Any citation to Ankeny v, Governor of Indiana is misguided for at least two reasons (and there are many more). It read Minor v. Happersett as having doubts about who was a “natural born Citizen” when it had no such doubt. Its doubts were only whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was a “citizen” under the law existing prior to the Fourteenth Amendment and necessarily also under that very amendment. It also read Wong Kim Ark as resolving those non-existing doubts and holding that Wong was a “natural born Citizen.” But Justice Gray only held that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. He never held that he was a “natural born Citizen.” So Wong, not addressing the issue, never resolved any doubts concerning what a “natural born Citizen.” In fact, the Court cited and quoted Minor v. Happersett’s definition of the clause which was a child born in the country to citizen parents.

Attorney General Bates is correct that a "natural born Citizen" is defined by "universal principle, common to all nations." The Founders and Framers knew that that univeral principle is found, among other sources, in natural law which they also knew when applied to nations became the law of nations.

William Rawle provides absolutely no authority or support for his statement. He simply states his personal opinion which was rejected starting with Justice Marshall in The Venus, the Inglis majority, Justice Daniels in Dred Scott, Minor v. Happersett, and Wong Kim Ark (just to mention some authorites among the many more that exist).

smrstrauss said...

Re: "Professors Rotunda, Volokh, and Takaji have not provided any convincing authority for their positions. If they have, provide the citations and links here. I am surprised that you did not tell us about Professor Solum. Why not? "

Okay. I provided three. You provide one. Moreover, Solum changed his mind.

Wikipedia reports:

"In April 2010, Solum republished the same article as an online draft, in which he changed his opinion on the meaning of natural born citizen to include persons born in the United States of one American citizen parent. In a footnote he explained that "based on my reading of the historical sources, there is no credible case that a person born on American soil with one American parent was clearly not a 'natural born citizen'." He further extended natural born citizenship to all cases of jus soli as the "conventional view".[26] Although Professor Solum stated elsewhere that the two-citizen-parents arguments "weren't crazy", he believes "the much stronger argument suggests that if you were born on American soil that you would be considered a natural born citizen."

I do not see why I have to show the reasoning of the numerous sources I cited. Have you shown the reasoning of any of the sources you quote? (Actually, you don't quote any sources, so you cannot show their reasoning.)

smrstrauss said...

Continuing:

Re: "It read Minor v. Happersett as having doubts about who was a “natural born Citizen” when it had no such doubt. "

Where is your authority that Minor v Happersett "had no such doubt??"

When a court case says that everybody thought X+Y but some people thought that just Y, but we do not have to make a decision, that is NOT a decision. It is not an expression of certainty. Moreover, NONE of the authorities cite the Minor case as being a decision for two citizen parents. Not even Solum.

IF it had been a decision, and it wasn't, the Wong Kim Ark ruling was AFTER IT, and hence would have overturned it.

The Wong Kim Ark ruling held that the meaning of "Natural Born" in Natural Born Citizen came from the common law (not from Vattel), and it ruled that every child born in the USA, except for the children of foreign diplomats, is Natural Born.

Strangely enough, subsequent federal court rulings and the opinions of the vast majority of legal scholars is that the combination of a citizen with Natural Born status makes a Natural Born citizen.

Re: "But Justice Gray only held that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. He never held that he was a “natural born Citizen.” That is precisely what Ankeny v, Governor of Indiana did rule.

Answer: Since the question in the case was whether or not Wong was a citizen, the fact that Justice Gray held that he was a citizen was the bottom line of the case, duh (sorry, but you deserve it).

IF Wong had been running for president, Justice Gray would have ruled that he was a Natural Born Citizen because, duh, he ruled that he was natural born and a citizen.

You disagree with Ankeny v, Governor of Indiana? Well, so what? It hasn't been overturned. It wasn't even appealed to the Federal Court system. It is the law in Indiana.

What is the law in the United States? The ruling in Wong Kim Ark.

You disagree with it? Well, so what? It is the law unless the US Supreme Court overturns it.

And what is the chance of that? Unless you can actually show that the writers of the US Constitution really believed that the US-born children of foreigners are risky citizens who should not be eligible to be president (and none of them wrote any such thing), there is NO chance that the US Supreme Court will overturn the Wong Kim Ark ruling.

I would LOVE for them to take the case. Your side would lose nine to zip or eight to one. But they will not take the case any more than they will take any of the many cases brought every year that claim that the income tax is unconstitutional.

Unless and until the US Supreme Court rules for your side (which as I said has an absurdly low possibility), what is the law? The law is that Obama was constitutionally elected by the US Electoral College, constitutionally confirmed by the US Congress and sworn in by the US Chief Justice. He is the president of the United States.

smrstrauss said...

Re: “The U.S. Supreme Court does not have to reverse Wong Kim Ark. The holding of Wong only deals with a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. While Wong confirmed Minor’s definition of a “natural born Citizen,” its holding does not concern a “natural born Citizen.”

You are right that the Wong Kim Ark case is a citizenship ruling under the 14th Amendment. The fact is, however, that it ALSO defined the meaning of Natural Born, which is certainly not two citizen parents. It held that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law (not Vattel) and that it meant that every child born in the USA is Natural Born, except for the children of foreign diplomats. That is the part of the Wong Kim Ark ruling that the US Supreme Court would have to reverse, if it took the case. And its chances of reversing that are about as high as the justices and their clerks taking on the Green Bay Packers in football, and winning.

Re: “The Founders and Framers did not view a child born in the United States to alien parents as a “lower class citizen.” Rather, they viewed that child as no citizen at all. “

Answer: Is that why this was published in 1803?

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

That quotation shows that the general legal opinion in 1803 was that children born in the USA were citizens, and in fact that they were Natural Born US citizens. (Natural Born referring to the place of birth).

Re: “I see that you have run out of “valid” arguments and now you resort to your old, Obot tactics. Your feable attempt to deried our constitutional arguments (“two-fers,” “Income Tax is unconstitutional,” “nutty two-fer case”) is nothing more than a desperate attempt at winning a losing argument. “

Okay, you are not as nutty as the guys who claim the income tax is unconstitutional. The fact is that the US Supreme Court has turned down every single birther case, possibly because it thought that they were nutty.

Re: “In any event, your reference to “all men are created equal” is pathetic, given that the Constitution itself clearly and without any doubt states that for future presidents only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President. “

It is clear that the US Constitution regards people as being NOT equal, since it actually allows slaves to be used as three-fifths of a citizen for electoral counting. And obviously foreigners (who are not citizens) and naturalized citizens (who are not Natural Born citizens) are not equal to Natural Born Citizens (those who were born in the USA).

But my point is is there any reason to believe the founders and framers believed that even more people were unequal, UNLESS THEY ACTUALLY SAID IT (and they didn’t). They wrote that “all men are created equal”. And they DIDN’T write that the US-born children of foreigners should be less equal than the US-born children of US citizens.

Re: “Finally, the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” is not decided by any election.”

The meaning of Natural Born Citizen was decided in the Wong Kim Ark case. Unless and until that case is overturned by the US Supreme Court what is the law? The law is that Obama was elected, elected again by the Electoral College (a constitutionally mandated body), confirmed by the US Congress (as specified in the US Constitution) and sworn in by the Chief Justice of the United States.

Puzo1 said...

smrstauss,

Who do you think you are kidding? The professors that you cited and quoted have provided no reasoning. Their personal opionion, without showing how they got to it counts for nothing. The testimony of any expert who testifies in court without providing the "why" and "how" factual foundation that supports his or her opinion is inadmissible as a "net opinion."

As you state, Solum changed his mind (more about that at a later time). Then why did you not include him in your list of professors who support your position? Also, you state that the two-U.S. parent argument is "nutty." How could constitutional law Professor Solum have initially said anything to support such an argument? How can Solum still believe that the argument is not "crazy?"

dr-conspiracy said...

Mr. Apuzzo asks: "Why does Dr. Conspiracy want Obama to be 6 years old rather than 2 years old when he moved to Indonesia?"

I really don't have any "wants" on this subject and I apologize for any errors. Based on the July 19, 1965 passport issue date for Obama's mother, we may infer that her trip to Indonesia happened after that, making Obama at least 4 years old (assuming a few weeks elapsed between passport issuance and trip).

I'll check some other material and update my article. Thanks for your comments.

dr-conspiracy said...

Mr. Apuzzo, I want to thank you again for uncovering some sloppy reporting I did regarding the Obama divorce and the date the Soetoro family moved to Indonesia.

I reviewed the immigration file for Lolo Soetoro obtained by Mr. Allen via FOIA and it is clear that Barack Obama moved to Indonesia no earlier than October of 1967 (when he was 6 years old). I wrote a new article this afternoon with the details, and I corrected my earlier story.

MichaelN said...

Part 1 of 2

I said:
>>Re: "Blackstone was generalizing and stating a half-truth, much like was stated in the Wong Kim Ark court.<<

smrstrauss said...
"Regarding Lord Coke. I'm not sure at all what he said. I am not an expert--but then neither are you."

>>You don't need to be an expert and neither do I, to understand what Lord Coke said, read it for yourself and explain how it might mean other than what I say it OBVIOUSLY says.

Here's what Lord Coke, said, now YOU explain how Coke doesn't mean that if the father is not a "subject", then his child cannot be a "subject", even if born in the land.<<

Quote Coke:
"that issue is NO SUBJECT to the King of England, THOUGH HE BE BORN UPON HIS SOYL, and under his meridian, for that he was NOT BORN under the ligeance OF A SUBJECT"

>>and then we have the TWO essential conditions REQUIRED to make a "natural born subject"<<

"Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized by procreation and birth right"

>>and we have further confirmation that it is the "subject" status of the parents that is ESSENTIAL to make a "natural born subject"<<

"There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.
1. That THE PARENTS be under the actual obedience of the king.
2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion. And
3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered;"

smrstrauss said...
"When the US Supreme Court and Lord Coke disagree, who wins? The US Supreme Court, of course."

>>We can concern ourselves with the SCOTUS later; first, here and now YOU need to accept and acknowledge the truth.

I.e. the notion which was apparently conceived & born in the WKA court, that the English common law, Calvin's case held that alien + child born in the land = "natural born", is only a selected part of Coke's holding and it (very likely deliberately, considering that Justice Gray was beholding to usurper Arthur)omitted CRUCIAL & VITAL elements of the holding in Calvin's case, which clearly show that the "alien" referred to must be a "subject" for his child to be a "subject".

So in light of this, by use of the widely adopted principle interchange comparison between an English "natural born subject" and a US "natural born Citizen" logically, it would take a US "citizen" parent father to make a US "natural born Citizen".

The emphasis on the "subject" status of the parent father as being ESSENTIAL in determining a "natural born" is widespread throughout the entire report of Calvin's case.

There are serious omissions and errors in the Wonk Kim Ark case, that have over the years subsequently wrongly influenced and guided the US courts and the legal fraternity at large<<

See Part 2

MichaelN said...

Part 2 of 2

smrstrauss said...
"Its interpretation of what the common law says, is the official legal interpretation in the USA, which is why all the constitutional experts write things like:

"There's some people who say that both parents need to be citizens. That's never been the law."--Ronald Rotunda, Professor of Law at Chapman University,"

>>Wong Kim Ark WRONGLY "interpreted" the English common law, and thus you have people like Roland Rotunda and yourself perpetuating the LIE.

Here's an example of what the courts really hold, which is consistent with the holding in Minor v Happersett.

Quote Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)

"The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393), and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, AND OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER, should BE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES and of the state in which they reside. Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 83 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

The evident MEANING of these last words is NOT MERELY SUBJECT IN SOME RESPECT OR DEGREE to the jurisdiction of the United States, BUT COMPLETELY SUBJECT TO THEIR POLITICAL JURISDICTION AND OWING THEM DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE ALLEGIANCE.

And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other.
Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired."

>>Makes you think doesn't it?

Now YOU show how in the English common law case of Calvin, that the WKA court relied on, where the "subject" status of the parent father was of 'no concern' in determining the 'natural born' status of his child<<

MichaelN said...

smrstrauss said ........

"Where is your authority that Minor v Happersett "had no such doubt??"

When a court case says that everybody thought X+Y but some people thought that just Y, but we do not have to make a decision, that is NOT a decision. It is not an expression of certainty."

>>You keep making the same mistake with your belts and suspenders and Xs & Ys

Here I will correct it for you:

The Minor v Happersett court held as CERTAIN that a "natural born citizen" was one born in US of US citizen parents, WITH NEVER ANY DOUBT.

The same court, in the same case, in the same paragraph, observed that some people thought that a child born in the US, to an alien parent MIGHT be a "citizen"

(not a "natural born", ONLY a "citizen", these are two different terms in the Constitution)

but with regard to those who might be "citizens" (not the "natural born" ones)there have been DOUBTS that they are even "citizen".

The court held that it was not about solving the DOUBTS about those born to alien parents who might or might not be "citizens"

The SCOTUS's "expression of certainty" was that:

US citizen parent + child born in US = child certainly, with no doubt a "natural born Citizen"

Alien parent + child born in US = doubtful a "citizen", therefore certainly NOT a "natural born citizen" & not interested in discussing<<

Do you get it now?

MichaelN said...

smrstrauss said...

Re: "the framers of the Constitution of the US (who were PROFOUNDLY influenced by Vattel, diligently and with great wisdom CHOSE the term "natural born" RATHER THAN "native born"

The considered Vattel an expert on international law. Elections and eligibility are domestic issues (and Vattel does not say anything about elections or eligiblity. As far as he is concerned a sovereign need not even be a citizen, much less a two-citizen-parent citizen)."

>> Vattel speaks of citizens & development and sustenance of nations, which is what the framers were VERY ACTIVELY concerned with and hungry for ideas and principles in their endeavor to compose the US Constitution and protect the highest office of president and commander in chief from any foreign influence.

Vattel was VERY popular with the framers and many other players who tookin his principles on the various topics right across the spectrum and scope of his works; they were well studied and understood by the framers, to the point that it much more likely that 'natural born Citizen" withing the context of USC Article II was derived from Vattel rather than the English common law definition, that Justice Gray GUESSED and promoted with deliberate omission of other crucial and vital points contained withing the case he cited as his source.

In light of what Lord Coke ACTUALLY held in Calvin's case, (that is, if the alien-born father was not a "subject", then his child cannot be a "subject" even if born in the land)...the definition born out of Gray's "invention" is rendered worthless and in error.

http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id3.html

Emmerich de Vattel was the most popular of all writers on the law of nations in America before, but especially after, the American Revolution.
Vattel's {The Law of Nations} arrived, shortly after its publication, in an America, which had already been greatly influenced by Leibniz.

No later than 1770, it was used as a textbook in colleges.

It was often quoted in speeches before judicial tribunals and legislatures, and used in formulating policy.

Following the Revolution, Vattel's influence grew. Vattel was cited far more often than Grotius and Puffendorf, in court proceedings, from 1789 to 1820.

Among those citing Vattel in legal cases and government documents, were
Benjamin Franklin,
John Adams,
James Wilson,
Alexander Hamilton,
James Madison,
John Jay, and
John Marshall.

John Adams, the future delegate to the Continental Congress, second President of the U.S., and father of President John Quincy Adams, recorded in his Diary on Feb. 1, 1763, that after spending the day frivolously, instead of reading and thinking, ``The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me.''

In 1765, Adams copied into his Diary three statements by Vattel, ``of great use to Judges,'' that laws should be interpreted according to the intent of the author, and every interpretation which leads to absurdity should be rejected.

Therefore the notion that the framers were derelict in their duty and imperative to protect and secure the office of POTUS from any foreign influence and claim is ABSURD.
.

James said...

Contrary to Obot belief, Ankeny v, Indiana DID NOT declare Obama an NBC. The court only declared Obama an NBC insofar on a reason based on LACK OF STANDING. Birther arguments were rejected on Basis of LACK OF Standing. In fact, there is one paragraph in the entire decision that is essential to understanding the whole case especially regarding the WKA Case Precedent -

"The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim."

Because the Plaintiffs LACKED STANDING, the court decided that it did not need to accept the Plaintiff's arguments as true. The court instead refused to address the birther's counter arguments entirely on a basis of STANDING. The court claimed their arguments were lacking but never gave one meritious reason on why this was so. Instead the court was able evade such reasoning by citing that the plaintiffs had a LACK OF STANDING.

Puzo1 said...

srmstrauss,

The original Constitution contains the phrases “natural born Citizen” and “[c]itizen of the United States.” The amended Constitution is splattered with the phrase “citizen of the United States.” These are two separate and distinct phrases which have two different meanings. To conflate and confound these phrases violates the intent of the Founders and Framers for including those phrases in the Constitution and is constitutional error.

To honor the Founders’ and Framers’ intent and not commit constitutional error, and applying this dichotomy to your example regarding Minor v. Happersett (1875), Minor said that there was no doubt that X (born in the U.S) + Y (born to “citizen” parents) = NBC (“natural-born citizen”). The Court then said that “there have been doubts” whether X (born in the U.S.) + Z (born to alien parents) = “C” (“citizen”). The Court was correct in expressing these doubts because at that time there did not exist any Congressional Act or American common law rule that recognized a child born in the U.S. to alien parents to be a “citizen.” On the contrary, all applicable Congressional Acts provided that such a child was an alien. The Fourteenth Amendment had been passed in 1868 and so the Court would have had to interpret and apply the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause. But given the statements of key Congressmen made during the debate on the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment regarding the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” (it meant subject to the complete political jurisdiction of the U.S.), the way both Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) (excluding from qualification any child born in the U.S. to aliens) and Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884) (requiring that the child not owe any allegiance to any alien power, that the child be completely subject U.S. political jurisdiction, and that the child owing it direct and immediate allegiance) had interpreted the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause, and given the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (requiring that the child be born “not subject to any foreign power”), there was no way that a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. Minor was aware of these legal developments and, because Virginia Minor was a “natural-born citizen,” it was not necessary for the Court to answer the question regarding C (“citizen”) and so just left it to be answered in the future. Wong Kim Ark did answer the question and said that X (born in the U.S.) + Z (born to alien parents) = C (“citizen”). Wong Kim Ark was not asked to nor did it decide anything about NBC (“natural born Citizen”).

As you see, there is NBC (“natural born Citizen”) and there is C (“citizen”), two separate and distinct types of citizenships. C (“citizen”) is initial membership in the United States. NBC (“natural born Citizen”) is the children of those initial members who are born in the U.S. This is the inescapable logic of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, when it refers to a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States.”

Puzo1 said...

smrstrauss,

The U.S. Supreme Court does not have to reverse Wong Kim Ark. The holding of Wong only deals with a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. While Wong confirmed Minor’s definition of a “natural born Citizen,” its holding does not concern a “natural born Citizen.”

The Founders and Framers did not view a child born in the United States to alien parents as a “lower class citizen.” Rather, they viewed that child as no citizen at all.

I see that you have run out of “valid” arguments and now you resort to your old, Obot tactics. Your feeble attempt to deride our constitutional arguments (“two-fers,” “Income Tax is unconstitutional,” “nutty two-fer case”) is nothing more than a desperate attempt at winning a losing argument.

Furthermore, like a typical Obot, when it suits your interest, you cite the Declaration of Indendence. In any event, your reference to “all men are created equal” is pathetic, given that the Constitution itself clearly and without any doubt states that for future presidents only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President.

Finally, the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” is not decided by any election. Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison established early in our history that it is the job of the U.S. Supreme Court to tell us what the Constitution means.

MichaelN said...

Part 1 of 2

Smrstrauss said ...............

“The reason that they used the phrase Natural Born was that it was in common use at the time, while native born was used very rarely. I do not know why, but that is the fact. And when Natural Born Citizen was used in the USA (not Switzerland) it referred at the time to the place of birth."

The REAL reason the framers used the term "natural born Citizen" was to describe to the best of their reckoning one who would have the highest possible allegiance and devotion to the new republic.

Nothing better suits that criteria than one who is born in the republic to parents who are citizens of the republic and this was consistent with the principles of Vattel, who the framers revered and whose works they studied and favoured.

Getting back to the usage of "natural" and "native" by the legislators and jurists of US.

Here's a look at what the subsequent jurists' thinking was on the use of the terms "native" and "natural"

Naturalization has been defined by the Supreme Court as “the act of adopting a foreigner, and clothing him with the privileges of a NATIVE citizen.”
Boyd v. Nebraska ex rel. Thayer, 143 U.S. 135, 162 (1892).

Chief Justice Marshall early stated in dictum that “[a] naturalized citizen . . . becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a NATIVE citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a NATIVE.
Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 737, 827 (1824).

"Despite these dicta, it is clear that particularly in the past but currently as well a naturalized citizen has been and is subject to requirements not imposed on NATIVE-born citizens."
Johannessen v. United States, 225 U.S. 227 (1912); Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654 (1946); Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265 (1961).

>>In the following, how come Justice Douglas did not use the term "natural born" rather than "native born", given that he made use of the term "NATURAL born" in the VERY SAME PARAGRAPH???

i.e. if Justice Douglas agreed with your absurd notion, then he would have used the term "natural" in every instance of his speech<<

“We start,” Justice Douglas wrote for the Court, “from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the NATIVE-born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive.
The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘NATURAL born’ citizen is eligible to be President."

see Part 2

MichaelN said...

Part 2 of 2

@smrstrauss

>>and from the same case<<

"“This statute proceeds on the impermissible assumption that naturalized citizens as a class are less reliable and bear less allegiance to this country than do the NATIVE-born. This is an assumption that is impossible for us to make.... A NATIVE-born citizen is free to reside abroad indefinitely without suffering loss of citizenship. The discrimination aimed at naturalized citizens drastically limits their rights to live and work abroad in a way that other citizens may. It creates indeed a second-class citizenship. Living abroad, whether the citizen be naturalized or NATIVE-born, is no badge of lack of allegiance and in no way evidences a voluntary renunciation of nationality and allegiance.”
Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 168–169 (1964).

>>if "natural was used to express "native" why then did they not say "natural land" below??<<

"And in the following year, the Court held unconstitutional a section of the law that expatriated a naturalized citizen who returned to his NATIVE land and resided there continuously for a period of three years"
Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 168–169 (1964).

"The Act of March 2, 1907, in providing "That any American citizen shall be deemed to have expatriated himself when he has been naturalized in any foreign state in conformity with its laws, . . . " was aimed at voluntary expatriation, and was not intended to destroy the right of a NATIVE citizen, removed from this country during minority,"

"Recent private Acts of Congress for the relief of NATIVE citizens who have been the subject of administrative action"

"Threats of deportation by the Secretary of Labor and immigration officials, and refusal by the Secretary of State to issue a passport, upon the disputed ground that the person affected has lost his NATIVE citizenship and become an alien"
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)

>>Even though Elg was actually a REAL "natural born Citizen" (being born in US to US naturalized citizen parents),the court used "native" instead of "natural", but you insist that it was the other way around............ and that they should have used "natural".

And another thing........ how come the term to describe the native indians was not "natural indians"? ..... what about "natural trees"?, "natural flowers"?, "natural flora", "natural fauna"?

Your argument is in tatters.

The fact of the matter is that, although "natural born" may have generally meant "native born" in describing a place born, the Framers choice of the term "natural born Citizen" was carefully chosen as an eligibility requirement for the highest office in the republic as POTUS and commander in chief.

Had the framers chose in their wisdom to provide in the eligibility clause for POTUS, any of those born in the land without any regards for the parents' status, they would have without doubt made it absolutely clear and used the language "born citizen", without any need for the word "natural" or "native".<<


.

Carlyle said...

I have touched on this before - but it bears repeating, and expanding, in this context.

While many of us think smrstrauss is full of hot 'stuff', he is actually doing us a big favor and giving us a valuable preview.

In the end, it does not matter who is right or wrong, it only matters what happens. A famous baseball umpire once observed, in regards balls and strikes at home plate, "it ain't nothin' 'til I call it". Thus dealing a death blow to objective truth in that sport.

Similarly, many judges - and it gets worse the higher you go - feel that there is no ground truth, only what they decide. Their only goal - in addition to promoting their own flavor of activism - is to write some fancy words that will amuse and amaze the scholars for the future.

Our friend smrstrauss seems very adept at this. I think he is exactly right - if the merits of this thing ever reach the courts and they are forced to render an opinion, it will not be a concise simple several-page obvious objective decision. It will be hundreds of pages of smrstrauss-speak and will absolve F. King Obama of all wrongdoing or mal-intent.

Mark my words - "I am never wrong". But, SIGH, sometimes I wish I were. I HATE being right about stuff like this.

cfkerchner said...

One must be careful in the use of the word "native" to not allow the current every day common usage meaning of a word today to be used to argue what the founders and framers meant and Supreme Court decisions meant when they used the term native. We must look to what words meant to the people who wrote them at the time they wrote them and in the context and legal venue they wrote them to understand what they mean.

The word federalists comes to mind in that it describes something different today than it did to those who were described on both sides of the constitution debate in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. Look to who were the federalists back then and what they wanted in our federal government and compare that to people today who call themselves federalists. Thus, likewise we need to be aware that the word "natives" meant something different in legal proceedings to the founders and framers than it does to say in today's common place street lingo, such as he's a native of NY.

The word "natives" as used by Vattel and those who quoted him or were of his school of thought included the parentage of the person born, not just the location of birth.

Fortunately for us, Vattel, the source of much of the wisdom of the founders and framers in justifying the revolution and writing the founding documents, defined in writing what he meant by the term "natives" when he used it not only in the same paragraph but the same sentence in Vol.1, Chapter 19, Section 212. So there is no doubt what Vattel meant. And there was no doubt that the founders used Vattel and that they new what Vattel meant and it is what they meant when the put the term "natural born Citizen" suggested by Jay to Washington into the presidential eligibility clause and rejecting Hamilton's suggested simply being a "born Citizen".

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

http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htm

This definition was also repeated in the Minor v Happersett decision in 1875.

Thus in debating the Obot spin meisters don't let them inter-mix and confuse modern common day word usage meaning today with the meaning of the words in the context they were used during the founding era and in Supreme Court decisions and a contemporaneous legal context of the founding era.

See this new group for some great summarized information on Article II Section 1, the presidential eligibility clause.

Art2SuperPAC.com

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://cdrkerchner.wordress.com

Puzo1 said...

All,

Obama has filed a motion to dismiss the Hendershot action pending in Alabama, arguing that, among other things, plaintiff does not have standing.

The great injustice that is committed on plaintiffs who bring actions against Obama on whether he is Article II eligible to be President is that his defenders say the plaintiffs have no standing. They cite various previous cases (not eligibility cases) in which plaintiffs filed actions against the government for how it is operated and the federal courts have found no standing. But those cases are basically about those plaintiffs challenging the conduct of government, or the operations of government, or whether the government is operating constitutionally. These cases do not apply to Obama's situation because an Obama eligibility challenge has nothing to do with the operations or conduct of government. Rather, the case is about whether a private person is qualified to assume the Office of President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

So, as we see, the injustice is treating Obama, a private person, as though he is a branch of government or government agency and cloaking him with the deference and protections that the judicial branch of government many times gives to the other branches or agencies of government because of some political or public policy concern. There simply is no sound basis for treating Obama, a private person, as though he is some government branch or agency.

Also, standing rules in state court are different from standing rules in Federal court. The states are much more lenient in finding standing. We have seen many state election laws which give simple voters or taxpayers the right to file eligibility challenges. Those state legislatures, the representatives of the people of that state, have spoken and given those voters and taxpayers a cause of action which the court's should respect. Alabama law needs to be analyzed on the question of standing in election contests filed by that state's voters and taxpayers and the Alabama court should not be allowed to be shackled by federal law.

smrstrauss said...

Re: “The professors that you cited and quoted have provided no reasoning.”

Answer. Why should they? They know that the meaning of Natural Born, as actually used by AMERICAN leaders at the time that the Constitution was written, and as Blackstone said was the meaning in the common law and as was stated in the ruling of six justices in the Wong Kim Ark case. For them to provide reasoning, when the facts are obvious, is unnecessary. It is not necessary to prove that there is a law of gravity.

Re: “Then why did you not include him in your list of professors who support your position?”

Answer: I figured that six or eight, or however many I cited, was enough. You want more?

Re: “How can Solum still believe that the argument is not "crazy?"

Answer: He is a nice guy; that explains it. Others call it crazy or, worse, deliberately misleading.

“Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”—the Wall Street Journal. (The Journal, by the way, points out that the Minor v. Happersett ruling only mentions two kinds of citizens, natural born ones and naturalized ones. It does not say that there are Natural Born, native-born and naturalized citizens.)

Re: “we have the TWO essential conditions REQUIRED to make a "natural born subject"

Answer: If that were really true there would be British laws and British courts ruling that a person who had been born in England of foreign parents was NOT a subject or not Natural Born, and there aren’t any.

Here is what, the experts, six justices of the US Supreme Court said that Coke had said (and by the way, what makes him the great expert? He is just one of many, Blackstone being another):

“The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.”

In short, if you were born in Britain, and your parents were foreign, you were considered a Natural Born Subject. The ONLY ones who were not under the allegiance of the king were “foreign ambassadors and the children of foreign enemies.”

smrstrauss said...

Continuing:

That is precisely what Ho said in the book on the Constitution edited by Edwin Meese, Reagan’s attorney general, and published by the Heritage Foundation:

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President.”

It is precisely what Maskell wrote:

“At the time of independence, and at the time of the framing of the Constitution, the term “natural born” with respect to citizenship was in use for many years in the American colonies, and then in the states, from British common law and legal usage. Under the common law principle of jus soli (law of the soil), persons born on English soil, even of two alien parents, were “natural born” subjects and, as noted by the Supreme Court, this “same rule” was applicable in the American colonies and “in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution ...” with respect to citizens. In textual constitutional analysis, it is understood that terms used but not defined in the document must, as explained by the Supreme Court, “be read in light of British common law” since the Constitution is “framed in the language of the English common law.”--- Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement, Jack Maskell, Congressional Research Service, November 2011.

It is what Rawle wrote:

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

It is also the way that John Adams and Alexander Hamilton used the term “Natural Born”. And I can show that Benjamin Franklin, John Adams AND John Jay used the term Natural Born Citizen as a synonym to Natural Born Subject in draft treaties with Britain. Want to see the quotations?

smrstrauss said...

Re:

"YOU need to accept and acknowledge the truth."

YOU say that Lord Coke said that the parents must be subjects. The US Supreme Court has said that Lord Coke said that the parents did not have to be subjects. Blackstone said that British common law did not require the parents to be subjects.

Please cite five or six Constitutional scholars or British experts in the common law that agree with you that Coke said that the parents must be subjects. The reference: "he was NOT BORN under the ligeance OF A SUBJECT" probably refers to the child of a foreign ambassador or an invading enemy.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "very likely deliberately, considering that Justice Gray was beholding to usurper Arthur.."

Try to restrain your nutty side.

The decision in Wong Kim Ark was by SIX justices, not just Justice Gray, and it was in 1898, and Chester A. Arthur had ceased being president in 1885, and it was a decision AGAINST the government. The government of the USA, the executive branch under President William McKinley at the time, wanted to deport Wong. The US Supreme Court ruled that it couldn't because Wong was a citizen. What made him a citizen? The fact that he was Natural Born, meaning born in the country.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "AND OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER, should BE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES and of the state in which they reside. Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 83 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306."

The actual words of the 14th Amendment state: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

There is a difference between jurisdiction and allegiance. If the 14th Amendment had meant allegiance, it would have said allegiance.

smrstrauss said...

Re: “ The Minor v Happersett court held as CERTAIN that a "natural born citizen" was one born in US of US citizen parents, WITH NEVER ANY DOUBT. The same court, in the same case, in the same paragraph, observed that some people thought that a child born in the US, to an alien parent MIGHT be a "citizen"

Answer: If it is a two horse race, and you have bets on both horses, you will win. But do you have to have bets on both horses to win?

If you have your umbrella up inside the house, and the house does not leak, you will not get wet from the rain. But do you have to have your umbrella up while you are in the house?

The Minor vs Happersett ruling said that Minor, who was born in the USA and both of whose parents were US citizens, was unquestionably a Natural Born US citizen. Indeed, it has never been questioned that if you were both born in the USA and had two US citizen parents you were a Natural Born US citizen.

Who could disagree?

Minor had bets on both horses. Her umbrella was up while she was inside the house. She had both. Bush had both, Clinton had both. But was it NECESSARY for them to have both? The Minor vs Happersett decision DOES NOT say anywhere that both two US parents and birth in the USA is required.

Sure having both is nice. Sure having both makes you a Natural Born Citizen, but is it NECESSARY?
Can you be a Natural Born Citizen without having both?

Which of the two factors or both made Minor a Natural Born Citizen? You say both. But as I said, the Minor vs Happersett decision did not say that at all. It did NOT say that both were required.

And in fact the statement that the court did not have to decide indicates that the court was not certain. It stated quite clearly that it did not have to decide, and it did not decide. IT is not a decision.

That is why the vast majority of constitutional scholars (not birthers of course, but then both the credentials and the objectivity of birthers are suspect) say that Minor v. Happersett was NOT a decision on Natural Born Citizen status.

Please provide six or seven Constitutional experts who agree with you that Minor V. Happersett ruled that two citizen parents were required.

smrstrauss said...

Re:

" Vattel was VERY popular with the framers and many other players who tookin his principles on the various topics right across the spectrum and scope of his works..."

But they read others besides Vattel. In particular, they read Blackstone A LOT MORE THAN VATTEL, and Blackstone defines a Natural Born Citizen by the place of birth.

Vattel is not mentioned even once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law is mentioned about twenty times. The words Natural Born Citizen did not appear in any English language translation of Vattel until a decade after the US Constitution was written, and it is a stretch to translate the word that Vattel himself used "indigines" as "Natural Born Citizen."

Does Vattel say that the sovereign of a country should be an indigines? NO he doesn't. Does he say that the sovereign should be a citizen? No he doesn't. Does any other natural law philosopher say that two citizen parents and birth in the country are necessary? No. Does James Madison, John Adams or Alexander Hamilton say that two citizen parents are necessary? No. Do they say "Natural Born Citizen means what Vattel wrote"? No.

smrstrauss said...

Re:

"Among those citing Vattel in legal cases and government documents, were
Benjamin Franklin,
John Adams,
James Wilson,
Alexander Hamilton,
James Madison,
John Jay, and
John Marshall."

Of these, I can show that

John Adams,
James Wilson and
Alexander Hamilton

used the term Natural Born in the common law sense and never in the Vattel sense.

And no quotations from

James Madison,
John Jay, and
John Marshall

Can be found showing that they used the term Natural Born in the Vattel sense.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "Ankeny v, Indiana DID NOT declare Obama an NBC. "

It threw out the birther case. In the course of doing so, it declared:

“Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural born-born subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”--- Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 NE2d 678, 688 (2009), (Ind.Supreme Court, Apr. 5, 2010)

That is what it said.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "The Court was correct in expressing these doubts because at that time there did not exist any Congressional Act or American common law rule that recognized a child born in the U.S. to alien parents to be a “citizen.”

Precisely. Citizenship is conferred by law. Natural Born status refers to a term used at the time. If someone satisfies the meaning of the term Natural Born, as used in AMERICA (not Switzerland) at the time that Constitution was written and is a citizen under current law, she or he is a Natural Born Citizen.

How was Natural Born used in the USA at the time? Here is an example from 1803:

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

As you can see, that refers to the place of birth, NOT to the parents.

In addition, it can be shown that John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, James Wilson and others I think all used the term Natural Born in the common law sense, and never in the Vattel sense.

Puzo1 said...

smrstrauss,

You said “if you were born in Britain, and your parents were foreign, you were considered a Natural Born Subject.” You and many like you just do not get it. After July 4, 1776, America was no longer like being in England. For sake of brevity, I will give you just two cases and a bonus which show that such a rule was not adopted in the United States after the Revolution:

1) Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 3 Pet. 99, 7 L.Ed. 617 (1830). The majority of the Court in Inglis, which included Chief Justice John Marshall, did not rely upon the English common law jus soli rule but rather the law of nation jus sanguinis rule when it held that if the demandant was born in New York after July 4, 1776, his minority incapacitated him from making any election as to which citizenship to chose and he therefore inherited the character and election and therefore the citizenship of his father (father and mother) who, if born a British subject and if he continued that national character as of the time of his son’s birth, made the son British also, subject to the son renouncing the citizenship chosen for him by his British father during minority and choosing U.S. citizenship upon becoming an adult. Id. at 124 and 126. The majority cited and relied upon Vattel when arguing that a person has a right to elect what nation to be part of in time of revolution. Id. at 122. Justice Story put forth the English common law jus soli rule for citizenship and ruled that the damandant if born in New York was an “American citizen” regardless of the citizenship of his parents (Id. at 164 and 170). But Justice Story was in the minority. The majority of the Court did not adopt Justice Story’s opinion and reliance on the English common law.

As we can clearly see, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1830 rejected the notion that a child born in New York to British parents after July 4, 1776 was an American citizen.

2) Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875):

“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” Id. at 167-68. If the English common law jus soli had been adopted in the U.S., why would our U.S. Supreme Court say that there “have been doubts” whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was even a “citizen.” As you correctly pointed out, in England, there would not have been any doubt that a child born there to aliens in amity was a “natural born subject.”

As we can clearly see, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1875 said that “there have been doubts” that a child born in the United States to alien parents was even a “citizen.”

Just as an added bonus, the Government in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1875) correctly argued that Wong, born in the U.S. to alien parents, was an alien. Justice Gray disagreed, but only by rewriting American history by denying and burying the fundamental principles of our Founding. Do you agree with me that the Executive at that time would have known whether our nation was supposed to have adopted the English common law jus soli rule as you state we did? Too bad for you that the Government actually argued that we adopted the law of nations jus sanguinis rule of citizenship and not the English common law jus soli rule. I guess that the U.S. government must have been run by “crazy” “birthers” at that time.

So what do you have to say for yourself, Mr. smrstraus, that is responsive to me and which makes any sense? And please do not tell me about how one does not need a belt and suspenders to hold one’s pants up.

Puzo1 said...

srmstrauss,

You said:

"Re: "AND OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER, should BE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES and of the state in which they reside. Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 83 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306."

The actual words of the 14th Amendment state: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

There is a difference between jurisdiction and allegiance. If the 14th Amendment had meant allegiance, it would have said allegiance.”
******************

And that is why the Fourteenth Amendment only defines “citizenship,” not “natural born citizenship.”

smrstrauss said...

Re: "given the statements of key Congressmen made during the debate on the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment regarding the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction”

Do you mean these statements?

"A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws..... They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States, as were born in the country or were made such by naturalization; and the Constitution declares that they are entitled, as citizens, to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." Senator Howard (author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment), Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2765-66 (1866).

"I have always believed that every person, of whatever race or color, who was born within the United States was a citizen of the United States...The Senator says a person may be born here and not be a citizen. I know that is so in one instance, in the case of the children of foreign ministers who reside "near" the United States in the diplomatic language. By a fiction of law such persons are not supposed to be residing here, and under that fiction of law their children would not be citizens of the United States." Senator Wade, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess.2768-69 (1866).

"If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States, there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States." Sen. Johnson, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 2893 (1866)

"The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law [the Civil Rights Act]; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. Senator Conness, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 2890 (1866)

"If the Indian is bound to obey the law he is subject to the jurisdiction of the country; and that is the question I desired the Senator to meet as a legal question, whether the Indian would be bound to obey the law which Congress in express terms extended over him in regard to questions within the jurisdiction of Congress." Senator Hendricks, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 2894 (1866).

smrstrauss said...

Continuing:

Or these statements:

"In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an ambassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court." Senator Williams, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 2897 (1866).

"Why, sir, what does it mean when you say that a people are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Subject, first, to its military power; second, subject to its political power; third, subject to its legislative power; and who doubts our legislative power over the reservations upon which these Indians are settled?" Senator Doolittle, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 2896 (1866).

"in which he states clearly that the Indians, though born upon our soil, owing us allegiance, are not citizens; they are our subjects; and that is the very word which is used in this amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States, declaring that if they be "subject" to our jurisdiction, born on our soil, they are, ipso facto, citizens of the United States." Senator Doolittle, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 2896 (1866).

"The Constitution of the United States declares that no one but a native-born citizen of the United States shall be President of the United States. Does, then, every person living in this land who does not happen to have been born within its jurisdiction undergo pains and penalties and punishment all his life, because by the Constitution he is ineligible to the Presidency? Senator Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2901(1866).

Comments by members of 39th Congress outside of 1866 Debates

"By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born....I read from Paschal's Annotated Constitution, note 274: "All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons." Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)

Puzo1 said...

smrstrauss,

You asked regarding the dreaft treaties, "Want to see the quotations?"

Yes.

SaipanAnnie said...

Dr. Conspiracy says:

Based on the July 19, 1965 passport issue date for Obama's mother, we may infer that her trip to Indonesia happened after that, making Obama at least 4 years old (assuming a few weeks elapsed between passport issuance and trip).

You can infer no such thing.

According to The State Department, records for "Ms. Dunham" PRIOR TO 1965 were reported destroyed.

And, upon what evidence can you base your assumption that the 1965 passport was her first issued?

Therefore, you have no basis upon which to state that an earlier trip to Indonesia was not taken.

Your second attempt to refute Ms. Trowbridge's statement has failed like your first.

In addition, you have no independent proof that young Obama did not travel to Indonesia with another party.

In the spirit of your self-reported interest in accuracy, it is only fair and decent to remove the statement at your blog that you have proved Ms. Trowbridge wrong.

You have yet to do so.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "And that is why the Fourteenth Amendment only defines “citizenship,” not “natural born citizenship.”

Precisely. We are in complete agreement. The 14th Amendment defines citizenship NOT Natural Born status.

To be a Natural Born Citizen you must be BOTH citizen, which comes from the law, based on the 14th Amendment, and you must be Natural Born.

Where does Natural Born come from and what does it mean? It comes form the common law, not from Vattel. That does not mean that we adopted the common law. It only means that the writers of the Constitution were lawyers and tended to use common law terms.

Did they use Natural Born in the Vattel sense? There is no evidence of it. There are no writings by them that said that they used it in the Vattel sense, and PLENTY in which they used Natural Born in the common law sense.

So, was Wong Kim Ark a Natural Born Citizen? He was a citizen, as the court ruled, under the 14th Amendment. And he was Natural Born under the meaning of Natural Born IN AMERICA at the time that the Constitution was written.

Here is an actual example of how it was used in 1803, shortly after the Constitution was written:

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

As you can see, that refers to the place of birth, not to the parents. Which is, of course, just what Blackstone said too, and what the Wong Kim Ark ruling also said.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "The Founders and Framers did not view a child born in the United States to alien parents as a “lower class citizen.” Rather, they viewed that child as no citizen at all."

Really? Then why was this written in 1803?

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

How about this, from LONG before the Constitution:

"Also we do for ourselves and successors declare by these presents that all and every of the persons which shall happen to be born within the said province and every of their children and posterity shall have and enjoy all liberties franchises and immunities of free denizens and natural born subjects The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws of the United States … Charter of 1732 – Georgia

Or this:

"“The people are considered as aliens, born in some foreign country, as inhabitants of some neighbouring state in the union, or natural born subjects, born within the state..." Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Book, pg. 163,167 (1795)

smrstrauss said...

Re: " “We start,” Justice Douglas wrote for the Court, “from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the NATIVE-born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive.
The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘NATURAL born’ citizen is eligible to be President."

Justice Douglas wrote about 150 years after the US Constitution at a time when Native Born was used far more frequently than Natural Born. He used both of them, indicating that they are SYNONYMS.

It is true that Native Born was used occasionally at the time that the Constitution was written, but Natural Born was used much more, far more, and it was a more precise legal term (because it excluded the children of foreign diplomats and invaders). That is why they used it.

There is no indication that they used Natural Born in the Vattel sense or to exclude dual nationals.

Puzo1 said...

srmstrauss,

You fail to understand that the Founders and Framers wrote a Constitution and not some simple document that would change with the politics of the times. You fail to understand that in that Constitution, the Founders and Framers wrote a presidential eligibility rule which included not only “natural born Citizen,” but also 35 years of age, and 14 years of U.S. residency. Being bright line rules, definitions of these phrases do not change with time. The definitions were set unless changed by constitutional amendment.

You state: “The Minor vs Happersett ruling said that Minor, who was born in the USA and both of whose parents were US citizens, was unquestionably a Natural Born US citizen. Indeed, it has never been questioned that if you were both born in the USA and had two US citizen parents you were a Natural Born US citizen. Who could disagree?”

And that makes my point. The Founders and Framers knew exactly that. They needed an undisputuable definition for citizenship for future presidents, a definition which all nations would accept and which would not cause any conflicts among nations (especially Great Britain) as to the allegiance of the U.S. President and Commander in Chief of the Military. Can you just imagine Great Britain claiming that the U.S. President and Commander in Chief was an English “natural born subject,” and guilty of treason for fighting again Great Britain in the War of 1812. That is why for future Presidents, they carefully and deliberately chose “natural born Citizen” and not “native-born citizen,” or “born citizen,” of even “Citizen of the United States.” With a “natural born Citizen,” which requires birth in the U.S. to citizen parents, there could not be under the law of nations any claim by any foreign nation to that citizen’s allegiance and citizenship that would be recognized by civilized nations.

Puzo1 said...

srmstrauss,

You said in reference to Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana:

"It threw out the birther case. In the course of doing so, it declared:

“Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural born-born subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”--- Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 NE2d 678, 688 (2009), (Ind.Supreme Court, Apr. 5, 2010)

That is what it said."

*************

Yes, and the court just forgot to apply its definition to Obama. It never ruled that he was "born within the borders of the United States." It would have had to have evidence for that finding.

It also never ruled that he was a "natural born Citizen."

smrstrauss said...

The ruling in INGLIS V. TRUSTEES OF SAILOR'S SNUG HARBOR, 28 U. S. 99 (1830)applies to children born in the USA before the Declaration of Independence or during British occupation of parts of the USA (in this case New York) who then left the USA and did not return.

It says nothing about Natural Born status. Moreover, it quotes the common law many times, and does not mention natural law at all. It quotes Vattel in this way: "Vattel considers the general doctrine to be that children generally acquire the national character of their parents...'

But note that it does not say that Vattel said that children ALWAYS acquire the national character of their parents. And Vattel is used as a backup argument to the common law.

The key quotation from Inglis is: "Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth. "

Re British common law being different from US Common Law or the USA not adopting the common law. That is not what Marshall says above. Moreover it is not a question of whether or not we adopted the common law. The question is whether Natural Born was used in the way that it was used by the common law or in the way that Vattel used it, and there is evidence of the former and no evidence of the latter.

Puzo1 said...

smrstrauss,

Regarding Schneider v. Rusk, Section 352(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 had caused naturalized citizens to loss their U.S. citizenship if they continuously resided abroad in the country of origin for three years. The section did not have a similar provision whereby if “native-born citizens” resided abroad for such a period of time, they lost their U.S. citizenship. The Court held that Section 352(a)(1) was discriminatory as to appellant, a naturalized citizen, and therefore violated her Fifth Amendment due process rights. The Court ruled that naturalized citizens have the same rights and privileges as “native-born citizens.” The Court concluded that naturalized citizens are just as loyal to the U.S. as are “native-born citizens” so therefore, there was no sound basis for the statute to treat naturalized citizens the way it did. The Court therefore held that Congress did not have power to pass a statute that treated naturalized citizens differently than it did “native-born citizens” when the statute did not provide any reasonable basis for doing so. So, the Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to say that a naturalized citizen is equivalent to a “native-born citizen.”

But we know from Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 that the Founders and Framers made a policy decision that a “natural born Citizen” has a higher allegiance level than does a naturalized citizen, for the former is eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military while the latter is not. That the Court equated the loyalty of a naturalized citizen to that of a “native-born citizen” tells us that the Court could not have meant to say that a “native-born citizen” is the same as a “natural born Citizen,” for only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President and a naturalized citizen is clearly not. If the Court meant to equate “natural born” and “native born,” it would not have equated the allegiance of “native born” to that of the naturalized.

Puzo1 said...

smrstrauss,

Now you are just making stuff up about Inglis.

Clearly the Court ruled on a scenario in which the demandant was born after July 4, 1776. It said that if such child was born in New York after July 4, 1776 to British parents, the child was a British subject and not an American citizen.

You say that the case is known for this quote: "Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth. " You are correct and that makes my point. Our nation has been fleeced with this quote. This is a quote from Justice Story who was in the minority. The majority, which included Chief Justice Marshall, rejected his English common law jus soli rule and adopted the law of nations jus sanguinis rule. We can thank Justice Gray for the fleecing.

scott said...

arduini confirmed obama got a passport at six.

scott said...

btw this site is linked at dr. conspiracies den of horror.

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/01/birther-poll-revisited/

SaipanAnnie said...

scott says:

arduini confirmed obama got a passport at six.

Where did you access this information?

And how could 'Arduini' possibly access it, given that all records are sealed?

If this is you, Bari,it's time to log off for the night and get some sleep. You're slipping, badly.

Robert said...

Re: Inglis

Mr Justice THOMPSON delivered the opinion of the court.

[Beginning between 124 and 125 at the link below]

"The facts disclosed in this case, then, lead irresistibly to the conclusion that it was the fixed determination of Charles Inglis the father, at the declaration of independence, to adhere to his native allegiance. And John Inglis the son must be deemed to have followed the condition of his father, and the character of a British subject attached to and fastened on him also, which he has never attempted to throw off by any act disaffirming the choice made for him by his father."

Mr. Obama senior was clearly a British/Kenyan subject with no intention of ever becoming a citizen of the United States. Mr. Obama Jr. has thus claimed that he was born under British jurisdiction and to this date has never presented any documentation or otherwise repudiated his claim or disaffirmed the claim placed on him by his father. Neither has he presented any documentation disaffirming his Indonesian citizenship placed on him by his mother and step father.

These points along with an in depth discussion of the individual "right of election" presented in Inglis leads to the clear conclusion that the court would declare Jr. a British subject and maybe an Indonesian citizen, but, under no interpretation would they have declared our current putative POTUS to be a natural born citizen of the USA.

See: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13935573881680930672&q=INGLIS+V.+TRUSTEES+OF+SAILOR%27S+SNUG+HARBOR,+28+U.+S.+99+%281830%29&hl=en&as_sdt=2,44&as_vis=1

dr-conspiracy said...

SaipanAnnie commented: "According to The State Department, records for "Ms. Dunham" PRIOR TO 1965 were reported destroyed."

That's not accurate. What they said was that passport applications were destroyed, not that all passport records were destroyed. There are microfilm copies of passport issuance cards that still exist independent of applications.

My own FOIA request for issuance records netted additional documentation beyond what Mr. Strunk received from his FOIA for passport applications.

Now I will say that I am still in discussion with the Department of State to make double-dog sure that I have everything, and that the issuance cards are complete. But it appears at this point that there is nothing and never was in the way of a passport before 1965.

In any case, Lolo Soetoro's immigration file states clearly that his wife and stepson were living in Honolulu as late as October of 1967. Trowbridge's alternate biography is impossible.

dr-conspiracy said...

Mr. Apuzzo wrote:

[The Indiana Appeals Court] never ruled that he was "born within the borders of the United States."

Perhaps they looked it up in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Do you have some fancy legal term for generally known and well-attested facts?

Puzo1 said...

dr-conspiracy,

The rule of evidence to which you refer is called judicial notice. It is found at Rule 201 in the Federal Rules of Evidence. Indiana probably has a comparable rule. But we cannot just assume the court used that rule to “find” as you say that Obama was born in the United States.

First, there is nothing in the court’s opinion that remotely suggests that the court found that Obama was born in the United States.

Second, even if the court had taken judicial notice of the place of Obama’s birth, such finding could be subject to attack. Judicially noticed facts are ones not subject to a reasonable dispute. Facts that are not subject to a reasonable dispute are ones that are generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the court or capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Obama’s place of birth is highly in dispute and does not fit into either one of these categories. It is not generally know since it is in such dispute. The only source evidence that the court would have seen of his birth is an internet image. That image has never been authenticated in any court of law. The best evidence is the paper ceritified birth certificate. No court has seen that evidence.

Third, the plaintiffs would have had an opportunity to be heard if the court were going to take judicial notice of Obama’s alleged birth in Hawaii. The plaintiffs were not given any such opportunity.

Hence, your judicial notice theory just does not hold any water.

MichaelN said...

smrstrauss said .

"In short, if you were born in Britain, and your parents were foreign, you were considered a Natural Born Subject. The ONLY ones who were not under the allegiance of the king were "foreign ambassadors and the children of foreign enemies." "

No need to try and re-write it and/or shorten it, it still comes out the same...

"In short"... daddio not a "subject", then kiddo not a "subject'.

If one was born in 17th century England to a father who was not a 'subject' of the sovereign of that realm, then one cannot be a "subject".

Squirm and buck, and twist and contort all you like, but it won't change these basic truths.

There are at least three ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS to make a "natural born".... they are as follows, but only TWO are relevant, with reference to how English common law MIGHT have influenced the framers, in constructing appropriate language for POTUS eligibility.

The TWO ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS are:-

PARENT father to be a "subject"

and

His child to be born IN THE REALM.

A relevant excerpt from Lord Coke - Calvin's case follows

Calvin's case was cited (selectively, omitting crucial elements) by SCOTUS in the Wong Kim Ark case as the one and only source for defining the meanings of the two mentions of "citizen" found in the US Constitution.

And, by the way, that's WHY Lord Coke is considered the "great expert" as you put it, by your precious "Half-Truth Horace" Gray.

Horace (beholding to usurper, non-natural-born,Chester Arthur for his appointment to the bench) conveniently omitted the fact that the alien-born father was to be a "subject".

Quoting Horace Gray's "great expert" Lord Coke.

"There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.

1. That the PARENTS be under the actual obedience of the king.

2. That the PLACE of his birth be within the king’s dominion. And

3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered;"

and we also have this following, which Half-Truth-Horace, also conveniently omitted in his cut-down citation of Calvin's case.

"that issue is NO SUBJECT to the King of England, THOUGH he be BORN UPON HIS SOYL, and under his meridian, for that he WAS NOT BORN UNDER THE LIGEANCE OF A SUBJECT"

Which consequently results with this from the SCOTUS case Minor v Happersett.

"AT COMMON LAW, with the nomenclature of which THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION WERE FAMILIAR, it was NEVER DOUBTED that all CHILDREN BORN IN A COUNTRY OF PARENTS WHO WERE ITS CITIZENS became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These WERE natives or NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS,"

How more plain and clear can it be?

YOU KNOW that the framers would not be so derelict as to provide an eligibility requirement for POTUS that would be anything less than the best possible US citizen they could imagine or conceive, that being one who is born in the nation to parents who are dedicated citizens thereof, giving this child the highest possible allegiance to family and nation, with the least amount of risk of foreign claim or influence...... you KNOW this to be true, but your political bias stands in the way.

You just keep on selling your soul...... what is the matter with you?

MichaelN said...

smrstrauss said..

Re: “we have the TWO essential conditions REQUIRED to make a "natural born subject"

Answer: If that were really true there would be British laws and British courts ruling that a person who had been born in England of foreign parents was NOT a subject or not Natural Born, and there aren’t any.

Now try to stay with the program.

First we are talking about 17th century English common law.

Secondly, it's not a matter of "if that were really true"....... it IS REALLY TRUE........... I didn't make it up .... US SUPREME Court Chief Justice Horace Gray cited the case .......... and here's what it says about the TWO essential conditions REQUIRED to make a "natural born subject".

Quoting Calvin's case, verbatim:

"Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized by procreation and birth right,"

and....

"There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.

1. That the PARENTS be under the actual obedience of the king.

2. That the PLACE of his birth be within the king’s dominion."

Do you have a problem with comprehension?

MichaelN said...

smrstrauss said...

Re:
"YOU need to accept and acknowledge the truth."

"YOU say that Lord Coke said that the parents must be subjects. The US Supreme Court has said that Lord Coke said that the parents did not have to be subjects. Blackstone said that British common law did not require the parents to be subjects."

>>Read it for yourself then..

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=911&chapter=106337&layout=html&Itemid=27

Now YOU tell me what Coke meant by the phrases I have cited.

MichaelN said...

smrstrauss said ........

>That is precisely what Ho said in the book on the Constitution edited by Edwin Meese, Reagan’s attorney general, and published by the Heritage Foundation:

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President.”<

Yes, the common law principle of jus soli, was in conjunction with the principle of jus sanguinis.

And yes, people who were born within the US are "natural born citizens" provided that there parent father, is a US citizen.

Like I have already pointed out to you, the commentators you are relying on, have FAILED to recognize in the 17th century English common law (as did the WKA court), that it was BOTH jus soli AND jus sanguinis that was required and essential in making a "natural born".

You can see this for yourself, it is not my opinion, it is there in black & white.

Quote from the 17th century English common law - Calvin's case.

"There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.

1. That the PARENTS be under the actual obedience of the king.

2. That the PLACE of his birth be within the king’s dominion."

For one to be under the "obedience of the king" means that one is a 'subject' of the king.

Quote:
"that issue is NO SUBJECT to the King of England, THOUGH HE BE BORN UPON HIS SOYL, and under his meridian, for that he WAS NOT BORN UNDER THE LIGEANCE OF A SUBJECT"

Thus the opinions of people who you rely on are in error ............. and thus so are you.

Maybe you can show me that these people you rely on are correct and that the parent father is of no concern in the making of a "natural born".

So far I have asked you on numerous previous occasions to show that Coke said other than I have noted here, but you just keep avoiding backing up your claim with anything of substance, except to quote others who have quite clearly got it wrong.

Be a MAN ............ YOU show me that I am wrong in my interpretation of Lord Coke's statements.

MichaelN said...

smrstrauss said .......
"The actual words of the 14th Amendment state: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

There is a difference between jurisdiction and allegiance. If the 14th Amendment had meant allegiance, it would have said allegiance."

******************

Puzo1 said ....
"And that is why the Fourteenth Amendment only defines “citizenship,” not “natural born citizenship."

***********************

check-mate :-)

juniper55 said...

American Thinker article on Solum et al and their view of citizenship:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/academia_shrugs_obamas_citizenship_and_the_presidency.html

And their blog on the Georgia case:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/01/the_birthers_went_down_to_georgia.html

Also 10 % of the DEMOCRATIC caucus votes in Iowa were for "uncommitted." This movement is gaining traction among the Dems who don't like him either.
www.bleedingheartland.com

scott said...

arduini confirmed obama got a passport at six.

Where did you access this information?

And how could 'Arduini' possibly access it, given that all records are sealed?

If this is you, Bari,it's time to log off for the night and get some sleep. You're slipping, badly.


i pushed him pretty hard on it. go to the conspiracy theory (other) section at politicalforum.com (wong kim ark) that's frank and sfjeff were really pushing the passport at six thing. this is about when michael n came in and i got banned as washingtonamerica.com (i'm scott e.). there are some great telling threads there join and search.

Unknown said...

"1. That Obama has never presented any prima facia documentation of his parentage, place of birth, or nationality."


Total BS!
Obama has produced 2 documents that ARE Prima Facia evidence of his birth in Hawaii.
Both his short and long form Birth Certificates are Prima Facia proof, you nuts just refuse to believe them!

Unknown said...

"Are you ready for the onslaught of Challenges in State Primary and general elections that give absolute standing to Citizen Voters who challenge Obama's eligibility?"

BRING THEM ON!!!!
Every one of them will be dismissed.

smrstrauss said...

Re: “William Rawle provides absolutely no authority or support for his statement. He simply states his personal opinion which was rejected starting with Justice Marshall in The Venus, the Inglis majority, Justice Daniels in Dred Scott, Minor v. Happersett, and Wong Kim Ark (just to mention some authorites among the many more that exist).”

Answer: I just read through Inglis, and here is what it said:

“Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.." That is what Rawle thought too.

Wong Kim Ark ruled that Wong was a US citizen and that all persons born in the US are natural born (except for the children of foreign diplomats, etc). A person who is both a US citizen and Natural Born is, of course, a Natural Born US Citizen. That is what Rawle thought too.

Minor is not a decision. It says right in the case that it does not have to decide the matter, and that is proof that it did not decide the matter. All that it said in the discussion prior to saying that it would not decide is that if someone fulfilled all the possible ways of becoming a Natural Born Citizen, both the place of birth and two citizen parents, then there has never been any doubt that that person is indeed a Natural Born Citizen. But it did not say that both were required. Both will inevitably make a Natural Born Citizen, but one might do so too, and the Minor ruling did not say which of the two would do it, nor did it say that both are required.

The Dred Scott decision decided that US-born African Americans are not citizens. It is hardly considered a model decision, and is virtually never cited as a precedent these days.

The Venus is not a citizenship case. It decides whether a citizen takes on the character of a member of a foreign country after residence in that country for a prolonged time part of which time the country of residence was at war with the native country (the USA) and that citizen did not remove himself from that country (nor was he held there against his will). There is nothing in the case about whether or not persons are citizens at birth, nor is the term Natural Born used.

The decision quotes Vattel, but then it also quotes Grotius and even Sir Walter Scott. Moreover, it uses the translation of Vattel that was published before the US Constitution was written, the one that uses “indigines” and not “Natural Born Citizen.”

The use of the term “indigines” indicates that the writers of the US Constitution did not get the meaning of Natural Born from Vattel, but rather from the common law, where it was used as used in Inglis:

“Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.."

Blackstone put it this way:

“The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is alien.” http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/

(And the minor exceptions referred to in “generally speaking” refers to the children of foreign diplomats.)

smrstrauss said...

MichaelN said that Puzo1 said ....
"And that is why the Fourteenth Amendment only defines “citizenship,” not “natural born citizenship."
check-mate :-)”

Answer: Puzo1 and I are in complete agreement that citizenship and Natural Born status are two different things and that to be a US Natural Born Citizen you must be both a citizen and Natural Born.

US Citizenship is defined by US law, which has changed over the years. If you were an American Indian before 1924 you were not a US citizen. After the law was changed, you were.

Did that change Natural Born status? No, of course not. AN American Indian who was Natural Born before the law was changed became a Natural Born US citizen the minute that she or he became a citizen by law. (If the law had stated that Indians were naturalized, not citizens from the date of the legislation, that would have been a different thing, but it did not do that.)

So we are in agreement that Natural Born and Citizen are different things. And it seems we are in agreement that a Natural Born Citizen is a person who is both a citizen and Natural Born.

So it remains to see what the definition of Natural Born is. Well, the Wong Kim Ark case stated that it comes from the common law (not Vattel) and that it includes all the children born in the USA (except for the children of foreign diplomats and invaders). And that turns out to be what Blackstone said too, and Rawle, and the numerous other scholars I cited. :-)

smrstrauss said...

Puzo1 said...
“smrstrauss,

You asked regarding the dreaft treaties, "Want to see the quotations?"

Yes.”

OKAY:
Sorry that they are long.
(The spelling and capitalization are what they were at the time.)

Quote begins:

Draft Articles to Supplement the Preliminary Anglo-American Peace Treaty [ca 27 April 1787 [in Paris]

Articles agreed on by David Hartley Esq., Minister Plenipotentiary of His Brittanic Majesty for &c in behalf of said Majesty on the one part, and J.A. [John Adams], B.F. [Benjamin Franklin], J.J. [John Jay] and H.L [Henry Livingston, who was also at the US Embassy in France, but is not as famous as the other three], ministers plenipotentiary of the Unites States of America for treating of peace….in addition to the articles agreed on the 30th day of November 1782…The subjects of the Crown of Great Britain shall enjoy in all and every of Said United States, all Rights, Liberties, Privileges and Immunities and be Subject to the Duties and Allegiance of natural born Citizens of the Said States---and, on the other hand, all the citizens of the Said United States shall enjoy in all and every of the Dominions of the Crown of Great Britain all Rights, Liberties, Privileges and Immunities and be Subject to the Duties and Allegiance of natural born Subjects of that Crown, excepting Such Individuals of either Nation as the legislature of the other shall judge fit to exempt."

http://books.google.com/books?id=vemc7Vuqk1YC&pg=PA448&lpg=PA448&dq=%22draft+articles+to+supplement%22&source=bl&ots=Aojo7Iux2Z&sig=r8tN3gtsaDaRYWKBox5fOWNPo4M&hl=en&ei=K4pBSvW6ComJtge3iN2dCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3

End quotation

smrstrauss said...

Continuing:

Another way of wording the same thing, in another draft, was that “the subjects of his Brittanic Majesty and the citizens of the United States shall mutually be considered as Natural born Subjects & enjoy all rights and privileges as such in the Respective Dominions and Territories in the manner heretofore accustomed.”

http://books.google.com/books?id=vemc7Vuqk1YC&pg=PA214&dq=franklin+subject:%22History+/+United+States+/+Revolutionary+Period+(1775-1800)%22&lr=

What does this mean? It means that as far as the writers of this document were concerned (Adams, Franklin, Jay and Livingston on the US side), the term natural born citizen is equivalent to natural born subject.

The term “natural born citizen” meant to these US writers just what “natural born subject” meant to the British. It could not be that in the arrangement for equal treatment between the USA and Britain, that someone had to have two US parents to be treated just the same as a natural born subject in Britain who simply had to be born in the British realm.

If Natural Born Citizen required two US parents, while Natural Born British subject did not require any British parents, then more British NBS would be covered that US NBCs. Now Franklin and Adams and Jay were far too smart to allow that to happen.

scott said...

what happened with justiagate ??

SaipanAnnie said...

Dr. Conspiracy says:

Trowbridge's alternate biography is impossible.

The alternate biography is the one presented by The Obama Campaign.

My, my, Bari. Why didn't you take heed, when I exhorted you to log off and get some rest?

You really flubbed up big time, commenting as Dr. C, in your unmistakable, clearly identifiable narrative voice.

scott said...

i keep hearing obamavich can't open the safe, is that true ? is there a precedent ?

SaipanAnnie said...

"Dr. C":

One other error in your statements about Trowbridge.

You misquote her as stating Obama went to live with President Suharto.

She said no such thing.

She named President Sukarno, who, if you bothered to pay attention [but evidently you are far too busy scanning for opportunities to ridicule her] - was a close political ally of Malcolm X.

Again, Bari, if this is you, you really must get a grip and take a break - or you'll start spilling all your beans, all over the web.

SaipanAnnie said...

"Dr. C":

One other error in your statements about Trowbridge.

You misquote her as stating Obama went to live with President Suharto.

She said no such thing.

She named President Sukarno, who, if you bothered to pay attention [but evidently you are far too busy scanning for opportunities to ridicule her] - was a close political ally of Malcolm X.

Again, Bari, if this is you, you really must get a grip and take a break - or you'll start spilling all your beans, all over the web.

SaipanAnnie said...

"Dr. C" says:

But it appears at this point that there is nothing and never was in the way of a passport before 1965.

Bari, as United States President you should know better than to bother looking. By law, The Department Of State cannot issue passports for synthetic identities.

SaipanAnnie said...

"Dr. C" says:

But it appears at this point that there is nothing and never was in the way of a passport before 1965.

Bari, as United States President you should know better than to bother looking. By law, The Department Of State cannot issue passports for synthetic identities.

MichaelN said...

If it were as the pundits for jus soli only, say, i.e. that the word "nature" was preferred & used most commonly to mean or infer "native", then why did Douglas say "native-born" instead of "natural-born" ????...

Here's Douglas' speech

"from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the NATIVE-born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive......"

Shouldn't Douglas have used "natural" if he believed that all who were native-born were actually referred to as "natural born" and that this was also the case with the eligibility clause of USC Article II?

The naturalization Act of 1790 says it all, when it said:

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.

And THE CHILDREN of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, SHALL also be considered as CITIZENS of the United States.

[MY COMMENT: How come the children was not called "natural born"?????

But the children of citizens parents ARE CALLED NATURAL BORN!!!!!]

And THE CHILDREN OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, SHALL BE considered as NATURAL BORN CITIZENS: Provided, that the right of CITIZENSHIP shall not DESCEND to persons whose FATHERS have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed."

Like I have said time and time again, but because of their political bias, the Obot fools fail to grasp the truth.

Their whole argument is based on the ABSURDITY that the framers of the US Constitution were negligent & derelict in their duty, resolve and imperative to secure and protect the highest office in the new republic, i.e. that of POTUS and commander in chief, from any foreign influence and claim.

SaipanAnnie said...

Unknown says:

BRING THEM ON!!!!
Every one of them will be dismissed.


Sorry, Bari. Uncle Fred's gone. The brains of your regime went with him.

Proof? The fiasco of "The White House" since July 2011.

More proof? The pathetic, useless exercise called "Obama 2012 Campaign".

cpanon said...

re:Unknown
You are just what your puppet master needs, more ignorant/mendacious than him. Get this straight, prima facia is in ABSENCE of fact it IS NOT FACT, when contraindicated. All you fools that think you can conflate prima facia with fact and then proceed as fact, well we are not all that stupid yet.

Those two "document" usurper presented were not even physical;there is a real world outside of the fungibility of Google, Facebook and an URL. Try to present similar documents for a Passport or any other government document and you will experience the laughability you assert.

On the states, GA was the first, he will be chased in all others that have yet to file. If he dares withdraw from any it will be, here it is correct, prima facia evidence that he is ineligible and when adjudicated it will then become fact.

Puzo1 said...

srmstrauss,

Thank you for sharing with the public the draft treaties of which you spoke. I do not agree with you that these treaties show that the Founders and Framers defined an Article II "natural born Citizen" the same as the English defined a "natural born subject" under English common law.

In the treaty drafts that you provided, we can see that both the United States and Great Britain wanted to maximize benefits for themselves. Concerning benefits for United States “citizens,” “citizens” of the United States were to enjoy in Great Britain all the same “Rights, Liberties, Privileges, and Immunities” enjoyed by “natural born subjects” of Great Britain. Concerning benefits for “subjects” of Great Britain, “subjects” of Great Britain were to enjoy in the United States all the same “Rights, Liberties, Privileges, and Immunities” enjoyed by “natural born citizens” of the United States. This treaty was advantageous to both nations. In the United States, a “citizen” was not necessarily a “natural born citizen.” Yet in Great Britain, he or she was automatically treated as if he or she were a “natural born subject” of Great Britain. And in Great Britain, a “subject” was not necessarily a “natural born subject.” Yet, in the United States, he or she was automatically treated as if he or she were a “natural born citizen” of the United States. But with benefits also came responsibilities. A “citizen” of the United States took on the “Duties and Allegiance of natural born subjects” of Great Britain and a “subject” of Great Britain took on the “Duties and Allegiance of natural born citizens” of the United States.

These draft treaties do not suggest let alone prove that the United States defined a “natural born Citizen” the same way that the English defined a “natural born subject.” In fact, these treaties really have nothing to do with how each respective nation defined its citizens and subjects. Rather, they only show that the United States was happy to have its “citizens” to “be considered as” “natural born subjects” in Great Britain. Such treatment in Great Britain of “citizens” of the United States (who were not “natural born citizens” of the United States) as English “natural born subjects,” assured that they would receive in Great Britain the same benefits that a “natural born subject” of Great Britain received. These draft treaties also show that the Founders and Framers recognized that the maximum citizenship status that one could have in America was that of a “natural born Citizen” and in Great Britain was that of a “natural born subject.” But that these two statuses were the highest form of citizenship/subjectship in each respective nation did not mean that the definitions of those terms were the same. These treaties do not prove that nor is there any other convincing evidence suggesting that, notwithstanding what Justice Gray said in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

smrstrauss said...

cpanon said...


"Those two "document" usurper presented were not even physical;"

What gave you that idea? Obama showed images of both the short-form and the long-form. How else to show them on the Web?

HOWEVER, he also showed the physical copies of the documents, the ones that are on security paper, with the raised seal on the back. There are excellent images of both sides of the short-form birth certificate on FactCheck's site (and if you want to claim that FactCheck is not objective, well you can dream that that is true, but FactCheck is certainly incapable of forging such detailed images.) IN addition the physical copy of Obama's short form was shown to PolitiFact.

The official physical copy of Obama's long form birth certificate was passed around in the White House press room, and everyone there got a chance to hold it, examine it, and to feel the seal on the back. One reporter even photographed it. The AP photographed the xerox copy that was also handed out.

In addition to the documents themselves, there are the confirmation of the facts on them by three Republican officials in Hawaii. The current head of the DOH of Hawaii stated in writing that she had seen the original long-form birth certificate in the process of being copied onto security paper and that the copy was accurate.

In addition to the birth certificates and the confirmation of the officials, there are the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961, which were sent to the papers by the government of Hawaii for births in Hawaii (and not for births outside of Hawaii). Could the officials in Hawaii have been fooled by relatives in 1961? No. Why not? Because whenever there was a claim of a birth outside of a hospital, they insisted on a signed witness statement.

WND has shown that the US INS checked Obama's place of birth in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and each time concluded that Obama was born in Hawaii. Has any Republican candidate so far provided proof--much less proof with confirmation--of the fact that he was born in the USA?

smrstrauss said...

Re Not accepting that the two draft treaties were evidence that the American leaders used Natural Born the same way that the British did.

You can keep on dreaming, if you want. The facts are that there is this evidence, and lots more that the American leaders used Natural Born the same way that Blackstone did. And there is NO evidence, no quotations of any kind, that show that they used Natural Born the way that Vattel is said to have done, or that they used it to refer to parents.

Here is another example, from 1803, shortly after the US Constitution was written:

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

Notice that that refers only to the place of birth. Natural Born Citizens were "those born with a state." That is the way that Franklin, John Adams, Etc., used it too. There is no evidence that THEY would have given a British subject visiting the USA all the rights of a two-parent citizen when a US citizen visiting Britain would only get the rights of a subject who was born in Britain regardless of the number of their parents who were British subjects.

There is also this quotation, from 1829:

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

You said that Rawle did not give the logic behind his statement. The fact is that the way that he used the term Natural Born is just the way that Tucker did, and Blackstone did, and Franklin and Adams did--and there is no evidence that they used it in any other way.

Six Supreme Court justices in the Wong Kim Ark ruling accepted that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law (not from Vattel), and they accepted that the meaning of Natural Born in the common law was, as Blackstone said, based on the place of birth.

smrstrauss said...

Blogger MichaelN said...

"...then why did Douglas say "native-born" instead of "natural-born" ????..."

Because 150 years had passed since the US Constitution was written. Whe it was written, the popular phrase was Natural Born (used the vast majority of times, although Native Born was used some times). in the 1950s and after, the common phrase was Native Born, which was used the vast majority of times.

The two are synonyms (with the minor exceptions of the children of foreign diplomats and of invaders). There is certainly no evidence that Natural Born refers to the parents. That is not the way that the American leaders at the time that the US Constitution was written used the term.

smrstrauss said...

MichaelIN also quoted the Naturalization act of 1790

"THE CHILDREN of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, SHALL also be considered as CITIZENS of the United States."

And he commented:

[MY COMMENT: How come the children was not called "natural born"?????

Does the above quotation say that the children were born in the USA?
The quotation makes the children of naturalized foreigners into US citizens EVEN IF THEY WERE BORN OUTSIDE OF THE USA; it naturalizes them. They become citizens. Why are they not Natural Born Citizens? Because the ones who were born outside of the USA are not Natural Born, not born in the USA.

Puzo1 said...

smrstrauss,

Even assuming that Obama was born in Hawaii, he still is not an Article II "natural born Citizen." He is therefore not eligible to be President.

The Founding generation relied upon natural law and the law of nations for, among many things, its definition of a "natural born Citizen." That definition is a child born in the country to citizen parents.

At the time, the husband and wife were united in citizenship, so if anyone required the father/husband to be a citizen, that meant that the wife/mother also had to be a citizen like the father/husband. The law then was that the wife followed the citizenship of the husband. Hence, a married couple always had the same citizenship, which was that of the husband. Under modern U.S. citizenship and naturalization laws, each couple has and keeps his or her own citizenship, unless intentionally changed through a legal process.

Let us assume that Obama was born in Hawaii to Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham. Under such birth circumstances, Obama was born to a non-U.S. citizen father and U.S. citizen mother which in the eyes of the Founders and Framers and early Congress makes him a foreigner and alien, and not an Article II "natural born citizen."

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, as interpreted by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) , at best Obama, who was born in the U.S. to a U.S. citizen mother but to an alien father, is a "citizen of the United States" from the moment of birth. This means that he did not have to follow any naturalization process after he was born. He became a “citizen of the United States’ automatically at the moment of his birth. But such a “citizen” is not an Article II "natural born Citizen," which comes into being not only at the moment of birth but also because of birth in the country to citizen parents.

smrstrauss said...

Puzo1 said:

“The Founding generation relied upon natural law and the law of nations for, among many things, its definition of a "natural born Citizen." That definition is a child born in the country to citizen parents. “

Answer: If they did, they would have said that they did. They would have said: “Natural Born as defined by Vattel.” Or they would have said “Natural Born, meaning two citizen parents.” But they didn’t.

As for it being “natural law”—even that is far from certain. There are about a dozen natural law philosophers. Not one of them, with the possible exception of Vattel, ever said that Natural Born referred to parents. IF Vattel had really meant that the parents of a citizen should affect the government, HE would have said that no one but a Natural Born Citizen, or an “indignies”—which is the word that he actually used—should be sovereign of the country or head of the army, or something. But Vattel never says that even citizenship should be required for any government post, including the sovereign. He actually gives cases where countries pick their leaders from the nobility of foreign countries (even countries that speak other languages), and he never says that that is a bad thing.

Does any other Natural Law philosopher say that the citizenship of the parents affects Natural Born status? NO. Does any Natural Law philosopher say that only citizens should be the sovereigns of countries? NO. Does any Natural Law philosopher say that only citizens should be leaders of a country?

Re: “At the time, the husband and wife were united in citizenship, so if anyone required the father/husband to be a citizen, that meant that the wife/mother also had to be a citizen like the father/husband. “

Answer: Since the meaning of Natural Born in America (not Switzerland, France, Italy, etc) refers to the place of birth, the citizenship status of the mother (or the father) does not matter.

Re: “Let us assume that Obama was born in Hawaii to Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham. “

Answer: Good. He wasi.

Re: “Under such birth circumstances, Obama was born to a non-U.S. citizen father and U.S. citizen mother which in the eyes of the Founders and Framers and early Congress makes him a foreigner and alien, and not an Article II "natural born citizen." “

Answer: NO. That is your dream definition of Natural Born. The actual definition, as shown by the quotations by AMERICAN leaders at the time, and the absence of quotations by them referring to parents, is that a child is Natural Born if born in the USA, and that there is no reference to the parents.

Re: “But such a “citizen” is not an Article II "natural born Citizen," which comes into being not only at the moment of birth but also because of birth in the country to citizen parents..”

Answer. If he was born in America, and you have admitted that he was (if only for the purpose of this argument), then he fulfills the original definition of Natural Born, which referred to the place of birth. Thus he is both a US citizen due to his place of birth (and one US parent) and he is Natural Born, since Natural Born referred to birth in the country. That is the way that Blackstone wrote it, and there is no evidence that any of the writers of the US Constitution used it any differently. There is plenty of evidence (the quotations from Franklin and Adams, and Tucker etc) that they used the term as it was used in the common law. And

smrstrauss said...

MichaelIN said:

"1. That the PARENTS be under the actual obedience of the king. "

That's right. If you were in the king's dominions, you had to obey the king. There were only two exceptions" Foreign armies and foreign diplomats. Everyone else had to be in actual obedience to the king.

That is why Blackstone wrote:

“The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is alien.” http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/

(And the minor exceptions referred to in “generally speaking” refers to the children of foreign diplomats.)

MichaelN said...

MichaelIN said:

"1. That the PARENTS be under the actual obedience of the king. "

smrstrauss said...
"That's right. If you were in the king's dominions, you had to obey the king. There were only two exceptions" Foreign armies and foreign diplomats. Everyone else had to be in actual obedience to the king.

That is why Blackstone wrote:

"The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects and entitled to all the privileges of such. ........."
(And the minor exceptions referred to in “generally speaking” refers to the children of foreign diplomats.)

>>Quoting from Lord Coke - Calvin's case....

"This word ligeance is well expressed by divers several names or synonymia which we find in our books. Sometime it is called the obedience or obeysance of the subject to the King ........"

I see you are still having a problem with your political bias.

You will need to come clean and be honest.

As you can see, from the quote above, the ligeance is obedience; this is what makes a "subject".

The alien-born, visiting England must be a "subject" for his child, if born in the realm, to be a "subject".

Quoting Coke:
"that issue IS NO SUBJECT to the King of England, THOUGH HE BE BORN UPON HIS SOYL, and under his meridian, for that he WAS NOT BORN UNDER THE LIGEANCE OF A SUBJECT,..."

Lord Coke made it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that it was ESSENTIAL for the parent father to be a "subject", for the child to be a "subject".

Coke:
"There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.
1. That the PARENTS be under the actual obedience of the king.
2. That the PLACE of his birth be within the king’s dominion. And
3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered;"

Your twisting and squirming is pathetic............. the truth is staring you in the face from point-blank!.......... yet you still chant the party mantra in your denial of the truth.

If you apply the 17th century English common law principle to US, then a child must be born to a US "citizen" father and in the US, to be a "natural born Citizen".

.

MichaelN said...

smrstrauss said ......
"The quotation makes the children of naturalized foreigners into US citizens EVEN IF THEY WERE BORN OUTSIDE OF THE USA; it naturalizes them. They become citizens. Why are they not Natural Born Citizens? Because the ones who were born outside of the USA are not Natural Born, not born in the USA."

>>But the children of US CITIZEN PARENTS, who are BORN OUTSIDE OF US, ARE called "NATURAL BORN", why? ............ BECAUSE they were born to CITIZEN PARENTS.

So the REAL reasonS for the child who is under 21 years & domiciled in US when his/her parent(s) are naturalized, ARE not only that the child was not born in US, but ALSO BECAUSE the child was NOT BORN to US CITIZEN parents.

It's all about the US "citizen" status of the PARENT father, as I pointed out with the quote from Justice Douglas, but you conveniently side-stepped.

If it were as the pundits for jus soli only, say, i.e. that the word "nature" was preferred & used most commonly used to mean or infer "native", then why did MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, when delivering the opinion of the US SUPREME Court, as recently as 1964, say "native-born" instead of "natural-born" ????...

Here's a part Justice Douglas' speech (Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)

"from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the NATIVE-born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive......"

Shouldn't Douglas have used "natural" if he believed that all who were native-born were actually referred to as "natural born" and that this was also the case with the eligibility clause of USC Article II?

Yes the framers were EXTREMELY careful in their choice of words to define "natural born Citizen" as one with the highest imaginable allegiance and trust for the office of POTUS & commander in chief and SCOTUS were also extremely careful as well.

The "citizen" status of the parents MATTERED and was ESSENTIAL in making a "natural born" US citizen".

Those born in US to no-citizen parents were clearly called "native" by the SCOTUS. <<


.

Puzo1 said...

srmstrauss,

With respect to the Naturalization Act of 1790, you quote:

"THE CHILDREN of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, SHALL also be considered as CITIZENS of the United States."

You then argue that the quoted language only applied to children born out of the United States. I do not agree with your reading of the statute and maintain that you are incorrect. As you know, I have long maintained that the quoted language applies equally to children born in the United States as out of it.

To show me that you are correct and that I am wrong, please, (1) show us where in the text of the statute is found any indication that the language applies only to children born out of the United States, and (2) provide any source or authority outside the actual statute that supports you position with any reasonable argument.

MichaelN said...

The naturalization Act of 1790 said:
"....And THE CHILDREN of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, SHALL also be considered as CITIZENS of the United States.

[MY COMMENT:
The children OF CITIZEN parents ARE CALLED NATURAL BORN if they are BORN OUTSIDE of US.

Obviously the reason for this is that these children are BORN TO US CITIZEN PARENTS and furthermore the ACT of 1790 provides for the RIGHT to citizenship to DESCEND from the PARENTS to the CHILD.

Judging by the Act of 1790, this right of citizenship also DESCENDS from the PARENTS to the CHILD in the case of the NATURALIZED alien parent.

So if the children born out of the limits of US, to US citizen parents, ARE "natural born Citizens", they MUST ALSO be "natural born Citizens" if they are born WITHIN the US.

"And THE CHILDREN OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES that may be born beyond Sea, or OUT OF THE LIMITS OF the United States, SHALL BE considered as NATURAL BORN CITIZENS: Provided, that the right of CITIZENSHIP shall not DESCEND to persons whose FATHERS have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed."

Which all goes to show that it is the "citizen" status of the PARENTS that is essential in determining the "citizen" status and/or "natural born Citizen" status of their children and that the “RIGHT” of citizenship descends from PARENT to CHILD.

Note that the alien parent has to go though all the due processes to gain US citizenship, then by DESCENT his minor child can be a citizen.