Ordure In The Court!!! Ordure In The Court!!! (Or, Van Irion Flings Poo)

Oblivious To The Odor, Van Irion Prattled On And On

Why is it that Birtherism just lends itself sooo readily to scatological comparisons??? Perhaps it is legal filings like this one, representing the Liberty Legal Foundation, candidate John Dummett, and others. The attorney is some cat named “Van Irion“, and he has been involved in several such eligibility suits.

Anyway, the Birthers filed suit in Arizona, and as Van Irion complains at ObamaReleaseYourRecords:

Rather than address the substantive issue of Obama’s eligibility, Judge Susan Bolton of the Arizona Federal court dismissed our case by claiming that the DNC’s act of sending a notice to the Arizona Secretary of State did not amount to purposefully directing activity toward Arizona. This ruling is absurd, as I discussed in last week’s message.

Here is the link where you can read the whole story:

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/08/injunction-motion-against-dnc-filed.html

Anyway, after the judge pushed the Birthers out of the window of her courthouse, they landed on the sidewalk below, picked themselves up, flicked the poop off themselves, and decided to appeal this to the 9th Circuit Court.  Thus, we now have before us their request  for a preliminary injunction to keep Obama’s name off the ballot in Arizona.

Here is a copy of the pdf filing for your convenience:

100% Pure Liberty Legal Foundation Poo

Let me try to give you a recap of the filing. A preliminary injunction is a request to keep somebody from doing something BEFORE you actually have a trial and judgment on the matter. One of the requirements is that you show you have a good enough legal case that you will probably win at trial. So here, the Birthers have to show the law supports their claim Obama is not eligible for the Presidency because he does not have two citizen parents.

But wait!  Haven’t the Birthers crashed and burned on this point like space rocks in a meteor shower??? Haven’t we seen them time and time again streak across the sky in a brief bright flash of light as they disintegrate in the upper atmosphere of a judge’s chamber??? Sooo, how in the world can Van Irion priss himself into the 9th Circuit and pretend he has any kind of a case???

Well, Van Irion pulls the old Minor v. Happersett trick out of the hat. First, he argues that Minor defined a natural born citizen as the child of two parents who are citizens. Then, to deal with the rest of the Minor case, where it clearly says there are some doubts from some authorities about the kids of non-citizens, and that there was no need to resolve those doubts at that time, Van Irion characterizes all that stuff as only concerning regular old everyday citizens as opposed to natural born citizens.

In other words, the same old Birther bullshit that we have been hearing for 4 years and the same old bullshit that has lost in court after court after court. And maybe I should be more polite and professional, and call it something besides bullshit. But you know, that is just what it is and frankly, I am tired of resorting to euphemisms on this stuff.  It is not good enough or smart enough to be called anything other than BULLSHIT.

Anyway, to continue, Van Irion then tries to skip past Wong Kim Ark by claiming everything in that case concerning natural born citizenship is pure dicta because Wong tweren’t  running for President. Once again, not even a clever attempt. The WKA Court determined what natural born citizenship was as a legal matter, to lay a foundation for its findings on the “jurisdiction” issue in the 14th Amendment. Which the WKA Court decided was simply being born in the United States, while not being a child of a foreign diplomat or invading soldier. Which fact about natural born citizenship was affirmed by the 14th Amendment.  And which was necessary to the finding, and therefore NOT dicta.

Then, to sneak his way around the 2009 Ankeny decision, which has been now cited with approval by subsequent state and federal courts,  Van Irion tries to go behind the Ankeny decision. He claims because the Birthers there lacked standing, the Ankeny Court had no business addressing constitutional issues. This is pretty stupid because Ankeny is an Indiana state decision and has no binding legal authority outside of Indiana, only persuasive authority.

Van Irion doesn’t even get a nice try on this one. You see, the courts which have cited Ankeny with approval, are not doing so because the decision in binding on them, but because the reasoning in the decision makes sense, and these other courts agree with the reasoning process. Van Irion fails to address the reasoning because that would raise all those troubling Wong Kim Ark findings. Plus, his argument would only apply to an action taking place in Indiana. Which this isn’t.

You can find all of Van Irion’s nonsense on pages 11-17 in the pdf above.  If you wish to read the Ankeny decision, which is based on the 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision, it has its own page above in the blog header under The Case The “Two Citizen Parents”  Birthers Just HATE!!!

To summarize all this, Van Irion has rolled another big wheelbarrow full of legal manure into a courthouse. I hope the judges come right out and say:

Ordure in the Court!!! Ordure in the Court!!!

and then sanctions the crap out of the whole bunch.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. Ordure. A fancy word for manure.

Note 2. The Image.  This is the The Patient Job by Gerard Seghers (1591-1651).  Job is sitting on a dungheap. This was a popular  artistic theme and there are many paintings. It is based on:

Testament of Job 24-25 (excerpts from a lengthy speech)

At once, my wife drew near. Crying out with tears she said to me: “Job, Job! How long will you sit on the dung-heap outside the city, thinking ‘Only a little longer!” and awaiting hope for salvation?

Advertisements

About Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

Hi!!! I am a Girl Reporter on the Internet. I am 31. Plus I am a INTP. I have a Major in Human Kinetics, and a Minor in English. I have 2 cats, and a new kitten! I write poetry, and plus I am trying to learn how to play guitar. I think that is all??? Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter View all posts by Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

182 responses to “Ordure In The Court!!! Ordure In The Court!!! (Or, Van Irion Flings Poo)

  • David Farrar

    The real point Van Iron hasn’t realized is that the SCOTUS isn’t going to grant cert on any Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born case. Not before the election, not after the election, not ever.

    Now as to your points: In Minor:

    ” where it clearly says there are some doubts from some authorities about the kids of non-citizens, and that there was no need to resolve those doubts at that time”

    — must be understood in terms of US citizenship at birth by positive law as opposed to an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen as an aspect of immutable natural law.

    Wong never mentions an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen, even though the descent did. But words, or, in this case: words that are not said, have no relevance.

    Which leaves us with the 2009 Ankeny case — the first case to cross the Rubicon by declaring a US citizen at birth an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen.

    It’s no surprise if I see the Ankeny decision as unconstitutional since it allows those who have not pledged to support and abide by the US Constitution access to the ‘consent of the governed’ ruling class. That is: qualified to take the oath of office of the Presidency of the United States, if elected.

    Why would the ‘consent of the governed’ bestow a privilege on those who have not pledged to support and abide by the US Constitution they haven’t seen fit to bestow on naturalized US Citizens who have pledged to support and abide by the US Constitution?

    What we have in the Ankeny decision is an upholding of the notion that the plenary authority of government has somehow been empowered to “create” the ruling class for the ‘consent of the governed’, when only the ‘consent of the governed’ can create its own ruling class.

    This point is also supported by the 14th Amendment where a person subject to the jurisdiction is born a US citizen is not the same as a person is born a US citizen without being subject to the jurisdiction (i.e. without positive law), but by the natural right to inherit US citizenship at birth under the cloak of allegiance of the father, and, in the case of sole US Citizenship: by both US citizen parents.

    Lastly, does the Ankeny decision make for a ‘stronger check’ or a ‘weaker check’ against foreign influence affecting our “elected” Commander in chief of America’s military forces?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Slartibartfast

      David,

      If you (or any birther) thought that the Ankeny decision was unConstitutional, why didn’t you appeal it? Ankeny had it been appealed all the way to SCOTUS would have been dispositive—if they accepted it (unlikely in the extreme), then they would naturally rule on it and if they rejected it that would indicate that there is no Constitutional problem with declaring President Obama a natural born citizen.

      So either the birthers didn’t want a dispositive ruling, or they were too incompetent to recognize the opportunity. Personally, I don’t think it is possible to overestimate the incompetence of birthers…

      Also, the decision doesn’t make for a stronger or weaker check (and the birther meme that the natural born citizen clause must be the strongest possible check on foreign influence is idiotic), it just says that the check does not exclude President Obama. The law hasn’t changed for over 200 years.

      • David Farrar

        I can appeal an Indiana State court decision to the US Supreme Court; who knew?

        As to the rest: you are as welcome to your delusions as I am to mine.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Slartibartfast

          David,

          The difference between my delusions and yours are that predictions based on mine typically prove to be accurate and predictions based on yours never do. And yes, David—ultimately you can appeal anything to SCOTUS (even a silly hearing before an administrative law judge where the most incompetent lawyer in the world lost to an empty chair). Didn’t you learn that in your government class in high school?—or did you drop out before you got that far?

        • Doubtful

          @David Farrar — “I can appeal an Indiana State court decision to the US Supreme Court; who knew?”
          __

          Oh, David, your ignorance is embarrassing, though of course not for the first time.

          The Ankeny decision was appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court, which refused to hear it. At that point it was ripe for appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The plaintiffs simply let it drop and pursued it no further.

          Why do you suppose they did that? You have to ask them, of course, but logic would dictate that they were happier giving people like you the opportunity to claim that SCOTUS never heard the case rather than having SCOTUS hear it and rule against them.

      • David Farrar

        Here’s another question: If Chief Justice Grey really saw Wong Kim Ark as an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen, how did he arrive at the 14th Amendment to establishment US citizenship at birth?

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Slartibartfast

          David “out of breath”,

          Since the 14th Amendment is merely declarative of existing law, it doesn’t matter—most likely it was convenient (since the law was spelled out there to prevent racists* from misinterpreting it).

          Here’s a question for you—if the Founders meant something different that the commonly held interpretation by the term “natural born”, why wasn’t it defined in the Constitution? (Since we know that they did explicitly define terms like “treason”…)

          * i.e. Those who agreed with the Dred Scott decision.

        • David Farrar

          Slartibartfast
          September 4th, 2012 at 4:54 pm

          Convenient? Courts don’t to “convenient.”

          The ONLY reason the Wong court arrive at the 14th Amendment is because it had to — because Wong wasn’t, in the eyes’ of the Court, a natural born Citizen as was Virginia Minor.

          ex animo
          davidfarrar

        • Slartibartfast

          David “out of breath”,

          First off, that assumes that the 14th Amendment changed the law—something that only someone as dishonest and willfully ignorant as you are could believe; secondly, we know that Mr. Wong could not, by law, have been a naturalized citizen. Consequently, Mr. Wong must have been natural born (as the court said, since the only two classes of citizen are naturalized (you know, those that have “consented to be governed” 😛 ) and natural born and even if there were a third class of “naturalized at birth” citizens this could not have included Mr. Wong (and hence does not include President Obama).

          Your continued lies regarding the dicta in Minor (which, even if it said what you claim, would have been overruled by the holding in Wong) is disgraceful and an affront to real Americans like the current President of the United States.

        • linda

          The Court did not rule Virginia Minor a natural born citizen.

    • Northland10

      Also, the decision doesn’t make for a stronger or weaker check (and the birther meme that the natural born citizen clause must be the strongest possible check on foreign influence is idiotic), it just says that the check does not exclude President Obama. The law hasn’t changed for over 200 years

      The President never lived in Kenya. He barely knew his father. Please explain how he is under foreign influence? We have had President’s who lived in a foreign country for far longer, by their choice (and even ended up with foreign citizenship, I believe). The current one had a few years in Indonesia as a child, which would be not much different than being an exchange student.

      So explain David, how is he have a foreign influence from a country he never lived in, from a father he barely knew? Or is it that what you consider foreign is something different than you?

      • David Farrar

        Northland10,

        As you may well know, no law covers all eventualities. I can’t think too many people would look at Obama biography and come away with the opinion that it was a normal American upbringing. But you may be right.

        Unfortunately, we actually know so very little about Obama’s history, other then what he, himself, has allowed us to know; it is really impossible to tell just how much influence his Kenya father had on his upbringing.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Northland10

          You no little because you refuse accept the actual history. Just because you plug your ears and yell, Nah, Nah, Nah, I’m not listening.. does not mean there is no history.

          You know very little because you do not want to know more. That’s your problem, not the rest of the country.

    • Jim

      David,

      OK, let’s see what Minor has to say about Presidential eligibility.

      “”Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides6 that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’7 and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”

      Ok, so Minor says there are ONLY 2 types of citizens in this country, born (natural-born) and naturalized. So, according to Minor if you’re born a citizen, you are eligible as long as you fulfill the other requirements. Since the President was born in Hawaii, he was born a citizen. So, Minor says the President is eligible. And, this ties it DIRECTLY with the Presidency, where the part you like to cite, does not.

      • David Farrar

        Jim,

        Are you quoting legal precedent from Minor? I thought you guys didn’t recognize any legal precedents from Minor; what gives?

        Where is your footnotes?

        But let me give you my take on your Minor observation — no pun intended.

        In large measure you are correct and so is Minor, perhaps more than you know.

        “Minor says there are ONLY 2 types of citizens in this country, born (natural-born) and naturalized.

        What Minor Court is really telling us is that there are only two ways to ‘transfer allegiance’ under the Constitution: naturally (being a natural born Citizen) or by naturalization ( by positive law. This is completely consistent with the 14th Amendment: one receives US citizenship either being subject to the jurisdiction (by positive law), or without being subject to the jurisdiction (naturally, outside of positive law). This is the error the Ankeny decision made.

        Again, the plenary authority of government can make any type of US citizen it requires, even from birth, with one exception: an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen. This is true because ONLY an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen has access to the ruling class (i.e. the President or the Vice-President of the United States.

        If such was not the case, the plenary authority of government would be creating the ‘ruling class instead of We, The People (i.e. the ‘Consent of the Governed’).

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Jim

          OMG David…don’t you even READ what you WRITE? You just contradicted yourself so bad you made yourself look stupid!

          So tell me David, is or is not the 14th amendment part of the Constitution? Did or did not Minor state that there are only 2 types of citizens, and NO THIRD TYPE totally separate? Did Minor not tie that being born a citizen is the same as natural-born citizen? Can you quote me in the Constitution where it limits how Congress is limited from creating a natural-born Citizen for the purposes of Presidential eligibility? Awwwww, forget it. You’ve got nothing. Oh, and the only reason I ever quote Minor for you folks is because it says there is only 2 types of citizens in this country and that’s it…no third magical ruling class (your words) that would have been exactly what this country was escaping from.

    • G

      Good grief David, you and this “ruling class” and “consent of the governed” rant of yours! You are just lost in the wonder-BS of being full of yourself and trying to string together what you think are grandiose concepts, when in reality, all your diatribes are chock full of self-contradictory statements and outlandish poppycock!

      You obviously are the opposite of a “deep thinker”. In fact, look up the Dunning-Kruger effect. That clearly describes you in a nutshell.

      I mean seriously, do you ever even read what you write? For one thing, winning an election is the very definition of “consent of the governed” in practice. So, by that measure, Obama’s crushing margins of victory in the 2008 election are a solid mandate of “consent of the governed”. In any election, there will be those that vote for the winner and those that voted for someone else…or didn’t vote at all. You are just being a childish sore loser, that’s all.

      Second, your silly pontifications on trying to tie “ruling class” and “consent of the governed” into citizenship, is full of nonsensical conclusions. ONLY naturalized citizens take Oaths of Citizenship. The rest of us do not, as we are natural born citizens. No natural born citizen has to take ANY oath of allegience, whatsoever. Did YOU take an “oath of allegience” based on your born citizenship status? I think not… What a stupid argument. FAIL.

  • bob

    Irion is also a liar liar, with flaming trousers.

    Irion in his motion (which he recycled from his Georgia cert. petition) says that Ankeny was dismissed for lack of standing. Not true: It was dismissed for failing to state a cause of action.

  • David Farrar

    Doubtful,

    Yes, yes, I know all of that. But unless I obtain the support of the Plaintiff in that case, I can’t by myself appeal the case to a higher court; can I?

    Secondly, there are many reasons why the Plaintiff’s didn’t appeal. In hindsight, they were made the right decision….the SCOTUS has made it abundantly clear, this issue is too big for them.

    As Squeeky, rightly pointed out, only We, The People, it seems are the only ones who will ultimately face this issue in the form of a political movement to repeal the first sentence of the 14th Amendment.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Doubtful

      @David Farrar — “.the SCOTUS has made it abundantly clear, this issue is too big for them.”
      __

      Apparently you have some access to the sentiments of SCOTUS that the rest of us don’t have.

      Please inform us, where have they made it clear that the issue is too big for them? Of course, simply pointing out that they’ve refused cert on numerous cases isn’t sufficient — you’ve got the burden of showing that it’s because they consider the issue too big for them.

      • David Farrar

        I took this interpreted this from Supreme Court Jurist Clarence Thomas’ testimony.

        Rep. Serrano: I’m glad to hear that you don’t think that there has to be a judge on the Court because I am not a judge. I have never been a judge.

        Justice Thomas: And you don’t have to be born in the United States. So you never have to ask, answer that question (smiling).

        Rep. Serrano: Oh, really?

        Justice Thomas: Yeah (the audience laughing).

        Rep. Serrano: So, you haven’t answered the one whether I can serve as (Justice Thomas interjecting) President but you answered this one (smiling).

        Justice Thomas: We’re evading that one (laughter from Justice Thomas and the audience). We are giving you another option (more laughter from Justice Thomas and the audience).

        Rep. Serrano: Thanks alot.

        Justice Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

        Rep. Serrano: Mrs. Emerson.

        Mrs. Emerson, Ranking Members, then starts to address Justice Thomas as he continues to laugh.

        Click here for my source.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • bob

          This is a long-running joke between these two. J – O – K – E.

        • Doubtful

          Sorry, David, you’re going to have to do a lot better than that. It is widely known that that exchange represents a long-running joke between Thomas and Serrano, going back close to 15 years and having nothing to do with Obama.

      • David Farrar

        Yes, Doubtful.

        Both Justice Thomas and I can count to five; you know. And the fact that they haven’t granted cert thus far, should give you a clew here.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Slartibartfast

          No David, it should give you a clue… but it never does.

        • Doubtful

          Don’t be silly David. I asked you, “where have they made it clear that the issue is too big for them?”

          We both know they won’t touch your cases with a ten-foot pole. And you claim to know their reason for it, but every time I ask you to tell us how you know you just change the subject.

        • G

          No David, it is you who desperately need to “get a clue”. HINT: how many cases go up to the Supreme Court, simply to end up not being granted cert. Most of them. Let me translate for you – that means they’ve REJECTED taking the case. Those long lists of cases denied cert by them, WITHOUT COMMENT are the ones that are LEAST WORTHY of their attention. It is their way of saying that those cases have NO business being brought before them in the first place. They’ve repeatedly rejected all Birther cases, because all Birther cases are pure crap.

  • David Farrar

    Doubtful,

    Please cite your source, as I did. Thank you.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Doubtful

      Here’s one fairly old example — a clip of a Congressional hearing at which the subject was referred to as a long-standing question about Serrano’s eligibility to be President. It took place in early 2007, long before there were birthers. Watch at about 2:20 — 3:05.

      http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/197007-1

      • Doubtful

        Oh, and I might also point out this explanation from The Fogbow:

        “Rep. Serrano was born in Puerto Rico, an unincorporated territory of the United States. Puerto Rico is a special case, as it is unincorporated territory. VP Charles Curtis was born in Kansas Territory, but Kansas was incorporated territory at the time. Same for Barry Goldwater, born in Arizona Territory. All persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Their eligibility to serve as President of the United States, however, has never been addressed.”

        http://www.thefogbow.com/birther-claims-debunked1/other-stuff/

      • Doubtful

        And here’s an explanation as given at The Fogbow (http://www.thefogbow.com/birther-claims-debunked1/other-stuff/):

        “Rep. Serrano was born in Puerto Rico, an unincorporated territory of the United States. Puerto Rico is a special case, as it is unincorporated territory. VP Charles Curtis was born in Kansas Territory, but Kansas was incorporated territory at the time. Same for Barry Goldwater, born in Arizona Territory. All persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Their eligibility to serve as President of the United States, however, has never been addressed.”

      • David Farrar

        Doubtful.

        Thank you for your extra effort. But the issue remains the same: Since 1917, under the Jones Act, someone born in the ‘Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is born a US Citizen. But by positive law, they cannot vote in US presidential election, nor, by extension, run for the presidency of the United states since they were not born in a state of the United States.

        I think Justice Thomas was employing the use of a double entendre centered around the fact that while persons born in the ‘Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are born US Citizens, they too, do not have access to the ruling class.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Doubtful

          @David Farrar —

          OK, so let’s see. You started out claiming that “the SCOTUS has made it abundantly clear…”, and when being asked to show just how the Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear, you ended up with “I think Justice Thomas was employing the use of a double entendre…”

          Did I get that right? It’s gone from the Court making it abundantly clear to one justice using what you think was a double entendre?

        • Monkey Boy

          Since 1917, under the Jones Act, someone born in the ‘Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is born a US Citizen. But by positive law, they cannot vote in US presidential election, nor, by extension, run for the presidency of the United states since they were not born in a state of the United States.

          Really, David Farrar, must you continue to trumpet you abysmal ignorance and lack of reasoning? Believe me, the regular readers here are already convinced.

          The citizens of Puerto Rico cannot vote in presidential elections because PR is not a state; therefore it cannot send any Electors to the College of Electors. It has nothing whatsoever to do with natural born citizen status–or citizenship status. If a PR citizen moves to NY, which is a state and provides Electors, that citizen is eligible to vote for President/VP and all relevant state offices.

          As you know–no, you probably don’t–PR does vote in Democratic presidential primaries.

  • David Farrar

    Jim,

    I am sorry if I confused you. Let’s take it one step at a time. You left you first paragraph kind of in thin air. While you managed to insert your argumentum ad hominem attack on me, you kind of left its justification hanging in thin air.

    Here it is again:

    “OMG David…don’t you even READ what you WRITE? You just contradicted yourself so bad you made yourself look stupid!”

    Now tell me why you think I contradicted myself?

    The 14th Amendment, as far as I know, is part of the Bill of Right and not part of the Constitution.

    The Minor Court stated there are two ways to transfer allegiance: One: naturally, and Two: by positive law. There is no prohibition, again, that I know of, that would prevent the government from creating naturalized US citizens at birth, or, as in the case of Mexico, American nationals at birth. When they reach the age of majority, they declare themselves American citizens, after going through the standard naturalization process. But in neither case, just as in the case of naturalized US citizens, they would be barred from having access to the ruling class.

    Again, Jim, Congress can make any type of US citizen it requires by positive law, but it can’t make natural law. Natural law is immutable and exists outside of the plenary authority of government. This is why our Constitution is grounded on natural law and natural rights, as declared by Mr. Jefferson’s in his Declaration of Independence.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Jim

      Ok David, now you have shown your complete ignorance of the Constitution.

      David: “The 14th Amendment, as far as I know, is part of the Bill of Right and not part of the Constitution.”

      The Bill of Rights were the first 10 amendments of the Constitution. They, like all the other amendments, are totally binding to the Constitution and treated just as if they are an original part of the Constitution and treated by the courts as such.

      David: “There is no prohibition, again, that I know of, that would prevent the government from creating naturalized US citizens at birth, or, as in the case of Mexico, American nationals at birth. When they reach the age of majority, they declare themselves American citizens, after going through the standard naturalization process.”

      There is no naturalization process they need to go through, they are already citizens. You, again, show you don’t understand our country, where the heck were you born?

      David: “Again, Jim, Congress can make any type of US citizen it requires by positive law, but it can’t make natural law. Natural law is immutable and exists outside of the plenary authority of government.”

      You can’t have a country without man-made laws. You can’t have citizens without man-made laws. You can’t have a government without man-made laws. Natural law is that there are no countries, nor borders, no governments, no citizens. Natural law is the law of the fittest…that’s it. And, of course, Jefferson also said in the Declaration, “all men are created equal” so that means there should be no limitation.

      • David Farrar

        Jim,

        Not all US citizens who have pledged to support and abide by the Constitution have access to the ruling class (i.e. naturalized citizens). If the ‘Consent of the Governed’ allow those who have not pledged to support and abide by the US Constitution access to the ruling class then we are not all created equal — that’s just my point.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Slartibartfast

          David,

          I don’t believe that you ever “pledged to support and abide by the US Constitution”—prove it!

          Also, since you are clearly in violation of this oath, what penalties should you justly incur?

        • G

          Again with this “ruling class” nonsense. You truly are delusional. First of all, the ONLY political offices that have the NBC requirement over mere citizenship, is President and by extension, Vice President. Second, the job is a temporary one, of four to eight years, max. Two people in a temporary leadership role is hardly a “ruling class”.

          You really have a weird fantasy view of this country and this world that only exists within your own imagination.

          NONE of us born here have to take any citizenship or loyalty “pledge”. Yet, we are eligible to run for President. The vast majority of US citizens are born citizens and not naturalized ones. Therefore, the vast majority of US citizens have ZERO “pledge” requirement…

          Finally, just about every election comes down to the citizenry chosing between two or more candidates. Which means there will ALWAYS be those who voted for the loser. So there is ZERO right to be “ruled” by the candidate of your choice.

          So your whole “not all created equal” angle is just silly nonsense that has no meaningful tether to reality.

      • David Farrar

        jim,

        Why do you feel like you have to insult me before you reveal your point?

        IMHO, all it is doing is telling me you, yourself, really don’t have too much confidence in your response so you have to fortify your point with an attack. It’s a smokescreen; is it not, for a weak argument?

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Jim

          David,

          Why do you waste my taxpayer dollars, court time that could be used for real cases, and misrepresent the Constitution that we live under for your own selfish need to be noticed? My God man…at least you could have the decency to LEARN ABOUT the Constitution! I mean, you don’t even have a Junior High School knowledge about it. I’m insulting you because you DESERVE IT! LEARN before you try to teach…or DROP IT!

        • Slartibartfast

          David,

          By making yourself ridiculous you invite ridicule. Jim is correct—you’ve well and truly earned every insult you’ve received here. Attacks are frequently used in place of argument (this would be an ad homenim attack—where someone attacks the person making the argument rather than the argument itself), but that is not what is happening here. Your arguments have been tackled head on and completely discredited. Your willful ignorance of this fact is extremely dishonest and such unacceptable behavior should not be ignored.

          If I say that you are a bigot and therefore your argument is wrong, I’m making an ad homenim attack—which would be a logical fallacy on my part. If, however, I (and a whole bunch of other people), point out that your blind hatred of President Obama shows you to be a bigot (I think it is pretty clear to everyone that you, for whatever reason, hate President Obama), your naive Constitutional analysis (your interpretation of Minor is a good example) shows that you lack understanding and intelligence, your failure to acknowledge or competently rebut any debunking of your arguments show that you lack integrity (examples too numerous to cout), your lies (like saying you would accept the judge’s ruling) show your dishonesty, and your frequent attempts to violate the Constitution (such as your refusal to abide by the provisions of the Full Faith and Credit Clause) show your seditious nature, that is not a fallacy—that is holding you to the logical consequences of your own words.

          If you don’t want to be called these names, I suggest you stop providing evidence that you deserve them.

    • Slartibartfast

      David said: “The 14th Amendment, as far as I know, is part of the Bill of Right and not part of the Constitution.”

      David,

      This statement, more than anything else I’ve seen you write, sums up what a ignorant fool you are and why no one should trust what you “know” in any way shape or form.

      As Jim already pointed out, the 14th Amendment (as well as the Bill of RightS and every other Amendment) is a part of the Constitution.

      This sort of mistake is indicative of a rank novice who has absolutely no understanding of what he is talking about. Your interpretation of Minor is like someone who thinks “See Spot Run” is about a lame cat trying to explain what Shakespeare really meant…

  • Jim

    @David Farrar: “Now tell me why you think I contradicted myself?”

    Really? You’re that incapable of reading your own writings? And you think you have any idea what you’re talking about? I just have to ask, because it is obvious that you know nothing about contractual law, nothing about constitutional law, nothing about…well much of anything. What kind of a lawyer are you?

    Oh, as for your contradiction:

    David says:”This is true because ONLY an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen has access to the ruling class ”

    In the VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH you say: “If such was not the case, the plenary authority of government would be creating the ‘ruling class instead of We, The People”

    So, in one sentence you’re for a “ruling class” and in the next you’re against a “ruling class”. So, which is it?

    • David Farrar

      Jim,

      It is true; is it not:

      “ONLY an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen has access to the ruling class?

      “If such was not the case, the plenary authority of government would be creating the ‘ruling class instead of We, The People.”

      In other words: Once the government can decide who can be a member of the ruling class (Art. II, §1, cl. 5), we will no longer be free Citizens, voluntarily governed by a Constitutional Republic, but mere subjects to the ruling class.

      And once the power to create the ruling class has been taken out of hands of the ‘consent to be governed,’ it WILL be used by Congress to its own advantage.

      “The effort to remove the natural-born citizen requirement from the U.S. Constitution actually began in 1975, according to J.B. Williams’ June 8, 2011 article over at NewsWithViews.com , when Democrat House Rep. Jonathon B. Bingham, [NY-22] introduced a constitutional amendment under H.J.R. 33 which called for the outright removal of the natural-born requirement for president found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution – “Provides that a citizen of the United States otherwise eligible to hold the Office of President shall not be ineligible because such citizen is not a natural born citizen.

      Bingham’s first attempt failed and he resurrected H.J.R. 33 in 1977 under H.J.R. 38, again failing to gain support from members of congress. Bingham was a Yale Law grad and member of the secret society Skull and Bones, later a lecturer at Columbia Law and thick as thieves with the United Nations via his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations.

      Bingham’s work lay dormant for twenty-six years when it was resurrected again in 2003 as Democrat members of Congress made no less than eight (8) attempts in twenty-two (22) months, to either eliminate the natural-born requirement, or redefine natural-born to accommodate Barack Hussein Obama II in advance of his rise to power. The evidence is right in the congressional record…

      1. On June 11, 2003 Democrat House member Vic Snyder [AR-2] introduced H.J.R 59 in the 108th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsors: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]; Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10]; Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]; Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49]; Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18]; Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4].

      2. On September 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 67 – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]

      3. On February 25, 2004, Republican Senator Don Nickles [OK] attempted to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural-born citizen requirement for president in S.2128 – “Natural Born Citizen Act – Defines the constitutional term “natural born citizen,” to establish eligibility for the Office of President” – also getting the definition of natural born citizen wrong. – Co-sponsors Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]; Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA]

      4. On September 15, 2004 – as Barack Obama was about to be introduced as the new messiah of the Democrat Party at the DNC convention, Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] introduced H.J.R. 104 – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No co-sponsors.

      5. Again on January 4, 2005, Rep John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 2 to the 109th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the Office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]

      6. Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] tries again on February 1, 2005 in H.J.R. 15 – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No Co-Sponsor

      7. On April 14, 2005, Rep Vic Snyder [AR-2] tries yet again with H.J.R. 42 – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4]

      8. All of these efforts failing in committee and the 2008 presidential election looming with an unconstitutional candidate leading the DNC ticket, Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO] tries to attach the alteration to a military bill in S.2678 on February 28, 2008 – “Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act – Declares that the term “natural born Citizen” in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution, dealing with the criteria for election to President of the United States, includes any person born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces.” – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] – (This was the first effort to also assure that GOP Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain [AZ] would be cleared to run against the DNC primary victor.)

      From June 11, 2003 to February 28, 2008, there had been eight (8) different congressional attempts to alter Article II – Section I – Clause V – natural born citizen requirements for president in the U.S. Constitution, all of them failing in committee — All of it taking placing during Barack Obama’s rise to political power and preceding the November 2008 presidential election.

      In politics, there are no coincidences… not of this magnitude.

      Finally on April 10, 2008, unable to alter or remove the natural born citizen requirement to clear the way for Barack Obama, the U.S. Senate acts to shift focus before the election, introducing and passing S.R.511 – declaring Sen. John McCain a “natural born citizen” eligible to run for and hold the office of president. There was never any honest doubt about McCain, the son of a U.S. Navy Commander. The Sponsor of the resolution is Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO]

      S.R.511 States that John Sidney McCain, III, is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. S.R511 passed by a 99-0 unanimous consent of the Senate. The basis was – “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens;” – a condition not met by Barack Hussein Obama II. – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT]; Sen Webb, Jim [VA]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (They had made certain that John McCain would run against Barack Obama)

      However, in the McCain resolution is also this language – “Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States; – Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;”

      Be careful what you ask for: if “Birthers” are unsuccessful in their constitutional argument, you may only succeed in taking the power to create the ruling class out of the hands of the ‘consent of the governed’ and place it into the hands of the plenary authority of government.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • Plutodog

        Good Gawd, the insanity, the humanity, the cut-n-paste spamity! David, you’re off your meds and off your rocker.

      • G

        David, again, you show that you either are just a simple cut and paste patsy, mindlessly regugitating what you’ve seen on some RWNJ propaganda blog or that you are a willful deceiver who deliberately twists and spins the actual record to mean something very different from reality.

        Why don’t you actually LOOK at those cases that you mischaracterize as simply “Democrat” attempts to change the NBC clause. A good portion of them were sponsored or co-sponsored by GOP members. So, those who have attempted to suggest such legislation over many, many years were from BOTH sides of the aisle. Therefore it is both dishonest and disingenuous for you to portray it as one sided. Second, look at the timeframe of these attempts. They all had ZERO to do with Obama whatsoever at all.

        If you actually tried to research and think for yourself, instead of just being a patsy regurgitator of crap propaganda, you might get a clue and realize that a number of these attempts were due to folks advocating for a pathway for Arnold Schwarzenegger as a GOP candidate (during the timeframe that he was an up-and-coming GOP “darling”) or on the flip side, former Michigan governor, Jennifer Granholm, who was born in Canada.

        Further, folks in congress submit tons of crazy bill ideas that NEVER GO ANYWHERE and never make it out of committee, because very few others take them seriously or think they need to be addressed. They are essentially DOA. So, you are wasting time blathering on to gin up up straw man arguments, based on non-existent legislative threats. For crying out loud, naming post offices gets passed through and voted on, while these other fringe ideas never do.

        So stop with the smokescreen and strawmen, please. You only come across as a dishonest hack con artist, when you do so.

        • Arthur

          G:
          In the minds of some birthers, the fact that both Republicans and Democractics sought to adjust the characteristics that define a natural-born citizen proves how long and pervasive the conspiracy to get Barack Obama into the White House is,

  • Jim

    David says “In other words: Once the government can decide who can be a member of the ruling class (Art. II, §1, cl. 5), we will no longer be free Citizens, voluntarily governed by a Constitutional Republic, but mere subjects to the ruling class.”

    Well, isn’t that what you’re trying to do? A few dissatisfied voters trying to create a ruling class and limit the access to the leadership position in the government. Create an American royalty? Isn’t that what the revolution was fought against? Override the Constitution and legal citizenship so that the American voters get FEWER choices…not more?

    BTW, why are you avoiding the question about your qualifications to interpret the Constitution? It’s obvious to all that you really don’t know or understand it or our history.

  • David Farrar

    G,
    August 17th, 2012 at 10:56 pm

    “First of all, the ONLY political offices that have the NBC requirement over mere citizenship, is President and by extension, Vice President.”

    Exactly: the ruling class, or the highest public officials we have and the closest thing we come to having a king or sovereign. Art. II, §1, cl. 4 defines that class — the ruling class.

    The real question before us now is do we want to give the power to create our ruling class to the government (i.e. Congress), or do we want to keep the creation of the ruling class firmly within the “Consent of the Governed” by honoring the pledge first made by Thomas Jefferson in his Declaration of Independence; that all men are equally born and endowed by their Creator (Nature) with certain unalienable Rights, that among these is the immutable natural Right of Inheritance of citizenship under the cloak of allegiance of both US citizen parents

    As to your second point, you are wrong. Somewhere within your history you had a male ancestor who pledge to support and abide by the Constitution. Since that time by a process known as the ‘transference of allegiance’, that pledge has been literally, physically passed down to you, thereby making you an Art. II, §1, cl. 4* natural born Citizen.

    Lastly, as you say: Art. II, §1, cl. 4 is all about the qualification of the President and Vice-President of the United States. I use the ‘ruling class metaphor’ simply as a means to contrast the difference between a common law natural born subject and a natural born US Citizen — the difference being the natural born Citizen has access to run for the presidency or vice-presidency of the United States (i.e. the ruling class), whereas the natural born subject never has access to be the king or sovereign. They are subjects. We are all free citizens, constituting ourselves into a Republic, with equal access to run for the presidency or vice-presidency of the United States, if qualified.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Jim

      David says: “Lastly, as you say: Art. II, §1, cl. 4 is all about the qualification of the President and Vice-President of the United States. I use the ‘ruling class metaphor’ simply as a means to contrast the difference between a common law natural born subject and a natural born US Citizen”

      Do you even ever take the time to learn? Are you incapable, incompacitated, or just plain incompetent?

      In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

      “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. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”

      • Jim

        ex dolo malo David,

        Would you please explain how the Constitution handles it when the President is ineligible. Hint: it is NOT through the courts.

    • G

      Ok, I’ll accept that for you alone, you have this “ruling class” metaphor as you have personally defined it.

      However, in actual terms of what a “ruling class” would imply, our structure of government does NOT align with a monarchy structure ON PURPOSE. The entire intent of the Constitution was to form a different structure from that; one that purposefully distributed governmental power across THREE co-equal branches of government – administrative, legislative and judicial. Therefore, for any “ruling class” analogy to map to the USA would require considering not just the office of President and VP, but also the office holders in the US Senate, the US Congress and the Supreme Court.

      So, you are trying to make a metaphor and link it to a rule about NBC, which only applies, at MOST to 2 offices out of a total of 549 that would be analagous to any sort of actual “ruling class” comparison…and further, you apply it to the only two offices out of that group, which are specifically term limited in their ability to “rule” and as such, only get to be temporary members of that “ruling class”.

      So your “metaphor” is not only inherently weak, but also fails to make a convincing argument on any level. As usual, your shallow thinking is simply not thought through to their implications at all.

      I think you live in a fantasy mindset, where you still long for a monarchy, “blood inheritance” and the mystical notion of “divine right of kings”, instead of having any clue what America is all about and how we are actually both governed and given a seat at the table in being able to both select and replace those with the power to govern us.

      The “ruling class” here is nothing more than selected representatives from the larger set of “We the People”. Therefore, “We the People” select our leadership from admist our own population. Almost anyone within that “We the People” can choose to not just vote for leadership, but also choose to run for that very same leadership. There is NO correlation at all to a monarchical structure, which is based on inheritance rights of heritage and family structure.

      Your whole screed of “transference of allegence” has ZERO connection to the US Constitution and our model of goverment and is nothing but utter bullshit. Again, you are confusing some artifact of monarchical structures with what America is all about. There simply is NO mystical “transference” of anything via birth, except genetics of the parents to the offspring. The only other thing we might inherit is a sense of family culture and values, but that is also by virtue of experiencing such in being rasied a certain way (nurture) and also not a mystical artifact of “birthright”.

      • Slartibartfast

        G,

        Well said! (although I believe that there are some diseases [in addition to genetics] that can be transmitted via birth 😛 Unfortunately for David, there isn’t a cure for stupidity and willful ignorance…)

  • David Farrar

    Jim,

    I have no beef with United States v. Rhodes (1866)


    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.”

    Birth and allegiance do go together. There is no conflict here with common law.

    As to what is a natural born subject, Blackstone further states that any person, freeman or alien, except those of diplomats who were born in the realm of the King of England is a natural born subject. But here’s the problem with simply substituting ‘citizen’ in the place of ‘subject’, that some people think are synonymous: in England, not all natural born subjects of the Crown can become the King. This is reserved for a very small subset of natural born subjects called the royalty. This is drastically dissimilar to the American concept that any Natural Born Citizen can become President (access to the ruling class). Under Blackstone’s subjects only a very, very small subset of Natural Born Subjects could rise to be King. By contrast then the American presidency is drawn from the largest class of citizens possible under the Constitution: the natural born US Citizen. Some would say, those far, far more learned than me in such matters, that this is the difference between a democracy and a monarchy.

    I can assure you, Jim, this difference was not lost on those Americans who fought and died on the battlefields of the American Revolution. They knew the difference between a natural born subject and a natural born Citizen

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Jim

      dolo malo David says: “not all natural born subjects of the Crown can become the King.”

      Well DUH!!! But, again, you don’t read what you write. You have admitted the ONLY difference between natural born subject and natural born citizen is the ability to rise to the highest office. And that makes sense because of the 2 different types of government. Otherwise, you show absolutely no difference between the two, including how they are defined. So, you admit they are synonymous.

      • Jim

        dolo malo David says: “They knew the difference between a natural born subject and a natural born Citizen”

        Considering most of them were natural born subjects before the revolution and then became natural born citizens, I would say they would know the difference. They also would have shot you as a traitor for talking about the Presidency as a “ruling class” since to them that would have meant a King and a monarchy…exactly what they fought against. You really are very good at putting your foot in your mouth David.

        • David Farrar

          But Jim,

          They all had access to the ruling class. Access to the ruling class defines a democracy.

          If it makes you feel any better try using ‘the highest office in the land”. The Sovereign among sovereigns; the Chief Sovereign.

          ex animo
          davidfarrar

      • G

        Let me just echo everything you just said in your “Well DUH! paragraph. I agree, it truly seems like he doesn’t read what he writes. I am baffled how he can, on one hand, start down the path of making the argument we’ve been trying to make to him, but end up skipping off the rails of logic to still arrive at a backwards conclusion, contradictory in its implications, to what he just said… *facepalm*

    • Monkey Boy

      Oh, I get so tired of pointing out your stupidities and non sequiturs.

      not all natural born subjects of the Crown can become the King. This is reserved for a very small subset of natural born subjects called the royalty.

      The founder of the Hanoverian dynasty, George I, was NO kind of a British Subject when he was vouchsafed the crown by Parliament.

      • Monkey Boy

        School is in session again for D. Farrar and Mario da Putz.

        Two of the most storied Kings of England, Richard Lionheart, and his brother, John Lackland, had a decidedly FRENCH mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine.

        I wonder how “natural law” rationalized that? Maybe, it was John’s Y chromosome that drove him to punish his realm by impoverishing the noble nabobs by forcing them to pay taxes and provide soldiers. Surely, he secretly wanted to destroy England to exalt France where he had no possessions.

      • David Farrar

        Exactly my point. Natural born subjects had little or no access to the ruling class unless you were born the hereditary line (i.e. paternal jus sanguinis).

        Now contrast that to Mr. Jefferson’s idea, as expressed in his Declaration of
        Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal (i.e. having equal access to the ruling class).”

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Jim

          Great David. So now you agree that natural born subject and natural born citizens are arrived at the same way, via jus soli. So you now admit that the President is eligible via his birth in Hawaii. We should expect to not see any more silly cases from you about this then. I’m glad I was finally able to help you see the light.

        • Monkey Boy

          Exactly my point.

          Huh…what? Exactly what is your point?

          … not all natural born subjects of the Crown can become the King. This is reserved for a very small subset of natural born subjects called the royalty.

          Natural born subjects had little or no access to the ruling class… .

          You are obviously just stringing words together without any thought of what they mean.

    • G

      “By contrast then the American presidency is drawn from the largest class of citizens possible under the Constitution: the natural born US Citizen. Some would say, those far, far more learned than me in such matters, that this is the difference between a democracy and a monarchy.”

      Um David, you DO realize that this is what WE keep trying to explain to you…

      …Yet how you get from seeming to finally grasp that first part to leaping to the backwards conclusions you make from it…

      Well, that just baffles me. What you just said correlates to the points we’ve been making to you and NOT towards the wacky conclusions that you keep grasping at…

    • Suranis

      “But here’s the problem with simply substituting ‘citizen’ in the place of ‘subject’, that some people think are synonymous: in England, not all natural born subjects of the Crown can become the King. This is reserved for a very small subset of natural born subjects called the royalty”

      Listen. I’m going to explain this carefully. YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE A CITIZEN OF ENGLAND TO BECOME KING. You don’t even have to be of British nationality. You don’t have to be Born in England. English history is littered with people that had no connection with England but were brought over to prevent a CATHOLIC ascending the throne. For example, William of Orange, though technically he invaded, setting off the Jacobite Wars.

      Hell, the Present royal family, the House of Winsor used to be called The House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Prince Albert, Queen Victoria’s husband was Belgian, and Victoria’s Mother was German.

      However the whole tattle about a “ruling class” is probably where you Birthers really see the world and what your huge objection to Obama really is. He is outside the “ruling class” of Rich WASPs and therefore is a usurper, right?

      Ex Armpit
      Suranis

      • G

        “However the whole tattle about a “ruling class” is probably where you Birthers really see the world and what your huge objection to Obama really is. He is outside the “ruling class” of Rich WASPs and therefore is a usurper, right?”

        BINGO! That really does seem to be the true ideological mentality at play here…

  • David Farrar

    Jim,

    Absolutely not… that’s the whole point. That is the error in Ankeny.

    Using your definition we would be nothing more than subjects, with no real access to the ruling class…just like in jolly old England. While I don’t dispute there are a few Democrat and Republican political elites who would like to think of We, The People, as mere subjects; I dare say most would quickly point out that they are natural born Citizens (with a capital “C”), with equal access to the ruling class.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Monkey Boy

      Sir,

      You are a gasbag. A cut’n’paste parrot that pastes stuff that makes no sense and is not understood by you.

      And, when you seek to improvise, your verbiage is again without logic or sense; your stock phrases–undoubtedly, copied from Apuzzo–are just as trite and unintelligible as they are coming from him.

      As for this being a mere ad hom, I have pointed out in several places on this thread, and on several other threads where you ignorantly made foolish assertions that were either untrue, or just wrong. Windiness is not erudition. If you know your subject and make sensible assertions excess verbiage is not necessary.

      “Brevity is the soul of wit,” and, I posit, the foundation of good argument.

      • David Farrar

        But monkey boy,

        Your entire post was nothing but argumentum ad hominem. Am I to take it then, you do, in fact, agree with my actual view on the difference between a common law natural born subject and a post American Revolutionary natural born Citizen?

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Monkey Boy

          David,

          You are exceedingly thick and trying my patience.

          Am I to take it then, you do, in fact, agree with my actual view on the difference between a common law natural born subject and a post American Revolutionary natural born Citizen?

          Indeed, natural born subjects (in this context) are citizens of GB, and (American) natural born citizens are citizens of the US. However, both are–with minor variations–formed the same way; principally by birth on the soil.

          Americans are citizens, but not subjects, because there is no Sovereign that we owe allegiance to. Our allegiance is to our collective selves.

          Your claptrap about “ruling classes” and “natural law” and how citizens are not bound by evolved law, you have extracted from your ample bottom (or Mario Putz’).

    • G

      David, your problem is you simply come up with bogus conclusions all on your own, completely untethered to any actual point that someone else was arguing. I swear, with your myriad of contradictory statements, you utterly lack the ability to form a coherent logical flow in your reasoning!

      Therefore, you end up arguing against nothing but strawmen of your own creation, and not actually listening to what anyone else is trying to convey to you.

      Seriously, I have no clue where you came up with assuming “Using your definition we would be nothing more than subjects, with no real access to the ruling class…just like in jolly old England”, as NOBODY ELSE’s arguments actually lead to that conclusion.

      Again, it seems that you personally suffer from an affinity towards seeing the world VIA the monarchical model, instead of truly understanding how our Constitution works and why it does so. That is the only rationale I can come up with for why your responses vascilate between what you keep trying to “claim” and pretty much just saying what WE have been TRYING TO TELL YOU, yet still coming to the wrong conclusion from that…

      Somewhere, you have an internal logic gulf or “skip” that seems to keep you from properly getting from the right A to B.

      • David Farrar

        G,

        We established that by common law, natural born subjects had little real access to being made the sovereign themselves unless being born within the right hereditary line, as the common law of England supports.

        What so hard about this point?

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • G

          David, I am not arguing against that point, as it is pretty much the same as the one I was making to you earlier.

          So yes, let’s establish that we both agree on THAT particular point. The problem is NOT with that particular specific point itself, so let’s please move past that, since we both agree to it.

          Your problem is that you take that correct starting point and then jump to making leaping inferences from it, which simply don’t correlate to that point.

        • Slartibartfast

          G,

          David cannot explicate his reasoning process because he has no reasoning process. You either agree with him or he come up with another version of his empty ritual in response. That’s all he knows how to do—it’s sad, really.

    • Jim

      David says: “Using your definition we would be nothing more than subjects, with no real access to the ruling class…just like in jolly old England.”

      How exactly does my definition of jus soli being in affect in both England and the US not allow common citizens born in this country no real access. Seems it would provide more access for the common man…and it actually does!

      David says: “That is the error in Ankeny.”

      But, by your arguments, there is no error in Ankeny. You have stated that you agree with the courts in the Rhodes opinion, that you agree that jus soli in England makes natural born subjects and jus soli in the US makes natural born Citizens, and that has been true throughout our history. You agree that all legal authority makes the President eligible for his office. The only problem you seem to have is that you cannot separate the subjects of the monarchy from the citizens of a democracy…that and your total lack of understanding of our Constitution. It seems to me that the problem is personally yours and has absolutely nothing to do with the President.

      • David Farrar

        Jim:

        As we agreed: being born of the soil of the ‘sovereign’ is a natural born subject of the King, with little or no real access to being king by British common law. Access to the British Crown, again, by English common law, is by paternal jus sanguinis, as is an Art. II, §1, cl. 5 natural born Citizen. They are the same because they are, in fact, directly the same in terms of access to the ruling class.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Slartibartfast

          David,

          You are trying to argue that access to the “American ruling class” is by jus sanguinis—exactly the sort of non-egalitarian principle which the Founder fought a war to be free of while rejecting jus soli and the fundamental American principle that all men are created equal. I wish you were smart enough to understand how disgraceful your arguments are.

        • G

          Again David, you keep getting stuck in needing to fit OUR system into what it is NOT. The VERY reason we have our system is so that there is NO monarchical structure.

          So you are the one who needs to get a clue here and stop improperly conflating a structure in which a “ruling class” is separate from the general population of “members of the state” (i.e. a monarchy) and what America is actually based on – where the “ruling class” comes FROM WITHIN the “members of the state”.

          Being an American Citizen is NOT constrained to bloodline heritage at all. Nor is being elected to a position of power in American government. Simple as that. Get it through your thick head.

        • Suranis

          Paternal Jus Sanguinius? That would be a big surprise to King Edward the VII, who’s Father was a member of the Belgian Royal family and who’s mother was Queen Victoria. LOL

          Ex Ahahaha

  • Slartibartfast

    G,

    I think your problem lies in trying to see David as being rational with some sort of defect or void in his reasoning ability. He’s not (or at least I don’t think so). He doesn’t haven the slightest beginnings of a clue as to how critical thinking works, but he is able to recognize some of the trappings of logical arguments and he believes that if he decorates his arguments with the same trappings, then they magically become valid. Witness his use of the term prima facie. He calls all of the “evidence” which he believes supports his view prima facie evidence—not because he has some definition of the term in his mind which he believes fits that evidence, but because, in my opinion, he thinks that since he’s trying to counter something that has the prima facie spell cast on it*, he needs to cast the same spell on his evidence to make them equivalent. I believe that David is one of the best examples of “cargo cult” thinking amongst the birthers. His understanding is so superficial and naive that to even try to equate it with a deficient reasoning process misses the point that David just doesn’t have any of the tools necessary to understand what he’s talking about.

    * David, if you don’t like what I’m saying about you, then you could provide a definition of the term (like I did) and explain how, for instance, Susan Daniels’ “evidence” fits that definition. If you can’t do that, then my interpretation is likely to be accurate. If you wont do it, then you have no integrity (which we already knew). I don’t need to bother saying what you actually doing it will imply—I already know that the best you could muster is to attempt to parrot some of the words I used in a strutting display of ignorance and lack of understanding.

    • G

      Slarti, good points. I think you are right.

      As you pointed out, “His understanding is so superficial and naive that to even try to equate it with a deficient reasoning process misses the point that David just doesn’t have any of the tools necessary to understand what he’s talking about.”

      What you just said seems to be a vary rational diagnosis of the behavior we are observing from David. Simply put, his mind seems to work off of “magical thinking” and not deductive logic… and hence, why it is so baffling and bizarre to try to have a conversation with him. He simply grabs at words and concepts that he doesn’t fully understand and fills them with make-believe “magical properties” that feel good to him. He doesn’t seem to actually care to understand how things really work; only with how he can get to what he wishes to fantasize in.

      • Slartibartfast

        G,

        This sort of thinking seems pretty common amongst the birther dupes (as opposed to the grifters). Witness Butterdezillion’s “indirect confirmation” or most of those quoting high priestess Appuzo, the paraclete, or her holyness, the Taitz (who provides countless examples of this on her own in addition to inciting her followers to inanity…).

        Fundamentally, I believe that this reflects the fact that all birthers have accepted contradictory axioms and, in doing so, have rendered and reasoning ability they might have had impotent. After all, you can prove anything given a contradiction…

  • David Farrar

    G
    August 18th, 2012 at 4:57 pm.

    David, I am not arguing against that point, as it is pretty much the same as the one I was making to you earlier.

    Great! Progress, undoubted progress.

    My next point being: natural born subjects are markedly different than a post-revolutionary Art. II, §1, cl. 5 natural-born American Citizen in that all are equally born, fulling qualified to run for the highest political office in the land (i.e. the President and Vice-President of the United States), whereas mere natural born subjects could not hope to have such access to their ruling class.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Slartibartfast

      David, you incredible lummox—if you want to make a rational argument, then your next point must follow logically from your previous point rather than being pulled, fully formed, from your ass…

    • G

      David, you are still arguing in circles that lead to nowhere meaningful.

      We’ve already established the difference between the monarchical “ruling class” and its “subjects” and the American-based Constitutional system, where there is no comparitive “ruling class” and the members are simply “citizens” and not “subjects”.

      So it is time to move past your endless belaboring of the two words “subject” and “citizen”. Your own statements point to the obvious – the members become “citizens” instead of “subjects” because the structure chances from being monarchical to a representative structure. *duh*. Same as we’ve said and what you keep repeating. So move forward from this established point already.

      Your problem is that you make nonsensical leaps from that point of establishment to other conclusions, which have NO actual direct correlation to what we’ve established.

      What you’ve discussed is contained solely to explaining the difference between the concept of a “subject” and a “citizen”. Beyond that, the rest of the terminology of “natural born” are a descriptor in and of itself. Please stop trying to improperly conflate the relationship between those two different aspects.

      • David Farrar

        Isn’t it obvious? As we agreed: to suggest that there was no difference between a natural born subject and an Art. II, §1, cl. 5 natural born Citizens is fundamental wrong but that is exactly what the Ankeny decision based its opinion upon, as did Judge Malihi in my Georgia case, and, I believe, in the Florida case as well (i.e. since WKA was a born US citizen, ergo, under Ankeny, he becomes an Art. II, §1, cl. 5 natural born Citizen.

        Preposterous!

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • G

          The only thing preposterous here, is your conclusions, David.

          The connection between the conversation you have been having so far and what happened in these legal cases, simply isn’t there.

          So far, every other jurisdiction, in their review of the Ankeny decision, has come to the same conclusion. As did the Congressional Report. As has every real legal scholar of merit. As has the serious legal community.

          You Birthers simply don’t like what these decisions tell you, so you refuse to listen. So you try to twist and convolute the issue and make connections between irrelevant or unrelated points, simply for the sake of obsfucation and no other.

          The problem here is with you and your inability to deal with a reality that doesn’t give you the pony you wish for. Sorry, but your “magical thinking” cannot wish away how our laws actually work and function. You cling to gibberish nonsense, as first proposed by Apuzzo and Donofrio, to base your arguments. Yet their arguments have been rejected time and time again, when faced with any real court of law.

          The law is right and you continue to be wrong about it. You grasp onto nonsense, because you simply wish to cling to anything that tells you what you want to hear, and not because it has any basis in fact or law.

          Face it David, when you get right down to the heart of the matter, what this really is all about for you is that you personally cannot deal with the reality of Obama’s election and thus, you scramble for excuses to pretend it isn’t “real”. Your continued waste of time, both here and with the courts, is futile and foolish and nothing more than an exercise in your own selfish and emotional immaturity.

  • David Farrar

    Slartibartfast

    August 18th, 2012 at 5:58 pm

    “David,
    You are trying to argue that access to the “American ruling class” is by jus sanguinis—exactly the sort of non-egalitarian principle which the Founder fought a war to be free of while rejecting jus soli and the fundamental American principle that all men are created equal. I wish you were smart enough to understand how disgraceful your arguments are.”

    • David Farrar

      Ups

      I hit the wrong button.

      Yes, that is what I am saying. We fought the American Revolutionary War to free ourselves from the tyranny of King George, not simply to become mere subject to a greater sovereign than ourselves, but to be sovereigns ourselves, with equal access to rule.

      I will admit, the deeper I get into this issue the less important jus soli becomes when talking about US Citizenship. After all, what are the actually boundaries of the federal government when the US Constitution was being written when Washington D.C. itself wasn’t founded until 1791? I am getting to the point where the only federal boundaries the Framers had in mind when the Constitution was adopted was the Constitution itself and nothing more.

      Physical boundaries were attributes of the states, not the federal government.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • G

        David, physical boundaries are the defining characteristic of the scope of the nation (i.e. the “federal government”) and its purview. So YES, physical boundaries are a key criterion to where people are subject to jurisdictional laws. Outside of that jursidiction, you are subject to the laws of some other nation.

        So your conclusion about jus soli is simply backwards and contrary to how physical jurisdiction of nations are determined and agreed upon. Jus soli is a much clearer and simpler method of establishing jursidictional dominion.

        Your language also suggests that you entertain some fanciful notion of the “states” as if they are somehow “independent nations” and NOT simply internal subdivisions within ONE sovereign nation – the USA. Hence, federal jurisdiction of the nation is the supreme authority, within the full scope of its national boundaries.

      • G

        Furthermore David, you seem to have difficulty grasping that national boundaries are only fixed at a particular point in time and that they are always subject to change, if a nation either gains or loses territory.

        Your whole diatribe about constraining the future limitations of US citizenship to boundaries that existed at the nation’s founding is just silly and nonsensical.

        You seem to have a bizarre need to view this nation’s founders as if they are some monolithic and mystical bunch, carving words into unchanging stone and forging some mythical static entity.

        That simply is NOT what the US is, nor how this nation’s founders operated, and most certainly NOT what the Constitution itself is structured to be. The founders themselves were a diverse group, with differing opionions.

        Lengthy and heated debates over a long period of time occurred, including arguing over wording, tossing out or adding different ideas and going through various iterations, before there was ever a finalized document to achieve sufficient agreement and become our foundation for US law: that document which we call our Constitution. A document which was created, because our first attempt at a legal framework for the nation was failing (The Articles of Confederation). THAT was the original establishment of US government…

        So, there is no “set in stone” in our history. What the Founders came up with originally, they eventually threw out and replaced WITH the Constitution. Because America is after all, a “grand experiment” and departure from the national structures that existed before. It was never meant to be fixed and unbending. If you actually READ the document, it explicitly is designed to allow for adaptation and change over time. It devotes a lot of its verbiage to specifying the process to address change and amend. It specifically spells out that Amendments are NOT some form of “lesser law”, but become revisions and extensions to the Constitution itself.

        Finally, so you can get the silly notion of the Founders as some mythical race of monolithic and infallable gods out of your head, I suggest you actually study the history of the real people who were part of these various meetings and committees that ended up founding our nation. In many ways, it was just as messy and contentious a body and process as is our body of Congress today. At various points during the creation of all our nation’s “founding documents”, certain “Founding Fathers” quit and walked away from the process altogether.

        They were just a body of very human and very real people, David. Full of human flaws and differences of opinion, just as people are today. They certainly lived in interesting times and rose to the task of setting a path towards the goal of a brighter future, but they could only guess at what the future could bring, not predict it.

        • David Farrar

          G,

          Guess you’re as welcome to your own delusions as I am to mine.

          ex animo
          davidfarrar

        • G

          See, that’s just the thing, David. I stick to empirical reality. I don’t fall for delusions. That’s your bag.

        • David Farrar

          G,

          Guess you’re as welcome to you own empirical reality as I am to mine.

          ex animo
          davidfarrar

        • Slartibartfast

          That’s the point David—you reject empirical reality in favor of what you want to be true.

        • G

          Well David, I will take this as yet another example from you that you simply don’t know what certain words actually mean.

          Now you are abusing the word empirical and using it in a fashion that is akin to gibberish. Look it up. Your musings are very lacking of an empirical quality. Yours is the way of “magical thinking”, not evidentiary based reason.

          You are entitled to your opinions, sure. But please learn how to simply be honest and admit that you are offering mere opinion and conjecture next time. Instead, the language you use is stilted to imply expertise, which you simply lack. Implying such is akin to lying.

          But I’m beginning to realize that your bloviating is more likely based on ignorance and that you probably don’t even realize how you come across to others. That at least would be a more kind assessment to attribute to you and explain your poor use of words, logic and overall reasoning ability. Not to mention your constant mistakes in reading comprehension. Such things are apparently, simply outside of your actual base of expertise.

          Furthermore, in not all areas are mere opinions of equal value. For instance, a preference for a color, flavor, style of music, etc. is easily an opinion of clear personal choice and taste. Such things are so subjective, that there is no “right” or “wrong”, simply personal preference. There is no point in people attacking or arguing against each other on such things, as they truly are a matter of “each to their own” as opinion.

          Your latest two quips seem to treat these matters as if they simply fall under the category of preference opinion, as explained above. But they are not. No, we are now in the realm of “opinion” which is conclusory and based on making assumptions and deductions. In this realm, we have both uninformed and informed opinions. The former are matters of ignorance. As to the latter, their merit is only as good as the quality of data and assertions that go into them, along with the level of sound and structured reasoning put in to evaluate them.

          Both types of conclusory “opinions” are things that can be independently evaluated, assessed, criticized and judged by others, as they are not merely matters of personal preference, but have a basis in some exterior and objective data set. So sorry, but all “opinions’ of the conclusory nature are NOT equal in merit. It is in this category that your screeds have so far fallen and been found sorely lacking.

          Face it, you simply cannot provide a sound and supportable rebuttal, so you are simply slinging illusory equivocative flippancy as a dodge.

          You would better serve yourself by simply being honest in your posts and intentions. You get flack and bring disdain towards yourself, because many of the rest of us can see through your nonsense.

          Trust me, I would much prefer and honest disagreement with you on friendly and amicable terms, instead of feeling constantly insulted by being subjected to your veils of irrational and disingenuous tripe. You are not fooling anyone, so please stop trying to do so. Simply be honest about expressing that you simply wish the world was different than it happens to work.

          I can respect your right of opinion to wish for a different leader, a different form of government, or that certain laws functioned differently. However, I cannot respect your tactics of obsfucation, in trying to pass of what you simply wish for, as if it was actually reality.

          The rest of here are neither stupid nor gullible, so stop treating us like “marks”. Not only is it insulting, but it should have dawned on you, long before now, that no one is buying it. So, drop the charade and simply start using some direct and honest language in your dialogue for once.

      • Slartibartfast

        David,

        The deeper you get into the issue the less important jus soli becomes… really? If it is so unimportant, then why did James Madison say this:

        “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”

        Do you mean to say that you understand the Constitution better than a person whose sobriquet is “Father of the Constitution”? Or is it more likely that you just don’t know what you are talking about?

        • David Farrar

          I think Madison was defending the qualifications of a Mr. Smith for a senatorial seat, not the qualification of an Art. II, §1, cl. 5 natual born Citizen.

          But nice try.

          ex animo
          davidfarrar

        • Jim

          Really David? Then how about a Supreme Court Justice? And you’ve already proven yourself that you can’t even come close to understanding the Constitution as well as her.

          Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor: “All of our Presidents have, to date, been born in the 50 states. Notably, President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, and so is clearly a natural born citizen.”

        • Suranis

          James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, Document 6 (1789)

          “It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.

          James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)

          “That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “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.”

          Ex Abstergo

  • Suranis

    This is from Wikipedia, on the Panama Canal Zone. No I’m not making a point on John McCain here.

    ” Citizenship

    Although the Panama Canal Zone was legally an unincorporated U.S. territory until the implementation of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties in 1979, questions arose almost from its inception as to whether the Zone was considered part of the United States for constitutional purposes, or, in the phrase of the day, whether the Constitution followed the flag. In 1901 the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in Downes v. Bidwell that unincorporated territories are not the United States.[26] On July 28, 1904, Controller of the Treasury Robert Tracewell stated: “While the general spirit and purpose of the Constitution is applicable to the zone, that domain is not a part of the United States within the full meaning of the Constitution and laws of the country.”[27] Accordingly, the Supreme Court held in 1905 in Rasmussen v. United States that the full Constitution only applies for incorporated territories of the United States.[28] Until the rulings in these so-called “Insular Cases”, children born of two U.S. citizens in the Canal Zone had been subject to the Naturalization Act of 1795, which granted statutory U.S. citizenship at birth. With the ruling of 1905 persons born in the Canal Zone only became U.S. nationals, not citizens.[29] This no man’s land with regard to U.S. citizenship was perpetuated until Congress passed legislation in 1937, which corrected this deficiency. The law is now codified under title 8 section 1403.[30] It not only grants statutory and declaratory born citizenship to those born in the Canal Zone after February 26, 1904, with at least one U.S. citizen parent, but also did so retroactively for all children born of at least one U.S. citizen in the Canal Zone before the law’s enactment.”

    So, the US passed a law that allowed people in the panama canal zone to be NBCs if they had one US Citizen Parent. I’d LOOOVE to hear Fararr’s explanation of why the US government made it easier for people born in Panama to be President than those born in the US.

    Ex Axe (Its a Palindrome!)

    • David Farrar

      Suranis,

      For the record: John McCain was not born in the unincorporated U.S. territories of the Panama Canal Zone. He was born in a hospital in Colon, Panama.

      There is no Section 8 statutory provision that directly impacts Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen.

      As Justice Clarence Thomas has correctly stated: You don’t have to be born in the United States to be born an Art. II, §1, cl. 5 ‘natural’ born Citizen. If this was not so, John McCain would not have been found to be a natural born Citizen.

      Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff stated as much in McCain’s Senatorial, non-binding Resolution SR 511:

      “’My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,’

      Chertoff replied.

      ‘That is mine, too,’

      said Sen. Leahy, Chairmen of the Senate Judiciary Committee.”

      And while Minor is dicta, it too only declares persons born of two citizen parents within the jurisdiction as natural born Citizens with the least doubt about their citizenship status. But de Vattel, in his treatise: ” Law of Nations,” states that a “natural born” citizen is simply a person born under the cloak of allegiance of the father.

      The “natural born Citizen” requirement was placed in the Constitution to insure access to the ruling class* would devolve solely on the “consent of the governed.” So the very first question the Supreme Court would have to ask itself if it granted certiorari is: Does the plenary authority of government even have the Constitutional authority to define what is an Art. II, §1, cl. 5 ‘natural’ born Citizen in the first place?

      The answer to that question is that it does not. Only the consent of the governed can create its own ruling class, and it did so when Thomas Jefferson declared the Constitution of the United States would be base on natural laws and inalienable rights, and that the first of these is that all men are created equal.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

  • David Farrar

    Monkey Boy, Jim, G and Slartibartfast
    August 19th, 2012 at 2:48 am

    “Indeed, natural born subjects (in this context) are citizens of GB, and (American) natural born citizens are citizens of the US. However, both are–with minor variations–formed the same way; principally by birth on the soil.”

    Now this is where we disagree: they are not the same, their functions are different. Only one has access to the ruling class. This difference may seem small and inconsequential to you, G and Slartibartfast, but it forms the basis of John Jay’s fears that a undue foreign influence affecting our ruling class.

    At the end of the day, and in rereading the threads on this post — which I thank everyone for their effort and hard work — I keep coming back to the same question: Why would the ‘Consent of the Governed’ allow access to their ruling class to anyone who has not pledged to support and abide by the Constitution of the United states? Sure: statutory U.S. citizenship at birth, I can understand, but not access to the ruling class. Not even naturalized US citizens have that privilege.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Jim

      David says: “Why would the ‘Consent of the Governed’ allow access to their ruling class to anyone who has not pledged to support and abide by the Constitution of the United states? ”

      If you were born a citizen, you do NOT have to pledge, ONLY naturalized citizens do. Again, you show your extreme stupidity.

      • David Farrar

        Jim,

        If you are born of US citizen parents, under your natural political right of inheritance, your pledge to support and abide by the Constitution of the United States was transferred to you under the cloak of allegiance of your US citizen parents.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Jim

          David says: “If you are born of US citizen parents, under your natural political right of inheritance,”

          Actually, my being born in America gave me all the rights and privileges of begin a natural born Citizen. My parents’ citizenship had nothing to do with it.

          Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor: “All of our Presidents have, to date, been born in the 50 states. Notably, President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, and so is clearly a natural born citizen.”

          I also note that you continually avoid questions about you qualifications…and continually fail direct questions about the Constitution. So, basically, you’re a jerk that knows nothing and hopes no one notices.

      • Slartibartfast

        Jim,

        If extreme stupidity were a sport, David would be a world-class athlete…

    • Monkey Boy

      Now this is where we disagree: they are not the same, their functions are different. Only one has access to the ruling class.

      Doofus…how many times must people point out to you that “the ruling class” in GB is no longer determined by heredity, but politically just like in the US. The titular sovereign hasn’t “ruled” since the unfortunate Charles I, and he was often hamstrung by Parliament. Can you name ONE Prime Minister that was chosen because of his birth? You don’t have to convince us of your idiocy, you have already demonstrated it profusely.

      Since Cromwell, the citizens (who are also subjects) that had the franchise picked the “ruling class.” And those franchised citizens could pick any natural-born subject to join the “ruling class” in Parliament.

      This difference may seem small and inconsequential to you, G and Slartibartfast, but it forms the basis of John Jay’s fears that a undue foreign influence affecting our ruling class.

      This is totally meaningless gibberish that allowed you to spew one of your stock phrases.

      d

  • David Farrar

    Moreover Jim,

    Even when naturalized citizens do pledge to support and abide by the Constitution, they still are not granted access to the ruling class. Yet somehow, you gain this ‘privilege’ simply by an accident of birth? I think not.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Doubtful

      @David Farrar — “Yet somehow, you gain this ‘privilege’ simply by an accident of birth? I think not.”
      __

      And you would prefer it to take place simply by an accident of parentage? You’re entitled to your preference, of course, but you have utterly failed to show that your preference is the one supported by U.S. law, whereas the rest of us have clearly showed that it is not.

      • David Farrar

        Doubtful,

        “And you would prefer it to take place simply by an accident of parentage?”

        There is no way to insure complete loyalty to the US Constitution, as the delegates to the 1787 Constitution Convention well understood. But I have to believe they presumed if a person was born of two US citizen parents, their ‘issue’ would grow up to be a loyal US citizen, supporting and abiding by the US Constitution more than t5hose who by an accident of birth, were not born of two US citizen parents; don’t you agree?.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Doubtful

          @David Farrar — “But I have to believe … don’t you agree?”
          __

          I don’t agree, but it doesn’t matter in the slightest. There are plenty of issues on which citizens of the U.S. hold conflicting views, and there is a judicial system for resolving those conflicts. Your personal beliefs and mine are of no consequence.

          The courts have spoken, as you know perfectly well. All your posturing about how they’re wrong and you’re right is just empty chest-thumping.

    • Slartibartfast

      David,

      YOU are also arguing that you gain this privilege through an accident of birth, rather than a conscious choice (as naturalized citizens have). In other words, the logical consequence of the argument you are trying to make here is that only naturalized citizens (who have chosen to become part of the country) should be eligible. You really have a gift for inanity, don’t you.

  • David Farrar

    The Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen clause was placed in the Constitution to insure access to the ruling class (i.e. the Commander in chief of America’s armed forces) would devolve solely on the “Consent of the governed.” Any court ruling that is inconsistant with this objective is unconstitutional.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Doubtful

      @David Farrar — “Any court ruling that is inconsistant with this objective is unconstitutional.”
      __

      As I recall, this started out as a discussion about President Obama’s legal eligibility to hold office.

      It seems to me that if he is eligible under currently prevailing court rulings, it makes not a whit of difference whether you consider those rulings to be unconstitutional. Even an overturning of Wong Kim Ark would not invalidate the 2008 election.

      Don’t you agree?

  • David Farrar

    Doubtful,

    So you don’t agree: someone born of two US citizen parents stands more of a chance of supporting and abiding by the constitution of the United States than a person born of non US citizens?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Doubtful

      I can’t imagine any rational basis for drawing that conclusion. If you wish to do a scientific study comparing the constitutional behavior of jus soli versus jus sanguinis citizens and if it ends up showing compelling results, then you can go about trying to convince SCOTUS to reinterpret the Constitution based on statistical data. In the meantime, of course, the prevailing precedents will continue to stand.

      Frankly, it just sounds like silly BS to me.

      • David Farrar

        You bring up another point I am having trouble with when we try and define jus sanguinis (right by blood). Of course, it really isn’t by ‘blood’, but by a ‘transfer of allegiance’. So I guess a better way to express this is by saying:

        “The Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen clause was placed in the Constitution to insure access to the ruling class (i.e. the Commander in chief of America’s armed forces) would devolve solely on the “Consent of the Governed from birth (i.e. Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen).” Any court ruling that is inconsistent with this objective is unconstitutional.”


        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Doubtful

          @David Farrar — ” Of course, it really isn’t by ‘blood’, but by a ‘transfer of allegiance’.”
          __

          Now you’ve lost me. You’re saying, for example, that if a child is born overseas to two U.S. citizen parents and is immediately given up for adoption and is taken in by a foreign couple, you are satisfied that that child has qualified as a natural born citizen — and not by blood, but by “transfer of allegiance”? How did that “transfer of allegiance” take place?

      • Slartibartfast

        Personally, I would guess that the natural born children of immigrants would probably have the strongest sense of allegiance to the country (people like Bobby Jindal or Marco Rubio)—after all, their parents had to take action to provide them with the opportunities of American citizenship. But, as you point out to the onionhead, none of that changes what the law IS.

        • David Farrar

          And Anwar Al-Awlaki? Would you say the same of him..that he should have had access to the presidency?

          ex animo
          davidfarrar

        • Slartibartfast

          If he was born on American soil (and wasn’t the child of a diplomat), then yes, I do. The natural born citizen clause is not the only safeguard for the presidency—nor was it ever intended to be. That’s just a birther strawman that you have emphatically supported. If the people wish to elect someone who preaches anti-Americanism abroad and works to destroy the US, that is THEIR right and what you think about it (besides your personal vote) IS IRRELEVANT.

          The Revolutionary War was fought because England didn’t let the people have a say in their governance—why are you fighting so hard to take that right away? It seems to me that an American preaching birther memes during the revolution would clearly be guilty of sedition. Why do you choose to be a seditious bigot David?

        • Jim

          David says: “And Anwar Al-Awlaki? Would you say the same of him..that he should have had access to the presidency?”

          And now you show your COMPLETE stupidity. Just because someone can run, doesn’t mean they could win. In fact, how many people ran for the Presidency in 2008? I trust the voters to be able to see through someone a heck of a lot more than an individual like you being able to.

    • Jim

      David says: “So you don’t agree: someone born of two US citizen parents stands more of a chance of supporting and abiding by the constitution of the United States than a person born of non US citizens?”

      If you’re an example of the former David, then the answer is no. You are a prime example of someone who doesn’t even KNOW about the Constitution trying to save your idea of the Constitution by destroying the Constitution. As Judge Land said so eloquently…”Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so”. He was speaking about you David.

  • David Farrar

    Doubtful
    August 19th, 2012 at 12:49 pm

    “…if a child is born overseas to two U.S. citizen parents and is immediately given up for adoption and is taken in by a foreign couple, you are satisfied that that child has qualified as a natural born citizen — and not by blood, but by “transfer of allegiance”? How did that “transfer of allegiance” take place?

    As I say, there are always exceptions to any rule. But such a child would be an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen at birth though the natural right of inheritance.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Doubtful

      @David Farrar — “But such a child would be an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen at birth though the natural right of inheritance.”
      __

      I see. Now it’s “the natural right of inheritance.” What about what you said before — “Of course, it really isn’t by ‘blood’, but by a ‘transfer of allegiance’.” Is “the natural right of inheritance” by ‘blood’ or by a ‘transfer of allegiance’?

      And, remember, you are trying to argue that centuries of jus soli jurisprudence ought to be overturned based on your totally unsupported personal intuitive belief that such a child, nurtured by U.S. citizen parents through a scant few minutes of newborn life, “stands more of a chance of supporting and abiding by the constitution of the United States than a person born of non US citizens.”

      Are you really surprised that not a single court has bought into this nonsense?

      • David Farrar

        I apologize if I confused you.

        The ‘transfer of allegiance’ (of citizenship) is our natural right to “inherit” membership at birth in the society of the father’s.

        As an example: Let’s go back before 1776. Suppose you have two North American Indiana tribes, let’s say Iroquois and Sioux. Now let’s say an Iroquois man and his wife who is of the Cherokee tribe, and pregnant, are traveling through Sioux territory and they stop and camp on Sioux territory for the night and the Cherokee mother gives birth to a child on Sioux territory. Does that make the child Sioux, Cherokee, or Iroquois?

        The fact that the child was born on Sioux territory gives the Sioux the right to decide if they want to adopt the child and make him/er Sioux or not. They might instead even kill the entire Iroquois family for trespassing. The option is theirs. It is the same with every nation including the U.S. This is why de Vattel says that the soil is just the place of birth and not the country that one is from, which goes by the father because it is a function of natural law, not legal privilege.

        Now let’s go a little further with this example. Suppose that the Sioux come across the family and they take them back to the tribe and the tribe decides to adopt the child and make him Sioux. If that child grows up in the Sioux tribe with Iroquois parents he will not have the same political rights within Sioux society as the native born Sioux child who is born to Sioux parents. When it comes time to choose a Chief of the tribe, the tribe will choose the son’s of Sioux fathers not the adopted son of an Iroquois father. However, back home in Iroquois country, the Iroquois could accept the son of an Iroquois father to be chief as the fact that he was born outside of the tribe while his father was hunting or traveling in Sioux territory is not a reason to prevent the person from being Chief of the tribe. This is why de Vattel says that the place of birth can provide no reason for taking from a child, that which nature has given him/er, which is the natural political right to inherit membership in the society of the father.

        This shows that statutory U.S. citizenship at birth, like naturalized citizens, are not born with the same political rights in the society as the indigenous natives or natural born citizen.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Doubtful

          @David Farrar — “This shows that statutory U.S. citizenship at birth, like naturalized citizens, are not born with the same political rights in the society as the indigenous natives or natural born citizen.”
          __

          This shows? This shows? LOL, you’ve got to be kidding!

          We’ve got dozens of court rulings showing that U.S. birth (with minor exceptions) is sufficient for natural born citizenship. And you really think you’re going to score points with hypothetical examples concerning Native American tribes?

          How desperate can you possibly be?

  • David Farrar

    Slartibartfast

    August 19th, 2012 at 2:57 pm

    You are the one trying to give our American birthright away.

    I guess then John Jay should be called the father of birthism under your meme.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Slartibartfast

      David,

      You are trying to disenfranchise generations of children of immigrants. I’m merely trying to stop asshats like you from usurping the birthright of millions of Americans. In this instance I am a conservative—arguing for the interpretations of the Constitution and law that have been unchanged and unchallenged for over 200 years. You, on the other hand, are trying to change the rules and apply them retroactively—all to attack a single man that you are prejudiced against. I’m really sorry that you are too stupid and naive to understand how ashamed of yourself you should be.

      • David Farrar

        As I say, you are as welcome to your own opinions as I am to mine. But I really don’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about… “…disenfranchise generations of children of immigrants.”

        Our American birthright is simply based on the ‘Consent of the governed’ ruling themselves. But you have to be among the ‘Consent of the governed’ to have access to its ruling class. Show me one nation that allows aliens in amity to access their ruling class?

        ex animo
        davidfarra

  • Monkey Boy

    It is my ex animo opinion–just an opinion, mind you–that D. Farrar would be well served by spending less time reading anti-American tracts and blogs, spinning fanciful pipe dreams of destroying America with other neo-Confederates and, perhaps, playing with pink dildoes, and pick up a history book or two.

    He would probably pick up a few facts, and avoid making stupid assertions online, and, just maybe, gain some insight of how the US came to be.

    Floyd Brown is wasting somebody’s money by engaging him as a smear artist–he just doesn’t cut it.

  • David Farrar

    Doubtful
    August 19th, 2012 at 3:35 pm

    Natural law is immutable. It doesn’t change over time; Let me give you another example of today.

    We can take three present day indigenous peoples of Kenya, let’s say the Lue and Kikuyu peoples. Now let’s say a Lue man and his wife, who happens to be of the Luhya people of Kenya and pregnant, are traveling across Kikuyu’s territory and they stop and camp on Kikuyu’s territory for the night and the Luhya woman gives birth to a child on Kikuyu’s territory. Does that make the child Kikuyu, Luhya or Lue?

    The fact that the child was born on Kikuyu’s territory gives the Kikuyu the right to decide if they want to adopt the child and make him/er Kikuyu or not. They might instead even kill the entire Lue family for trespassing. The option is theirs. It is the same with every nation including the U.S.

    The soil is just the place of birth and not the country that one is from, which goes by the father because it is determined as a function of immutable natural law, not legal privileges.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Doubtful

      @David Farrar — ” Let me give you another example of today.”
      __

      Yes, David, that’s an example of your view of natural law. We’re very well familiar with it.

      The problem, of course, is that U.S. citizenship is not determined in accordance with David Farrar’s view of natural law. Never has been, never will be. You hold this bizarre fantasy that what strikes you as true automatically becomes the controlling law of the land.

      Do you want to know what the law of the land is? Read the Constitution, the laws, and the court decisions.

      They are what prevails in this country, whether you personally agree or not.

      • David Farrar

        The Constitution itself is base on nothing else but self-evident, immutable, inalienable natural rights; is it not?

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Doubtful

          LOL, David, you love throwing around those fancy words, don’t you?

          But if there were universal agreement on how “self-evident, immutable, inalienable natural rights” were to be understood and put into practice, we would have no need for judges and legislators.

          You may say that you’re all for “self-evident, immutable, inalienable natural rights,” but we all know what you mean. What you really believe in is your unique authority to dictate to the rest of us how those rights are to be interpreted.

        • Arthur

          Yes and no. I would amend that to read, “The Constitution is based on what the framers believed were self-evident, immutable, inalienable natural rights.”

        • Northland10

          The Constitution itself is base on nothing else but self-evident, immutable, inalienable natural rights; is it not?

          Does that mean the right to own slaves or the “right” to be a 3/5 person is an immutable, inalienable natural right? Maybe you did not notice but we figure out we were wrong on that one (thanks be to God).

          Exactly where would you find a natural right that says the President is not entitled to all the rights and privileges of the society where he was born and raised?

    • Jim

      David says: “The fact that the child was born on Kikuyu’s territory gives the Kikuyu the right to decide if they want to adopt the child and make him/er Kikuyu or not. They might instead even kill the entire Lue family for trespassing. The option is theirs. It is the same with every nation including the U.S. ”

      Actually, David, you again have no understanding of America. You must be a foreigner. You would be charged with murder in the US, and convicted. And you’d be lucky if they didn’t execute you for murdering an innocent child.

  • Slartibartfast

    David,

    Why, if your bullshit were true, was the child a slave if its mother was a slave but free if its mother was white in the founders era?

    • David Farrar

      Slartibartfast,

      Just because Jefferson declared that our new government would be based on the self-evident truth that all men are created equal doesn’t me at that time the plenary authority of government was capable of measuring up to that lofty ideals. But they eventually did, with the work still in progress. Actually, it should be looked at as a continuum.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • Slartibartfast

        David,

        Toss your “magic” word salad all you like—it’s not going to change the fact that it is made of bullshit.

        Here, I’ll prove it: Define the “plenary authority of government”.

  • David Farrar

    Doubtful
    August 19th, 2012 at 4:25 pm

    But they are self-evident. I don’t need to tell you or any court that recognizes natural facts and natural law what they are. They are as self-evident today as they were in 1787, as I just exampled and to which you just admitted you understood me well.

    Was that a lie?

    If you or the court have any questions as to what they are, de Vattel’s treatise:“Principles Of the Law of Nature Applied To The Conduct And Affairs of Nations And Sovereigns” should help you sort it all out.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Slartibartfast

      If natural laws are self-evident, then why does one need to refer to Vattel to “sort it all out”?

      Everything you write just provides more evidence of how poorly you understand the Constitution and law in general. Please point out where in the Constitution it says that Vattel’s book is holy (in particular, the translation made after the Constitution was ratified).

      It is a pity you can’t seem to understand how big of a jackass you are.

    • Monkey Boy

      Tee hee hee.

      “If you or the court have any questions as to what they are, de Vattel’s treatise:“Principles Of the Law of Nature Applied To The Conduct And Affairs of Nations And Sovereigns” should help you sort it all out.”

      According to de Vattel, you neo-Confederate traitors wouldn’t have access to anything more lethal than a butter knife. Is that a “natural law” that was incorporated in the Constitution?

      Of Course, the Constitution writers created an absolute Monarch to conduct governmental affairs. Why? Because that is “natural law” according your high prophet.

      You may be duplicitous, but you are also exceedingly stupid to so consistently contradict and argue against yourself. That’s easy when you don’t understand the tripe you are spewing. When you memorize your stock phrases and talking points, you should also get tutoring on how to frame coherent arguments.

    • Doubtful

      @David Farrar: “But they are self-evident. I don’t need to tell you or any court that recognizes natural facts and natural law what they are.”
      __

      But you see, David, the ones that are self-evident to you are clearly at odds with the ones that are self-evident to, for example, the Ankeny court.

      I know, you think they’re wrong. Well, they think you’re wrong.

      Guess whose opinion counts?

  • David Farrar

    “Judge James Duane, in his ruling in the Rutgers v. Waddington case, described the importance of the new republic abiding by the Law of Nations, and explained that the standard for the court would be de Vattel.

    He ruled that the Statues passed under the color of English Common Law, must be interpreted from the standpoint of its consistency with the Law of Nations. This concept of de Vattel lead to the creation of the Judiciary branch of our government to insure that Congress could never legislate away the provisions of the Constitution.”

    Sometime we all, even a lower state court’s dicta, can often go astray of the immutable standards observed by de Vattel.

    Still I am left with the same question over and over again:

    “Why would the ‘Consent of the Governed’ allow access to their ruling class to those who haven’t pledged to support and abide by the US Constitution?”

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Jim

      David says: “Why would the ‘Consent of the Governed’ allow access to their ruling class to those who haven’t pledged to support and abide by the US Constitution?”

      The American Ruling Class (2005) is a dramatic documentary film written by Lewis H. Lapham and directed by John Kirby that “explores our country’s most taboo topic: class, power and privilege in our nominally democratic republic.”

      Lapham opens the film with the question of whether or not America has a “ruling class,” a circle of wealthy and powerful families that run the banks, businesses, and government, essentially controlling everything in America.

      Is that the type of “ruling class” that you keep on harping about David?

      • David Farrar

        Yes, I am sure the fictionalized documentary “The American Ruling Class (2005)” is very interesting, but Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen clause was placed in the Constitution to insure access to the ruling class (i.e. the Commander in chief of America’s armed forces) would devolve solely on the ‘Consent of the Governed’ from birth. Any court ruling that is inconsistant with this objective is unconstitutional.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Slartibartfast

          Well, David, are you planning to give up your guns, give up your worship of Vattel, or show yourself to be a hypocrite?

        • G

          Well David, considering that your entire worldview seems to be based mostly in fiction…

          You really live by “magical thinking” don’t you? *sheesh*

          Sorry, but your concepts of “natural law” and “ruling class” and “consent of the governed”, have very little connection to how US Law and the US Constitution work, let alone how reality functions… I’m just astounded by the level of delusional thinking you continuously display. How frustrating it must be for anyone to be so denial of reality, yet have to walk around it a world they cannot fathom and accept every day…

        • Slartibartfast

          G,

          I’m sure the world must be a scary place for David. I doubt that you or I could understand the fear engendered in someone devoid of the ability to think critically and totally unable to comprehend the world around them. David, lacking the tools to assign cause to effect accurately, chooses to repeatedly demonstrate his ignorance rather than admitting that he doesn’t understand. It’s too bad he wasn’t born in the dark ages—he would have made a great peasant (the horse collar seems like about the level of technology that he would be comfortable with…).

        • G

          Agreed Slarti, agreed.

    • Slartibartfast

      David,

      If Vattel’s standards are so immutable, why are you permitted to have firearms? (which is a violation of said standards)

  • Kriselda Gray

    One thing that kills me is how birthers keep insisting there are 3 kinds of citizens – natural-born, naturalized and “plain ol'” citizen, when it’s OBVIOUS that “Citizen” is a category name, of which “natural-born” and “naturalized” are the two kinds. It’s really not that difficult of a concept to grasp, and one they have to do everyday. Say someone told a birther to go shopping for toothpaste. Is that birther going to ask “what kind would you like?” or are they going to spend hours wandering through the isles of the drugstore looking for “plain ol'” toothpaste among all of the varying brands? (Even in generics, it’ll indicate what kind of toothpaste it is, such as “tooth whitening,” “breath freshening,” “children’s,” “baking soda” or some combination of the above.)

  • David Farrar

    Slartibartfast
    September 4th, 2012 at 6:27 pm

    Assumes? In terms of US Citizen, both the 14th Amendment and Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen are US Citizens by birth, one by natural law and one by positive law – the only two kinds of US citizenship.

    All the Wong Court decision did was establish US citizenship by birth, if it saw Wong Kim Ark as a Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen it could not have arrived at the 14th Amendment to establish US citizenship by birth. By the Wong court’s actions, rather than its words, it did not see Wong Kim Ark as a Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen, therefore it had to arrive at the 14th Amendment to establish US citizenship by birth by positive law.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Monkey Boy

      Are you Butterdezillion in drag? Seriously.

    • Slartibartfast

      David “out of breath”,

      Article 2 does not define the term natural born, so we must go to the common law to find the definition that the Founders intended—which turns out to be exactly the same as the definition contained in the 14th Amendment. If it weren’t, you could give an example of a person of European descent who’s status would have been changed by the adoption of the 14th Amendment.

      What are you going to do when a judge throws out your “positive law” argument as frivolous? I’m betting that you will once again move the goalposts and keep spewing lies. What motivates you to behave in such a contemptible manner? It’s sad that your parents were apparently unable to teach you the concept of “integrity”…

      • David Farrar

        Slartibartfast,

        The ‘Consent of the Governed’ should not allow English common law to dictate the qualifications for our ‘Ruling Class’ (i.e. the President and Vice-President). We should set these qualifications beyond the reach of any plenary authority (Congress) to change. This is why our founding fathers relied on de Vattel to furnish the correct definition of an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen.

        As you can see below, if Congress retains the power to definition an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen, they WILL attempt to change it to their own advantage.

        1. On June 11, 2003 Democrat House member Vic Snyder [AR-2] introduced H.J.R 59 in the 108th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsors: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]; Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10]; Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]; Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49]; Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18]; Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4].

        2. On September 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 67 – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]

        3. On February 25, 2004, Republican Senator Don Nickles [OK] attempted to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural-born citizen requirement for president in S.2128 – “Natural Born Citizen Act – Defines the constitutional term “natural born citizen,” to establish eligibility for the Office of
        President” – also getting the definition of natural born citizen wrong. – Co-sponsors Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]; Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA]

        4. On September 15, 2004 – as Barack Obama was about to be introduced as the new messiah of the Democrat Party at the DNC convention, Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] introduced H.J.R. 104 – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No co-sponsors.

        5. Again on January 4, 2005, Rep John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 2 to the 109th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the Office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]

        6. Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] tries again on February 1, 2005 in H.J.R. 15 – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No Co-Sponsor

        7. On April 14, 2005, Rep Vic Snyder [AR-2] tries yet again with H.J.R. 42 – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4]

        8. All of these efforts failing in committee and the 2008 presidential election looming with an unconstitutional candidate leading the DNC ticket, Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO] tries to attach the alteration to a military bill in S.2678 on February 28, 2008 – “Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act – Declares that the term “natural born Citizen” in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution, dealing with the criteria for election to President of the United States, includes any person born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces.” – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] – (This was the first effort to also assure that GOP Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain [AZ] would be cleared to run against the DNC primary victor.)

        From June 11, 2003 to February 28, 2008, there had been eight (8) different congressional attempts to alter Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen requirements for president in the U.S. Constitution, all of them failing in committee — All of it taking placing during Barack Obama’s rise to political power and preceding the November 2008 presidential election.

        In politics, there are no coincidences… not of this magnitude.

        Finally on April 10, 2008, unable to alter or remove the natural born citizen requirement to clear the way for Barack Obama, the U.S. Senate acts to shift focus before the election, introducing and passing S.R.511 – declaring Sen. John McCain a “natural born citizen” eligible to run for and hold the office of president. There was never any honest doubt about McCain, the son of a U.S. Navy Commander. The Sponsor of the resolution is Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO]

        S.R.511 States that John Sidney McCain, III, is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. S.R511 passed by a 99-0 unanimous consent of the Senate, with only John McCain not voting. The basis was – “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens;” – a condition not met by Barack Hussein Obama II. – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT]; Sen Webb, Jim [VA]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (They had made certain that John McCain would run against Barack Obama)

        However, in the McCain resolution is also this language – “Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States; – Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States.” *

        ex animo
        davidfarrar
        *Efforts to Eliminate the Natural Born Requirement (2003-2005)

        • David Farrar

          Correction,

          While there is actually only one attempt to change the definition of an Art. II, §1, cl. 4, none were offered in an attempt to benefit Barack Obama personally.

          Nevertheless, as these attempts to alter the natural born Citizenship Clause illustrates, the power to create our ruling class must remain in the hands of the ‘Consent of be Governed’ and outside of the hands of Congress.

          ex animo
          davidfarrar

        • Slartibartfast

          David “out of breath”,

          The Founders didn’t reject English as the language of our country and similarly, they didn’t reject the language of English common law as the language of our jurisprudence. This was the jargon that they were trained in and they specifically noted terms that they wished to change (like “treason”). The attempts you list to change the NBC requirement (attempts that would not effect President Obama’s eligibility status, by the way), were proposed Amendments—the legitimate way to make changes in our Constitution. Are you suggesting that we have no right to Amend the Constitution if we so choose? It is you, trying to do through the courts what can only be done by the Amendment process that is denigrating the Constitution here.

        • Monkey Boy

          This is why our founding fathers relied on de Vattel to furnish the correct definition of an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen.

          Your evidence for this? I mean genuine evidence.

        • G

          Again David, you offer nothing but further proof that you are incapable of independent thought and are merely a gullible dupe, simply cut-and-pasting nonsense weak arguments that others have spoon-fed you.

          I’ve seen this same stupid list reguritated by your RWNJ endlessly….in order to gin up controversy and fear in you simpletons, when it really shows NOTHING of any significance at all.

          You are obviously too ignorant to read such things and weight their actual merit in an argument. Let’s look at your list and get to the bigger point – THESE EXAMPLES OVER NO “REAL” THREAT OF A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AT ALL!!!

          If you had even a basic concept of how Congress functions, you would realize that the folks there submit all sorts of numerous “proposals” that never go anywhere and simply die in committee. They are meaningless background noise and go nowhere and are not ANYWHERE close to being seriously considered in what would lead to a pathway to becoming law.

          Particularly on legislative suggestions that would need to go through the Constitutional Amendment process. Do you even have a clue of how difficult that process is and how high the threshold of voting requirements are for it to pass – NOT JUST within BOTH houses of Congress, but also be RATIFIED by a significant proportion of the individual states!!!

          None of these weak examples you gave went anywhere.

          That you morons struggle to come up with 8 whole examples of mere DOA proposal submissions, over a 5 year period is NOT evidence of any emerging “theme” or serious threat to change the law at all.

          In fact, quite the opposite. Considering the sheer total volume of mere proposals that get submitted on a yearly basis, let alone over the course of 5 years, your paltry list of 8 DOA ideas is such an insignificant drop in the bucket, that the only picture they present is how completely fringe and insignificant this issue is and how nonexistant it is in gaining any traction.

          I swear David, foks like you are scared of your own shadows…

  • RoadScholar

    Shameless Dave is at it again. You desperately and pathetically try to make it seem like a Democratic Obama-centered plot to change the NBC rule. GARBAGE.

    Politicians you claim co-sponsored bills to do away with the NBC rule (without citing their affiliation, a CERTAIN sign of your dishonesty:

    Rep. Chris Shays, REPUBLICAN. Rep Issa, Darrell E., REPUBLICAN. Rep LaHood, Ray, REPUBLICAN. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, REPUBLICAN.

    Co-sponsoring the attempt to, as you put it, “counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural-born citizen requirement for president…”: Sen Landrieu, Mary L., DEMOCRAT.

    Among those sponsoring the military offspring NBC provision: Sen Coburn, Tom, REPUBLICAN.

    Your failing to identify the Republicans (or the Democrat, when it helps you make your BS argument), making it seem like this was all a Democratic plot to change the rules so Obama could be President, is INEXCUSABLE. The Republicans tried on many occasions to change the NBC requirement so that Schwarzenegger could run. LOOK IT UP.

    You are a propagandist, bent on misleading readers, plain and simple.

    YOU ARE A LIAR.

    • Monkey Boy

      He probably didn’t even read that drivel before cutting and pasting it. Then again, he doesn’t really read anything beyond a superficial scan for magic words. If he did, even a dimwit would see some of the contradictions.

      Ah, yes. Dana Rohrbacher so much wanted the help Barack Obama–who, according to Repug dogma was “[t]he most liberal member of the Senate–skirt rules and become President.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: