Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Is All Wet!!! (Part I, The Witch Test)

witch ski

Apuzzo Suddenly Realized That He Wasn’t On Solid Ground

Well, Mario Apuzzo, Esq. once again takes issue with my assessments of his arguments. Here is a link to his latest broadside at me, the Artsy-Fartsy Girl Reporter:

The Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause:  A Response to Artsy Fartsy Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter

Artsy Fartsy Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter (“Squeeky Fromm”) continues in vain to try to persuade the public that she has refuted my position that an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html

For purposes of space, this article will only discuss his syllogisms, or logical form arguments. Part II will cover his substantive arguments. Before we discuss his arguments, let’s do some analogizing about tests! Back in Ye Olde Witch Hunting Days, there was a test designed to determine if a woman was witch. It was called dunking. The alleged witch would be trussed up, taken to the nearest river or pond, and tossed in. If she floated, she was a witch. If she sank, she was innocent. There was usually a rope attached, and the witches, innocent and otherwise, were pulled back up in the boat. This was a respected, and well established test dating back to the days of Babylon. Personally, I think it was more of an ancient form of the Wet T-Shirt Contest, but I believe a lot of Jungian stuff, so who knows.

Anyway, from a modern perspective, we can see that this test had absolutely nothing to do with proving whether or not the subject was a witch, and a lot more to do with Body Mass Index (BMI). A voluptuous, buxom woman, with ample hips, would be more likely to float, whereas scrawny little Girl Reporters would end up noodling catfish on the bottom. Theoretically, it would be possible to rig these tests. For example, if it was me, and a Mob of Angry Birthers said I was a witch, then I would put on my cast iron chastity belt, and slip some diving weights into my undies. I do not put this kind of thing past people in that day, either.

This may make it easier to understand what I was griping about when I wrote my “stabs.” They were in response to an Apuzzo article critical of Jack Maskell, who had written a 50 page memo for the Congressional Research Service, and Bob Quasius, a blogger at Cafe Con Leche Republicans, who relied on that memo to conclude Ted Cruz was most likely a natural born citizen. A copy of Maskell’s memo, and a pdf of it for easier reading, may be found here:

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/natural-born-citizenship/

Apuzzo attacked Maskell by using logical syllogisms.  I counter-attacked Apuzzo by pointing out that syllogisms are basically useless when it is the major premises themselves that are issue. And even more useless when an author plays fast and loose with them. That was the point that I made in my first article on this:

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/he-says-apuzzo-i-say-a-pazzo/

Perhaps it is my inherent witchiness, but neither that article nor the subsequent rebuttal article sank in.  So, that is why I am trying this analogy. The Dunking Test is a lot like those Logical Syllogisms. Neither are accurate tests of the truth, and both are subject to being rigged. This was the point that I made in my articles.  That syllogisms are as unreliable in determining the TRUTH of an argument, as tossing a witch into yon pond. Take for example this perfectly logically valid syllogism:

Major Premise:   All dogs can fly
Minor Premise:   Fido is a dog
Conclusion:          Fido can fly

While this passes the logically VALID test, in that its FORM is correct, it does not pass the TRUE test. How do we know that it is not true??? We must go outside the syllogism for that. It is our experience, and our judgement which tell us that dogs can not fly. Therefore, facts outside of the syllogism itself are necessary to determine the truth. That was the point I made to Apuzzo. That his methodology was flawed, and that by using syllogisms he would be unable to shine any light whatsoever on the issue, particularly because it was the major premise itself that was the subject of contention.

In the context of determining whether citizens at birth are legally equivalent to natural born citizens, using syllogisms is like using the Dunking Test.  You will get a result, but that result doesn’t mean anything.  But Apuzzo is not keen on the whole judgement external to the syllogism thingy. He complained:

And even though Squeeky Fromm comes to Maskell’s aid, she also does not present any evidence to show that Maskell’s major premise, as reconstructed by me, would be true. What she does in place of presenting any evidence that the major premise is true is just to say that the premise does not strike her “as being facially incorrect, invalid, or untrue.” From this statement we can see that Squeeky Fromm has very little understanding of informal logic and fallacies. An informal fallacy has the exact facial appeal that she relies upon. But when its underlying truth is tested, it fails

Nope. It is Mario Apuzzo, Esq. who does not understand. As in the Fido Syllogism above, where else could one go if one finds the conclusion that Fido can fly troubling??? And not something you wish to discuss deeply with Mental Health professionals. Here, between the double lines, is what I wrote which prompted that response:

====================

Now, lets assume that Apuzzo is wrong about CABs and NBCs and that they are both exactly the same thing as believed by Maskell and the Great Weight of Legal and Historical Authority. Then let’s put the matter to the logic test in proper logical form:

Major premise:       All NBCs are CABs
Minor premise:      Cruz is an NBC
Conclusion:             Therefore, Cruz is a CAB

Major premise:       All CABs are NBCs
Minor premise:       Cruz is a CAB
Conclusion:              Therefore, Cruz is an NBC.

Yes, I can live with either conclusion. Neither strikes me as being facially incorrect, invalid, or untrue. It would all depend on the truthfulness of the premises. For example, if a court ruled that all CAB are NOT NBC’s, then Cruz may or may not be an NBC. Which brings you to the second big problem with Apuzzo’s whole approach to this thing. Which is, his whole approach to this thing.

====================

Summarizing this point, to determine whether or not a syllogism is TRUE, you have to go outside the syllogism. While outside, if something looks STUPID, then the syllogism is probably neither TRUE  nor SOUND.  Sooo, Fido can fly . . . strike[s] [me]“as being facially incorrect, invalid, or untrue.” With Maskell and Quasius, there were no such vibes.  There might be disagreement from the Birthers, but once again, that is why you don’t use syllogisms in situations like this. They are about as useful as trussing Maskell up, and  chunking him into a river to see if he floats.

Now, to discuss Apuzzo’s initial rigging of Maskell’s Dunking Test. In his original article, Apuzzo characterized Maskell’s take on this as:

All NBCs are CABs.
All persons like Ted Cruz (born in Canada to a U.S “citizen” mother and non-U.S. “citizen” father) are CABs.
Therefore, all persons like Ted Cruz are NBCs.

This is the same FORM, as Apuzzo’s Bubbles the Poodle example:

All poodles are dogs.
Bubbles is a dog.
Therefore, Bubbles is a poodle.

This is  a NOT VALID form, and it is also NOT the manner in which either Maskell, or the blogger Bob Quasius presented the argument. There was no reason to ever present Maskell’s argument in that particular form, except to set up a straw man.  Maskell’s position could be accurately presented by the two proper forms above. Apuzzo simply slipped some floaties on Maskell, tossed him in the drink, and then hollered, “Witch! Witch!” when Maskell floated to the surface.

That was my point. That was also what I said in my first rebuttal response to Apuzzo:

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/mario-apuzzo-esq-s-distributed-muddle/

In his latest article, Mario Apuzzo tangentially deals with these criticisms:

Squeeky Fromm tries to persuade that she successfully addressed my criticisms of Congressional Attorney Jack Maskell’s thesis (his major premise) that all born citizens are “natural born citizens.”  From her article we can see that she is starting to understand the world of logic a little better. But she does not admit the blunder that she made with the first part of my logical presentation in which I expose why to argue, that since all “natural born Citizen” are “citizens at birth,” and since Barack Obama is a “citizen at birth,” he is a “natural born Citizen,” is logically invalid.  We have to recognize this argument and show that it is invalid because it is one of the means by which Maskell arrives at his conclusion that Obama is a “natural born citizen.”

Second, Squeeky Fromm, underplays the second part of my logical analysis where I show, by converting Maskell’s invalid argument into a valid argument, that Maskell’s second argument is unsound because the major premises is false.  Maskell’s second argument can only be all “citizens at birth” are “natural born citizens,” and since Obama is a “citizen at birth,” he is a “natural born citizen.”  Maskell’s major premise in this argument would be all “citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens.” Squeeky Fromm fails to understand the importance of the maneuver of taking someone’s invalid argument and making [it] valid. It is done to show that if the argument is to succeed, then its premises must be true. And it is here that I have shown that Maskell’s major premise is false and therefore also his conclusion that Obama is a “natural born citizen.”

Huh??? Well, if you can wave your hands and, “PRESTO CHANGE O!!!” make the syllogism VALID, why did you ever present the INVALID form??? Because we have already established that the TRUTH of a syllogism comes from outside the syllogism, because the TRUTH of the premises comes from outside the syllogism. Let’s go grab Bubbles, and see how this works:

All poodles are dogs.
Bubbles is a dog.
Therefore, Bubbles is a poodle.

Is Bubbles a poodle??? Who knows. The FORM of the syllogism is INVALID, but that does not mean the conclusion is false. That just means that you can’t get to the truth of the conclusion through the argument. Somebody has to outside, in the yard, and check Bubbles. Who may or may not be a poodle.

Now, let’s do an Apuzzo Abracadabra, and make the form VALID:

All poodles are dogs.
Bubbles is a poodle.
Therefore, Bubbles is a dog.

Now, the FORM is VALID, but is the conclusion TRUE??? Who knows? Is Bubbles a poodle? Perhaps Bubbles is a cat. The point is, you still have to go outside the syllogism to check whether or not the premises are true. Now, as a matter of Advanced Syllogisms,  I will tell you, that even if both premises are TRUEish, and the form VALID, the conclusion could be false. Here is a picture of Bubbles, the poodle. She is on the right:

lackey

[Robert Byrn (Sir Kay, The Seneschal) and Mimi Berry (Bubbles, Hand-maiden to Queen Morgan Le Fay) in the 1943 revivial of A Connecticut Yankee. Creator: Valente, Alfredo — Photographer. Created Date 1943.

Because, a poodle is also a lackey, or a servile person.  So, some poodles are dogs. Some aren’t. This isn’t just nitpicking. Syllogisms come in flavors, or moods. About 256 of them, t0 be precise. Out of that 256 possible moods, only 19 forms are considered VALID. Personally, I haven’t counted them.

http://math.fau.edu/schonbek/mfla/mfla1f01syl.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism

The relevance here is, that there is a very good chance a premise on the Ted Cruz issue would come out as, Some Citizens-at-Birth are natural born citizens. The law is not a real good place for logical FORMS. One reason is that classifications change. Another is that words are often subjective in meaning, or admit to having more than one meaning. For example, is naturalization a statute to be viewed separate and distinct from the Article II natural born citizen characterization, or is naturalization more properly viewed as a process,  complete with citizenship tests. In the law, lines are seldom hard and fast. This is why you have judges and juries. Somebody has to look at laws and decide what the words mean, and how they are to be applied, and to what facts they should be applied.

That was my point to Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Regarding Ted Cruz, the question of whether or not he is a natural born citizen, is open. Most people, myself included, think this will resolve in his favor. But it will not be resolved from presumption and the making of syllogistic premises. It will be decided by going to the law, and trying to decide the meanings of the words, and the intent behind them. If he wishes to be relevant in that process, Mario Apuzzo, Esq. needs to forget Aristotle, and start reading up on case law and statutory construction.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is Alfredo Mendoza, a former water skiing champion.

Alfredo Mendoza was the premier male water skier in the world during the early 1950s and he turned his tournament successes into a professional career as a skiing star at Florida’s Cypress Gardens. Mendoza first learned to water ski at Lake Tequesquitengo southwest of Mexico City in 1949. His fascination with the sport, coupled with his viewing of a film of show skiing at Cypress Gardens, convinced him to change from his earlier ambition of becoming a bullfighter. Mendoza captured the jumping and overall gold medals at the 1953 World Championships in Toronto, Canada. He repeated as jumping and overall champion at the world meet in Beirut, Lebanon two years later and added the slalom gold medal to his victory string.

http://www.iwsf.com/halloffame/89AlfredoMendoza.htm

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

625 responses to “Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Is All Wet!!! (Part I, The Witch Test)

  • Soduko

    You had me at “Which brings you to the second big problem with Apuzzo’s whole approach to this thing. Which is, his whole approach to the thing.”

    Truer words were never written.

  • Dave B.

    If you young ladies don’t stop messing with Mario, he’s going to get a complex. I bet you made that cowlick on the back of his head stand up more wildly than Alexandra Hill did.

  • Frank Bolivar

    Poor Mario. I think you are the only attention he receives outside his little birther echo chamber. He writes 10,000-word screeds complete with (as my dad used to say) 50-cent words, to convince the clueless and gullible that he knows that if which he speaks.

    Personally, if they read his tripe, I think Temple would ask for their law degree back.

    • Jim

      Frank Bolivar: “Personally, if they read his tripe, I think Temple would ask for their law degree back.”

      I believe if the birthers read his tripe, they’d go “WTF???”. But, as we well know, birthers don’t read…they just go with the conclusion.

  • Jim

    First an intern, now a Squeeky. Poor Mario, all he has left is preaching to the choir. 😀

  • Jimmy

    ”This is why you have judges and juries. Somebody has to look at laws and decide what the words mean, and how they are to be applied, and to what facts they should be applied”

    In similar words, you have humans to correct or completely change what the previous humans did.

    • Jim

      Jimmy: “In similar words, you have humans to correct or completely change what the previous humans did.”

      Constitutionally, we call those amendments.

      • Jimmy

        Constitutionally, yes. However, the SCOTUS can and has overruled itself. Sometimes with scandalous or controversial results . This happens when a different case involving the same constitutional issues as an earlier case is reviewed by the court and seen in a new light, typically for clarification or because of changing social and political situations. The longer the amount of time between the cases, the more likely this is to occur.

        • Jim

          Jimmy: “The longer the amount of time between the cases, the more likely this is to occur.”

          To me, that’s a good thing. We no longer live in the 1700’s so obviously things never even imagined by our forefathers are going on right now.

        • ramboike

          Jim,

          You and your fellow traveling comrades should never equate those patriots of our American Revolution as your forefathers. More fitting [from what I have observed from the thousands of comments by you and your ilk] would be to claim those bolsheviks who pulled off the Great October Socialist Revolution in 1917 Russia as your forefathers [i.e. ideological ancestors (kinfolk)].

        • Jim

          Actually Dumbo, it’s been the birthers who have been calling for the overthrow of the legally elected government…in fact, I notice that some of your ilk are now talking about turning the country over to the Russians. Amazing that for all the people who fought and died for this country, one half-black man gets elected President and your ilk want to give those lives away just because of your bigotry. So sad…and so dumbo.

        • ramboike

          LoserJim,

          Again you show you’re history-lite.

          You’re telling a 1/2 truth. There are many in the ranks of Patriotic America who have been “calling” for the overthrow of the illegal Obama & his Marxist Mafia, but that has been the extent of it. Obama & those he has surrounded himself with in government are an extention of the Obots [progressives, liberals, socialists, commies, et cetera] who marched as anti-war activists for about a period of 5 years under commie flags and with socialist banners during Bush’s presidency to overthrow our Constitutional Republic & assassinate Bush.

          Any sensible person can see your “one-half black man excuse” is just cover for Obama’s agenda for America. You and your fellow-traveling comrades should understand by now that smear doesn’t intimidate me.

        • Jim

          Dumbo: “You and your fellow-traveling comrades should understand by now that smear doesn’t intimidate me.”

          Oh, I’m sorry, you’ve totally misunderstood us. We’re not trying to intimidate you, we just want to see the next stupid thing you type…it’s so hilarious when people who know nothing about our history, our Constitution, or the law tries to act like they’re the king and we have to believe all their BS. You’ve used every negative term in your bigoted arsenal against the President, and said nothing. The paranoia is actually border psychotic, when’s the last time you were check out by a certified psychiatrist? Should be part of your veteran’s benefits…look into it.

  • davidfarrar

    Sen. Ted Cruz is absolutely correct: He is a US Citizen by reason of birth by positive law (Title 8 USC §1401 (g), not by natural law. Therefore, Sen. Cruz is not an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen.

    An Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen is a person who acquires their US Citizen by reason of birth naturally, by their natural political right to inherit the citizenship of the father . In order for Sen. Cruz to be an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen, Rafael Cruz would have had to become a naturalized as a US citizen prior to December 22, 1970.

    Sadly, neither Obama’s, nor Sen. Cruz’ fathers were US citizenship at the time of their births, making it impossible for ether to be Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen by natural law.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • davidfarrard

    @Frank Bolivar

    It was Romney. Apparently, even if Mexicans get naturalized as US citizens, they can always move back to Mexico as Mexican nationals, and the same for Americans by treaty. It’s the same with most south American countries. Who know?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Dave B.

      David, while we’re on the subject of Romney, whatever became of this?
      http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topics/i-will-file-against-mitt-romney-if-he-is-nominated

    • Jim

      Actually, it seems universally true.

      Citizenship by naturalization (INA § 337, 8 USC § 1448)

      A description of the US naturalization oath is given in Section 337(a) of the INA [8 USC § 1448(a)]. Of particular relevance to the dual citizenship issue is that, as part of the oath, a new citizen must pledge “to renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen.”

      In practice, it is unclear what if any true legal significance this statement has any more. The US does not require a new citizen to take any formal steps to renounce his old citizenship before officials of the “old country”; and when the other country continues to claim a naturalized US citizen as one of its own, current US policy recognizes that such a person may have to use a passport from the other country in order to visit there, and such an action does not put the person’s US citizenship in jeopardy.

      At one time, the US took the position that anyone who wished to renounce his prior citizenship in connection with US naturalization had an inherent, unquestionable right to do so. Well into the 19th century, many countries had no provisions at all for renouncing citizenship and did not even acknowledge that their citizens or subjects had any such right. This is, no doubt, why the renunciatory clause in the US naturalization oath is not linked to any additional requirement to give up one’s old citizenship in accordance with another country’s laws; as far as the US was concerned, the renunciatory statement in its own naturalization oath was sufficient, and all other countries had an obligation to respect it. In recent years, the State Department has apparently decided to take a more pragmatic and realistic stance on this issue.

      Some efforts have been made in Congress, in recent years, to criminalize dual citizenship by making it a felony for a naturalized US citizen to acknowledge or exercise his/her old citizenship. So far, however, no such legislation has been enacted into law.

    • Dave B.

      Okay, we have an irregularity here that changes EVERYTHING. Who, exactly, is this “davidfarrard”? That additional “d” is an unacceptable anomaly. Explain yourself, “davidfarrard”. And while you’re at it, explain whatever became of this:
      http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topics/i-will-file-against-mitt-romney-if-he-is-nominated

    • Frank Bolivar

      Assuming you are talking about Mitt, How would that be pertinent to him? He’s a nbc, born on U.S. soil to U S citizen parents.

  • davidfarrard

    Frank Bolivar

    Indisputably, if the palpable fear of the founders, framers and ratifiers of the US Constitution was that foreign intriguers* (likely European aristocrats) would exploit factions within the US as they have done in elective monarchies in Poland, Germany, etc, and turn this new democracy into an elective monarchy (and eventually an hereditary one) was the case; the last thing they would want to do is to set the qualifications of the presidency, the highest office in the Republic, where those qualifications could be changed easier, rather than harder. It was the good old immutability of natural law that won over — or should have won over — from Blackstone and Congress’ naturalization powers.

    In short: natural law would be harder to change than simply allowing Congress to define US citizenship at birth through it enumerated naturalization powers.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar
    *This fear was palpable because America was proposing to actually elect their Commander in chief of all their armed forces by general elections

    • Jim

      davidfarrard: “In short: natural law would be harder to change than simply allowing Congress to define US citizenship at birth through it enumerated naturalization powers.”

      Well David, you are more than welcome to go back in time and try to convince them of your position…in fact, wouldn’t surprise me at all that some at the Convention would agree with you. However, we live in the present and you have nothing to show that’s what they meant except your convoluted interpretations…which has been universally rejected by the courts time and time again.

      • davidfarrard

        Jim,

        You must widen you gaze.

        In their time, it was a return to a monarchy, which represented a loss of liberty to them. In our times, it may be, perhaps, a President for Life amendment, or some other elected dictator, that may result more easily if we allow Congress to dictate the qualifications of the presidency, rather than immutable natural law. In politics there is a value in identifying things that don’t change, that are immutable..

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Dave B.

          “In our times, it may be, perhaps, a President for Life amendment, or some other elected dictator, that may result more easily if we allow Congress to dictate the qualifications of the presidency, rather than immutable natural law.”
          “davidfarrard”, whoever you are, that’s one of the goofiest things you’ve said, if you are indeed who you purport to be, since, say, April 3, 2012.
          Speaking of “things that don’t change, that are immutable”, what did you ever do about this?
          http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topics/i-will-file-against-mitt-romney-if-he-is-nominated

        • Jim

          David: “if we allow Congress to dictate the qualifications of the presidency, ”

          Ummmmm, they’re the ones who get to decide who is eligible or not, as per the Constitution. So, you’ve now proven that the Constitutional Convention thought Congress would be BEST entity to decide who should be President. Seems they didn’t like your natural law BS.

    • Frank Bolivar

      The “fear” was that a foreigner would be able to become president. That was taken care of my requiring the president be nbc, according to English Common Law, with which they were very familiar.

      And that means if born on U S soil whatever the situation of your parents does not matter.

  • Slartibartfast

    David “out of breath” Farrar(d),

    Do you remember when you and your fellow litigants were offered a default judgement recommending that the Georgia SoS find President Obama ineligible? (which would have been a huge PR victory for you and your fellow birthers)

    Do you remember how you and your inept attorney declined so that you could get your evidence in the record?

    Do you remember how this led to Orly, for the second time, losing an epic court battle with an empty chair?

    Do you remember Administrative Law Judge Malihi recommending that the SoS find President Obama eligible because all of your evidence (as well as that of the two other attorneys who also argued the birther case in that hearing) had “little to no probative value”?

    Do you realize that EPIC fail will always stand as the high point of your birfing career?

    I’m just asking…

  • Reality Check

    Did anyone point out to David Farrar(d) that even his attorney now says the “two parent citizen” theory is a loser and will never prevail in court?

  • davidfarrard

    @Frank Bolivar

    We are all welcome to our own opinions, but as Mario Appuzo points out if an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen meant simply anyone born on U S soil whatever the situation of your parents, they would have simply stated that in Art. II, §1, cl. 4, to wit: ‘a born US citizen’ rather than a natural born US citizen.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Jim

      The courts do not agree with Mario, David. That’s called the losing side. And, for your opinion, you are given 1 vote. You lost.

    • Dave B.

      Your buddy Mario who you really thought had been appointed to the Ezra Pound Chair of Common Law when you wrote this?
      http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topics/i-will-file-against-mitt-romney-if-he-is-nominated
      That Mario? Whatever became of that promise of yours to file against Mitt Romney, anyway?

    • Joel L Lawler

      Mr Farrarrdd,

      You are entitled to your own ignorant opinion, but that doesn’t change the fact that your statements on this subject are at odds with long decided (since 1898) law. That’s why birthers lose every lawsuit – because they pretend that the law will somehow change itself to suit their bizarre and bigoted worldview. Thankfully, that won’t really happen.

      • ramboike

        Black racist Lawler,

        Instead of clinging here in your Obot comfort zone why not show your fellow-traveling comrades you have a set. Take you opinions/beliefs to Mario Apuzzo’s blog and let us see how well you fare there.

        It’s easy for you when you have a dozen like minded Obots slinging slurs at someone [David] who comes here and debates & argues his positions in a civilized manner and won’t go into the gutter with yas.

        • Jim

          ramboike: “[David] who comes here and debates & argues his positions in a civilized manner and won’t go into the gutter with yas.”

          Yes, it was very nice of David to come here and admit that his theories are his own and not of this Country. It will be nice when you admit you’re wrong too.

        • Yoel J. Lawlor

          Little Mario (that’s what the girls call him, anyway) is so cowardly that he doesn’t allow free discussion on his “blog”, Rambette. I don’t abide cowardice. Stupidity, maybe (I respond to you, don’t I?), but not cowardice.
          I have made statements on Squeeky’s blog which certainly must have offended her (my apologies, btw) in an effort to provoke the recognition of new and different views on the topic of race in America, but she has not edited or deleted those comments. Poor cowardly Mario does edit, delete and distort those comments which do not support his own self-serving views.
          So little Mario and his crooked blog can go pound salt – I post at Birther Think Tank!

        • ramboike

          Your idea of free discussion is to deny reality, tell lies, and viciously smear anyone with racist innuendo if they’re not in lockstep with the Lawler Doctrine.

          Your remarks in the comments section of “The George Zimmerman Verdict and The New Birthers!!!” article, set your profile on what you’re all about.

        • Yoel J. Lawlor

          No, Rambette, my idea of free discusion is one where all comments are posted for the consideration of the reader. I can see how that would be frightening to a weak debater such as Mario or yourself.
          BTW, you need to look up ‘innuendo’ in a dictionary. From your usage, it’s clear that you don’t know what it means.
          A birfer talking about “denying reality” causes Irony Meters all over the world to explode!

  • davidfarrard

    @Slartibartfast,

    “…little to no probative value”… is more than “no probative value”, which is case with Obama HHD birth certificates, and on that bases, alone, Jude Malihi should have called for the examination of Obama’s natal hospital records to establish the truth of the matter. On that basis, I was deeply sadden by Judge Malihi’s decision. He had a chance to clear this matter up, once and for all, for the good of the Office of the Presidency and for the common good of the country…and failed.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • davidfarrard

    @Jim stated,

    “David: “if we allow Congress to dictate the qualifications of the presidency, ”

    Ummmmm, they’re the ones who get to decide who is eligible or not, as per the Constitution. So, you’ve now proven that the Constitutional Convention thought Congress would be BEST entity to decide who should be President. Seems they didn’t like your natural law BS.”

    You see Jim, here’s the problem: the naturalization powers of Congress to which you speak cannot create an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen. Naturalized US Citizens cannot stand for the US presidency. So what you have just discovered is the true reason who persons acquiring their citizenship naturally, under the cloak of allegiance of the father, must be governed by natural law rather than by positive law (naturalization)

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Dave B.

      Why that’s just silly, “davidfarrard”. Is that what you had in mind when you wrote this?
      http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topics/i-will-file-against-mitt-romney-if-he-is-nominated
      What were you thinking then, anyway?
      You know, without those “naturalization powers of Congress”, Senator McCain wouldn’t have been born a US citizen at all– and that’s a natural fact. But while we’re on the subject of citizen fathers, and natural whatever and all that, tell me what you make of this case:
      http://www.uscis.gov/err/E2%20-%20Applications%20for%20Certification%20of%20Citizenship/Decisions_Issued_in_2005/JAN122005_03E2309.pdf
      of someone also born to two parents who had acquired US citizenship at birth and neither of whom had ever taken any action to renounce that citizenship?

    • Jim

      davidfarrard “You see Jim, here’s the problem: the naturalization powers of Congress to which you speak cannot create an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen.”

      Not according to the very first Congress, which contained many members of the Constitutional Convention. One of their first acts was to make babies born to 2 citizen parents born out of country natural born citizens. Obviously, they thought they had given Congress the authority. So, wrong again David.

      • davidfarrard

        @Jim,

        If you are referring to the Naturalization Act of 1790, the nations first…it is a “naturalization” act. This is positive law defining the US citizenship status of persons born abroad of two US citizen parents..”not to be foreigners”(i.e. the same as Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizens — a person born of two citizen parents). This clause is often used to correctly define what the “originals” thought a natural born Citizen to be.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Jim

          Well DUH!!! That means they have the authority to decide. Otherwise, they would have had to add an amendment. You do understand the Constitution, don’t you?

        • Dave B.

          That “clause is often used to correctly define what the “originals” thought a natural born Citizen to be” by whom? What, exactly, was your problem with Mitt Romney here:
          http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topics/i-will-file-against-mitt-romney-if-he-is-nominated
          Whatever became of that, anyway?
          So I’ve got a hypothetical for you, davoidfarrard:
          Two children are born to US citizen parents (two each) in Canada, acquiring US citizenship at birth. They never come to reside in the United States or in any of its possessions, but visit the United States often, including visits to US citizen relatives. Both of them enlist in the US military on an overseas military base, where they meet, and one being a stalwart young man and the other a positively delightful young woman, they fall in love and marry, continuing their military careers with the intention of pursuing those careers to retirement. The blissful young couple continues to reside outside the US and its outlying possessions. Soon enough nature takes its course, which you will have to have somebody much nearer to you than I explain to you, and lo, a child is born. The happy couple apply to the US Department of State for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad as documentary proof of the little tyke’s US citizenship. What happens then?

        • Slartibartfast

          Jim,

          It is clear that David relies on his willful ignorance of, among other things, the Constitution, US law, critical thinking, the burden of proof (and the presumption of ignorance), and definitions of terms (David, I see you still don’t understand the meaning of prima facie) to avoid understanding any of the arguments made against him. It’s “cargo cult” thinking at its finest and allows him to completely disregard your obvious point that the first Congress believed themselves to have the authority to declare people to be natural born citizens.

        • Jim

          Thanks Slarti! Enjoy reading your posts over the years, much better writing and understanding of our history than I could ever do. After years of watching the birthers, I have found there’s more than one way to skin a cat. Lawyers, like you, want to beat them up with facts and the law…which they then ignore and go back to making like their opinion is the law of the land. I’ve found (even though they’ll ignore what happens later) that it’s much more satisfying to get them to keep talking and talking until they themselves prove they are wrong. As you can see below, where David admits it’s just his opinion and has no backing in law or the courts, it works for me. Have a great weekend and keep posting, I always learn something new from the attorneys and appreciate you taking your time to join in the discussions! 🙂

        • Slartibartfast

          Dammit Jim, I’m a doctor*, not a lawyer! 😉

          While I’m flattered that you think I have a good grasp of the law, it comes from listening to real obot lawyers (and others who have educated themselves on this topic) on the Fogbow and elsewhere, not law school.

          * I have a phd in mathematics, to be precise (“doctor” just makes the Star Trek reference better—as for David’s legal acumen… It’s dead, Jim).

        • Jim

          Slarti: “Dammit Jim, I’m a doctor*, not a lawyer! ;-)”

          Being a trekkie, I appreciate the reference! And, that’s how I’ve been learning, plus they’re very nice and show reference material and locate so much that I’d never even think of! Be that as it may, you’re still a much better writer!

        • ramboike

          This is rich.

          Slartifartfast is a lawyer? I had no idea. I’m laughing so hard at this moment I have tears in my eyes and can hardly type.

          All that spinning in more than a dozen replies over a simple question I asked of him & Reality Check. It truly was an embarrassing time for the anti-Birther Establishment.

          Here we finally get an answer to what has been a primary cause of weaker minds like LoserJim to peddle so much nonsensical, incoherent, and meaningless babble.

        • Jim

          DumboIke: “weaker minds like LoserJim to peddle so much nonsensical, incoherent, and meaningless babble.”

          And yet, the President remains in the White House and you’re left typing insults to people you can’t insult.

        • Slartibartfast

          Ike,

          If you had any reading comprehension skills at all, you would realize that I clearly said that I am not a lawyer. You would also understand, by the way, that I had, in the mind of any rational reader, shown how your whining about “original records” was both fallacious and hypocritical.

          And I’d bet on Jim against you in a test of intelligence any day.

        • ramboike

          Slartifartfast,

          I was distracted by a phone call and didn’t see your followup when I got back and finished it up.

          Please, haven’t you made a big enough fool out of yourself. Now you want to compound it with more lies. Noone is believing your excuse making. It was an easy to understand question I asked to Reality Check that you jumped it on hoping your cleverly disguised excuse making would cover for your Dear Leader’s refusal to release any of his “original records”. I took my anti-spin pills when I reaized what you were up to.

          It’s case closed, end of story. Game-Set-Match ~Grin~

          Jim has already went Head-to-Head with me starting last year on Woodman’s blog, here, and a Global Times message board. Always the same results: His weak mind gets him in trouble, he trys diversions, and when that fails falls back on the race card for cover. He told me a couple months ago that he has spent the last 5 years with the obsession that everything connected to Obama is racist. Now from his comments to you above it looks like you’re his source for that.

          Btw, in a reply to Jimmy you phrased it as “your newest “great white hope””. Want to explain it since I don’t understand?

        • Slartibartfast

          Ike,

          You’re right about one thing, it is “case closed”. President Obama will continue in office and there is nothing that the birthers can do about it.

          On race: You don’t have to be racist to be a birther, but a great many birthers regularly make racist comments and none of you seem to mind these “fellow travelers”.

          Regarding President Obama’s records, you have been unable to come up with a single example of a record which President Obama (or someone acting for him) has sealed, let alone any document which has customarily been released by presidential candidates but has not been released by President Obama. For instance, every candidate since George Romney has released about 10 years of tax returns… until his son ran for the presidency. That’s what hiding something actually looks like and you can’t find a single example of President Obama doing something similar. Which makes you a hypocrite and suggest that Mitt Romney (according to his father) has something to hide. Why do you want to judge President Obama by a different standard than any other president or presidential candidate has been held to? That’s prejudice against President Obama, plain and simple.

          Regarding the term “great white hope”, you can find out about its origin here:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_White_Hope

    • Joel L Lawler

      Wrong again, Mr Farrarrrdd. Do you have any dangerously misguided medical opinions you’d like to tell us about? I’m sure those would be no more valid than your meaningless legal ramblings.
      You lost; you lose; you will lose. That must be a wonderful life.

  • davidfarrard

    Frank Bolivar stated:

    “The “fear” was that a foreigner would be able to become president. That was taken care of my requiring the president be nbc, according to English Common Law, with which they were very familiar.
    And that means if born on U S soil whatever the situation of your parents does not matter.”

    But that is not the point represented by the addition of the idiom: “natural born Citizen” into Art. II, §1, it was exactly the opposite; as you well know.

    English common law, based on Blackstone and the Coke case (i.e., positive law, naturalization), leads us today not only to the offspring of illegal aliens born in this country being declared “US citizens by reason of birth”, but that they are now even being recognized as Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizens, who can take the oath of office of the presidency, if elected, after only having reached the age of 35, and having only spent 14 years in the United States. This is who can conceivably become this nation’s Commander in chief of all its armed forces, following English common law.

    This definition of an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen means there is no difference between a natural born subject of the English realm and a natural born US Citizen in a constitutional Republic, as our courts readily admit.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Dave B.

      Have you ever pondered the fact that even you, davoidfarrard, presuming you meet the Constitutional qualifications, are eligible for the Presidency? If you are indeed eligible, should we be trembling in fear of such an outcome?

  • Reality Check

    It appears I must repeat the question:

    @ David Farrar(d)

    Do you acknowledge that even your attorney now says the “two parent citizen” theory is a loser and will never prevail in court?

  • davidfarrard

    @Jim,

    I resent the implication that this nbC issue has anything to do with the color of Obama’s skin. Indeed, that has always been the sure indication that Obama’s sycophants have run out of coherent arguments. So let me remind you once again this issue has nothing to do with the color of Obama’s skin. In fact, Obama wasn’t the only, nor was he even the first, 2008 presidential candidate sued in federal court over his Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen qualifications. Those dubious honors belong to John McCain.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Reality Check

      It appears I must repeat the question again:

      @ David Farrar(d)

      Do you acknowledge that even your attorney now says the “two parent citizen” theory is a loser and will never prevail in court

    • Dave B.

      You’re not exactly famous for your own coherent arguments, davoidfarrard. And am I mistaken, or wasn’t the first and only candidate YOU sued over his “Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen qualifications”…President Obama? Although I seem to recall…
      http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topics/i-will-file-against-mitt-romney-if-he-is-nominated
      Whatever became of that, anyway?

    • Joel L Lawler

      Just to be clear, Mr Faarrrraaarrrddd, every thinking person sees that you are motivated by racial hatred. Your exculpatory statements do nothing to mitigate the fact that you and the rest of the treasonous birther scum are a racist blight on this great nation.
      I think it’s fair to assume that you are also a misogynist. How will you challenge Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, I wonder? Probably another profound distortion of Minor. That should be fun to watch.

      • ramboike

        Just more of black racist Lawler’s one-trick pony show: “If you’re not kneeling with me in worship at the Altar of Marxist-Obamaism then you’re a racisttttttt.”

  • davidfarrard

    @Jim

    July 25th, 2013 at 1:05 pm

    So where would you place the authority to change the qualifications of the president of the United States if you wanted to make it harder, and take longer, to make these changes: Congress or the People? Hint*

    ex animo
    davidfarrar
    * Everyone on both sides of this debate agree on the answer.

    • Reality Check

      It appears I must repeat the question yet again:

      @ David Farrar(d)

      Do you acknowledge that even your attorney now says the “two parent citizen” theory is a loser and will never prevail in court

      • davidfarrard

        Please cite your source.

        Thank you.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Reality Check

          My source is Orly Taitz. http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=124120

          This is extremely important. I am now getting from people copies of the challenges they filed with their Secretaries of State and I am just about getting a heart attack, and I am ready to smack all of those morons from Article 2 super pack gang. Why so? Because those challenges are empty. There is nothing there aside from a quote of Minor v Happersett , and that is what Helen Tansey, Dean Haskins and the rest of this Article 2 superpack was telling people to do. I do not know whether these Article 2 superpack people are just dumb or they were brought to emasculate the effort, to reduce it to just a theoretical discussion, which is the easiest to beat, but they played Obama’s hand. Obama wants people to dwell in theoretical discussions and not go into the areas of crimes, which are black and white. When you get to crimes, Obama loses and loses big. Not only these crimes remove Obama from the White House, they move him straight into the Big House.

          Here is an explanation. 2 citizen parent requirement is your weakest argument. It is a theoretical argument. There is no specific law, stating what is the meaning of natural born. There is no clear precedent. Minor v Happersett is a case, which dealt with voting rights, where the court simply mentioned that Virginia Minor was born in the country, her parents are citizens, she is a native, there are questions and doubts about other groups of people, whether they are citizens or not, but there is no doubt about her. I bring forward this case, but the Secretary of State is not required to be a legal scholar. She has a way out. Obama’s attorneys will brin[sic] Von [sic] Kim ark case and will argue that there is no specific law saying that it is not enough for one parent to be a US citizen.

          She has made similar statements in interviews.

    • Jim

      Actually David, since there’s never been a President not born on American soil, other than military, I’ll say you have a point. However, I think the courts will defer to the Congress as to the meaning of natural born for the exact same reasons you bring up. It’s not completely clear EXACTLY what they meant, and therefor is a political question to be decided by Congress. I do think the courts would step in on a case of age, years residence, naturalized…things that are spelled out clearly. IANAL but in watching how the courts work and how they’ve ruled on and dismissed them, I’d have to say the courts would probably defer to Congress since they are the only entity the Constitution allows to decide who is eligible.

      • Jim

        IDK, but McCain may even be a precedent if the court ruled for McCain because of the resolution.

        • davidfarrard

          @Jim,

          Let’s hope so. John McCain is an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen. His father and mother were US citizens. According to de Vattel: the only requirement of a natural born citizen is that they inherit, as is their natural political right in natural law, to the citizenship of their father’s.

          ex animo
          davidfarrar

        • Jim

          David, David, David, why do you keep typing when you know you’re going to end up proving yourself that you’re wrong? If the Constitutional Convention followed Vattel, why did those same people think it was necessary to pass the Immigration Act of 1790 to make those people citizens? Come on David, think. If they had used Vattel, you yourself admit that it would have been unnecessary. Obviously, they thought that folks like John McCain were NOT citizens and they needed to create a statute to make them citizens. So, there you go again, proving yourself wrong. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

      • davidfarrard

        @Jim,

        I am pretty sure, if SCOTUS every got this case as you described it, the court would say Congress has no authority to create the qualifications of the president. In a true democracy, only the People can create the qualifications of their leader.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Jim

          But, there are more than 1 theory, you cannot claim yours is better just because it’s yours, so the court would not consider it creating qualifications…the court would consider it clarifying qualifications.

        • Dave B.

          All right, davoidfarrard, how, exactly, was it that Senator McCain got to be a US citizen?

  • davidfarrard

    @Slartibartfast,

    I apologize. I didn’t mean to miss his point.

    “…the first Congress believed themselves to have the authority to declare people to be natural born citizens.”

    The first Congress, steeped in Lockean liberalism, unerringly followed de Vattel and natural law. The second Congress changed the requirement of a person born aboard to two citizen parents to that of only a “citizen at birth”, not a natural born citizen.

    Two points here; one: Again, we see here an accurate reflection of the raising tensions associated with the deteriorating political situation vis–à–vis Great Britain, adding to the already xenophobic fear of American leaders — the palpable fear Dr. Ward speaks about during this time period was certainly strong enough to justify, at least to the members of the second Congress, the adoption of more conservative naturalization laws. And, two: It yet again confirms the fact that the authority given to Congress to declare “US citizens by birth” by positive law, part of its naturalization powers and not natural law.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Reality Check

      It appears I must repeat the question once more:

      @ David Farrar(d)

      Do you acknowledge that even your attorney now says the “two parent citizen” theory is a loser and will never prevail in court

    • Dave B.

      So they ” unerringly followed de Vattel”? Really?

      • davidfarrard

        Great question, Dave,

        Let me try this again:

        “Let’s hope so. John McCain is an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen. His father and mother were both US citizens prior to John Jr.’s birth. According to de Vattel: the only requirement of a natural born citizen is that they — as is their natural political right under natural law– inherit the citizenship of their father’s.”

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Dave B.

          No, davoidfarrard, the great question is the one you won’t answer. Whatever became of this?
          http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topics/i-will-file-against-mitt-romney-if-he-is-nominated
          So did they “unerringly” follow de Vattel when it comes to an armed populace, or freedom of religion, or freedom of speech, or the “emigration of those that are useful”, or relieving a neighboring state of its surplus population of women, or I don’t know how many other topics? “Unerringly”?
          Or even in matters of citizenship? How come it took a statute to provide for the citizenship of children born abroad of citizen parents?

    • Slartibartfast

      David,

      Let me try and make this simple for you: The first Congress, a body which contained many of those involved in writing the Constitution, passed a law (signed by President Washington) which made those born of citizen parents overseas into natural born citizens (which, I might point out, is similar to what was done in England regarding natural born subjects). Since this law was never ruled unConstitutional by the courts, we must assume that Congress was within their rights to do so and that a person who’s birth was covered by this law would be eligible for the office of POTUS (35, 14 yada yada yada). It does not matter that the law was later changed, nor does your baseless assertion about them “following Vattel” (was the 1790 Congress following the yet-to-be published translation of Vattel that contains the mistranslation birthers like to cite?).

      The fact is, Congress claimed they had the power to create new natural born citizens and no one in the over two centuries since has contradicted that claim.

      • davidfarrard

        @Slartibartfast,

        If your positive law accurately reflect natural law, as did the first Congress’ 1795 Naturalization Act, it doesn’t break natural law. It didn’t even have to be two parents, just the father’s citizenship was enough to satisfy de Vattel.

        The first Congress was correct….a person born abroad of two US citizen parents IS an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Dave B.

          Who gives a hoot about satisfying de Vattel?

        • Slartibartfast

          David,

          The first Congress was seated from March of 1789 to March of 1791 and passed the Naturalization Act of 1790. (Any law passed in 1795—such as the Naturalization Act of 1795—was the province of the fourth Congress. Sheesh! This isn’t brain science or rocket surgery, man! When you make such obvious and fundamental mistakes regarding the context of the discussion, your ignorance and lack of understanding is clear to all.

          The point is it doesn’t matter if what they did conforms to your your twisted idea of natural law (another thing, I believe, that you do not understand), what matters is that Congress asserted the right to change definition (or at least add to it) of natural born citizen however they saw fit. In other words, it was (and presumably still is) within their right to make all children born to French women natural born citizens if they wanted to, Vattel be dammed (although, strictly following Vattel, we would be within our rights to invade France and kidnap their women if we didn’t have enough of our own).

        • Joel L Lawler

          Vattel (using “de Vattel” is like referring to Beethoven as “von Beethoven”) and his book have no more or less to do with the Constitution than Niccolo Machiavelli and his book. Pseudo-intellectual birther jerkoffs seized on one concept in “Law of Nations” that they thought might support their losing racist cause, and ignored the rest of Vattel’s painfully inhuman and un-American ideas.
          Vattel is meaningless in US law. Birthers lose again. So what else is new?

        • Jim

          davidfarrard: “If your positive law accurately reflect natural law, as did the first Congress’ 1795 Naturalization Act, it doesn’t break natural law. It didn’t even have to be two parents, just the father’s citizenship was enough to satisfy de Vattel.”

          Interesting, your claim is that the Constitutional Convention followed Vattel in deciding who would/would not be citizens, and yet they had to pass statutes to make them citizens. According to Vattel, wouldn’t they already be citizens? Wouldn’t the statute be unnecessary as per your own claims?

    • historiandude

      If the Framers and Founders were “steeped in Lockean liberalism, unerringly followed de Vattel and natural law,” how exactly do you explain the alacrity with which they directly contradicted Vattel in the first two Amendments alone? In his “Law of Nations” Vattel was explicitly opposed to the freedoms of religion, press, speech and the right to bear arms.

      They appear to have been less enamored with the guy than you imagine.

  • Reality Check

    So let me repeat my question::

    @ David Farrar(d)

    Do you acknowledge that even your attorney now says the “two parent citizen” theory is a loser and will never prevail in court

  • davidfarrard

    @Jim,

    July 25th, 2013 at 9:25 pm

    “But, there are more than 1 theory, you cannot claim yours is better just because it’s yours, so the court would not consider it creating qualifications…the court would consider it clarifying qualifications.”

    If any “clarifying” need be done to the Constitution; it is the People who must do it.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Slartibartfast

      All this time I thought that the Constitution gave the courts the power to clarify its meaning…

      • davidfarrard

        So its no longer Congress, but the courts now who rule us, instead of we ourselves?

        If the courts every were so foolish enough as to try and pick up that ball and run with it, instead of giving it to the People to decide…heaven help us… they would be right in one respect: there is no difference between a natural born subject of the king and a natural born US Citizen.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Slartibartfast

          The Constitution sets up a government with three branches: Congress to write the laws, the president to execute the laws, and the courts to interpret the laws in light of the Constitution. The people elect the members of Congress and the president as their representatives in the government. If you can’t understand the very basics of our Constitutional republic, then how do you expect to make any sort of cogent argument regarding its function.

    • davidfarrard

      Actually, let me correct that:

      “If any “clarifying” need be done to the qualifications of the president of the United States, it is the People who must do it.”

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

    • Joel L Lawler

      You should read Marbury v Madison – maybe you’ll find some birther arguments in that one, as well!

      • davidfarrard

        Yes, thank you. I am not sure upon what original jurisdiction the courts would have over a 2.1.4 natural born Citizen issue in order to have the power to hear it. This is the whole point. 1.8.4 does not extend to ‘natural born Citizens’, except to their divestiture.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

  • davidfarrard

    @Slartibartfast

    July 25th, 2013 at 9:38 pm

    I stand corrected. You see, this is why I post here. It was the fourth Congress…my mistake.

    “…any law passed in 1795—such as the Naturalization Act of 1795—was the province of the fourth Congress.” I got it.

    Thanks for that correction.

    Now if you would: Please cite your source as to, “what matters is that Congress asserted the right to change definition (or at least add to it) of natural born citizen however they saw fit.”

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Dave B.

      Actually, that Naturalization Act was passed by the Third Congress. So you post here…so you can be corrected? How’s that working out? Oh, and whatever became of this, by the way?
      http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topics/i-will-file-against-mitt-romney-if-he-is-nominated

    • Slartibartfast

      David,

      My source is the Naturalization Act of 1790.

      Let me break it down for you:

      “what matters”—i.e. the point of the discussion, that Congress has altered the definition of natural born citizen.

      “Congress asserted the right…natural born citizen”—they asserted this right by passing the 1790 Act.

      “however they saw fit”—Congress can pass any law they choose to.

      • davidfarrard

        Congress can’t alter the US Constitution by legislative fiat, It can’t alter a 214 by its naturalization powers. Only the “Consent of the Governed’ can alter the definition of a 214 natural born Citizen.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Jim

          davidfarrard: “Only the “Consent of the Governed’ can alter the definition of a 214 natural born Citizen.”

          Well, the definition SCOTUS uses is born a citizen.

        • Slartibartfast

          David,

          The Constitution doesn’t define “natural born citizen” in Article II, section 1, so we must look elsewhere for the definition which, according to you, can’t be changed. There are only two choices available: the English common law, which is the language in which the Constitution is written, and the 14th Amendement, which defines the term implicitly (as those who are born citizens of one of the several states). This means that, should you ever find the clause in the Constitution, statute passed by the legislature, or judicial precedent which says that the definition of the term can’t be changed, you will only have proven that you are wrong and can never possibly be right.

  • Jim

    Well, after my enlightening conversation with David, here’s a summary of his arguments
    1) The writers of the Constitution are wrong
    2) SCOTUS is wrong
    3) Congress is wrong
    4) The Constitution is wrong
    5) The American people are wrong

    So basically, David the Dictator (which can be shortened and still be accurate) says that it his word that runs the country and decides who can and cannot be the President. Yeah, right David…and who’s sitting in the WH as our Constitutionally elected President? Guess the rest of the country didn’t get your memo that you were in charge. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

  • davidfarrard

    Reality Check

    July 25th, 2013 at 9:12 pm

    Thank you. Sure, Orly has always seen Obama’s claim to US citizenship as his weakest point, or rather, her strongest point. There is nothing new there. When she represented my case, it was always understood her main focus was going to be his ‘citizenship’ issue, not his 214 issue. That was alright with me, even though I strongly felt both issues had equal merit. However since the other two plaintiffs where solely interested in the nbC issue, I felt the issue would be adequately address by the other two plaintiff’s attorneys.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Jim

      davidfarrard: “However since the other two plaintiffs where solely interested in the nbC issue, I felt the issue would be adequately address by the other two plaintiff’s attorneys.”

      Well, was it adequately addressed? Did not the Court disagree?

    • Reality Check

      David Farrar(d)

      Either you misread what your attorney said or you are a pathetic liar. Your attorney said the two citizen parent case is a loser and those who are pushing it are morons. I assume she includes you in that assessment although it was directed at the Article II Ballot Challenge folks.

      She attacked them and not you only because they represented a threat at siphoning money away from her. Instead Orly wanted to concentrate on the equally moronic social security and Selective Service registration non-issues.

      That wasn’t even a decent effort at spinning what Orly said David. You are slipping.

  • davidfarrard

    @Jim
    July 26th, 2013 at 10:12 am

    “Well, the definition SCOTUS uses is born a citizen.”

    You can be born a 214 natural born US citizen, or you can be made a US citizen by reason of birth through Congress’ 184 powers. But only 214 natural born US Citizens can be president.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Jim

      Now you’re babbling David, your opinion with no authoritative backing is just that, your opinion. For that, you get 1 vote. You lost. Now show me where the Courts, the Constitution, or the law agree with your opinion or just admit that it’s just your opinion. I’ve shown where the courts disagree with you, including Minor v Happersett, now show me where they agree with you.

      • davidfarrard

        The court don’t agree with me, at least not yet.

        Our courts use Blackstone and Coke to extend the definition of state citizenship to US citizenship, which is unconstitutional; IMHO, because it weakens the clear intent of the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention to create a “strong check” in light of John Jay’s “cautionary” note to G. Washington relating to electing our Commander-in chief and foreign intrigue.

        While state citizenship is based on jus soli, US citizenship is based on the Lockean concept of consent-based citizenship. If the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention had wanted to combine the two, they could have easily passed Hamilton’s suggested presidential qualification, as it relates to both state citizenship and US citizenship:

        “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States”.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • ramboike

          Bingo !!! That’s it. You’re spot on, David.

          It’s Game-Set-Match. Obots lose!

        • Jim

          Hey, Dumbo, didn’t you read what David wrote? He admits it is his own opinion and the Country and Courts do not follow it…so when you say Game-Set-Match…he’s telling you Obots win!

        • ramboike

          LoserJim,

          David is a humble person and states it as his opinion. Buttttt, he has the historical records to back him up. Hamilton’s suggestion was rejected in favor of Jay’s “strong check” on foreign influence for just those 2 positions in American government.

          It’s been noted by several people I’m connected with through other venues that Obot arguments have been viewed for the longest time as being part & parcel to the weakening of that “clear intent” that David correctly pointed out. It has never made sense why the Obots would take such a position.

          You can argue about it till the cows come home, but they’re on to your act too and will remain in the back 40 till you get it right.

        • Jim

          Dumbo: “You can argue about it till the cows come home, but they’re on to your act too and will remain in the back 40 till you get it right.”

          Actually, I got it right. He’s sitting in the WH as our President and David admits that his position is not what the US position is. Since I live in the United States of America and not the Country of Opinion of David his, and your, opinion is worth 1 vote each. You lost.

          Dumbo: “Buttttt, he has the historical records to back him up.”

          Not really, the historical records backed up by SCOTUS opinion is really much more powerful than historical records interpreted to their meaning by David. Did I mention, that Obama is our sitting President as further proof?

          Dumbo: ” It has never made sense why the Obots would take such a position.”

          Mainly because we’ve been backed up by the Courts, the law, and the SCOTUS who all agree the President, who is running our country right now, is eligible. And what support for his opinion does David have? Why DumboIke, keyboard warrior! I’ll believe the courts know a heck of a lot more about the Constitution than you 2.

        • Dave B.

          The courts aren’t going to agree with you, davoidfarrard, because you’re a nut. Did you even give the courts a chance to disagree with this?
          http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topics/i-will-file-against-mitt-romney-if-he-is-nominated
          Whatever became of that, anyway?

        • Northland10

          Permit to quote from one of those “liberal” think tanks:

          From The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, produced by the Heritage Foundation:

          During the Constitutional Convention, John Jay wrote to George Washington, urging “a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” Justice Story later noted that the natural-born–citizenship requirement “cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.”

          Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth.

          The article goes on to discuss those born outside of the US to citizen parents.

          Though Birthers like David love to use the “strong check to the admissions of Foreigners” statement as supporting them, they are making an assumption on what Jay meant by “foreigners.” To those steeped in English Common Law at that time, foreigners are those who were born elsewhere and emigrated to here (eventually being naturalized). Those born in this country were not considered foreigners.

          How would we know they did not consider them foreigners. We can look at their language usage. A simple example is in their description of the qualifications for Senators found in The Federalist, No. 62:

          which, participating immediately in transactions with foreign nations, ought to be exercised by none who are not thoroughly weaned from the prepossessions and habits incident to foreign birth and education. The term of nine years appears to be a prudent mediocrity between a total exclusion of adopted citizens, whose merits and talents may claim a share in the public confidence, and an indiscriminate and hasty admission of them, which might create a channel for foreign influence on the national councils.

          Those adopted citizens, which may be a channel for foreign influence were all of “foreign birth and education.” Jay’s letter is setting a strong check for those who come from elsewhere.

  • davidfarrard

    Northland10

    July 26th, 2013 at 6:58 pm

    Now you want to move the goal posts because you sense your false narrative no longer holds up to serious scrutiny.

    Again, let me stress, as Dr. Ward does, at his time, and increasingly so every year thereafter, as history, itself, will prove in just a few short years; our founding leaders had every reason to fear their loss of liberty by foreign intriguers trying to subvert this bold new experiment in democracy, back into the dark ages of tyranny and dictatorship. This wasn’t just a passing legal discussion or an arcane legal point among learned gentlemen of the day; this was nothing less than war hysteria, itself, taking hold of our nation and its leaders during this particular time period.

    The delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention were deeply concerned, as much as their chairman, G. Washington, was when they adopted the “natural born Citizen’ idiom of Article 2 unanimously.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar
    ps: Thanks for the support, ramboike, July 26th, 2013 at 12:25 pm

    • Dave B.

      Are you high?

    • Slartibartfast

      David,

      Once again, you miss the point: Northland10 just showed you that the “foreign intriguers” which the Founders feared were those born overseas, not people born in the US. No one is contradicting Dr. Ward, just putting his concerns in their proper context: the prevention of foreign-born (i.e. those born on foreign soil) naturalized citizens from holding high office in the United States. Which totally destroys your argument—something you would recognize if you had any understanding of the the US Constitution and law whatsoever.

      • davidfarrard

        Slartibartfast,

        The Constitution says what it says, and it says a “natural-born” Citizen, not “born citizen”. In terms of one’s citizenship, being born without the need to resort to positive law, but by natural law alone, is a natural born citizen — partus sequitur patrem.

        I don’t think anyone reading Dr. Ward would fail to come away with just how much fear was in the hearts and minds of our third Congress, as to foreign intriguers.

        Look now at Egypt, and what the freedom-loving people there must go for liberty. Every revolutionary government’s first responsibility, in fact every governments’s first responsibility is to maintain itself. This was the highest political objective for the US Constitution. In that resolve, common sense tells us the qualifications of the most powerful political office in the Republic should be as immutability as possible.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

    • Northland10

      DavidF,

      You are imposing your definition of “foreigners” without providing any evidence those at the convention used the same definition. Actually, I do not recall you quoting anything from the Convention to support your claim.

      Since we do not exist within John Jay’s head, we may never know exactly what he was thinking. All we can do is to listen to statements of him and his contemporaries to determine how they may have defined certain terms. Therefore, I quoted from writings of that time which were writings intended for a wider audience so needed to express terms in a way understandable to most. I will now expand that by going directly to Madison’s notes at the convention dealing with the qualifications for Senate and the use of the term, foreigner.

      From August 13:

      Mr. SHERMAN. The U. States have not invited foreigners nor pledged their faith that they should enjoy equal privileges with native Citizens. The Individual States alone have done this. The former therefore are at liberty to make any discriminations they may judge requisite.

      Mr. GHORUM. When foreigners are naturalized it wd. seem as if they stand on an equal footing with natives. He doubted then the propriety of giving a retrospective force to the restriction.

      [snip]

      Mr. BALDWIN could not enter into the force of the arguments agst. extending the disqualification to foreigners now Citizens. The discrimination of the place of birth, was not more objectionable than that of age which all had concurred in the propriety of.

      There was plenty of debate, including some who said:

      Mr. BUTLER was strenuous agst. admitting foreigners into our public Councils.

      So, we see that the debate on opposing foreigners only dealt with definitions based upon place of birth and whether a newly adopted citizen should be allowed into the councils of the nation. In short, it was Native, Naturalized or Foreigner.

      Madison had an earlier quote in the day that brings some interest to the subject:

      r. MADISON seconded the motion. He wished to maintain the character of liberality which had been professed in all the Constitutions & publications of America. He wished to invite foreigners of merit & republican principles among us. America was indebted to emigrations for her settlement & Prosperity. That part of America which had encouraged them most had advanced most rapidly in population, agriculture & the arts. There was a possible danger he admitted that men with foreign predilections might obtain appointments but it was by no means probable that it would happen in any dangerous degree. For the same reason that they would be attached to their native Country, our own people wd. prefer natives of this Country to them. Experience proved this to be the case. Instances were rare of a foreigner being elected by the people within any short space after his coming among us. If bribery was to be practised by foreign powers, it would not be attempted among the electors but among the elected; and among natives having full Confidence of the people not among strangers who would be regarded with a jeoulous eye.

      This goes to our constant statement that, if a foreign power wanted to destroy our nation from within, they would not be using a dark skinned man with a funny name.

  • davidfarrard

    Mr. GERRY wished that in future the eligibility might be confined to Natives. Foreign powers will inter-meddle in our affairs, and spare no expense to influence them. Persons having foreign attachments will be sent among us & insinuated into our councils, in order to be made instruments for their purposes. Every one knows the vast sums laid out in Europe for secret services. He was not singular in these ideas. A great many of the most influential men in Massts. reasoned in the same manner.

    As de Vattel points out in ‘Le droit des gens’, Les naturals (i.e., natives), ou ‘indigènes’ are synonymous, both mean ‘a person living in the land of their birth and that of your ancestors. People living in the land of their birth, and that of their ancestors, are by natural law, natural born citizens into that society, i.e., natives.

    Again, there were many statement made on either side, on all sides. In the end, the fact remains, the delegates said what they said deliberately when they ignored Hamilton’s proposal, and inserted Jay’s natural born requirement into as a ‘stronger’ check than Hamilton’s.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Northland10

      David, You are claiming something of which you have provided no proof. Show us one person from the Convention stating that Natural Born meant parents are citizens despite location of birth. It must clearly state it.

      Stronger check = must not be of foreign birth and education (i.e. not naturalized).

      BTW, you state Natural Law but you have no idea what that term meant. You think it means some law of the wild (it’s not natural). Sorry.. not it.

    • Northland10

      Oh, and David, stronger check was also part of the creation of the Electoral College with kept the selection of the President in a one-time only body that does not meet in one place. This follows Madison’s statement:

      If bribery was to be practised by foreign powers, it would not be attempted among the electors but among the elected; and among natives having full Confidence of the people not among strangers who would be regarded with a jeoulous eye.

      Their resolution to a stronger check was not only who, but how.

  • davidfarrard

    We are all welcome to our own delusions, but when the speaker Mr. Gree, speaks of ‘natives’, he was speaking of native US citizens; was he not?

    At that time, a US citizen was either a person who supported the revolution, or at least did not oppose it, and their decedents, who were native born US citizens, ‘les naturals’, ou indigènes.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • davidfarrard

    Even in their wildest dreams, the founders, framers and ratifiers of the US Constitution would never have suggested the offspring of illegal foreigners present in their mists, was a stronger check against foreign intrigue than the offspring of native born US citizens. being born of a father who supported l’Esprit de la Révolution, as articulated by the Declaration of Independence.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Northland10

      Again,

      Show us one person from the Convention stating that Natural Born meant parents are citizens despite location of birth. It must clearly state it. No assuming they meant it.. they must actually state it.

      • Jim

        Didn’t you know, North, we no longer live in the USA…we live in David’s world! Anything he makes up is suddenly the law of land…even when he admits it isn’t.

    • Slartibartfast

      David,

      The Founders didn’t think of the children born here, whatever their parentage (ambassador, enemy, yada yada yada), as foreigners and there wasn’t even a concept of illegal aliens at the time, since they welcomed any and all immigration (at least of white folks).

      • davidfarrard

        I am not sure who you mean by the “Founders”. But you are right; IMHO. The closest thing the Founders would have considered as “illegal aliens” in their day were Loyalists, or Tories, who either moved out of the country or pledged to support and abide by the US Constitution. They would not have been simply left alone as British subjects, or thought of as US citizens, or their decedents, living in amity, while the British eventually burn down Washington D.C. a mere 25 years after the US Constitution had been adopted.

        A native (US citizen) was a natural born US Citizen; that is, a person who had inherited their US citizenship, naturally, under the cloak of allegiance of their US citizen father. In their day, there were no other kinds of born US citizens until 1790, when Congress, again, used de Vattel to defined persons born aboard of two US citizens as Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizens, and naturalized US citizens.

        Again, as long as the inherited citizenship followed the father, natural law was observed, and any number of further restrictions instituted by positive law could now be applied, such as place of birth, and even the citizenship of the mother, later, in 1922, with the passage of the Cable Act — which allowed the wife to retain her allegiance after marriage. In such cases, both parents must be US citizens prior to their offspring’s birth in order to avoid dual allegiances at birth and still preserve natural law requirements.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

  • Sterngard Friegen

    For all of those Vattel fans there is that troublesome language in section 214.

    And for all those Minor v. Happersett fans there is that troublesome dissent by the then-sitting Chief Justice telling us exactly what the majority opinion meant as to future Presidential eligibility.

    It must suck to be a birther today. All you have left are lies and delusion.

  • davidfarrard

    Northland10
    July 27th, 2013 at 1:19 pm

    But I just did:

    “Mr. GERRY wished that in future the eligibility might be confined to Natives*. Foreign powers will inter-meddle in our affairs, and spare no expense to influence them. Persons having foreign attachments will be sent among us & insinuated into our councils, in order to be made instruments for their purposes. Every one knows the vast sums laid out in Europe for secret services. He was not singular in these ideas. A great many of the most influential men in Massts. reasoned in the same manner.”

    ex animo
    davidfarrar
    *native US Citizens

    • Slartibartfast

      David,

      You are assuming what you are trying to show: that “no foreign attachments” means “no foreign parents”. Mr. Gerry, on the other hand, wants to limit eligibility to “Natives”—in other words, those born on the soil of the US. To misrepresent a quote like that is either dishonest or ignorant. Which are you?

      • davidfarrard

        As I pointed out earliers: “natives” or “les naturals” in de Vattel’s “Law of Nations’ issynonymous with ‘indigènes’.

        This is yet another attempt to twist de Vattel to support your point of view, instead of what he actually said. Nowhere does de Vattel suggest that the word “les naturals” means anything different than indigènes.

        I guess we are just going to have to rely on the reader’s definition of the word: natives, or indigènes. But my definition of both words is the same: persons born members of the society in which they live and died, and that of their ancestors. These are natives, or indigenes.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Jim

          David: “I guess we are just going to have to rely on the reader’s definition of the word: natives, or indigènes. But my definition of both words is the same: persons born members of the society in which they live and died, and that of their ancestors. These are natives, or indigenes”

          So you’re saying the only ones in America are native indians? Your ancestors came from Europe.

    • Northland10

      There is nothing in your statement that says anything about parentage On that August 13th day, foreigners were specified by others as being foreign born as Mr. Baldwin said, “The discrimination of the place of birth,” Mr. Gerry did not object to that statement and did not say anything about parentage.

      All of these folks at the Convention are referring to foreign birth, and yet, you claim they really meant foreign birth or foreign parents. Again, find somebody from the convention who mentioned parentage was essential.

      • davidfarrard

        Mr. Gerry isn’t talking about native Indians, although; they too, share de Vattel’s correct definition of a ‘native’ or an indigènes people — strange that — so I think we can safely assume the context wherein which Mr. Gerry uses the word “Natives”, he is talking about ‘native Americans’, or Native US Citizens. Again, directly applying de Vattel’s definition of a natural born citizen as les naturals, ou indigènes.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Jim

          David: “Blah, blah, blah blah, I’m going to ignore all evidence that contradicts what I think and apply it to the scary man in the WH.”

          That’s basically all you’re saying, David.

      • ramboike

        Professor Northland,

        As a student trying to get a better understanding of our American Constitution I have been eagerly awaiting for you next lesson on the “1828 Catachism on the Constitution”.

        Your last lesson was showing us that the children of foreign ambassadors & ministers, invading armies, and those illegal aliens presently occupying America, if born on American soil, can be president too when they reach the age of 35 and have live on the soil for 14 years.

        • Jim

          And yet, President Obama is still our President.

          Day 678 of the investigation…Zullo says any day now for the 2,685th time, xerox workcenter still at large, Zullo begs for more donations, Dumbo still trying to figure out the Constitution. Film at 11.

  • davidfarrard

    Nobody is a US citizen unless he or she has pledged to support and abide by the US Constitution….nobody*.

    Of course, looking beyond your mother’s breast was about all an infant can manager at this point in time, naturally. In such cases, there are only to ways to acquire US citizen for the little tot: one, is, naturally, under the cloak of allegiance of the US citizen father. Two, is by positive law — naturalization. If you had to rely on positive law to acquire your US citizenship because you could not acquire it from your father, because he wasn’t a US citizen…he had no cloak of allegiance to the US Constitution, you are not an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born (US) Citizen. You area a US citizen by privileged law

    ex animo
    davidfarrar
    * After the US Constitution was adopted.

    • Dave B.

      davoidfarrard, you just keep getting dumber and dumber.

    • Slartibartfast

      David,

      I was adopted at birth and my birth certificate lists my adoptive parents, not my birth parents. Are you going to tell me that I am ineligible for the presidency because I can’t meet your stupid standard? What about Tom Vilsack, an orphan who actually did run for president? Why didn’t any of you birthers complain about his eligibility? Why did no one complain about Chester Arthur’s non-citizen parent (the only issue raised at the time was his place of birth, not his parentage)? Why didn’t anyone argue that Spiro Agnew’s non-citizen father and Greek citizenship disqualified him? It is clear that it’s just President Obama that you don’t like and that you are a hypocrite with no principles.

      All of your arguments are both unintelligent and unAmerican. Why do you hate the Constitution so?

      If you don’t want President Obama to be your president you have an option: get out of our country and naturalize somewhere else!

    • whatever4

      No one is a US citizen until he/she pledges to abide by the Constitution? Where did you learn that? It’s true for naturalized citizens, but I must have missed my ceremony. Should I be worried that I’m not a citizen? Oh dear…

    • Joel L. Lawler

      Just more bullshit, Mr Faarrraarrrddd. Other than the common law exceptions, NBC=jus soli. Period, end of story, you lose again.
      Both of Hillary Clinton’s parents were born in the US – what ridiculous bullshit will you use to unsuccessfully claim that she, too, is ineligible to hold the Presidency? Looking forward to the amusement.

  • Jim

    davidfarrard: “In such cases, there are only to ways to acquire US citizen for the little tot: one, is, naturally, under the cloak of allegiance of the US citizen father. Two, is by positive law — naturalization.”

    Well thanks David…you are slowly but surely getting it. You now admit there are only 2 types of citizens in this country, born and naturalized. So, if you are born a citizen you are eligible, and if you are a naturalized citizen, you aren’t. Too bad the citizen father part is in your mind and not how we do things in the USA…but you are getting closer.

    So now in this thread we’ve gotten you to admit that the USA does not follow your 2 citizen requirement, and we’ve gotten you to admit there are only 2 types of citizens in this country, born and naturalized. We may get you to 3rd grade level of civics yet!

    • davidfarrard

      I did no such thing.

      “In such cases, there are only to ways to acquire US citizen for the little tot: one, is, naturally, under the cloak of allegiance of the US citizen father. Two, is by positive law — naturalization.”

      .

      There are two ways to become a US Citizen, by natural law and by man-made law. In the first instance, the pledge to support and abide by the US Const. comes from the father, under his cloak of allegiance. The second comes from the privileged law — naturalization. In Obama’s case, as in Sens Cruz’ and Rubio’s, they are US citizens at birth by man-made law because they could not take advantage of their father’s US citizenship. They are not, therefore, Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • Jim

        davidfarrard: “There are two ways to become a US Citizen, by natural law and by man-made law.”

        Then, show me the USA man-made law that made the children born of 2 white foreign parents born in the USA a citizen. There has to be a law on the books if it’s a man-made law. You can’t say they aren’t citizens when there’s all this complaining about anchor babies. When you can’t show me the law, that must mean that the natural law of this country is jus soli, as SCOTUS has shown many times. You do realize, I just keep you typing because you keep proving yourself how wrong and silly you are, don’t you?

        • davidfarrard

          Title 8 allows those who simply are born in the United States to be US citizens. The dispute is over whether or not they are “naturalized” US citizens by reason of birth, or Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizens. The only difference being, the former cannot take the oath of office of the presidency of the United States, if elected, while the latter can.

          At present, the courts are usurping the US Const. by recognizing naturalized US citizens as natural born US Citizens, thereby allowing the offspring of illegal aliens born in this country to take the oath of office of the presidency of the United States, if elected.

          ex animo
          davidfarrar

        • Jim

          davidfarrard:”Title 8 allows those who simply are born in the United States to be US citizens”

          And how did that affect all those babies who were born citizens to non-citizen parents in the first years of the Republic? We know that the USA and States recognized them as citizens, what law had they passed at that time to make them citizens?

          BTW, where does title 8 make them citizens?

          Again, using your logic, if the writers of the Constitution had followed your interpretation (which you agree they didn’t) they would have had to pass a law to make those babies citizens. They would NOT have had to pass a law to make those born to 2 citizen parents out of country a citizens…yet, knowing that you were wrong, they did the opposite.

      • Joel L. Lawler

        For a stupid racist blowhard, you sure are amusing, Mr
        Faaaaarrrrrrraaaaaaarrrrrdddddd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        • ramboike

          Nappyheaded Lawler,

          You’re letting your obsession with racism rot your brain. Chill out, boy! Kick back with some Popeyes Chicken and some iced down watermelon. Get you mind off your obsession before it destroys ya. Relax with some StormFront articles and discuss the “Great White Hope” with Slartifartfast.

          A poll released by Rasmussen found black Americans are more likely to be viewed as more racist than whites.

          Thirty-seven percent of poll respondents said “most black Americans” are racist, compared to just 15 percent who said most whites are racist and 18 percent who said most Hispanics are racist.

          Black respondents ranked their own demographic as more likely to be racist. Thirty-one percent of black Americans said most blacks are racist, according to the polling organization, while only 24 percent of those respondents said most whites are racist.

        • Joel L. Lawler

          Scott Rasmussen is not a pollster, Rambette – he’s a huckster. I’m sure you think that your incredibly racist and offensive “fried chicken and watermelon” reference is edgy and hip, but where I live it would get your lily ass kicked up and down the block. I generally don’t enjoy reading the articles you post on Stormfron because they are not only racist, but also turgid and pedestrian.
          Racism implies an unjust imbalance of power, Rambette. Some black people don’t like white people, but that doesn’t make white people an oppressed minority.

        • ramboike

          Holy smackamolie, Sapphire!

          Nappyhead, now you want to threaten me with your bros? They’ll have to get in line. Lots of white liberal weenies got first dibs on a piece of me.

          Poor boy, your mind is stuck to racism as Brer Rabbit was to the Tar Baby.

          Now you want to paint yourself as a victim after you started it by running a sleazy racist attack on a girl for truthfully pointing out a dire situation a group of our fellow Americans have to live with daily. Anyone have a crying towel for Lawler?

          Here’s a excerpt from an article posted on one of your favorite sites by a very wise & knowledgeable person that backs up that girl: “What’s common to all 25 neighborhoods is that their makeup is described as “Black” or “Mostly Black.” The high crime rates have several outcomes that are not in the best interests of the overwhelmingly law-abiding people in these neighborhoods. There can’t be much economic development. Property has a lower value, but worst of all, people can’t live with the kind of personal security most Americans enjoy.”

          http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/black-self-sabotage/

          Looks like you and your partners in sleaze have suceeded in running Jimmy off after he asked yas to stop it. Now you & your pards going to work on David?

          Re: “Some black people don’t like white people..”

          I think everyone understands you’re one of the some.

          Re: “I’m sure you think that your “fried chicken and watermelon” reference is edgy and hip…”

          Thank you. I thought it was clever of me.

        • Joel L. Lawler

          You and your fellow Klansmen were the only ones that thought it was clever, Rambette. All the smart people just thought it was sad, but that’s true of every stupid, hateful thing you say. Rambette likes attention, but he doesn’t care if it’s good attention or bad attention.
          It’s no surprise that you think the WND articles are true – as we all know, you’re mentally as well as socially challenged. What you did when you quoted my words is called “taking it out of context”. That’s what intellectually and morally bankrupt people do when they realize they can’t win an argument.
          Don’t worry, Rambette – Mr Faaaarrrraaarrrddd will keep spouting his ridiculous racist piffle, just like you. You won’t be the only asshole at the party.

  • davidfarrard

    Jim
    July 29th, 2013 at 9:27 am

    I am not sure just when you are referring to when you say, “..the first years of the Republic.” Are you talking about July 5, 1776, or 1787 when the US Constitution, or in 1789 when it was ratified, or 1790 when the first naturalization statutes were created?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Jim

      David, I’m trying to locate the law that Congress passed after the Constitution was ratified that made babies born in the US to 2 foreign parents a citizen at birth. You claim that because we followed Vattel, they were not naturally citizens by the fact of their birth. Therefor, we know that they were recognized as citizens via their birth by both the States and the Feds, and yet I can’t locate any law passed by Congress that made them citizens. If they had used Vattel, your claim is that babies born to American citizen fathers (how would you prove who the father was back then?) anywhere in the world would be automatically citizens and need no man-made law. And yet, Congress did just the opposite of your claims.

      • davidfarrard

        I am not surprised by the fact that you can’t find a law that tells us a person born in one of the united states of an alien father was a US citizen at birth. This is contrary to de Vattel and natural law.

        In fact, the 1790 naturalization act never used the words: “two parents”, it simply said, “the children of ‘citizens’. But in their day, only the father’s citizenship was recognized, as the next sentence suggests:”Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Jim

          David: “I am not surprised by the fact that you can’t find a law that tells us a person born in one of the united states of an alien father was a US citizen at birth.”

          So, anchor babies aren’t citizens? WTH were the Pubs complaining about then?

  • davidfarrard

    Jim,

    That would be the 14th Amendment and Wong Kim Ark. The problem here is the fact that since they are US citizens by statute, they are, in fact, naturalized citizens by reason of birth, not natural born US Citizens .

    But since the 2009 Ankeny decision, they are, somehow, considered to be Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizens. Positive law cannot make natural born US Citizens. Congress is only empowered by the US Constitution to create naturalized citizens.

    So now not only are anchor babies used by their illegal alien parents to get taxpayer benefits, they also can run for the presidency of the United States, and, if elected, take the oath of office without ever first pledging to support and abide by the US Constitution, as our forebears most certainly did before us.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Jim

      davidfarrard: “That would be the 14th Amendment and Wong Kim Ark.”

      Oh, so since the Constitution says they are eligible, and it was added to the Constitution by the people, that means the President is eligible. Thanks! Another nail in your theories David.

      • davidfarrard

        The Constitution says no such thing. And all agree, the 14th Amendment was simply declaratory of what the Constitution says. Again, positive law cannot create natural born Citizens, even an amendment of the People cannot declare persons natural born unless their citizenship actually follows natural law, i.e., a person who has inherited the citizenship of the father as as natural political right and not through the plenary authority of government.

        I stated up-post, the 14th Amendment had nothing to do with Art. II, §1., natural born Citizen clause. The only power Congress has to create citizens is through their naturalization powers.

        • Jim

          David, Ok, first you say the 14th amendment makes babies of 2 foreign parents a citizen, now you say it doesn’t. So, show me the law that was passed to make those babies citizens at birth. It’s not rocket science there David. If, as you claim, they followed Vattel, those babies would not have been citizens. We know that they are, so therefor some law had to be passed making them citizens. Unless, of course, they’ve always been recognized as citizens…as shown in WKA.

        • Slartibartfast

          David,

          The 14th Amendment is a part of the Constitution—in fact, it overrides anything in the original Constitution or the first 13 Amendments (if you don’t understand this, you shouldn’t be trying to argue about US law since you clearly don’t understand it). Furthermore, as Jim has been trying to tell you, no statute provides for the citizenship of anchor babies (or Mr. Wong, for that matter) and, if you read and understand Wong Kim Ark it is clear that the court ruled that Mr. Wong was a natural born citizen and, if he satisfied the age and residency requirements, would have been eligible for the presidency.

        • Jim

          Oh now Slarti, you’re spoiling my fun! I want to see how many times he can circle around the question before he realizes he can’t answer it. My record is 10 before they finally get flustered and give up. 😀

        • Slartibartfast

          Don’t worry Jim, you only have to wait until David’s next comment for him to say something else idiotic that you can make fun of… 😉

        • Northland10

          DavidF, shall we go and listen, again, to what the “Father of the Constitution” (James Madison) said?

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

          You claim what they thought Native Born meant, and Madison states what it really meant. I’m still waiting for you to provide evidence (i.e. quote, letter, etc) that any of those writing the Constitution specifically required parents to be citizens.

        • Jim

          Oh, now he won’t answer…you’ve run him off. Guess it’s time to call it a day. Beam me up, Slarti!

        • Northland10

          I’ve run him off? If only I could be so lucky. He responded to my direct questions without actually answer the question (which is different then ignoring someone who keeps trying to push his red herring).

        • Jim

          Sorry North, I was talking about Slarti, you just happened to hit post a minute before I did! Nope, David will be back…like a bad rash you just can’t get rid of. It’s part of his need to feel like he’s superior to the President and us…sad but true.

        • Slartibartfast

          Jim,

          Would that I could get David to stop flaunting his ignorance, idiocy, and lack of integrity.

          You’ll have to wait a minute on the beam out—Scotty said something about “turned inside out… and exploded” when he tried to transport the pig lizard.

  • davidfarrard

    Slartibartfast
    July 30th, 2013 at 5:38 pm

    The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are our governing documents, but they are totally different from one another.

    In any case, the first sentence of the 14th Amendment does not conflict with an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen defined by natural law, it can’t. Man-made law cannot create natural law. All it can to is either accept it as law, or create other law — but it can’t create natural law.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Jim

      Where in natural law are there Countries? Governments? Courts? Laws? All man-made creations.

    • Slartibartfast

      David,

      The Bill of Rights is a part of the Constitution as is every other Amendment. In fact, Amendments always override the original text in any case where there is a conflict between the two. Only a complete moron who was totally ignorant of how the US works would claim otherwise.

  • davidfarrard

    Northland10
    July 30th, 2013 at 7:26 pm

    Yes, I believe that was in his defense of the William Smith case; was it not?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • davidfarrard

    Slartibartfast
    July 30th, 2013 at 5:38 pm

    if you accept the Wong decision as meaning “natural born”, rather than “naturalized”, you are telling us, Congress has the power to create the qualifications for the office of the President rather than we the people.

    You are putting the power to change the qualifications of the office of the President into the most expedient of fora, rather than its most immutable, which makes for a weaker check, and is, therefore, unconstitutional.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Jim

      David: ” Congress has the power to create the qualifications for the office of the President rather than we the people.”

      Makes sense to me, since they’re the final arbiter of who is/is not eligible according to the Constitution. Where in the Constitution does it give that to any other entity?

      • davidfarrard

        The only kind of US citizens Congress is empowered to make are naturalized citizens.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Slartibartfast

          David,

          The 1st Congress disagrees with you—they passed a law which created new natural born citizens and it was signed into law by President Washington. Only an idiot would continue to repeat a statement which has been unquestionably shown to be false.

    • Slartibartfast

      David,

      The Wong Kim Ark decision called Mr. Wong “natural born” and a “citizen”. If they did not mean that he was a natural born citizen, why did they call him “natural born”? Why did the opposition argue that upholding the lower court ruling would make Mr. Wong eligible for the presidency?

      Natural born citizen (as defined by all reliable authorities) is a sufficient check on the admission of foreigners to address the concerns of the Founders (foreign-born royalty taking control of the country). Nowhere in the Constitution or the Founder’s writing does it say that the strongest possible standard was intended, let alone implemented and, in fact, Congress is the group which is specifically given power to determine if the President qualifies—expedient or not, that what the Constitution says. All you are doing is proving yourself to be a unpatriotic, seditious dolt who is trying to usurp the lawfully elected POTUS. And, I might add, proving yourself to be extremely incompetent in doing so.

  • davidfarrard

    The last thing I would add to my response: Remember now, citizens are created in only one of two ways: by natural law or by positive law. If there is no US Citizenship provided by positive law, you have just proven my case, that US Citizenship is based on natural law.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Jim

      David: “The last thing I would add to my response:”

      Oh how we wish. And yet, you have yet to show that your so-called natural law worked the way you say. Obviously, the writers of the Constitution did not agree with you. Still waiting on the law that made babies born of 2 foreigners a citizen David.

      • Reality Check

        Funny thing. Jedi Paul Guthrie is a big natural law guy too but his natural law is the theory of the sacred sperm and only the father’s citizenship matters. It appears everyone can have their own version of this natural law crap.

        • davidfarrard

          No, that is the real story.

          In order to satisfy the criteria of a natural born citizen, all one has to do is be able to inherit the citizenship of one’s father, anything else after that you care to add, in de Vettle’s eyes, restricts it even more, like place of birth and the citizenship of the mother, as long as it doesn’t change to natural tie between the inherited citizenship of the father to his offspring — natural law has been observed.

          ex animo
          davidfarrar

  • davidfarrard

    Slartibartfast
    July 31st, 2013 at 4:04 pm

    Are you going to start this all over again? As I said, you can either accept natural law, or create positive law. You can’t create positiv, that is different that natural law, and call your creation “natural law.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Jim

      I’ll ask again David, Where in natural law are there Countries? Governments? Courts? Laws? All man-made creations.

      • davidfarrard

        Yes, Jim.

        And when you bring all that common law together, over the course of centuries, you will find that there are certain ‘natural’ laws that all societies share in common. They are fundamental truths and inalienable rights. International law is the closest forum of laws that would use natural law today.

        While state citizenship is an internal affair and comports to common law, US citizenship, as one among many on the world stage, comports with international law.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Slartibartfast

          David,

          The Constitution (namely the 14th Amendment) links US citizenship to citizenship in the several states—thus completely contradicting your argument here.

  • davidfarrard

    Let me try this again: “.. you can either accept natural law, or create positive law. You can’t create positive law that is different than natural law and call your new creation “natural law.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Slartibartfast

      David,

      Your ravings about natural law vs. positive law have no basis in reality. The first Congress felt they could add to those considered natural born—that’s a fact that no amount of BS on your part can change. All you are doing is proving your lack of understanding of this country, its Constitution, and its laws. Quite frankly, I think that even if you and the birthers had a valid argument (which you manifestly don’t), you would be far too incompetent to make your case it court. I mean, really, look at yourself—you keep arguing that a judge saying that your “evidence” has “little to no” value is better than saying it has no value when any rational person would realize that it means you will never win your case without much better evidence.

      • davidfarrard

        You are as welcome to your own delusions as I am to mine, but once again, positive law cannot create natural law. It can accept it, but it cannot create it.

        Here, I’ll give you 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 across 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 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 determined as a function of natural laws, not legal privileges.

        The entire point of “natural born” is the parents. You cannot be “natural born” without parents. “Natural born” is not a legal term to be defined by statutes or judges’ opinions, least the plenary authority of government will create the ‘ruling class’ instead of natural law, as our Founding Fathers and the Constitution demand.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Slartibartfast

          David,

          My “delusions” allow myself and others to accurately predict the outcome of court cases while yours doom your endeavors to failure. In other words, you keep trying the same thing and expecting different results (which is one definition of insanity), while my theories keep being validated by empirical evidence. I’m sure others can draw their own conclusions about which one of us is delusional.

          As for your hypothetical, it would depend on the laws of the three tribes (as people both here and over at Doc C’s have tried in vain to tell you, nations have the power to determine who they consider citizens and, contrary to your inanity, there is no “natural law” that they all must follow.

          I believe that in most native tribes (and, I would also note, the Jewish people), matrilineal descent is what is recognized (which completely destroys your insistance that “natural law” specifies descent from the father, by the way). If all three tribes recognized this principle, then the child would be Cherokee, but it is easy to set up a scenario where the child is a natural born citizen of all three nations: Suppose, for instance, the mother was Jewish, the father was Greek, and the child was born in England (or pretty much anywhere in the Western hemisphere as just about every nation in the new world works on the principle of jus soli). The child is certainly Jewish (as far as Israel is concerned), Greece will consider it a natural born Greek citizen until its dying day (they don’t recognize expatriation), and, being born in the liegance of QEII, even though it is only temporary and local, is enough to make the child a natural born subject of the British crown (Calvin’s case is directly on point here).

          Now, a country could, if they wanted to, decide to follow the crap you’ve made up regarding natural law, but, according to the elders of our own tribe (as quoted by Northland10 above), the guiding (natural) principle of US citizenship is jus soli and citizenship descends (is transmitted) from the parents only by positive law. This is the only scenario which fits the available facts, which you would know if you were honest enough to truthfully answer the questions that have been posed here.

  • davidfarrard

    And once again, Slartibartfast; the first Congress didn’t add anything to what a natural born Citizen was, i.e., a person born of two citizen-parents. They used the same definition as an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen. Positive law can accept natural law, but it cannot create it.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Jim

      David: “They used the same definition as an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen.”

      And your proof is……your opinion? But, if they were already a citizen, they would not have to created a law to make them a citizen. And there lies your slippery slope.

      • davidfarrard

        My proof is exactly what de Vattel says is a natural born citizen…partus sequitur patrem.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Joel L. Lawler

          You have no proof, Mr Faaarrraaarrrd. Your quasi-legalistic ramblings mean nothing. There is no question that President Obama was fully qualified to hold office and lawfully elected twice. You lose. It is amusing to make fun of you, because you are a pompous pseudo-intellectual jackass, but the bottom line is that you lose…stultus et sicut stultus facit.

        • Slartibartfast

          David,

          Who is a better authority on US law, Vattel or Madison, Jefferson, Binney, O’Connor, Scalia, the Heritage Foundation, the SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark, etc.?

    • Slartibartfast

      David,

      The Constitution doesn’t give us our definition of “natural born citizen”, we have to go elsewhere to find it: namely the English common law which provides the vocabulary in which the Constitution was written or the 14th Amendment (which is merely declaratory of the law that prevailed under the Constitution since its ratification). The fact that the 14th Amendment doesn’t provide for citizenship of those born to US citizens outside of the US but the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795 do are devastating to your argument—something which any honest person would be compelled to acknowledge.

      • Jim

        He’s arguing? I went to the wrong site. Isn’t this the whack-a-birther site? Rats! Must have taken that wrong turn at Albuquerque. 😀

        • Slartibartfast

          Well, according to a Monty Python sketch I once saw David is arguing…

          Besides, any site on which birthers post that doesn’t moderate is a whack-a-birther site…

      • davidfarrard

        Slartibartfast
        July 31st, 2013 at 10:28 pm

        “And the children of citizens (fathers) of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.” 1790 Naturalization Act

        The delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention didn’t feel the need to put in an article defining US citizenship because they assumed US citizenship was to be based on natural law. If they thought otherwise, they would have certainly put one in.

        Moreover, if you read further you will see they specifically excluded US citizen (fathers) who have never been a resident in the United States.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Slartibartfast

          They specifically excluded the children born outside of the country of US citizen fathers who had not been resident in the US. They said nothing at all in the whole naturalization act (or, I’m guessing, any naturalization act) about children born in the US (at least apart from tribal land inside the US). This was because there was no need to make naturalization laws regarding these children as they were already natural born citizens (with the usual exceptions). Face it David, there is no positive law regarding native born citizens (excepting the 14th Amendment which is merely declaratory of existing law) which can only mean that all native born citizens (such as President Obama) are natural born. See, even your own arguments can be turned against you.

    • Northland10

      David. Since naturalization would be a positive law, can 2 naturalized citizens create a natural born citizen? Can citizenship created by positive law descend into citizen by natural law?

      • ramboike

        Professor Northland, how silly can you be. Of course a child born on the soil to citizen parents becomes a natural born citizen.

        • Joel L. Lawler

          In fact, Rambette, a child born on US soil to any parents (unless they happen to be invading soldiers or foreign diplomats) becomes a natural born citizen.

        • ramboike

          Lawler,
          You need to counsel Professor Northland on that. His last lesson to us students on the Constitution included children of invaders & foreign diplomats.

          Here’s my Truth:The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

          I spent more time researching this one particular part of the Birther Issues than any other. Based on the enormous amount of historical evidence available any reasonably intelligent person would come to the conclusion that Vattel’s Law of Nations was the influence for Art. II, §1, cl. 4.

        • Joel L. Lawler

          Vattel means fuck all. Jus soli is the law here in America. Whether or not your father (or mother) was a citizen means jack shit; if you are born on US soil and not subject to the exceptions listed in WKA, you are a natural-born US citizen. That might not be your truth, Rambette, but is the one and only, honest-to-God, set by 100+ years of SCOTUS precedent truth.

        • ramboike

          Lawler,
          You missed the main point I was making: Vattel’s Law of Nations was the “influence” for Art. II, §1, cl. 4.

          There was no SCOTUS till after the Constitution was ratified, thus was no influence on what the Founders intent was for Art. II, §1, cl. 4.

          Using deductive reasoning based on all historical evidence gathered prior to the ratification of the Constitution, Vattel’s book, The Law of Nations, was the only logical choice.

        • Slartibartfast

          Ike,

          The definition of all of the terms used in the US Constitution come from the English common law—the legal language in which the Founders had been trained. The only exceptions are words that are specifically defined in the body of the Constitution, like “treason”. This is what the SCOTUS, the body tasked with interpretation of the Founders’ intent, tells us.

          In any case, a mistranslation of a book referenced primarily regarding international law which was published a decade after the ratification of the Constitution obviously had no influence on the Founders’ intent. Not to mention that your statement about deductive reasoning is complete nonsense.

  • davidfarrard

    Slartibartfast
    August 3rd, 2013 at 3:58 pm

    That may be true, but what exactly is an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen was never defined in the US Const. In the absence of statutory law, natural law would prevail, especially in the areas of international law, as US citizenship clearly falls within, as opposed to state citizenship, wherein common law would be applicable.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Slartibartfast

      The term “natural born”, like all terms not specifically defined in the Constitution, is defined in the English common law and until you understand that fact, the only thing you will be able to convince a judge of is your stupidity. While we didn’t actually adopt the English common law, we certainly did retain its terminology (claiming otherwise is ridiculous on its face—that is the language in which all of the lawyers amongst the Founding Fathers were trained).

      • davidfarrard

        In the absence of statutory law, natural law prevails. It doesn’t get easier than that, my friend.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Slartibartfast

          Before you can discuss natural or statutory law, you must define your terms. The Founders did this by referring to the definitions used in the English common law. It doesn’t get any easier that that you little seditionist. There is ample evidence from the state and federal courts that I am correct (as well as the writings of the Founders and other Constitutional scholars) and none of it is statutory law. If it were, you would be able to find legislation which grants citizenship to anchor babies—something you are manifestly unable to do.

  • davidfarrard

    Slartibartfast,

    De Vattel’s ‘Law of Nations’ was translated anonymously into English several times in the eighteenth century. The first edition in English came in 1760. It was based on the French original Droit des gens of 1758.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Slartibartfast

      David,

      None of that matters, since it is only the mistranslation well after the writing of the Constitution which contains the term “natural born citizen”. Vattel has been cited exactly once by the SCOTUS on the subject of citizenship: the majority in the Dred Scott decision used it in exactly the same way you do as part of the holding—a holding which was invalidated by the 14th Amendment which restored the law to what the Founders had originally intended: jus soli.

      • davidfarrard

        “6. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 476-77 (1857) (J. Daniels concurring): The decision only dealt with the question of whether Dred Scott was a “citizen of the United States.” Nevertheless, Justice Daniel, concurring, defined a “natural born citizen.” While as repugnant as slavery was and still is, no court or amendment has over turned the meaning of “natural-born citizen” from Dred Scott as described by Justice Daniel nor has there ever been a need to do so. The main point is that in deciding what a “citizen” was in 1856, both the majority and dissent went back to 1787 to examine what the Framers and the people of that time considered a “citizen” to be. The Court said that the Constitution must be understood now as it was understood at the time it was written. The judges did not disagree that one had to look back to the Founders. What they disagreed on is what the public opinion was at that time as to whether a freed slave was a “citizen.” In this regard, we know that the Court’s holding that freed slaves were not “citizens of the United States” was overruled by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Thirteenth (ratified in 1865) and Fourteenth (ratified in 1868) Amendment, none of which repealed or amended Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause….Mario Apuzzo

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Slartibartfast

          David,

          The SCOTUS in Scott v. Sanford ruled that Mr. Scott was not a citizen. The 14th Amendment says that Mr. Scott was a citizen (a natural born citizen at that). To say that the decision was not overruled is ludicrous. Even if it wasn’t overturned by the 15th, Wong Kim Ark also clearly said that Mr. Scott was a natural born citizen and, even if Scott was still in effect at that point it would have been overridden by WKA. Your refusal to accept the obvious is both dishonest and asinine (that goes for Mario as well).

        • Dave B.

          You really want to go there, “davidfarrard”?
          What was at issue in Scott v. Sandford was whether or not Dred Scott belonged to a class of persons who were acknowledged as “part of the people” of the United States. The majority ruled that he wasn’t. From Chief Justice Taney’s opinion:
          “In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.”
          But he’s far from done.
          “It is difficult at this day (Chief Justice Taney is writing in that enlightened year of 1856) to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted. But the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken.
          “They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics, which no one thought of disputing, or supposed to be open to dispute; and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion.”
          You see what you’re grounding your argument in, “davidfarrard”?
          Further down we see:
          “But it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration; for if the language, as understood in that day, would embrace them, the conduct of the distinguished men who framed the Declaration of Independence would have been utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted; and instead of the sympathy of mankind, to which they so confidently appealed, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke and reprobation.”
          Yet further:
          “They have continued to treat them as an inferior class, and to subject them to strict police regulations, drawing a broad line of distinction between the citizen and the slave races, and legislating in relation to them upon the same principle which prevailed at the time of the Declaration of Independence. As relates to these States, it is too plain for argument, that they have never been regarded as a part of the people or citizens of the State, nor supposed to possess any political rights which the dominant race might not withhold or grant at their pleasure.”
          Had enough? I sure have. How about we look to Justice Curtis’s dissent for at least a bit of relief:
          “That Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States, through the action, in each State, or those persons who were qualified by its laws to act thereon, in behalf of themselves and all other citizens of that State. In some of the States, as we have seen, colored persons were among those qualified by law to act on this subject. These colored persons were not only included in the body of ‘the people of the United States,’ by whom the Constitution was ordained and established, but in at least five of the States they had the power to act, and doubtless did act, by their suffrages, upon the question of its adoption. It would be strange, if we were to find in that instrument anything which deprived of their citizenship any part of the people of the United States who were among those by whom it was established.
          “I can find nothing in the Constitution which, proprio vigore, deprives of their citizenship any class of persons who were citizens of the United States at the time of its adoption, or who should be native-born citizens of any State after its adoption; nor any power enabling Congress to disfranchise persons born on the soil of any State, and entitled to citizenship of such State by its Constitution and laws. And my opinion is, that, under the Constitution of the United States, every free person born on the soil of a State, who is a citizen of that State by force of its Constitution or laws, is also a citizen of the United States.
          “I will proceed to state the grounds of that opinion.
          “The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, ‘a natural-born citizen.’ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth. At the Declaration of Independence, and ever since, the received general doctrine has been, in conformity with the common law, that free persons born within either of the colonies were subjects of the King; that by the Declaration of Independence, and the consequent acquisition of sovereignty by the several States, all such persons ceased to be subjects, and became citizens of the several States, except so far as some of them were disfranchised by the legislative power of the States, or availed themselves, seasonably, of the right to adhere to the British Crown in the civil contest, and thus to continue British subjects.”
          You can have Taney, and Daniel too. I’ll take Curtis.

  • davidfarrard

    Click here for my source:

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Slartibartfast

      Yes David, we all know that you are trying to dishonestly smear the president by cherry picking a quote from a mistranslation of a Swiss philosopher published a decade after the Constitution was ratified.

      Don’t you understand what the “1797” after the title means?

      • Dave B.

        It’s the 2013 after today’s date that davidfarrard doesn’t understand.

        • Slartibartfast

          There are many, many things that davidfarrard doesn’t understand. Unfortunately that doesn’t stop him from talking about them.

      • ramboike

        Slartibartfast.

        Would you point out what years were the editions of that Swiss philosopher you’re claiming that the 1797 edition was mistranslated from?

        Are you aware that prior to that 1797 translation, Vattel’s book, The Law of Nations, was the most cited source in the courts during the 1780s & 1790s by almost a 4 to 1 margin over the #2 source.

        In order to use Vattel’s work in the courts the lawyers would of had to have read it. Many of the Framers of the Constitution were lawyers. Some of them, like Jefferson & J. Adams, were reading it in the early years of the 1760s.

        After almost 40 years of being read by the colonists didn’t the 1797 edition reflect what had become the accepted understanding of Vattel’s work in the English speaking world?

        • Slartibartfast

          Ike,

          I assume that you just made up the statistic about citations of Vattel, but even if you didn’t I would wager that vanishingly few of those citations are on the topic of citizenship (most will probably be on international law). In any case, it is crystal clear to anyone with the slightest bit of objectivity and integrity that the Founders got their definition of the term “natural born” from the English common law. Numerous state court cases and legislative acts in which the terms “native born” and “natural born” as well as the terms “subject” and “citizen” are used interchangeably would be a Gordian knot of legalese under your interpretation. However, if the states were merely following their own common law which had descended from English common law, then they are all easily understood. Under the common law of the 13 original states, a person born under the jurisdiction of the state, whomever their parents were, was considered a natural born citizen of the state. The 14th Amendment makes clear that they are a natural born member of the nation as well.

        • ramboike

          Slartibartfast

          No, I didn’t make up the citations for Vattel. Those come from the Columbia Law Review Records that I posted last year on Woodman’s blog: COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW – JANUARY 2009 – Vol. 109:1. Here’s the relevant part for that from Footnotes 50 & 52

          50- (“During the Founding period and well beyond, Vattel was, in the United States, the unsurpassed publicist on international law.”); Douglas J. Sylvester, International Law as Sword or Shield? Early American Foreign Policy and the Law of Nations, 32 N.Y.U. J. Int’l L. & Pol. 1, 67 (1999) (explaining that in American judicial decisions, “in all, in the 1780s and 1790s, there were nine citations to Pufendorf, sixteen to Grotius, twenty-five to Bynkershoek, and a staggering ninety-two to Vattel”). 52- In 1978, the Supreme Court wrote that Vattel was the “international jurist most widely cited in the first 50 years after the Revolution.”

          You might be right that international law/natural law is where Vattel was most cited in the court cases of that time. But, that’s not the point I’m making here. It’s that period immediately following the Revolution (Americans unofficially declared victory in Oct. 1781) that would include the 1780s & 1790s. In showing Vattel (his book) to be the most cited means a whole lot of legal minds were reading it which would include Chapter XIX, Sect. 212.

          Everything after your 1st sentence is Obot propaganda babble created by your Overlords.

          Apparently you’re not familiar with the term “deductive reasoning”. I’m not surprise. I’ve found that “reasoning” is a rare commodity among Obots. Think of it as a detective collecting evidence at a crime scene. The detective will study the evidence to build a profile on who committed the crime. I did it in a similar fashion for “what was the influence on the Founders/Framers for the presidential eligibility clause in the Constitution”.

          Using the Eligibility Clause as the focal point. Going forward would be interpretation, going backwards would be influence. I focused on the influence. Researched all the historical records I could find on the colonial period from Jamestown to just after the ratification of the Constitution. That included all I could find on historians & legal scholars who researched & wrote about that period and it’s influence on America’s Freedom Charters. Putting all that together I was able for me, not necessarily anyone else, to come to a logical conclusion that pointed to Vattel’s Law of Nations as the influence.

        • Slartibartfast

          Ike,

          It’s cute that you think that you’re a legal scholar and it’s adorable that you accuse me of poor reasoning skills. The fact is, it doesn’t take a genius to see that you are making up an argument to fit your bias and I am accepting the explanation supported by the evidence. Quite frankly, birthers are so incompetent that you couldn’t convince a judge that the sun rose in the east and you are trying to find a judge stupid enough to swallow your completely implausible argument because you are the formost legal authority ever (or at least since Vattel, anyway).

          Good luck with that.

        • ramboike

          Slartibartfast

          You Obots with your responses in the comments sections of the last dozen articles posted up by Squeeky have set your legacy in granite. Your modus operandi is like a bunch of ballerinas in tutus fancy dancing around almost every detail on anything presented. From outright lying, revising what someone said, employing gimmicks to avoid questions, and of course the well worn default position when nothing else works; “you’re a racist”. One other Obot trick needs mentioning that popped up again: A commenter can present a dozen truthful facts, and the Obots will find one of the facts they feel is vulnerable for creating an argument over, then use it as a way to take the focus off and discredit the other facts.

          In your last response here you start off lying by revising what I said. I’ve never claimed to be a legal scholar. Obots have tried that before and I’ve always maintained just the opposite. You’ll find my responses to that here and on Woodman & Dr. Con’s propaganda blogs. I stated, “I’m not a legal scholar, never had my 1st hour of law school. I’m not a scholar or expert on history, only a buff at best” – someone who has an interest and is inclined to look at the history of a subject/issue.

          Regarding your statement: “…. states were merely following their own common law , WHICH HAD DESCENDED FROM ENGLISH COMMON LAW then they are all easily understood.” [emphasis mine]

          Here is where I STRONGLY DISAGREE with you, other Obots, and even Mario. Mario says it’s American common law at the national level, no disagreement from me on that part, but then he keeps claiming, like Obots, that it was English common law at the state level. Based on everything I’ve read on it, that is a mislabel. At best it’s a very watered down ECL that was being practiced in the colonies.

          You claim reasoning skills but you haven’t displayed them.

    • ramboike

      Hi David,

      Question for you, and Adrien Nash if he’d like to answer it.

      Have you found any evidence in the historical records for someone pointing out/claiming that the 1797 English translated edition Was Not how the Founders & the English speaking world understood Vattel’s work?

  • arnash

    Natural Citizen: one born of citizens, born as a citizen.

    Born citizen: one born of citizens or born of aliens (alien-born but with citizenship).

    an unnatural Natural Citizen: one who became a citizen by law but by the “fiction of law” known as the doctrine of citizenship equivalency was made equal to all natural citizens by having been “natural-ized” by law.

    an unnatural born citizen: one naturalized via the adoption of law into the American family at birth via State law (when national jus soli did not exist via the 14th Amendment) or via post-1898 Supreme Court holding.

    John Jay realized the danger in the ambiguity of the language describing natural born subjects since it had been bleached of true meaning by the British government, so he underlined the word “born” to show he was not adapting those three words as some “term of art” which was defined by anything other than the meaning of the words themselves.

    The CiC must be born as a natural citizen; a born natural citizen, a natural born citizen.

    Other nations which lack the doctrine of citizenship equivalency can strip naturalized citizens of their citizenship for criminality. The United States cannot do that because all citizens are natural citizens except for minors with provisional citizens. Hence all of our worst murderers are still Americans, as was Al Awlaki.

    Logic analogies:
    All children with parent-guardians are family members. [includes both natural and adopted children]
    All natural children are naturally members of their parents family. [TRUE]
    All children who are family members are natural children. (not adopted) [FALSE LOGIC]
    [All persons who are national members are natural members (natural born citizens) [ALSO FALSE LOGIC]

    All citizens born in their parents’ nation are the nation’s natural citizens.
    All children born in their parents’ home are their parents’ natural children.

    All citizens born of citizens are their nation’s new natural citizens.
    All children born of their parents are their parents natural children.

    MARIO APUZZO’S principle of belonging:
    All citizens born outside of their parent’s nation are not new natural citizens and national members. They need to be naturalized.
    All children born outside of their parents’ home are not new natural children and family members. They need to be adopted.

    Adrien Nash http://obama–nation. com

    • Dave B.

      Adrien has trouble with that “2013” part, too.

    • davidfarrard

      Al Awlaki. was a (naturalized) US citizen by reason of birth since neither of his parents were US citizens at the time of his birth.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

    • Joel L. Lawler

      Mario Apuzzo can go pound salt, as far as the definition of citizenship is concerned. Jus soli, Arnie – that’s it. End of story, nothing more. Asolutely clear and defined in law.
      Perhaps you and Mr Faaarrrraaarrddd should use your legal skills (such as they are) and try to navigate emigration to a country that would appreciate your opinions more than the US – say Russia, or South Africa. Safe travels!

      • ramboike

        Lawler,
        Have you given any thought to what Akon suggested you should do?

        • Joel L. Lawler

          My youngest child is an MD, Rambette – I have no idea who or what Akon is.

        • ramboike

          Akon is a well known hip-hop artist. Following the jury’s verdict on the Martin-Zimmerman trial Akon stated in the media: “Every African-American in the United States need to move their money, family, knowledge back to Africa were [sic] you will be treated like the royalty you are,” saying that the U.S. “is not your country.”

          From your comments in here it’s easy to understand that America is not your country. Should I apologize for not treating you like royalty?

        • Yoel J. Lawlor

          America is every bit my country, heart and soul, and I served her at arms. Africa is the motherland, but not my country. My comments here reflect and amplify US law, in order to defeat the liars and charlatans that would twist and distort the law to suit personal prejudice.
          You go ahead with Mr Akon-I’ll stay right here in the US of A!

          • ramboike

            I understand it has been the position of all the Obama bootlickers since 2008, but will you be more specific and explain exactly what you mean by “personal prejudice”?

            Do you believe there can be more than one personal prejudice? I have 2 of them on this issues with Obama.

    • Slartibartfast

      Mr. Nash,

      Are you still trying to convince Mario that your crank theories are right and his crank theories are wrong over at his website? Or did you waste all of your time writing that pathetic answer to my post on your blog for your vast multitude of readers?

      As for your painfully tortured explanations of “natural born”, I would ask why the term, in any other uses, is synonymous with “having that quality from birth”. It seems that either it is a term of art (with a well understood definition extending back to Calvin’s case) or the plain meaning of the words are inclusive of everyone who is a citizen from birth.

      Face it, you are a crank and your disingenuous legal theories will never be accepted by a single rational person, let alone a court of law.

      • arnash

        “natural born”, I would ask why the term, in any other uses, is synonymous with “having that quality from birth”

        Your thinking is twisted because your language is off. “natural born refers not to a quality FROM birth but a qualify BY birth. From relates to Timing. By relates to source, -a source that conveys its character to its off-spring. That character, like race, is not convey FROM or AT birth but BY birth. A third grader can understand that, why can’t you?
        Does a puppy become a canine (its natural “quality”) FROM birth or BY birth? Figure it out. Likewise, natural citizens are born AS citizens while alien-born citizens are born WITH citizenship by the adoption of automatic naturalization. That’s the law and that’s the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

        As for my replies to you, they are not for you or those like you, they are for posterity and those who will read them in the future. That is something that doesn’t exist in your little world.

        • Slartibartfast

          Mr. Nash,

          So you think that future historians and patriots are going to consider the cesspool of misinformation and bigotry that you call a blog an important source of information? Talk about delusions of grandeur! I’m guessing that you’ll never have more than a handful of page views from fellow travelers who’s critical thinking and reasoning skills are as poor as yours and those who are entertained by reading and debunking your tripe.

  • davidfarrard

    Slartibartfast

    August 3rd, 2013 at 7:12 pm

    Where in Wong Kim Art majority decision does it say Wong was an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen?…or the 14th Amendment, for that matter?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Joel L. Lawler

      Read both again, and see if you get this time. Damn but you are slow on the uptake, Mr. Faarrrraaaarrrrddd.

    • Slartibartfast

      The court called Mr. Wong “natural born” and a “citizen”—to what did “natural born” refer to if not his citizenship? It also said that he was “as much a citizen as the natural born child of citizen parents”—if he was not eligible for the presidency then this would not have been true.

      The 14th Amendment codified the existing law* and recognizes 2 classes of citizenship: naturalized and born. If all of the born citizens under the Amendment were not to be considered natural born, there would, necessarily, be law to that effect. There isn’t.

      * if you want to argue this then you need to find a person of white European descent who’s citizenship status would have been changed by the 14th Amendment—something you cannot do.

  • arnash

    What distorted logic you weave. The court did not call Wong a natural born citizen and never connected any reference to natural born citizenship to him. That was because all of them knew full well that he was an alien-born citizen. But a citizen nevertheless because of the naturalizing power of the 14th Amendment.
    It did not codify the existing law because there was no existing law to codify other than the laws of the individual sovereign states of the union. It was not about codify since citizenship had already been settled by the Civil Rights Act two years earlier. But it was passed over the veto of President Johnson, so the amendment was written to put the citizenship issue out of the reach of the Congress and the President by making it a part of the Constitution.

    ” If all of the born citizens under the Amendment were not to be considered natural born, there would, necessarily, be law to that effect. There isn’t.”

    That is presumptuous juvenile logic because of the lack of any reason whatsoever to relate presidential eligibility to the recognition of citizenship. Being President is no one’s right. It was a privilege reserved solely for sons of Americans. Providing citizenship for otherwise disenfranchised immigrant children was the purpose of the Amendment that the court addressed, not presidential eligibility.

    Just as there are two types of naturalized citizens so also there are two types of born citizens. One is alien-born and the other is American-born. Born of immigrants or born of natives. Born of citizens or born of foreigners. Is that really too hard for your brain to grasp? Everything does not have to be simple enough for kindergarten.

    • Slartibartfast

      Mr. Nash,

      The following are facts:

      In Wong Kim Ark the government argued that ruling Mr. Wong a citizen would make him eligible for the presidency.

      Mr. Wong, by law, could never have been naturalized.

      The court referred to Mr. Wong as “natural born” (and a “citizen”) in its decision.

      The court in WKA traced the meaning of the term “natural born” back to the English common law and Calvin’s case—this meaning is well understood as jus soli.

      The court said that Mr. Wong was as much a citizen as the natural born child of citizen parents.

      With the exception of former slaves and their children, the 14th Amendment didn’t change the citizenship status of anyone (i.e. it was declarative of the existing law rather than changing it in any way).

      President Madison, the man known as the “Father of the Constitution”, said that jus soli was the primary form of US citizenship as of the two types of allegiance by birth (location and parentage), location was more certain.

      A.R. Nash is willfully ignorant and dishonest.

      In light of all of these facts, your spurious arguments based on nothing more than your own imagined authority matter not at all.

      • arnash

        Your logic is warped. You assert that the government argued that making a Wong a citizen would make him presidency eligible, which you defend as a belief, yet at the same time you assert that the government was also dead wrong to argue that he was not a citizen. So which is it? Are the government’s assumptions all right or all wrong? It can’t be both. What a government or judge believes is irrelevant to what the truth actually is. Otherwise all Supreme Court holdings would be unanimous since they couldn’t disagree about the “facts”.

        Mr. Wong was naturalized at birth by the authority of the 14th Amendment. He did not need to be naturalized by process. Naturalization at birth is not an invented idea. It was mentioned as a reality in the Congressional debates.

        “The court referred to Mr. Wong as “natural born” (and a “citizen”) in its decision.” Why a giant falsehood. You deceitfully mixed two very different and separate facts into one single context, -“its decision”.
        Now apologize for falsely claiming that Wong was referred to as “natural born” in the actual holding in the case, (or anywhere else for that matter, which you are unwilling and unable to substantiate with a quote).

        The WKA court did not trace anything back except “natural born subject”. There is no such term as natural born because it is not a single entity conceptually, nor linguistically. They are two adjectives with different meanings, which I’ve explained at great length in dozens of expositions.
        You can’t refute what I’ve explain and you will never try.

        A NBS is not made by birth location or else all children of invaders and foreign ambassadors would also be subjects. A subject does not exist without subjection, willing subjection, and it is the inheritance of that subjection which makes one’s child subject also, because a son is whatever his father is.

        “The court said that Mr. Wong was as much a citizen as the natural born child of citizen parents.” That is right but it doesn’t mean what you wish it to mean. All citizens are equal due to the doctrine of citizenship equivalency passed down from Britain. But that does NOT make all citizens IDENTICAL. Otherwise the comparison could not even exist. You can’t compare something to itself!!! Wake UP!

        President Madison, as PRESIDENT, wrote that although some states allowed just soli citizenship for children of their immigrants, that was NOT the policy of the federal government. So get your quotes straight.

        What doesn’t matter at all is ignorant and twisted versions of history and logic.

        • Jim

          Arnash: “President Madison, as PRESIDENT, wrote that although some states allowed just soli citizenship for children of their immigrants, that was NOT the policy of the federal government. So get your quotes straight.”

          Fine, then you’ll have no problem showing where the quote from Madison you’re using is from will you arnash?

          • arnash

            “Publius,” probably James Madison who was President then, on October 7, 1811, commenting and applying the Naturalization Act of 1802, which was the same as the Naturalization Act of 1790 and 1795 concerning the particular at issue, published in the The Alexandria Herald, concerning the “Case of James McClure:”

            “Mr. Rodman hints, that it would have been sufficient for James McClure to have been born in the United States—he is mistaken. The law of the United States recognizes no such claim. The law of Virginia, of 1792, does—for, “all free persons born within the territory of this commonwealth,” is deemed a citizen. The law of Virginia considers him as a son of the soil. An alien, as well as a citizen, may beget a citizen, but the U. States’ act does not go so far. A man must be naturalized to make his children such.”

            taken from Mario Apuzzo’s blog
            Publius was the nom de plume of Alexander Hamilton, (then dead) John Jay (then retired as Chief Justice) and James Madison (the President) when authoring the works known as The Federalist Papers.

  • davidfarrard

    Again, there are only two ways to become a US citizen by reason of birth: one, by natural law, and two, by positive law. In the absence of positive law, natural law prevails.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Jim

      And if you’re ever made ruler of the US, we might take you up on that. In the meantime, your opinion is not that of the US.

      • davidfarrard

        Positive law cannot make natural law. If the framers wanted something else besides natural law, they would have made a provision for it in the US Const., therefore, natural law prevails. Natural law as it applies to US citizenship, follows the allegiance of the father and be born in one of the united states.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

    • Dave B.

      No, in the “absence of positive law”, one does not acquire US citizenship at birth. You never did answer my question about this hypothetical:
      https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/07/23/mario-apuzzo-esq-is-all-wet-part-i-the-witch-test/#comment-11368
      What does your “natural law” have to say about that?

      • ramboike

        Dave B,

        From my perspective only – noone else, I’m answering your hypothetical question:

        You said the couple never resided in the United States or in any of its possessions.

        See Vattel’s Law of Nations, Chapter XIX § 215: If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.

        Did McCain’s & Romney’s parents reside in the United States?

        • Dave B.

          Vattel’s Law of Nations has absolutely no relevance. I didn’t make any reference to any McCains or Romneys.

        • Dave B.

          But don’t get me wrong– I do appreciate you addressing this strictly from your own perspective. I’d be interested in hearing more of what you have to say on it; but bear in mind that my own perspective is grounded in the reality of how US law is applied in such cases.

        • Dave B.

          And I’d like to point out that Vattel may not provide so much help for you in this case. A person who had once resided in the United States, but who, remaining a citizen of the United States, has since “fixed his abode in a foreign country” may have “become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant,” and his children may be members of it also ; but according to US law, those children will be born US citizens.
          And while at least one parent of a child born abroad to two US citizen parents must have, prior to the birth, been a resident of the US or its outlying possessions, the US citizen parent of a child born, in wedlock, outside the US and its outlying possessions with one citizen and one alien parent may not even have to have so much as set foot in the US or its outlying possessions prior to the birth in order for the child to be born a US citizen.
          Take for instance a hypothetical child born in wedlock outside the US and its outlying possessions to one alien parent, and one US citizen parent who has never set foot in the United States. That US citizen parent was, however, from the age of 11 to 17 a dependent unmarried child and member of household of an alien employed by an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22– let’s say, the International Fertilizer Development Association. Those six years the US citizen parent spent as a dependent unmarried child and member of household of a person employed by an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22– even if that person isn’t a US citizen– are considered as time spent in the United States under the proviso of Sec. 301(g) of the INA, and the child would be born a US citizen.

        • ramboike

          Dave B.

          Since David & Adrien have now both responded to your hypothetical I’m off the hook. ~grin~ This is above my paygrade. I don’t know the laws that apply in this situation & have never had the 1st hour of law school.

          I took a wild stab at it only because you went 10 days crying that noone would answer your hypothetical question. Being that you’re an Obot I suspected that you had an ad hominem attack ready like you ran on David.if the responder didn’t answer to your satisfaction.

          Want to take a stab at the question I asked of David & Adrien? That goes for Mario too if he is reading this, as well as anyone else.

          Question: Have you found any evidence in the historical records for someone pointing out/claiming that the 1797 English translated edition Was Not how the Founders & the English speaking world understood Vattel’s work? Naturally that would follow the release of that edition by anyone that was there for the founding period: roughly 1760 to 1800.

          Keep in mind you’re up against ol’ Ike’s Truth Machine and none of the infamous Slartibartfast-Lawler spinning & racial innuendo allowed. “Just the facts, Jack”.

        • Dave B.

          Ike, what the heck do you mean I went 10 days crying that noone would answer my hypothetical question? That’s not your vaunted “Truth Machine” in action, is it?
          Now regarding your question about Vattel, I don’t have an answer for that. I just don’t think Vattel is interesting or relevant to the issue of what the term natural born citizen means in its Constitutional context of presidential eligibility, in spite of subsequent citations of Vattel in OTHER contexts. None of the authorities citing Vattel in those other contexts applied what he said to Presidential eligibility. And why should they have? They’d already left him in the dust when it came to forming a new kind of government.
          I’ll admit, Vattel’s pretty handy if you want to exclude people from citizenship on the basis of race, but that horse is long out of the barn. Who has cited Vattel in questions of citizenship since the 19th Century? (I’m not saying it hasn’t been done– that’s a sincere question. Who’s done it?)

          • arnash

            “Who has cited Vattel in questions of citizenship since the 19th Century? ”

            That question, since it comes with an implication, should also come with another question, which is: what need might there have been to bring up citizenship writings like Vattel’s when all of the matters dealt with mixed marriages or naturalized citizens and their children, -with the exception of the citizenship of American women, (which has gone unaddressed by all of the experts because of its inherent inferiority in the area of duty and rights).
            That, like natural citizenship, is a purely philosophical issue, and no one (?) has touched the philosophical aspect of either until yours truly took on the task. I’m still waiting, for three years now, for anyone to touch the issues that I’ve addressed, much less attempt to disprove what I’ve elucidated.
            All I get is foaming at the mouth and lots of verbal spitting.

            Citing opinions is asinine in the end because “legal experts” including the Supreme Court, always split. Both sides can’t be right, but as I’ve found, both sides and be wrong.

        • Dave B.

          Adrien, the only “inherent inferiority” here is the inherent inferiority of your crackpot point of view. Your despicable crackpot point of view. You’re wrong in every sense of the word.

          • arnash

            “the only “inherent inferiority” here is the inherent inferiority of your crackpot point of view. Your despicable crackpot point of view. You’re wrong in every sense of the word.”

            …and the endless parade of avoidance and evasion continues into the sunset. You will not take on any issue I illuminate because you have no way to counter the truth, and so, like the child that you are, you attack the messenger. Pathetic. When will you break the mental chains that bind you? Never, because your delusions are close to your heart.

        • Dave B.

          Adrien, I’ll avoid stepping in something nasty, too. But I don’t have to step in it to know what it is, and if I can’t clean it up I’ll tell anybody else it’s there so they won’t step in it either.

      • davidfarrard

        In the absence of positive law, natural law applies. To say that it doesn’t is to say the sun doesn’t rise in the east and sets in the west.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Dave B.

          Sunrise hasn’t been legislated, and won’t be. On the other hand, most people are perfectly willing to accommodate daylight saving time.
          Am I not supposed to notice that all you’re doing is repeating your position, and not addressing the challenge to it at all? You’re nothing but a big fat chicken, “davidfarrard”. A total and utter coward, incapable of answering direct questions. I can’t imagine how difficult life must be for such a timorous individual. I have no sympathy at all for you– you’re beneath my understanding– but I do pity you. How it must suck to be you.

  • arnash

    ” The happy couple apply to the US Department of State for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad as documentary proof of the little tyke’s US citizenship. What happens then?”

    I’m guessing that Dave B is thinking that the military couple would be refused a Certificate of Citizenship for their child since they never lived in the United States. That means that since they were not natives of the U.S. and their child was not a native either, therefore it is not a member of American society and therefore is not an American.
    But that scenario doesn’t take into account that since they are in the U.S. military they are fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and serving within it. That is no doubt considered equal to being on U.S. soil for such a couple’s child. History has never included instances wherein the children of the military born abroad while their father was deployed in service to his country were deemed to be aliens, especially if serving in a U.S. Embassy.
    If U.S. citizenship can be granted to all the people of Puerto Rico and Guam, it can certainly be acknowledged for children of our own military members.

    • Dave B.

      No, Adrien, you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. The law’s the law, and it’s not at all sentimental. Sentimentality’s for old softies like you. That child wouldn’t be born a US citizen. But the law isn’t harsh and draconian, either. It would be a very simple matter for the child to become a US citizen, but the child would be a naturalized citizen.
      On the other hand, had one of the parents been an alien, and the other a US citizen who had been serving on active duty in the US armed forces, or been employed by any of a long list of international organizations, or had even been living as the dependent son or daughter and member of household of a person in such service, for at least five years, at least two of which were after the age of fourteen, then the child would’ve been born a US citizen– even if that citizen parent had never set foot in the United States. Your problem is you don’t think the law makes any difference. What doesn’t make any difference is this goofy natural law nonsense of yours.
      Now, regarding this sweeping statement of yours:
      “History has never included instances wherein the children of the military born abroad while their father was deployed in service to his country were deemed to be aliens, especially if serving in a U.S. Embassy.”
      US Embassies don’t have a thing to do with US citizenship. And history most certainly has “included instances wherein the children of the military born abroad while their father was deployed in service to his country were deemed to be aliens”, and not just on an individual scale, either. I’ll give you the example of the Canal Zone prior to the passage of the Act of August 4, 1937 (50 Stat. 558), which remains in effect to this day as Sec. 303 of the INA. Have one of your acquaintances who can comprehend words of more than one syllable read this and try to explain it to you:

      http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/files/hr_751303.pdf

      I’d particularly direct their attention to the third paragraph on page 3.

      • arnash

        I wrote: “If U.S. citizenship can be granted to all the people of Puerto Rico and Guam, it can certainly be acknowledged for children of our own military members.”

        And it is acknowledge if both parents are Americans. Your supposition is that all decisions are made on the basis of statutes with no input or influence based on policy. You can’t support that supposition unless you work(ed) in the field of citizenship ascertainment in the State Dept.

        It makes perfect sense that a policy or attitude exists that does not question the citizenship background of American members of the U.S. military nor their foreign-born children. Why would a DoS employee ask a U.S. military mother and father how many years they had lived in the United States unless they were under orders to be a stickler for technical exactness? They wouldn’t naturally be inclined to ask or to care because the normal assumption is that Americans live in America and don’t, as a rule, never reside in their own country.

        “US Embassies don’t have a thing to do with US citizenship.”

        Perhaps so but that would be a gross oversight of the Congress, not a misconception of mine since Embassies are considered to be U.S. soil. And who guards them? The U.S. Marines (military) How is the sovereignty of the United States less than supreme in an embassy? It is a part of the United States as far as jurisdiction goes.

        “history most certainly has “included instances wherein the children of the military born abroad while their father was deployed in service to his country were deemed to be aliens”, and not just on an individual scale, either. I’ll give you the example of the Canal Zone prior to the passage of the Act of August 4, 1937”

        Your linked pdf won’t load on my computer due to too many tabs open, but if it did I assume that what I’d find would not reflect your misinterpretation of it. Obama defenders are big on asserting that the 14th Amendment is merely declaratory of the policy of the nation as it already existed, yet seem incapable of realizing the same is true of other citizenship statutes.
        I’ll bet that what the Panama Canal Act states is merely declaratory of the FACT of the American citizenship of children of Americans born there, -NOT a “grant” of citizenship.

        You see, there is the conceptual philosophical world from which principles are derived, the legal world where rules are made, and the real world where rules are applied or not applied when there is the leeway of ambiguity and absence of specific direction.

        • Slartibartfast

          Mr. Nash said:

          Obama defenders are big on asserting that the 14th Amendment is merely declaratory of the policy of the nation as it already existed, yet seem incapable of realizing the same is true of other citizenship statutes.

          The 14th Amendement is NOT a statute. How can anyone take anything you say seriously when you don’t understand the fundamental concept that Amendments are a PART of the Constitution?

        • Dave B.

          The mind reels, Adrien. I suppose you can call anybody a US citizen that you like, but don’t take it upon yourself to start issuing passports, okay?
          And that “too many tabs” is the most incredible excuse for ongoing ignorance I’ve ever heard.

      • ramboike

        Dave B.

        I have a couple examples that I’m personally familiar with on this issue, but neither is exactly like your hypothetical.

        [For some reason that should be obvious I can’t give more personal details]

        1- [1980s] A guy in the military was stationed in Panama for a number of years. He marries a panamanian and they have 2 children while he is stationed there. When he brings them back to the States they had to have green cards, later all 3 became naturalized citizens.

        2- [post-PGWar1] A member of a reserve unit had parents that were American citizens that moved to Canada where he was born. The parents moved back to the United States with the child. The child now an adult in the Reserves was on vacation in Canada with his wife was stopped by INS at the border returning to the States for not having the proper ID. People in the military had to vouch for him and he had to get naturalized.

        • arnash

          ” stopped by INS at the border returning to the States for not having the proper ID.”
          And what exactly is the proper ID pre-9-11? Why would his ID be any different from anyone else’s? What ID had he used to get a driver’s license and enlist in the military? It sounds like a post-9-11 scrutiny that is much more exacting.

          But if the story is true, an I’ll assume it is, then a travesty was committed against him because American children do NOT need to be naturalized since they are all natural born citizens regardless of where they are born, unless their father has never lived in the United States. If they were born in his native country then they are natives of that country and not Americans.

        • th3bt

          You left a lot of information out of your examples.

          Regardless, it really would be helpful knowing where to get the answers to such questions.

          http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=32dffe9dd4aa3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=32dffe9dd4aa3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD

        • ramboike

          Adrien,

          The 1st one I was thinking green card but it was some other ID/paperwork they had to get from the embassy. That was around ’88.

          The other one happened not long after we got back from Desert Storm. That was the summer of ’91. There’s more to that but that all I can say. He was told he had to apply for citizenship. It doesn’t sound right but that’s the story the guy involved and our Chief who vouched for him, told us. We had some good laughs over it.

        • Slartibartfast

          Before 9/11, a driver’s license was sufficient to enter and exit Canada—I did it several times myself, including once by air even though I didn’t have my birth certificate or passport (either of which would have been preferred for air travel). I highly doubt your second story is true (not that I have any reason to believe your first story, either, but it could be possible).

        • Dave B.

          Ike, I don’t really want to get into cases for which all I have is a very incomplete second-hand description. Relevant facts are easy to omit and misstate, and I just can’t form a conclusion based on such an account.

    • Dave B.

      Oh, and Adrien– you don’t get a Certificate of Citizenship from the State Department.

  • arnash

    Here’s what I posted recently on Apuzzo’s blog:
    Adrien Nash writes:
    Mario, you’ve mistranslated not only the words of Vattel but the order as well. “les naturels or les indigenes
    ” translates only one way but you have it translated the wrong way by having les naturels being translated as “the natives” and worse you then translate “les indigenes” as “natural born citizens

    “les naturels” translates as “the naturals” -nothing else. You have no authority as a translator of 18th century French to expand or distort or re-formulate what “the naturals” means.

    It, like “natives” only refers to members of a country; -the natural members (inhabitants), or natives.

    You falsely, and without any basis, proclaim that countries and nations are synonymous as if the words have no distinction when everyone knows that they do, i.e., America is our country, -it’s not our nation.
    The United States is our nation, -it’s not our country. Nations have formal governments. Countries may have no government as we think of government, only tribal government.

    One can be a native, -a natural member, of a country that has no formal government and is not a nation. As were the Australian aboriginal peoples.
    They were not “citizens” of their native country because it was not a nation. Only nations have citizens just as only Kings and dictators have subjects.
    The Israelites, having entered Canaan, were a nation in search of a country to make their own. Before leaving Egypt they were not a nation because they were under Egyptian jurisdiction. That pattern was the opposite of the normal one, which is: a people, a country, a nation.
    Vattel described how nations are composed of…of what? Of countries or a country. How exactly is that not exactly what I’ve written? His use of the word country is synonymous with our use of the word
    county” unless he was referring to empires.

    “Vattel first defines the term, “country” as “the state of which one is a member,”” (a member, -not a citizen)

    You are unwilling to grasp that Vattel was not ordained by God with the authority to define anything. And he did not. He described reality and definitions weren’t needed to explain it. Vattel didn’t make a rule. Vattel didn’t give a definition. Vattel made an observation and gave a description of how countries and nations are populated.

    He merely stated the obvious. That is why no judge or justice has legitimized his “definition” since that’s impossible being as he never gave, nor could give, an official definition of anything.

    He was not an official definer for any government. He was a philosophical observer who pretty much got everything right except his insistence that the King should have more power to force the people to be subservient to the divine authority of the Church.

    • ramboike

      Adrien,

      This is puzzling.

      “les naturels or les indigenes” (?). Unless I have completely missed on your use of the conjuncture “or”, it looks like you’re defining the 2 terms the same as Mario; that they are synonymous, and can be used interchangeably.

      The same would go for the terms “country, nation, and state”. No matter which of the 3 terms I use in a dictionary search the other 2 are included as synonyms. I’ve noticed in my reading of the philosophers, historians, legal scholars, and present day writers they have at times interchanged the terms. Should Vattel have been anymore structured? Franklin, in 1775 called the colonies a “rising state”.

      When was America ever without a government? Though in a rebellious state the colonies were still officially recognized internationally as belonging to the British till it signed the 1783 Treaty of Paris thus agreeing to America’s independence from its Empire. Already in operation and ready to be offically recognized internationally was the “Confederation Congress” government.

      There’s one part on this argument over natural born citizen where I strongly disagree with Mario and the Obots. I made some remarks about it last year on Woodman’s blog and never mentioned it again.

      I’ve gotten alot out of reading some of the articles on your site. Some of it at times very enlightening – great food for thought. What you’re doing here looks picky and I believe you’re above that.

      • arnash

        ~~~
        Ramboike; ““les naturels or les indigenes” was a mistype which should have used the French word “ou” instead of “or” which I assume it means. It certainly does mean that they can be used interchangeably just as we use native and natural inhabitant interchangeably.
        Regarding the distinction between nation/state and country, dictionaries give the common meanings as people use the terms regardless of the ambiguity and imprecision that people fail to recognize. I’ve recently seen even a distinction between nation and state in a historical quote which showed that folks once recognized a difference.
        A nation was a smaller version of a state, hence the calling of the Indian tribes “the Indian Nations” i.e., the Sioux Nation. It indicates a governed people. But a state is probably defined as a people government by written laws and formal structures and political bodies because written language is fundamental to their civilization.

        “Should Vattel have been anymore structured?” He could have been, so it would have been better if he had been more precise in his usage of terms. I recall that he intermingled terms in an inappropriate way, using “citizen” when discussing “country” instead of using native. I perceived that he failed to distinguish between what a country is and what a nation is since his focus was not on the nature of nations but the nature of national membership.
        He elucidated that quite accurately by not definitively since his goal was not the creation of definitions. He simply didn’t go there regardless of how adamantly Mario asserts that he did. I suggested to Mario that he needs to read the Wikipedia definition of “definition”. It would blow his mind it is so deep and vast. His thinking level doesn’t reach such depths.

        “When was America ever without a government?” Before the adoption of the Constitution there was no national government, and many states feared and detested the creation of one. They simply did not trust selfish men to have such power. International recognition is irrelevant to the reality of there being essentially 13 sovereign states with no central authority.

        “What you’re doing here looks picky” Precision of language is essential to avoid the errors of inherent ambiguity. Ambiguity normally just results in a simple misunderstanding which is of no consequence. But who is President is of the utmost significance and the understanding of who is eligible is all based on a lack of the needed splitting of hairs.

        A citizen is not a born citizen. A born citizen is not a natural citizen. An alien-born native is not an American-born native. Without illuminating the precise concepts involved in the use of words, their meaning is lost and false meanings can be substituted. Which is exactly what has happened with the meaning of a natural born citizen. The meaning of the word “natural” is central, pivotal, foundational to the mean of the presidential eligibility clause. When it is not given any meaning or not given its true meaning, then one is left with only “born citizen”, which is not what the Constitution allows.

        • Northland10

          “When was America ever without a government?” Before the adoption of the Constitution there was no national government, and many states feared and detested the creation of one. They simply did not trust selfish men to have such power. International recognition is irrelevant to the reality of there being essentially 13 sovereign states with no central authority.

          There was a national government during the Articles of Confederation era, but it was not as strong as the later Constitution version. Though many of the powers of the later federal version were left to the states, there was still a weak national government.

          I am rather annoyed with you Adrian, as you forced me to agree with Rambo. That just ain’t right.

          • arnash

            “There was a national government during the Articles of Confederation era, but it was not as strong as the later Constitution version”

            Please explain what a national “government” is if it lacks a national court system, a national executive, and a national legislative body? Such a council of state cooperation and confederation did not constitute a government. It was merely a loose union. There was no nationally elected commander of the army or navy. True and effective and nationally approved central authority was absent.

        • ramboike

          Professor Northland,

          You got it right. You have no idea how painful it is for me to agree with an Obot.

          There was a governing body but it was operating in Defacto. The British Crown didn’t officially sign over the Colonies till 1783.

          The Founders understanding of that shows up near the bottom of the Declaration: “…that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved…”

        • ramboike

          Maybe this will clear up what I stated regarding needing international recognition. It was a priority with the founders and believed without it their cause wouldn’t be successful. The following 2 paragraphs is from a Wikipedia article, but I’ve also read the same from the works of historians:

          To transform themselves from outlaws into a legitimate nation, the colonists needed international recognition for their cause and foreign allies to support it. In early 1776, Thomas Paine argued in the closing pages of the first edition of Common Sense that the “custom of nations” demanded a formal declaration of American independence if any European power were to mediate a peace between the Americans and Great Britain. The monarchies of France and Spain in particular could not be expected to aid those they considered rebels against another legitimate monarch. Foreign courts needed to have American grievances laid before them persuasively in a “manifesto” which could also reassure them that the Americans would be reliable trading partners. Without such a declaration, Paine concluded, “[t]he custom of all courts is against us, and will be so, until, by an independence, we take rank with other nations.”[5]

          Beyond improving their existing association, the records of the Second Continental Congress show that the need for a declaration of independence was intimately linked with the demands of international relations. On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee introduced a resolution before the Continental Congress declaring the colonies independent; at the same time he also urged Congress to resolve “to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances” and to prepare a plan of confederation for the newly independent states. Congress then created three overlapping committees to draft the Declaration, a Model Treaty, and the Articles of Confederation. The Declaration announced the states’ entry into the international system; the model treaty was designed to establish amity and commerce with other states; and the Articles of Confederation, which established “a firm league” among the thirteen free and independent states, constituted an international agreement to set up central institutions for the conduct of vital domestic and foreign affairs.[6]

  • arnash

    See my latest exposition at http://obama–nation.com titled: Why Obama Is Not A Real American
    It explains his background in an eye-opening way.

    • ramboike

      Adrien,

      Excellent! A very factual essay on the Un-American Obama, Soetoro, or whatever is his real name.

      After the 2008 DemoRAT Party Convention I started posting up those same facts on him – perhaps more than a 100 times – in a forum where I had been blogging since 2004. I went further than his formatives years to include the radical revolutionary communist Bill Ayers and his Prairie Fire Manifesto with his plan to exterminate millions of Americans. Some of the connections to Bill Ayers:
      • Ayers and Obama worked together for years on a school reform program called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
      • Ayers and Obama also served together on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a separate charity organization.
      • Obama had his political coming-out party in William Ayers’ home.
      • Ayers mentions Obama by name in a book he wrote in 1997, and mentions that the two are very close neighbors.
      • Obama gave a short glowing review of that same Ayers book for the Chicago Tribune.
      • Obama and Ayers were both presenters together on a panel about juvenile justice (organized by Michelle Obama).
      • Both Obama and Ayers were close friends with the same person, Rashid Kalidi.
      • There are also several unverified rumors swirling around that have not been documented: That Ayers may have helped to write part (or all) of Obama’s autobiography; that Obama and Ayers shared an office space together for three years on the same floor of the same building in Chicago; and that Ayers and Obama may have known each other as far back as 1981.
      [HT: zombietimes.com]

      Then there’s Reverand Wright with his anti-American preaching. Obama, as a member of that congregation for almost 20 years, listened to Wright spew his hatred. Church tenet was a “non-negotiable commitment to Africa” [not America].

      • arnash

        Excellent listing of the incriminating facts that almost call for an essay of their own but it would require not just naming Bill Ayers but identifying his radical ideology. Plus there’s the story of the young Black student being supported by Bill’s parents; -a student that stated he aimed to one day be President.

        • Yoel J. Lawlor

          There’s also the great story of the young Adrien Nash stalking the playgrounds, plying young boys with candy so that he could have his degenerate way with them. I’ve heard and read that story so many times, it must be true. From that, we can clearly deduce that Adrien Nash is a child-raping pedophile.
          There are so many remarkable things one can learn from the Internet!

      • Yoel J. Lawlor

        You can stop campaigning now, Rambette. it’s all over until 2016, when you can waste your life trying to stop Ms Rodham’s presidency.

      • Slartibartfast

        Ike,

        I guess freedom of association is another part of the Constitution that you don’t believe in. Despite your attempts to demonize Bill Ayers, he was a patriot protesting the Vietnam war, his bombs damaged property, not personell, and he has gone on to be a productive and respected member of society (far more productive and respected, I’d guess, than you are). President Obama’s association with Professor Ayers (which seems pretty superficial to me) was well-known by the voters who deemed it insufficient reason to withhold their vote. You lost. Twice. Get over it.

        • ramboike

          Why do you continue to expose yourself to be laughed at? Anyone reading your words can easily do a search on Ayers and realize you are a complete liar.

          Ayers and his Weather Underground were more than domestic terrorists. They were a radical revolutionary communists organization that was the quintessential example of a 5th Column operating inside a country. Their long-term goal was to cause the collapse of the United States and then replace it with a communist society over which they [Weather Underground] would be the new rulers. They put forth the idea of those Americans who resisted should be sent to reeducation camps and/or killed. Estimating that 25 million people would need to be eliminated to advance their revolution.

          Statements from their book ‘Prairie Fire’:

          “We are communist women and men”
          “We need a revolutionary communist party in order to lead the struggle, give coherence and direction to the fight, seize power and build the new society.”
          “The only path to the final defeat of imperialism and the building of socialism is revolutionary war.”

          Ayers: “Kill all the rich people. … Bring the revolution home. Kill your parents.”

          Ayers in 2001: “What a country [America]. It makes me want to puke.”

          Was Obama’s hobnobbing with Ayers a reflection of that saying?: “You become known by the company you keep.”

          • arnash

            Wow! Thanks for the wake-up call reminder of what hadn’t sunk in previously. Ayers wasn’t some benevolent-minded democracy-loving American patriot, but the worst of the worst ideologically. But in a realistic sense, I think that none of them were living in reality. It was all just real-life play, like in medieval England when folks were enamored with the age of Chivalry and tried to sample its flavor by having Tournament Faires. It was exciting and entertaining reveling in a more “noble” atmosphere.

            The Weather Underground was living their fantasy but without being cold-blooded criminal atheists like their murderous idols. If you are not into hands-on killing then you are not a true “revolutionary”. You’re just playing at it, running along side of it, imitating it. n other words, you’re still human. But like Hitler, once such folks get themselves into positions of great power, they have subservient brutish underlings to their dirty work.

            A parallel in today’s world to radical political activism might be role-playing video games that take over one’s consciousness. They get all of the juices flowing just like they are real life, but nobody gets hurts.

        • Joel L. Lawler

          There’s that lying by distortion of context thing that you do so well, Rambette. Professor Ayers did more for society yesterday than you’ve done in the last 5 years.

        • Joel L. Lawler

          That goes double for you, Arnie.

        • ramboike

          Adrien,

          I can’t tell if your reply was in jest or if you really don’t understand. Anyhow I found it funny.

          All I did was a brief intro on Ayers in response to Slartibartfast’s spinning to cover for Obama. It was cherry-picked facts from a long article – all of it true. The Weather Underground wasn’t playing make-believe. They were in the truest sense hardcore revolutionaries involved in murder & attempted murder for their stated communist goals for the United States.

          Do you understand in ideologic terms where some of these Obots are coming from with their comments? Somewhere in this thread Slartibartfast claims to be a liberal social democrat which today is nothing more than saying I support moving towards the collective (modern liberalism). He then compares the classical liberalism of America’s founders to be the same as his modern liberalism. Classical Liberalism of America’s founding was based on individual liberty.

        • ramboike

          Yo Chicken boy Lawler,

          Re: “There’s that lying by distortion of context thing that you do so well…”

          Please explain by providing some examples.

        • Joel L. Lawler

          Using an ellipsis (…) in a quotation is an almost certain indication of a distortion of the original context. Professor Ayers probably didn’t issue a press release which read “America,what a country; it makes me want to puke” (although he might hae tried to sell that line to Yakov Smirnoff). That statement, like every other Ayers quote on whichever little RNJ cheat-sheet you cribbed it from, is presented without it’s original context. Doing so makes it possible for a liar with an agenda (that’s you, Rambette) to present anything anyone has ever said (or had attributed, correctly or not) as proof positive of whatever the lie currently being served.
          Professor Ayers was a terrorist. Because of FBI malfeasance, he never stood trial for his crimes. Over the past 35 years, he has made tremendous contributions to public education in Chicago,and to early childhood education in general. Your dated and pathetic attempt to associate President Obama with crimes Bill Ayers committed in the 1960s, when Mr Obama was a child, is the big lie, Rambette.

        • ramboike

          Chickenboy,

          Something seriously wrong. You’re showing signs of severe damage in the cranial area. I’m guessing from your comments it’s the result of too much acid in the 60s. Quoting from someone else which fits the mindset you’ve displayed: “just a desperate racist scumbag who’ll say any stupid shit that pops into his head to defend his incredibly offensive and ridiculous ideas.”

          I use ellipses to draw attention to what is pertinent in a sentence or paragraph for the topic. You can only make unfounded accusation with no specifics. During an interview he used the statement “what a country. It makes me want to puke.” to show his hatred for the United States. Ayers got off on a technicality and said afterwards,” Guility as hell, free as a bird.”

          Saying anyone has connected Obama with the crimes committed by the Weather Underground defies common sense, which you have shown to be devoid of. Similar in ideological beliefs, worked together on a number of projects, and many associates of the farLeft in common can’t be denied.
          Most of what is known about Ayers has been around long before Obama became a household name. Which means you’re either ignorant, lying, or as stated about, suffer from a mental disability

          I use credible sources. One I already listed was Zombietimes, another is Trevor Louden’s New Zeal Blog & KeyWiki, and the most knowledge person I know of in this area is David Horowitz and his Discover the Network.

          Here’s 1 final item that’ll show you what kind of people they were. Ayers’s wife Dohrn while giving a speech in ’69 talks about the Charles Manson Family Murders: “Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim’s stomach! Wild!”

          Your kind of people. You should take Akon’s suggestion.

    • Joel Lawler

      Like the rest of your site, all this article explains is what a bigoted racist asshole you are, Arnie. It does a good job of explaining that, though. Except your writing is turgid and pedestrian. You suck.

      • Adrien Nash

        …then after his tirade, a civilized man said of the crude man: “He knew not what to say, and so he cursed.” Deep calleth unto deep; shallow unto shallow, crude unto crude.

        “Let justice be done though the sky fall.”

  • Slartibartfast

    Hey Squeekers, I gotst me a shout-out from Mario, too. Also. Here’s what he said and some stuff from me in reply (I don’t like his blog ‘cuz he holds things until he has time to write a reply and once you get to an argument he can’t refute he stops posting your comments—I believe that he considers this to be great debating technique…).

    First off Mario, thanks for noticing—I’ve only recently started birther baiting again and it’s nice to know that you care about my work.

    Obot Slartibartfast at https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/07/23/mario-apuzzo-esq-is-all-wet-part-i-the-witch-test/#comments says that the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers could not have relied upon Vattel for their definition of a “natural born Citizen” because an English translation of Vattel which used the exact clause “natural-born citizen” did not appear until 1797. (English translations since 1759 used “natives, or indigenes” rather than “natives, or natural-born citizens.”). Rather than Vattel, he argues that the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers used William Blackstone and the English common law for their definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Slartibartfast’s position is hilarious.

    No, Slartibartfast’s position is that David Farrar and A.R. Nash spouting your deficient nonsense is hilarious. My position is also that the Constitution was written in the language of the English common law (the legal language in which the Founders were trained), but that’s really the position of the SCOTUS, so I can’t take credit for it. It is this language which gives us the definition of “natural born” as well as other legal terms used (but not defined) in the Constitution.

    First, he totally ignores that it was common during the Founding for many, including many of the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers, to read books and to communicate in French.

    If so, then they probably would have translated it correctly (i.e. “parens”=ancestors not parents), but in any case there is no indication that they were interested in Vattel’s views on citizenship and several of his views were in direct conflict with some of their most dearly held principles. You know as well as I do that most of the citations of Vattel by the SCOTUS are on the topic of international law and the only one on citizenship is that pesky one in the holding of Scott v. Sanford

    Second, he fails to understand that the unanimous 1797 English translator replaced “indigenes” with “natural-born citizen” because the U.S. Constitution used “natural-born citizen” and the translator living at that time would have known what meaning the Founding generation gave to the clause and that that meaning came from Vattel.

    The translator was unanimous? Who all was voting? ;-P

    In other words, you don’t know who the translator was, but you know what he was thinking and he mistranslated the definition in Vattel because that comported with the Founders meaning… which they got from the French version of Vattel in the first place. That’s some quality circular reasoning there…

    Third, Slartibartfast also ignores the fact that nowhere in Blackstone’s Commentaries or in the English common law can we find the clause “natural-born citizen.” Rather, what we find there is “natural-born subject.” So, surely what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

    What I don’t ignore is the fact that the several states used the terms “citizen” and “subject” more or less interchangeably in the early years of the Republic—which kind of belies your claim that they viewed “natural born citizen” and “natural born subject” as radically different.

    Fourth, Slartibartfast provides absolutely no evidence establishing a real link (not to be confounded with a link based on his imagination or wishful thinking) between the “natural born Citizen” clause and Blackstone and the English common law.

    Actually, I think that the majority in Wong Kim Ark did a fine job of establishing that already. They seemed to think that the definition descended from Calvin’s case and that natural birth didn’t descend from the parents. Which also seems to be the opinion of Constitutional scholars and Supreme Court Justices, so I think I’ll take their authority over yours.

    Fifth, Slartibartfast, for his convenience fails to tell us that the U.S. Supreme Court, when defining a “natural-born citizen,” has always referred to or paraphrased Vattel and his Section 212 definition of the clause (that is one of the Constitutionalists’ link to Vattel) and never to William Blackstone and his English common law definition of a “natural-born subject.”

    I believe you are referring to the holding of Scott v. Sanford. Maybe you were unaware of this, but we passed a couple of Amendments to overturn that one (it was kind of racist). In any case, WKA is superior precedent and the court there is pretty clear in linking to English common law and Calvin’s case (Blackstone is just a handy reference to tell us what English common law says).

    And when providing that definition, the U.S. Supreme Court has always explained that a “natural-born citizen” (Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus (1814) cited and quoted Vattel, but used “indigenes” rather than “natural-born citizen”) is a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth.

    If I’m not mistaken, 1814 comes before 1898. If you are correct, why aren’t there any records of persons born to immigrants naturalizing? Why isn’t there any legislation granting citizenship to the native-born children of American mothers (like there is granting citizenship to the foreign-born children of American mothers? The fact is that your theory is inconsistent with the vast majority of the evidence, while my theory has the advantage of simplicity. Can you explain why the first draft of the eligibility clause didn’t include people who were citizens at the time and the grandfather clause was only added at the behest of those like Alexander Hamilton? Do you really think that Thomas Jefferson didn’t consider himself a natural born citizen of the United States and the State of Virginia?

    Mario,

    By the way, you’ve gotten Mr. Nash to spout your baseless supposition that President Madison was “Publius” in 1811. He seems to think that a quote under a pseudonym while Mr. Madison was the sitting president is a stronger attribution than President Madison stating that the US recognized jus soli citizenship first and foremost under his own name. I would think that someone who spends as much time on blogs as you do would realize how easy it is to publish under a pseudonym and that any rational person would realize that the president has better things to do than to write anonymous op-eds….

    • arnash

      “why aren’t there any records of persons born to immigrants naturalizing?”
      You can’t prove that there are no such records even if there are but a limited number. Such a fact doesn’t prove what you want it to because of the high likelihood that many or most people held the same view that you hold today. Most people also called Native Americans “Indians”. Was that right also? Are they from India? How many centuries have to go by before people get it right? (a great number and still counting)

      “Can you explain why the first draft of the eligibility clause didn’t include people who were citizens at the time and the grandfather clause was only added …”

      What? They were all citizens unless they were foreigners. You mean to say what Mario pushes, being “citizens of the United States” as if natural born citizens are not also the same. (How does an intelligent mind come up with such a huge logical fallacy?)
      Hamilton’s recommendation was that the prez be one “born a citizen” but as I’ve explained clearly over and over, John Jay warned the convention by urging that he be more, that he be born anatural citizen
      but with the two adjectives in reverse order. He and they realized that several States allowed jus soli citizenship for alien-born children and so to avoid any presence of foreign influence they choose to require that the Commander of the United States Military be 100% American (to understand what they feared in a President, read my newest essay: WHY OBAMA IS NOT A REAL AMERICAN @ obama–nation.com)

      You and Apuzzo are fools of the Ying and Yang variety, different sides of the same coin because you both are wrong about very important things while also being right about things that the other disagrees with. They include the baseless faith you both have in the existence of “the grandfather clause” and the words “natural born citizen” as a term of art. He claims it’s a term of art from Vattel while you counter that it’s from English common law. You are both wrong on both accounts and neither of you can counter the reasons why you are wrong.

      No grandfather clause. All citizens of all states that were born to citizens of the states were natural born citizens…of THE STATES! Not of the UNITED STATES (which the eligibility clause does not require since the U.S. did not yet exist.) Everyone in the liberated colonies was an nbc of their homeland State; -the State of which they were a citizen. A born & raised citizen. Grandfather clause; Adios.

      Not a Term of Art. Neither of you have come to the realization of why John Jay underlined the word “born”. I occurred to me after three years of pondering such things after I learned about the doctrine of citizenship equivalency. Neither you nor Mario are yet aware of how it changes everything, but I’ve written about exactly that repeatedly in the last few months because if overturns the apple cart of “term of art” thinking. Read about it or remain ignorant and in the dark. Either way, your enlightenment or your ignorance will change nothing.

      • Dave B.

        “No grandfather clause. All citizens of all states that were born to citizens of the states were natural born citizens…of THE STATES! Not of the UNITED STATES (which the eligibility clause does not require since the U.S. did not yet exist.) Everyone in the liberated colonies was an nbc of their homeland State; -the State of which they were a citizen. A born & raised citizen. Grandfather clause; Adios.”
        Huh?
        I don’t reckon you know that the Constitutional Convention specifically intended to include, as eligible for the President, foreign-born citizens who had adhered to the American cause in the Revolution.
        Is there any matter of actual fact that you DO know?

      • Slartibartfast

        Mr. Nash,

        Just to be clear, the first draft of the eligibility clause didn’t include the grandfather clause which gave eligibility to anyone who was a citizen when the Constitution was adopted. The grandfather clause was added at the behest of naturalized citizens like St. George Tucker and Alexander Hamilton. To any rational person, this shows that the Founders (at least those who were natural born subjects of the original colonies) believed themselves to be natural born citizens of the United States. In fact, this is the only reasonable assumption—that subjects of the colonies, naturalized or natural born, became citizens (again, naturalized or natural born) of the several states and the United States. Naturalization requires a statute, so tell me where I can find the statute that naturalizes Thomas Jefferson. You can’t, because he, like all of the other natural born subjects of the colonies, became a natural born citizen of the United Sates at the country’s inception.

        By the way, people who refer to the 14th Amendment (or any Amendment) as a “statute” (which you did implicitly), only make themselves look foolish. Amendments are a part of the Constitution, not Congressional legislation, something which every American should understand.

  • arnash

    “the Constitutional Convention specifically intended to include, as eligible for the President, foreign-born citizens who had adhered to the American cause in the Revolution.”

    Your comprehension is flawed. The “grandfather clause” refers to allowing the founders’ generation to serve as President because they needed an exception to the rule of only allowing natural born citizens of the United States to be President, but the Constitution does not require the President to be a natural born citizen of the United States. Only: a natural born citizen. Period. No “United States”.
    None of them were NBCs of the U.S. since it didn’t exist as a nation, -only as a loose union, (and they were all born before July 4th 1776) so the theory is that they were eligible only because they were “citizens of the United States” before the Constitution was adopted since they became such by the Declaration of Independence.

    But that exception was, as you point out, not for them but for naturalized Americans and children of foreign immigrants born in jus soli-permitting States before June 1788 when the ninth state ratified the Constitution and it went into effect. They were included for the purpose of not insulting their dignity and patriotism and sacrifice, -especially since a fundamental American doctrine was the doctrine of citizenship equality whereby all citizens are equal. It would have been an unnecessary affront to their fellow citizens who were foreign-born former subjects of Britain or any other country.
    Thus, no one was “grandfathered in” since all of the founders were in fact natural born citizens also (of their own individual sovereign State)

    PS I forgot to add that naturalization records of children of immigrants wouldn’t exist because their father’s became Americans before their children reached adulthood and would then have to do so themselves. Plus, many people had no benefit from becoming naturalized. What real difference in their lives would it have made? None that is significant. They were protected by the Constitution just like everyone else. Those who didn’t follow politics and elections would not have cared about not being allowed to vote.

    • Slartibartfast

      Mr. Nash,

      In other words, you have no evidence that your views are correct while my views are consistent with all of the available evidence.

      I truly wish you could have had the opportunity to tell George Washington and Thomas Jefferson that they weren’t natural born citizens of the country that they helped found. I doubt they would have suffered a fool like you gladly. The fact is that no US president ever needed the clause to establish his eligibility: all of our presidents have been natural born citizens from Washington to Obama.

      Unfortunately, you have shown yourself to be so biased that you would presume that an anonymous statement under a pseudonym used by James Madison and others two decades earlier is of greater provenance than a statement which the historical record attributes directly to President Madison.

      • arnash

        You have not presented any evidence. Opinions are not evidence. Show me something that is more than opinion. Show me a principle. Nations are founded on principles not a rash of opinions.
        Your thinking is out of sync with reality if you think that one can be born a citizen of a nation that does not exist. How can anyone take you seriously when you deny what the word “born” means? (as in “born a natural citizen).
        No founder was born as a citizen of a nation that did not exist and was not even dreamed about.

        ~all of our presidents have been natural born citizens from Washington up until Obama~ We agree!

        As for the statement by Madison, it is of some significance, but not determinative. He was a Virginian, born and raised, and Virginia was a jus soli permitting state, so that colored his perspective before and apparently after his Presidency.
        But the claim that native-birth alone bestowed United States citizenship nationwide is not something that is anywhere near being proof that it was actually so. It is at best something that is only determined by law rather than presumption, but who knows how many states had specific statutes elucidating a basis of citizenship. I haven’t read one yet. If a State had no such statute then the basis of its citizenship is indeterminate because two quite different possibilities have always existed.

        It was not in the purview of the federal government to administer immigration and naturalization until sometime after the Civil War since they had been State matters from the start, though I presume that it did have a hand in the ports dealing with customs & imports since that was an area of federal authority.

        • Slartibartfast

          So you haven’t read a single state citizenship statute… Let’s think about that. In the absence of statute, the common law of the state, descended from the English common law in all thirteen original colonies, would be controlling. You’ve set up an argument where the lack of state law codifying your interpretation is devastating to your case and admitted that you are unaware of any law supporting your argument. Nice going!

        • Slartibartfast

          You tried to add to the authority of your own quote by giving it the most tenuous of connections to President Madison and then said that a statement he unquestionably made is “not determinative”. He did not say that the state of Virginia followed jus soli, he said that the United States followed jus soli.

          As for principle… Here’s a quote from The Law Library, Vol. 84, pg. 50 (1854) (emphasis mine):

          “The common law principle of allegiance was the law of all the States at the time of the Revolution and at the adoption of the Constitution, and, by that principle, the citizens of the United States are, with the exceptions before mentioned, such only as are either born or made so, born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States or naturalized by the authority of law, either in one of the States before the Constitution or, since that time, by virtue of an act of the Congress of the United States. The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle…. But the law of France rejects the principle of the English law, and of our own laws, that birth within the limits and jurisdiction of France, makes a Frenchman, or a natural-born citizen or subject of France, absolutely,…”

          You might note that “The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense” i.e. it does not pass from father (or mother) to child. Have you heard that phrase somewhere else? *cough* SCOTUS *cough*

    • Dave B.

      All right, Adrien– you say my “comprehension is flawed”, and it certainly is deficient, when it comes to reading that mess you wrote up there. But on the point to which you referred– no, Adrien, my comprehension is in accord with recognized authorities on the subject.
      From George Bancroft’s 1889 “History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United States of America”, vol. 2, p. 192:
      “One question on the qualifications of the president was among the last to be decided. On the 22nd of August the committee of detail, fixing the requisite age of the president at thirty-five, on their own motion and for the first time required only that the president should be a citizen of the United States, and should have been an inhabitant of them for twenty-one years.
      “On the fourth of September the committee of states who were charged with all unfinished business limited the years of residence to fourteen. It was then objected that no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for that place; but as men of other lands had spilled their blood in the cause of the United States, and had assisted at every stage of the formation of their institutions, on the 7th of September it was unanimously settled that foreign-born residents of fourteen years who should be citizens at the time of the formation of the constitution are eligible to the office of president.” Did you…comprehend that last sentence?
      From Justice Story’s “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” (1833),
      “It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman.” Comprehend that one, Adrien?
      From St. George Tucker’s “Blackstone’s Commentaries: with Notes of Reference” (1803): “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, which, where-ever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague.” Note that clause beginning “unless”.
      While I have seen the original citizens exception rationalized as being necessary to provide for Presidential eligibility for the new nation, and have even held that view myself in the past, I have never seen any indication that the founders considered it necessary to apply such an exception to natural born subjects native to the colonies who became citizens of the United States.

      • Adrien Nash

        “From St. George Tucker’s “Blackstone’s Commentaries: with Notes of Reference” (1803): “That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen…”

        The amount of authority that you impute to someone such as “Saint George Tucker”, -an Englishman, betrays your quest to understand reality. He was ignorant of that of which he wrote. He thought he knew what the Constitution said but he remembered it wrong and then his mind simply inserted what he erroneously assumed to be right. But his use of “native-born” explodes his pretense to authority and accuracy.

        If such august “experts” can get such a fundamental thing wrong, then what else might they also get wrong?
        He was operating under a presumption that he had no reason to question because no one was disputing it since no one cared. Well, we care now because it finally matters.

        He didn’t grasp the fundamental transition in America away from British jus soli to natural law, -to the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God, -not the laws of the King.

        Native-birth? In the Constitution? Hardly. How does such foolishness square with the first naturalization act passed by the founders and many of the framers of the Constitution? They called all American children born anywhere in the world natural born citizens? How does that square with a supposed requirement that the President be “native-born”?

        It doesn’t. So either the founders and framers erred by not adhering to his future heresy, or else he suffered from a misconception and put it into print believing it to be true.
        How could that be possible? Remember this mentality: “-it must be true, it’s in the newspaper”. Or this: “They can’t put anything on the internet that isn’t true.” “where’d you learn that?” “The internet.”
        Remember the Piltdown Man. Experts get it wrong, and frequently. They bleed President Washington into an early grave with leeches. The “experts”.

        • Slartibartfast

          Adrien said “Saint George Tucker”, -an Englishman

          St. George Tucker was an American who fought in the revolutionary war and was appointed to the US District Court by James Madison. Congratulations, you once again made yourself look like a complete twit.

          Remember Piltdown man: science corrects itself in time—not to mention the fact that it makes far fewer mistakes in the first place than any other methodology known to man.

          St. George Tucker’s writings are a far better resource on American law than your wholly imagined “expertise”

        • Dave B.

          Here’s your ignorant Englishman, champ:
          “St. George Tucker was one of the most influential jurists and legal scholars in the United States late in the 1700s and early in the 1800s. Tucker served as judge on three different courts in Virginia: the General Court (1788–1804), the Virginia Court of Appeals (1804–1811), and the federal district court for the eastern district of Virginia (1813–1825). In addition to his work as a jurist, Tucker was an important legal scholar and educator. From 1788 until 1804, between court terms, Tucker taught law at the College of William and Mary . Perhaps Tucker’s most significant contribution was his 1803 publication of a five-volume edition Commentaries on the Laws of England by William Blackstone. Tucker’s “American Blackstone,” the first major treatise on American law, helped shape a generation of lawyers and judges.”
          http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/tucker_st_george_1752_x2013_1827
          A couple of other tidbits from his biography at that site:
          “In 1772, Tucker enrolled at the College of William and Mary, during which time he also studied law with Williamsburg attorney George Wythe, one of the most eminent lawyers in the North American colonies and mentor to many prominent young Virginians, including Thomas Jefferson. In 1774, at the onset of the American Revolution (1775–1783), Tucker was admitted to the Virginia bar, but had to delay his law practice until 1782, toward the war’s end. During the Revolution, he served in the Virginia militia, and suffered a minor injury at the battle of Guilford Courthouse (March 15, 1781)…When St. George Tucker died in 1827, he was considered one of the most influential jurists and legal scholars of his era.”
          Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
          Here’s his house:
          http://www.history.org/foundation/development/tucker.cfm

          • Adrien Nash

            That history is very educational and illuminating. My misconception needed correction, so you did good by doing so. I think that, in not being aware of who he was, or having forgotten, my sleep deprived brain mistook “St.” for “Sir”, and made the assumption that he must have been British, and writing about American law from Britain.
            But coincidentally, Virginia was a lot like Britain in that it was the prime example of the Virginian model of statehood. In that model, jus soli was a fundamental allowance for children of foreigners, if not the rule for natural citizens as well. For them it wouldn’t make a difference, but it would if your father was a foreigner and he was unwilling or unable to naturalize and thereby provide his children American citizenship, (which was required in most other states).
            So as respectable as his career was, it was all in a state that embraced jus soli, and that fact colored all of his thinking on the matter of citizenship. His assertion about the basis of citizenship was just that, an assertion and nothing more. It was not a demonstrably provable statement of fact because there was nothing that could prove it. It, the issue, was purely a matter “settled” in one’s mind resulting from life-long perceptions of what others believed. No such statement ever included a citation of its presumed authoritative source, because there is none. They all are statements floating in mid-air, grounded on nothing.

            His knowledge about Virginian law no doubt was very extensive, but it doesn’t follow that he was knowledgeable about the basis of citizenship in the other 13 states. Why would he know or care? If the law that he taught was Common law and Virginian law, then his view would have reflected what he knew and assumed, -not what he didn’t know about other states.
            So we have no way to determine what he actually knew from what he merely assumed. The only source of proof of the truth is in the Constitutions and statutes of the other states. I don’t know what they contained other than having read that only four states followed jus soli. Then there is the added conundrum of what they may state being written in ambiguous language that can be interpreted in more than one way.

            • Slartibartfast

              Adrien,

              You are a loony. Obviously (by your own repeated arguments) you know nothing about US law, just the law of the state you live in.

              Which seems to be the state of denial.

              Reject whatever authority you want—everyone else just rejects your authority (except Ike—maybe you two can move to Iowa and get gay married 😉 ).

          • Dave B.

            Adrien, I’m pretty sure St. George Tucker would think you’re a crackpot.

  • arnash

    “Question: Have you found any evidence in the historical records for someone pointing out/claiming that the 1797 English translated edition Was Not how the Founders & the English speaking world understood Vattel’s work? ”

    “His work”? His work is not what is debatable. It is only the meaning of “les naturels”. There’s no debate as to the meaning of “les indigenes” since it is synonymous with “natives”. No one is an authority on how to translate “les naturels” unless they are fluent in the French of the mid 18th century. But logic of language argues that it refers to the natural inhabitants of a country and has no logical connection to citizenship in a nation (which is something that only exists in advanced societies).

    Citizens of a nation can exist without a country, as when the nation of Kuwait fled the Iraqi Army, just as members of a country can exist without being citizens of a nation when no nation yet exists (as was the case after the Declaration of Independence) Citizens of the new States were Americans but were not citizens of the United States as that term is used since the adoption of the Constitution which created the new nation with a central government.
    Mario can’t let go of his ingrained dogma because he is mentally wedded to it, or infused with it. It controls his thinking like the presence of an alien mind. Today I read his latest tome and was just astonished at how many factual falsehoods (?) in contained.
    But “les naturels” does not mean “natural born citizen” because it does not refer to citizenship but solely to membership. “The Principle of Natural Membership” is seen in Vattel’s observation about who the natural members of a society are. It’s obvious to any one who can think clearly and without bias. But those gripped by bias come to contorted and distorted explanations that are inaccurate.

    • Yoel J. Lawlor

      Except that Vattel means sweet Fanny Adams in regards to US law. Read WKA veeerrryy slowly, Arnie, and maybe you’ll understand it this time. Probably not, but it’s not like you had anything important to do with your time, anyway.

    • Slartibartfast

      Why should anyone care about your translation as opposed to, say, the translation of a French lawyer such as can be found here?

      • arnash

        If Vattel was undoubtedly writing about countries in the sentence using “les naturels ou les indigenes” then the correct translation is “the natural inhabitants or natives” .

        On the other hand, if he was referring to nations then “les naturels” refers to natural citizens because nations have citizens not inhabitants. Countries (land + natives) have inhabitants while Nations (natives + government) have citizens.
        I read the lawyer’s translation in parts about a year ago or so and it’s a valuable work.

        But tell Mario that. He can’t absorb such common sense.

      • ramboike

        1- For (8) on the list. Will you ask Lupin to provide a link to where that Footnote for mothers can be seen in “thee” 2nd edition? Vattel died in 1767 never releasing a 2nd edition. There was a 1773 French edition released that was noted to be intended by Vattel for a 2nd edition that he didn’t complete.

        2- “Posthumous additions to the French edition of 1773, which were then translated in the edition of 1797” {from the Library of Liberty].

        3- One posthumous addition based on the 1773 edition was by Charles Dumas in 1775 called the “Amsterdam Edition” was specifically for the American situation where he added a preface. This Edition was sent to Franklin and noted to be what the Founders were consulting during the crafting of America’s Declaration & Constitution.

        If paragraphs 2 & 3 are factually correct, and I believe they are from what I researched, then the 1797 Edition would be a testament for how the Founders understood Vattel’s work. Also note that the 1793 Edition with page errors is reported as having the same translation as the 1797 Edition.

        ~Grin~

        • Joel L. Lawler

          The last section of paragraph 3 is quite wrong. There is no evidence that many of the Founders ever read Vattel, and his works had no impact on the framing of the constitution. “Noted” by whom is the question that you have to answer, Rambette, and you have to back that answer up with evidence.

        • ramboike

          Chickenboy Lawler,

          This has gotten stale. Good ol’ Ike always meets his obligation and answers questions asked of him, but Obots, not so much. Half the time they run and hide. ~grin~

          Soon as I get an answer to the question I asked first:

          For (8) on the list. Will you ask Lupin to provide a link to where that Footnote for mothers can be seen in “thee” 2nd edition? If someone else can provide it, that’ll work.

          Then I provide what you asked for. I’ll use the exchange of letters between Franklin & Dumas, facts stated in the Library of Liberty, and Footnotes from the 1916 International Edition by the 2 French writers. You will logically conclude that the 1797 English translated edition was how the Founders understood the Edition they were consulting during the crafting of the Declaration & Constitution.

          There is also a number of other sources that could be used to show Vattel’s work was being read. It’s not how many people were reading it but who was reading it that’s more important.

  • Slartibartfast

    Mr. Nash,

    Why, if you are correct, did the first version of the eligibility clause lack a grandfather clause? Surely the Founders wouldn’t have used language that would have prevented the election of a president until a citizen born after the Declaration of Independence came of age?

  • arnash

    Hamilton’s version says No person shall be eligible except one who is now a citizen of one of the states or hereafter shall be born a citizen of the United States. That covered the present and the future equally, so no grandfather “exception” idea applies. Same with the final version only the long-term rule of citizenship was put first and the status that would expire in time due to the limitation that would be enacted at adoption was placed second.

    The concept of a grandfather clause if predicated on the idea that without it the founders’ generation would not have been allowed to be President because they were not “natural born citizens of the United States” which the wording does NOT require. They only have to be what they all were; natural born citizens of their own sovereign State instead of being naturalized citizens or born citizens with alien fathers.
    If the word “natural” was omitted, then all alien-born children of un-naturalized immigrants would be eligible if the state in which they were born bestowed citizenship upon them at birth. But that would allow the sons of foreign nobles and royals if born in the U.S. to one day be President, and avoidance of such an influence is why the use of the word “natural” was imperative.

    • Slartibartfast

      1 0The wording that was given to the “Committee of the Eleven” was not Hamilton’s version, it was identical to the final version without the grandfather clause.

      Professor Yinger of Syracuse had this to say on the grandfather clause (in testimony to Congress, by the way):

      The first source of evidence [that the founders had doubts about the natural-born citizen requirement] is the presidential eligibility clause itself, which grants eligibility to any “Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.” This “grandfather” clause gave presidential eligibility to roughly 60,000 naturalized citizens. By including this clause, the Founders rejected the view that naturalized citizens are inherently more likely than natural-born citizens to be subject to foreign influence.

      You might also be interested in Professor Yinger’s essay on The Origins and Interpretation of the Presidential Eligibility Clause in the U.S. Constitution: Why Did the Founding Fathers Want the President To Be a “Natural Born Citizen” and What Does this Clause Mean for Foreign-Born Adoptees?

      Neither directly contradicts you, but I think that the spirit of both is much more consistent with my interpretation.

      • David Farrar

        Great material, starbartfast,

        I haven’t finished reading it, but thinking about the question Prof Yinger posed about the missing link between “”natural born” and “naturalization”.”

        Of course, to my way of thinking, the connection seems obvious to me: they both require a pledge to support and abide by the US Const., as the only way to be among the “Consent of the Governed’.

        ex animo
        davidfarar

      • ramboike

        Yinger is a bleeding-heart liberal. The next generation of these left-wing pinkos will tell yas it’s discriminatory to believe the president has to be a citizen.

  • arnash

    The quote by James Madison regarding the idea that place of birth was the principle at work in the United States needs to be understood from a realistic viewpoint. Reality could accommodate that as a possibility while simultaneously recognizing that jus soli citizenship is not natural citizenship. One does not preclude the other.

    All that needs to be recognized is that jus soli citizenship is citizenship by a policy of convenience and ownership, -ownership passed down from royal ownership of a kingdom and its subjects, -aristocratic ownership of an estate and it’s native-born serfs, and plantation ownership with its native-born slaves, while natural jus sanguinis citizenship is national membership by blood connection. By birth to a citizen mother and father. That is identical in nature to membership in one’s own family. That membership is not dependent on location of birth, nor law, nor government. It is purely natural, and not a form of adoption.

    • Joel L. Lawler

      Actually, Arnie, all anyone born on American soil has to consider is jus soli with the WKA exceptions, because THAT’S THE LAW! None of your bullshit means a Tinker’s dam.

    • David Farrar

      arnash,

      To me jus soli is native citizenship, which is state citizenship. If you are born in the state of Virginia, you were a son of the soil, a native Virginian, or daughter, as the case maybe. As Yinger points out, “natural-born” implies a broader category than “native-born.”

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • Slartibartfast

        David,

        You are missing the point. That implies “natural-born” includes “native-born”, in direct contradiction to your addled nonsense.

        • arnash

          “native-born” has a real meaning. “natural-born” has no meaning whatsoever. It does not exist as a term. It’s usage reveals an error of ignorance on the part of the user. There are three concepts and three only which constitute the amalgamation of “natural born citizen”. They are: 1. Citizen 2. Born Citizen 3. Natural Citizen. All natural citizens are also born citizens, but not all born citizens are natural citizens because some are alien-born while 97% are American born.

          Also, not all born citizens are native-born because some are natural citizens born outside of the United States.

        • Slartibartfast

          The only place that is true is on the inside of your own mind, why should anyone take you seriously when you deny things that are obviously true (such as there existing nations which operate on the principle of jus soli) and make up things which have no supporting authority whatsoever?

        • David Farrar

          Slartbartfast,

          Wait. We have to define our terms here. A ‘native’ of a state in the union would depend on that state’s constitution; would it not?

          But in terms of federal citizenship, a broader category than ‘native-born’, would have to be used to make federal citizenship uniformed. If such was not the case, Hamilton’s June 18, 1787 draft motion for the eligibility of the president:

          ” No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”

          would have been adopted.

          ex animo
          davidfarrar

          • arnash

            “But in terms of federal citizenship, a broader category than ‘native-born’, would have to be used to make federal citizenship uniformed.”

            A federal citizen was one born in the District of Columbia or on federal territory. Such a person was “stateless” in the sense of not having a home state. As for making “federal citizenship uniformed”, there was no such thing except in regard to foreigners who wished to be naturalized, along with children born to them. There was and is no national law governing the citizenship of the class of citizens that created the nation. Natural citizens created the government, the government does not create natural citizens.

        • Ballantine

          If such was not the case, Hamilton’s June 18, 1787 draft motion for the eligibility of the president: ” No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” would have been adopted

          Why do you people keep repeating things that have been shown to be lies over and over and over? Do you have no self respect at all. Hamilton’s June 18, 1787 draft did not contain such language and, if fact, said nothing on the subject. Such language is from a draft Hamilton showed Madison after the convention. There is no evidence it was ever shown or considered by the convention. Of ocurse, people like you will keep repeating it anyway.

  • arnash

    “Despite your attempts to demonize Bill Ayers, he was a patriot protesting the Vietnam war, his bombs damaged property, not personell, and he has gone on to be a productive and respected member of society,”

    If that was the whole extent of who Bill Ayers is and was, then I would have to applaud him for the same passion that Jane Fonda alone among all public figures displayed in her attempt to awaken a somnambulant nation. I also protested the war by marching with a group of Viet Nam Vets against the War in Los Angeles. The government was viewed as despicable in it gargantuan military overreach and unjustifiable conscription of young men to shovel them into the war machine for fight for a country far away and totally alien to their own.

    The issue about Ayers is more the issue of his Marxism. He and Obama had that political mind-set in common.

    • Slartibartfast

      Mr. Nash,

      There is nothing wrong with people believing in Marxism, Communism, Capitalism, or Socialism—although they are all a bad way to run a country when taken to the extreme. Furthermore, President Obama, as defined by his policies and stated positions, is NOT a socialist, communist, Marxist, or fascist. He is a moderate centrist who’s actions show him to be generally to the right of President Nixon. Try to remember that most of the greatest achievements of this country are due to liberals* implementing socialist policies (many of which, such as the interstate highway system, have been instrumental in allowing capitalism to flourish). If you were truly against socialism, you would never accept Social Security or Medicare, call the police or fire departments, drive on public roads, attend or hire workers educated in public institutions, or go to the emergency room at hospitals. It this sort of demonization of your opponents and their views which is responsible for an electorate becoming less and less able to deal with the nuance required to confront any of the serious problems which our nation faces.

      I’m a liberal social democrat and if you don’t believe that, right or wrong, my words and actions are in furtherance of what I see as the best interests of our great republic and the planet as a whole then you are a part of the cancer that threatens our country, our civilization, and maybe our entire species.

      * Liberals like Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and (either) Roosevelt—not to mention all of the Americans who have followed the teachings of another great liberal: Jesus.

      • arnash

        ” in furtherance of what I see as the best interests of our great republic and the planet as a whole then you are a part of the cancer that threatens our country, our civilization, and maybe our entire species.”
        That is exactly the truth about the socialist, statist progressive Left. Their endless encroachments against individual liberty are all justified by being “what’s best”.

        To paraphrase: “In every age, there are people who want to exercise the power to do what’s best. They mean to rule well, but they mean to rule. They intend to be good masters, but they intend to be masters.”
        The Pioneers would never have tolerated what we have to deal with. Liberty is stolen is some way with every new government regulation, only some of which are justified. Liberty was strangled by the passage and corrupt validation of the health care act with its individual mandate. The government has now given itself the power to arrest you, incarcerate you without charges, trial, attorney or right of habeus corpus (NDAA) and it can read everything we write or speak in a digital format. And it goes on and on.

        I encourage you, if you wish to be enlightened, to read something I wrote a while back: THE TYRANNY OF GOOD INTENTIONS
        http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/freesociety/the-tyranny-of-good-intentions/ It will re-set your perspective.
        As for the founders, there is nothing that worried them more than big centralized government and its rapacious appetite for power.

        • th3bt

          Mr. Nash, there is nothing enlightening about your blog. You show amazing ignorance of government, society, biology, logic, history, linguistics, and much more.

          Your narcissistic ramblings have no basis in fact, and no support from actual experts in the fields you claim to understand. A search for truth does not start with the answer and work backward.

          Your blog is the equivalent of spewing paint on a canvas and claiming to be Jackson Pollock and the only profound clause, on your train wreck of a site, is this:

          “If my audacious self-appointed expertness is true…”

          You are a fool who will never realize what expertise actually takes. That must be the worst truth to live with. You have my sympathy, and disdain, in equal amounts.

          • arnash

            “Your narcissistic ramblings have no basis in fact, and no support from actual experts”

            Your flay-lings at discrediting the truth have no support in the realm of fact or logic. And typically, you gave none because none exist. You can’t discredit what you can’t disprove and so you use the old shotgun approach of just blasting indiscriminately at everything. That shows how empty and purely sycophantic your thinking and opinions are. Have you ever had an original thought in your whole life?
            I have a suggestion. Instead of attacking everything at once with no basis, how about you attack a statement that you can disprove. Just bear in mind, unlike your worshipful attitude, I recognize the fact that there are no “actual experts” when it comes to the issue of natural citizenship.

            No one has every learned a thing about it because no one has ever taught it. We live in an age of total ignorance, including those who’ve been promoted to upper-level offices. No one has to learn nor even think about the subject because it has already been “decided” by other non-experts in the past. Like legal lemmings, everyone just runs in the same direction as the pack, right off the cliff.

    • Joel L. Lawler

      Are you claiming to be a Vietnam or Vietnam-era veteran, Arnie? If so, where’d you serve? If not, then stating that you protested the war by “marching with a group of Vietnam veterans” could clearly be construed to be misleading. Please clarify.

  • arnash

    “Professor Yinger of Syracuse had this to say on the grandfather clause… By including this clause, the Founders rejected the view that naturalized citizens are inherently more likely than natural-born citizens to be subject to foreign influence.”

    That’s an incomplete thought and statement because it has no reference to Time. It is only true of the generation that lived through the Revolutionary War. No later generation could be trusted for certain, and so they were excluded by the gate that shut in June of 1788 when the Constitution was officially adopted by the 9th state that ratified it.

    • RoadScholar

      Why don’t you choose another pet obsession, one that has a better chance of success than Birfing. Something like “The Whalebone Corset Appreciation and Rehabilitation Society.”

  • arnash

    Slartibartfast wrote: “You said that a statement President Madison unquestionably made is “not determinative”. He did not say that the state of Virginia followed jus soli, he said that the United States followed jus soli.”
    “Not determinative” means that it is NOT the final word, and that is because he was a Virginian with a Virginian’s perspective, which included jus soli as a de facto law of the State if not an actual law. Having such a perspective is not a national perspective.
    I read that only four states allowed the alien-born to be recognized as citizens. The others then required the father to naturalize and become an American, -which was their obligation to do as members of the country in which they had settled and produced children. Jus soli is a grant of citizenship without any obligation attached.

    From the Law Library: “The common law principle of allegiance…”
    The man that made that reference understood its meaning in a British context but was wholly ignorant of its meaning in an American context, which was radically different, just as were our foundational principles. In the United States the common law principle of allegiance was abolished with the over-throw of the despotic monarchy system. No American owes allegiance to the government. The government owes allegiance to the citizens of America because they own the country, not the government.
    Male citizens owe obedience to their primal duty to protect their own, including their own country. Beyond that, allegiance is only a factor in positions of great power or great secrecy, since betrayal could be devastating. That means positions related to nuclear bombs or national secrets. Only natural born citizen have been allowed to hold such positions.

    “born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States”
    That is a juvenile and simplistic conflation of the factors of geography with biology. Those two principles are no more related than insects and whales. Geography is an asinine determinant of national membership because the world has dramatically changed from the sailing ship days. If one was born 23,000 miles above the United States in a geo-sychonous orbit, would they be born as an American or as an Alien? How does the “principle” of jus soli answer such a question? Jus Sanguinis has no problem; An American mother and father naturally produce an American child, anywhere and everywhere (unless the father has never lived in the U.S.)

    “The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense,” “It is incident to birth in the country,”
    The RIGHT of citizenship is not a gift dependent on government nor location of the moment of birth unless born to an immigrant couple. For their child, the “Right” is actually a gift. Just consider this: on one hand you have a child born within the U.S. then immediately removed to a foreign nation where it grows up, while on the other hand you have a child born across the border and immediately brought into the U.S. where it grows up to be an American. Which is more significant; a fleeting momentary biological exit from the womb or the life-long presence within and aculturation into American society? One makes perfect sense as a basis of inclusion while the other makes no sense whatsoever. Sanity has left the building.

    “The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense,” That is true. It descends in the natural sense. The natural sense is fundamental, primal, original, while the legal sense is purely a man-made thing. No legal right of descent was ever codified. That does not mean it is not real and determinative. It is and it underlies the entire system which is a closed entity contained within the realm of nature which is an open entity.

    “The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle”
    If you substitute “immigrant” for “alien” then that statement is true, but not in the way that you think. Natural born children of the nation, as well as alien-born nationally-adopted children born in the nation are CITIZENS. The principle that they have in common is not one of the supremacy of their birth location but of the common obligation to defend their nation upon reaching adulthood. They are born with a latent nascent duty to defend their own and at age 18 it comes to maturity because America is the home of both of them. But the origin of their citizenship is unrelated since one is via nature and the other via law.

    • Slartibartfast

      Mr. Nash,

      I love how birthers twist and dance around anything which is even remotely contrary to their arguments while blithely accepting anything they can cherry pick to support them. You are saying that President Madison, the Father of the Constitution, did not know the difference between the laws of the United States and the laws of Virginia. I think that it is far more likely that you’re just wrong…

      • arnash

        I read something today in a Google-scanned book from the mid 1800s which discussed the three models of colonies and states. One was the New England model of townships with full participation democracy (which still exists today) and the other was the Virginia model of expansive country life with a provincial manner of government. The third was a combination of the two. No doubt Madison was thoroughly familiar with the Virginia model and its citizenship policy of jus soli but that didn’t make him familiar with the New England model with its tight communities and jus sanguinis citizenship.

        You should not be too certain that his view is the final word on the issue of national policy since he was a Virginian first and a United States citizen second. Remember General Robert E. Lee? Which was his primary identity? He was a graduate of West Point and a veteran of the Mexican-American War I believe. An American through-&-through? No. A Virginian first, an American second.

        • Slartibartfast

          Wow. Seriously? You think that because Madison “was a Virginian first” that means he either didn’t know the difference between the national law he helped write and Virginia law or he was dishonest enough to misrepresent it? You just love the baseless accusations, don’t you?

    • Slartibartfast

      A “British context” vs. an “American context”? Really? There’s another characteristic of birthers: the implicit assumption that the Founders rejected anything and everything English. Sorry, but they weren’t up in arms regarding the form of the British government, they were upset that they didn’t have a voice in British decisions to, for instance, levy taxes on the colonies. You know, “No taxation without representation” that kind of thing. The fact is, we kept the English language just like we kept the language of the English common law—after all, it was the working jargon of all of the lawyers who were involved in writing the Constitution. The idea that they would use any other terminology is naive at best.

    • Slartibartfast

      “Geography is an asinine determinant of national membership”

      Tell that to nearly every country in the western hemisphere that operates on the principle of jus soli (including the US). The idea that there aren’t any countries for which geography, as you put it, is the determining factor in citizenship is what is asinine. Even your precious Vattel accepts that fact. Like it or not, our Constitution was written in “sailing ship days” and if you think it should be changed, there is an established process for doing so. Until such a time as you are successful, the laws and statutes of the United States do a perfectly fine job of handling the non-existant problem of a child born in orbit. I would imagine that orbiting above a country is not considered being in the country as you’re not subject to the jurisdiction. Eventually, the country’s airspace will probably have the analog of “territorial waters” above which is “unclaimed space”. I should also point out (because I like to fight ignorance) that anything in geosynchronous orbit is not above the United States—it is above the equator and, in addition, the highest altitude for a manned non-lunar mission was set by the crew of Gemini 11 with an apogee of 853.8 miles, a far cry from geosynchronous orbit.

      • Ballantine

        Very true. Moreover, in 1787, jus soli was still the near universal rule. It wasn’t until after the adoption of the napoleonic code that there was a migration to jus sanguinis in Europe. Accordingly, well into the 19th century American legal authorities were still claiming jus soli to be the universal rule. There is no reason to think that the founders would even consider a rule other than jus soli as such was how nationality was determined in those days pretty much everywhere.

    • Dave B.

      “Sanity has left the building.”
      You finally found an acorn, Adrien.

  • arnash

    “To me jus soli is native citizenship, which is state citizenship. If you are born in the state of Virginia, you were a son of the soil, a native Virginian,”

    That is a very illuminating point. The States were semi-supreme, but actually supreme when it came to immigration and naturalization as long as their laws didn’t conflict with the national rule. Nativity and citizenship were directly tied not to the federal government but to the States, since native-birth citizenship follows no principle based on any human right.

    No foreigner nor his children have an unalienable right to be accepted as members of a group to which he does not belong. The States with “sons of the soil” citizenship provided something that such children had no inherent right to, so they were given the legal right to citizenship, even though they lacked the natural right.
    There was no pre-WKA national “son of the soil” immigrant-child jus soli citizenship because the citizenship of the native-born was never addressed in federal legislation until the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which citizen-ized freed slaves.

    Most Americans self-identified by the State in which they were born and raised, and only when traveling abroad did they realize consciously that to foreign minds they were first and foremost Americans, -United States citizens instead of merely State citizens.
    I saw that in boot camp which included people from across the country with almost nothing in common, yet to the Vietnamese, we were all Americans.

    • Ballantine

      It is bad enough you think you are the only person in history to understand the true nature of citizenship, but to keep insisting your nonsense if historical fact is demented. Our citizenship law over the past 200 years is a matter of historical facts. Those fact say everything you say is wrong and you never cite any evidence to the contrary. Seriously, what is wrong with you?

      The facts are that prior to 1866, all legal authority of any significance said there was national “son of the soil” immigrant-child jus soli citizenship. This would include all relevant case law, executive department decisions, Congress and every important scholar. The people who drafted the Civil Rights Act and 14th Amendment pretty much all said there was already national “son of the soil” immigrant-child jus soli citizenship and they were just restating existing law and clarifying it applied to all races. All states adopted “son of the soil” immigrant-child jus soli citizenship after 1776 as well as there was some debate as to whether the national jus soli rule was based upon such state citizenship. The weight of legal authority would conclude that national jus soli citizenship was separate from state citizenship as reflected in the 14th Amendment. I can cite actuall legal authority all day if you would like. The opinions of the courts, congress and the executive department represent historical facts as to our law of citizenship. When confronted with such facts, you simply say they are wrong as you can’t deal with that fact that you are wrong about everything you say.

      • David Farrar

        “The facts are that prior to 1866, all legal authority of any significance said there was national “son of the soil” immigrant-child jus soli citizenship.

        Please cite your source. There is only one “son of the soil” reference that I know of, which was a native son of Virginia, which by the way required Virginians parents, or at least the father to be a native Virginian.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • ballantine

          You are again being dishonest. You have been on these threads and have had a mountain of authority thrown at you which you ignore. I would hope you know that Wong Kim Ark cites most of the legal giants in the early republic endorsing the English common law jus soli rule including Story, Kent, Marshall, Binney, Curtis, Swayne, attorney general Black and Bates, Secretary of State Marcy and pretty all the most famous citizenship cases of such period such as Lynch v. Clark, Ludlam v. Ludlam, State v Manuel. Ward v Gardner and on and on. Of course, you know he didn’t include a hundred other authorities like Rawle, Bouvier, Burrell, Swift, Dane, Townsned, Duer, White, Bayard, Jarvis, to name a few, and dozens of cases.

          This old link contains many such citations but is far from complete:

          http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/2010/02/quotations-from-english-common-law_13.html?m=1

    • Joel Lawler

      You cited David Horowitz as a “credible source”. What more needs to be said?

      • ramboike

        Re: What needs to be said?

        Obviously it is perfectly clear to anyone reading the facts I presented on Ayers & the Weather Underground that you can’t refute any of it. That leaves you with no other alternative than to resort to what has become your modus operandi and run personal attacks.

        • Joel Lawler

          We’re not mad at you, Rambette; we’re mad at the stupid, un-American things you say.

          • ramboike

            Lawler,

            Who is “we”? I see a few of the usual racist pro-commie anti-American Obots here spewing their hatred at anyone that isn’t kneeling in worship with them at the Altar of Marxist-Obamaism.

            It’s obvious you nor anyone else can refute what’s presented on Ayers, the Weather Underground, and Obama’s associations with them.

            Slartibartfast tried and was once again caught lying. It has become a regular habit with him.

            One would think that a CIA agent with high-level access to the intelligence community would have known about this 5th Column group and verified what was presented.

            • Joel Lawler

              “We” are the sane people who understand US law and perceive reality as it is. “You” are the bigoted lunatics who believe that your selective skimmings of court cases and arcane 18th century Swiss law texts somehow shifts that reality to what you want it to be.
              Which team do you want to be on, Rambette?

    • Joel Lawler

      Once again you insinuate that you are a Vietnam veteran and once again I ask you, where and when did you serve? Since everything else you say is a lie, I’ll assume your claim to military service is false until you answer the question.

  • arnash

    Slartibartfast : “You think that because Madison “was a Virginian first” that means he either didn’t know the difference between the national law he helped write…”

    Your mind must be in a haze because you speak of a law that does not exist and never did. There has never been a national law spelling out the basis of citizenship in the United States. I repeat: BASIS, not mere description. Neither the CCA of 1866 nor the 14th A. spell out the basis of citizenship, and neither were written to address the national membership of the class of citizens that created the nation.
    If someone creates a game and they are its referee, do they need to spell out what their role is? No, because they are the master of the game.
    Same with the natural citizens that created the United States.

    They did not need and weren’t dependent on a law created by their creation in or to be its creator and foundation.

    (this is so elementary)

  • arnash

    Slart wrote: “The idea that there aren’t any countries for which geography, as you put it, is the determining factor in citizenship is what is asinine”

    “aren’t any countries”? You’re mind is playing tricks on you because my statement says no such thing. It says that the policy is asinine, -not non-existent. Learn how to comprehend.

    Here’s something you should realize; no nation has adopted jus soli as a basis of citizenship except those who were once slaves of a foreign power (colonies). That should tell you something about its source. Why do original nations not follow it? Because they have not been brain-washed by centuries of a bastardly doctrine derived from The Divine Right of Kings.

  • arnash

    “well into the 19th century American legal authorities were still claiming jus soli to be the universal rule.”
    “legal authorities”? Like the authorities on the Supreme Court who take diametrically opposite opinions? How non-authoritative is that?

    “still claiming”? Sure, self-important men are always claiming things, but claims aren’t what is important. Only facts are important, and there pretty much aren’t many. But one fact has never changed, and that is that no child born of a father who was not subject to the government was considered to be a member of the nation.

    Foreigners in America were not considered by the federal government to be subject to the full authority of the United States government until they because American citizens. That only changed following the realignment of relationship that followed the WKA holding.

    After that, immigrants and their adult children could be drafted and sent to their death in war. If immigrant children were deemed to be citizens by SCOTUS then it meant that they were subject to U.S. jurisdiction through their fathers. Therefore their fathers shared the citizen’s duty to defend the nation.
    Being an immigrant-born native makes one an American citizen but does not make one a natural citizen.

    • Ballantine

      And you repeat the same lies even though you have ben shown such are lies. The “full authority” argument was the losing argument in Wong Kim Ark which showed that our Supreme Court had ruled that all aliens were subject to the absolute jurisdiction of the United States. Such is one of the most fundamental maxims of international law. This has been pointed out to you in The Schooner Exchange v. McFadden, one of the most famous cases on international law. But, of course, Chief Justice Marshall was just another idiot.

      You also have been told that there never was a prohibition of drafting children of aliens. During the Civil War there was a controvercy about drafting domiciled aliens who had declared there intention to become a citizen. There was no controvercy about drafting children of aliens born on our soil as all legal authority said they were American citizens. I know you don’t care about legal opinion but the draft was administered by this person:

      “As far as I know, Mr. Secretary, you and I have no better title to the citizenship which we enjoy than ” the accident of birth” —the fact that we happened to be born in the United States. And our Constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.” Attorney General Bates, Opinion of Citizenship, (1862)

      Some such children sought protection for their parents’ nation. Here is one reponse from England to such a request:

      “Having regard to the law of England as to persons born in Her Majesty’s dominions, Lord Lyons was instructed that Her Majesty’s Government could not insist, as against the United States’ Government, that such a person should be considered by them as a British subject and exempt from the liabilities incident to the status of a United States’ citizen.”

      • arnash

        ” The “full authority” argument was the losing argument in Wong Kim Ark which showed that our Supreme Court had ruled that all aliens were subject to the absolute jurisdiction of the United States. Such is one of the most fundamental maxims of international law. ”

        First, you’re confusing me with someone else.
        Second, The Supreme Court did NOT rule regarding the extent of U.S. jurisdiction that applies to immigrant men and fathers. That was left to the Attorney General to extrapolate from their holding.
        Third, the court had no legal basis to decide the issue, but they had the moral & philosophical basis to decide as they did.

        ” there never was a prohibition of drafting children of aliens.” The absence of a prohibition against something does not make it legal for the government to do it unless it is constitutionally or congressionally authorized. You aren’t “prohibited” from kissing your sister on the lips, but does that make it okay to do so?

        “As far as I know, Mr. Secretary, you and I have no better title to the citizenship which we enjoy than ” the accident of birth” —the fact that we happened to be born in the United States.”

        That’s what I’d believed all of my life, -until that is, I read the presidential eligibility clause and realized that the meaning of the word “natural” changes everything. It dawned on me that there was a principle at work that I knew nothing about. Now I know a whole lot about it, and have written what I’ve learned.

        • Dave B.

          You say it “dawned” on you then– you mean you weren’t always such a nut?

        • ballantine

          You have no understanding what the Supreme Court ruled on because you know nothing about law. Why do you pretend to be a legal expert when you know nothing about reading case law? The court did rule on the issue of jurisdiction of immigrant men and their children but you not smart enough to understand. In fact, the court had ruled on such issue many decades before Wong Kim Ark. Such has been US law for more than a century whether you like it or not. And, our gorvernment, like Attorney General Bates quoted above, and the supreme court, which cited Bates as being correct, made clear that jus soli was the basis of our law and, as Bates says, the basis of natural law. You can stomp your feet all you want, but anyone who matters in our history says you are an idiot.

          It is not really hard to decide about our law of citiznehsip. We can look to all our framers, our court decisions, execitive opinions, our legal scholars and congressional tstimorny. Or we could look to Adrien, someone uneducated in law posting on the internet who says he knows more than anyone else in history because he says so. Really hard to understand why everyone ignores you.

  • arnash

    Ballantine complained: “Our citizenship law over the past 200 years is a matter of historical facts. Those fact say everything you say is wrong and you never cite any evidence to the contrary. ”

    There are three big flaws in that, beginning with the complaint that I never cite any evidence. First, you engaged in pure hypocrisy by doing the exact thing you accuse me of, by claiming that all states passed jus soli laws with no evidence whatsoever.

    Second, I don’t cite evidence of what does not exist. When will you get it through you head that there is no national law that declares the nature and basis of citizenship. All that does exists merely points to the WKA holding and the 14th Amendment, neither of which were written to address natural citizens. They were always automatically born being citizens. Citizens by nature, -not by law.

    Is a law needed to proclaim that from henceforth all Eskimos shall be Eskimos? Or are they born being Eskimos? Same with Americans. Everyone born of Americans is an American. Beginning and end of the issue.

    “prior to 1866, all legal authority of any significance said there was national “son of the soil” immigrant-child jus soli citizenship.”

    That is like saying that prior to Columbus all authority of any significance said the world was flat. Saying something is so does not make it so. Truth and fact are not attached to anyone’s opinion. They exist separate and apart. Don’t look to opinion to determine what they are because opinions are always influenced by misconceptions and distortions of language.

    Are “Indians” really Indians. They must all be from India then. Five hundred years later and an error is still entrenched and institutionalized by the U.S. government. Does that make it correct? Wake up to reality! Opinions don’t matter. Only actual facts and actual law.

    • Ballantine

      First, I have cited a ton of authority for you and you simply ignore it. You make clear it is irrelvant to you. Historical facts mean nothing to you. How many authorities would you like me to cite on this subject?

      “When will you get it through you head that there is no national law that declares the nature and basis of citizenship. All that does exists merely points to the WKA holding and the 14th Amendment, neither of which were written to address natural citizens.”

      Because you simply don’t understand citizenship or law or logic. There is no requirement to declare the nature and basis of citizenship. The US, like every country, can grant or deny citizenship on any terms or basis it likes. We could make up an entirely new rule if we like. Our legal authories said we adopted the common law. That is an historical fact upon which citizenship was determined. People who didn’t fit under these rules were not treated as citizens. Period. There has never been such a thing as natural citizens until you made it up. If you think otherwise you are delusional. We could change tomorrow to exclude everyone you think is a natural citizen. And such new law would be our actual law whether you like it or not. Your “natural citizens” would be aliens no matter how much you stompted your feet.

      “Don’t look to opinion to determine what they are because opinions are always influenced by misconceptions and distortions of language.”

      Again, gibberish. The opinions of our legal authorities are the law and no one cares about some guy on the internet who says everyone in history is wrong but him. You can believe that there is some devinely defined citizenship that over-rules the legal opinions of every nation. However, such is not reality as people will be treated as citizens of each nation in accordance with any law such nation chooses whether you like it or not.

      • arnash

        You hold a dangerously unAmerican view about the nature of man. Man is supreme over government and any thought to the contrary is a form of philosophical treason against the People of the United States.
        The government does not own us. We own the government. It is our servant, we are not its slave. Our children belong to us and not it. Only if they are male are they born with an obligation to one day serve and protect their own, including their own country.
        If they are born female then they are under no such obligation because they are the object of that protection.

        The government is the creation of natural and even naturalized citizens. It cannot tell its creators that it owns them. It cannot make any ruling about their membership in the union of their own creation, including their relationship to the government of their own making.
        They are the masters. The government is the slave. If not, then liberty is lost and you and yours are nothing more than indentured cogs in the government machine.

        As one of the founders said to the loyalists in encouraging them to abandon their homeland and move away to England: …leave from us in peace, may you wear your chains lightly, and may posterity forget that ye were our brethren.

        You are a dyed-in-the-wool loyalist. You’d be right at home in the court of King George because you worship at the alter of supreme government authority over men and women who are not really free but owned and ruled by its absolute authority.

      • David Farrar

        So where is the article, statute or law that says a US citizen is defined by English common law, other than orbital dicta?

        Now listen to my said of the story, it’s really quite short. It states: until there is a specific article, amendment, statute or law that defines what a US Citizen is (i.e., in the absence of any law); there is natural law. We really have no choice but to accept that fact because the alternative is that the founders, framers and ratifiers of the US Const. simply forgot to write on down, nonsense. The law they were following was so universal, inalienable and self-evident, there was no need to write one down..it was natural law.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Dave B.

          Orbital dicta, eh?

        • Joel L. Lawler

          I have an orbital sander that I polish up my dicta with.

        • ballantine

          You are an idiot. I have pointed out that all relevant authority of the period looked to the common law. You cannot contest such fact. The analysis of natural born citizenship in Wong Kim Ark is not dicta, but I guess you would have to go to law school to understand that. It is also not dicta in many of the relevant cases I cited . Neverhteless, the notion that natural law controls absent municipal law is something you have simply made up. No legal authority in the US has said that and, I have shown, to the extent American legal authorities have talked about the natural law of citizeneship, it was jus soli. Claiming any founder thought natural law was jus sanguinis is simply making things up. Seriously, each post you make makes you look more stupid.

      • arnash

        “There has never been such a thing as natural citizens until you made it up”
        Do this: Google natural citizen. It comes back with natural born citizen. Go to the bottom of the page and click on Advance Search. Enter natural citizen in the line labeled “this exact word or phase”.
        You might even enter “born” on the line of what to exclude.

        Repeat the search for “natural citizens” plural.
        Repeat again for “natural citizenship”.
        Then get back to me after you see the results.

        • ballantine

          Again more gibberish. Such a search only shows the English common law definition from any legal source that matters. Are you drunk or just making such silly posts? Simply a fact that there is no sigificant authority in the early republic that agreed with your definition of natural born citizen. How many authorities would you like me to cite?

          • arnash

            Ballantine, you complain that natural citizenship does not exist. You discover that you are wrong but try to explain it away as something irrelevant from your perspective. It’s clear that what is wrong with you cannot be fixed because in your warped zeitgeist the word “natural” has absolutely not meaning whatsoever. You’re broken, but well shielded by your armor of deniability.

        • ballantine

          Are you drinking again so early. No one who mattered said there was a concept of “natural citizens” other than comported with the notion of “natural born’ in accordance with English law. Show me an American legal authority defining such term? Show me one defining it as you define it? Show me one authority anyone has ever heard of defining ‘natural citizen” by your definition keeping in mind that I can cite 100 relevant authorities saying you are wrong. It is sad that there are some people who can never admit they are wrong. We have seen over and over here that first you say you are supported by authority. Then when we cite authority all saying you are wrong, you say they are stupid because you say so. I hope you never contest a parking ticket, because you might end up in jail for a long time as no court will deal with your BS.

          • arnash

            Your request for validation by authority is absurd. The authority is the meaning of the words themselves. “Citizen” does not need defining. Neither does natural. Combining them does not produce some inconceivable concept It is an immediately conceivable concept, and has been used in probably every government on earth to distinguish its native citizenry from foreigners.

            Why did you lie by claiming that ” over and over here that first you say you are supported by authority” when I have never once made any appeal to authority? Are you that oblivious to the fact that it is yourself that you are referring to?

            There are no “authorities” regarding natural citizenship any more than there are regarding abortion. Such matters are unrelated to legal niceties and are instead sociological in nature.
            Hence 100 authorities can be found walking down any street in any town in America. Lawyers are not authorities on natural membership because it is not taught in any school. Name one school that has a course devoted to principles of natural law and how it pre-dates, underlies, and supersedes human law.

    • Northland10

      Is a law needed to proclaim that from henceforth all Eskimos shall be Eskimos? Or are they born being Eskimos? Same with Americans. Everyone born of Americans is an American. Beginning and end of the issue.

      Unlike a tribal group, the United States of America is entirely a a legal construct. From the original colonial charters, through the Articles of Confederation to the current Constitution, our country’s existence is based solely upon the people making a legal covenant to be one nation. How can you be a citizen of nature in a non-natural legal entity? Our existence as a nation is based in law, therefore our citizenship is based on law.

      • David Farrar

        Great perspective, Northland10.

        I have always said, before Washington D.C. was created, the United States was just a collection of words on a piece of parchment; was it not? That was our new sovereign after the revolution. And you became a ‘subject’ of this new sovereign, by pledging to support and abide by it.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

      • arnash

        You exist in a vacuum in which unalienable Natural Rights do not exist. In such a realm, children do not belong to their parents because that relationship is a legal one and not a natural one. Only where is the law that grants parents the right to own their own children? Where is the law that grants children the right to be members of their own family and the possession of their parents?

        There are no such laws because relationships in this world do not require them, and one of those relationships is that between natural members and the nation into which they were born. IT IS PRIMAL. It is beneath and underlying the legal foundation of the nation. Without it nobody belongs to anybody or anything unless the government says so by written laws.
        How absurd is that. We do not live in such a world. The real world is governed by natural relationships which are as old as mankind. Only when outsiders enter the picture does government have the authority to make rules dictating under what conditions they are to be admitted to membership.

        If no outsiders existed, then government would have no hand in nationality because nationality would not exist.

        • Joel L. Lawler

          Wrong again, Arnie. Jus soli with the WKA exceptions has been the law, is the law, will be the law. No question about that.

  • Slartibartfast

    Mr. Nash said:

    Here’s something you should realize; no nation has adopted jus soli as a basis of citizenship except those who were once slaves of a foreign power (colonies). That should tell you something about its source. Why do original nations not follow it? Because they have not been brain-washed by centuries of a bastardly doctrine derived from The Divine Right of Kings.

    Frist off: “no nation has adopted jus soli as a basis of citizenship except those who were once slaves of a foreign power (colonies).

    Are you a complete idiot? Our own principle of jus soli citizenship traces back 4 centuries to Calvin’s case, which forms the basis of England’s citizenship. Or do you see them as being slaves of Rome? If you had any credibility left (which you don’t), it would be gone after this whopper.

    Do you think that it is possible that all of the former colonial nations decided to reject the monarchial practice of limiting their ruling class by bloodline in favor of the more egalitarian and democratic principle of jus soli? This seems far more likely to me than your exegesis which has been shown to be at odds with reality in innumerable places (if you’d like some examples, Ballentine and Dave B. helpfully provided many).

    David,

    In case you missed it in my argument (and I’m sure you didn’t get it), I am saying that you and the other birthers are trying to adhere to the Monarchial method of determining the ruling class—something you have repeatedly said that the Founders were rejecting—as opposed to the more democratic and inclusive standard of birth on the soil.

    Just so you know, it’s a very bad sign when someone can take your argument to a logical conclusion and arrive at a contradiction. It is a technique that has a name very appropriate to you: reductio ad absurdum.

    • arnash

      “no nation has adopted jus soli as a basis of citizenship except those who were once slaves of a foreign power (colonies).”

      We aren’t on the same page. My word is “adopted”. Only free nations can adopt policies and laws. Dictatorships impose laws and policies. Once the power of the monarch is leashed, original nations overthrow jus soli and reinstituted jus sanguinis, as England did before the establishment of the United States by making it clear that only those born to subjects were subjects. The difference in England was that the government considered all immigrants to be subjects, not so in the United States. Without citizenship one remained subject to their homeland until WKA.

      “to reject the monarchial practice of limiting their ruling class by bloodline in favor of the more egalitarian and democratic principle of jus soli?”
      That’s very muddled thinking. What it says is that jus soli expands the ruling class by disregarding inherited privilege. Then everyone can be a part of the ruling class. Now who is the stupid one?

      Jus Soli was based on the Divine Right of Kings to be boss of everyone in and born in their realm, even if they are a subject of another sovereign. The native-born children, in effect, belonged to the King (not their foreign parents) and were his property for life under the doctrine of perpetual allegiance. Gee, how democratic that is!

    • David Farrar

      Okay, I see your point. Let’s take it from your perspective that…“birthers are trying to adhere to the Monarchical method of determining the ruling class.”

      The closest we have in this country to a “ruling class” is the President and Vice-President, who, oddly enough, share the same qualifications (i.e., Art. II, §1, cl. 4). Of those qualifications, the only one that is in doubt is the requirement to a “natural-born” citizen.

      Now it’s your contention that as long as you are a person born within the jurisdiction, you have access to the ruling class, while we maintain in order to have access to the ruling class, you have to be among the “Consent of the Governed”, that is, pledge to support and abide by the US Const.; is this not a fair statement?

      ex animo
      davdfarrar

      • Slartibartfast

        David,

        Once again, your words say one thing, but your argument implies the exact opposite. The only people who have given their consent to be governed are naturalized citizens—anyone born a citizen was clearly not able to consent to anything at the time.

        • David Farrar

          Yes; you are right. That’s the conundrum: how can any person legally pledge to support and abide by the US Const., and thereby become a member among the ‘Consent of the Governed’, at birth?

          There are only two ways to solve this paradox: One is by natural law (which is the very basis of international law), and the other is by posited law (man-made law).

          What the founders, framers and ratifiers of the US Constitution were saying by inserting the idiom ‘natural-born’ (US) Citizen into clause 4 — the qualifications of the ‘ruling class’ — is that one has to have inherited their US Citizenship, naturally, under the cloak of allegiance of their US citizen father, following the prescriptions of natural law, on order to tale the oath of office of the President of the United States. A person born within this jurisdiction without a cloak of allegiance being extended either from the father and mother, while being a US Citizen at birth due to man-made law, posited law, it is not an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen by natural law

          ex animo
          davidfarrar

        • Joel L. Lawler

          Wrong again, Mr Faarraarrdd. Parentage means jack shit – jus soli (with the obvious common-law exceptions listed in WKA
          ) is the sole requirement to be a natural born citizen. Settled law since 1898.
          Other than the entertainment value of mocking an intellectually dishonest jackass, I wonder why anyone bothers to repeatedly point out the painful inadequacies of your arguments. The only necessary response can be summed up in two words – you’re wrong.

          • arnash

            A realistic analogy to the citizenship debate has a vast throng of people (the 97% who are natural citizens) in the deep shadows behind a group of people in bright daylight (the 3 % who are foreigners, -and their children) and a great struggle and shouting match takes place, with lots of pushing and shoving and arguing over the issue of their citizenship. Eventually the issue seems to be settled by the referees and then a strange thing happens. Since the 3 % were the only subjects of the debate, the accepted settlement for their issue is the only one now visible in the sunlight of the public eye, and all of those connected to them, thinking like they are the center of the issue and all things are determined by how their case was settled, that the vast throng of the 97% are also subject to what in fact only applies to them.
            The wheel of the 97% never squeaked and so it never got the oil of the legal settlement resulting from the shifted focus of attention from them to the 3%, but everyone just assumes that it needs the oil just like the horribly squeaky 3% who have no natural right for what they are given, but are given it because it is the best social policy.
            Bottom line: What applies to the 3% does not apply to the 97% because they don’t need it, and never did. They were all born being Americans and nothing can change that except they themselves.

    • Joel L. Lawler

      The evidence clearly suggests that Mr Nash is indeed an idiot.

  • arnash

    “…recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.”

    First, “the universal principle” is in fact not a principle at all. It is merely a convention based on the co-incident of birth taking place where one’s parents live. One enters the world as a member of their family, their clan, their tribe, and their nation. Why are they are a member of their family, their clan and tribe? Because they are blood-connected to their parents, and their greater extended family. Same with the greater extended family known as a country and nation.

    If a son of Custer was born on Sioux land, would that make him a member of the Sioux Nation? Could he be their Chief one day? Would jus soli naturally apply?

    If you were not born under your parents’ roof, but under someone else’s roof, would you therefore not be a natural member of your family, but would have to be adopted instead since you weren’t born under the jurisdiction of your parents’ property?
    What does natural reason tell you? Explain how nations are totally different in principle from tribes and families. Explain what a natural citizen is. Explain how naturalization is not precisely national adoption?
    You need to learn how to think outside of the box, to think not just legalistically but philosophically; to see the entire forest and not just the legal trees.

    • Joel L. Lawler

      We’re discussing the law here, Arnie. The law is the box; the law is the forest. The law is clear, your ridiculous sophistic bullshit notwithstanding. Anyone born on US soil, other than the exceptions specifically listed in WKA, is natural born US citizen. That is the law, and you’re wrong. Get a life.

      • arnash

        “Anyone born on US soil, other than the exceptions specifically listed in WKA, is natural born US citizen. That is the law,”

        I’ll give you a million dollars if you can show us all where that law is or where that is stated in the WKA holding. Since it is merely a figment of your fertile imagination, I won’t be standing around with my checkbook in hand.
        Attaching “natural born” in front of a legitimate usage of “citizen” does not make the result legitimate, reasonable, nor believable, but boneheads refuse to acknowledge any reality that pulls their sucked-thumb out of their infantile mouth.

        • Joel L. Lawler

          Sadly, you don’t have a million dollars, Arnie. I doubt someone with the depth of your psychological problems has any cash left after the SSDI check is spent.
          You have lost this argument, over and over, in the most fundamental way – i.e., President Obama has been elected twice and is in fact the lawful POTUS. If Marco Rubio were to stand for election in 2016, he would also unquestionably be eligible to do so. So says accepted and tested US law, and the nattering of an intellectually deficient sophist (that’s you, fyi) will not change a thing.
          Enjoy wasting your life making pedantic arguments against the truth, Arnie. You provide invaluable entertainment to the smart, honest people in the world.

          • arnash

            And again, just like a thousand infantile protestations before yours, you offer not a single refutation to anything that you are supposedly responding to. Which point did you disagree with? Why? And your reasoned response is….nothing. That is because you have no reasoned response since reason defeats your position and thus is not your friend.

            That is about as close to “debate” as the brain-dead tantrum of a little child that refuses to accept that he has to go to bed or he will be cranky the next day. How does an adult offer a reasoned response to a purely emotional reply? I suggest that you grow up emotionally and then learn how to think as an independent, self-directed sentient being.

            I assume that that is too much to ask of you. -Kind of like asking you to make yourself taller.

        • Dave B.

          But Joel, Adrien HAS a million dollars. He has a jilgabazillion dollars! Natural Adrien dollars. Only he has discovered their true worth, and the rest of us are just ignorant for not accepting them.

        • Joel L. Lawler

          Just more lies, Nash. What’s being contested is your insane and self-serving half-reading of a carefully selected subset of history to support an incorrect conclusion. This isn’t a philosophical argument; rather, it is an argument about the law. The law is clear, Nash – nbc, as mentioned in Art. II, Sec.1, clause 5 of the US Constitution, is citizenship at birth, either through jus soli (pursuant to the 14th Amendment and the specific exceptions listed in WKA) or inherited from citizen parents regardless of the location of birth. That’s it, Arnie – anything else you suggest about it is bullshit. Those of us who know the law laugh at you because you don’t, but you like to pretend you do. That makes you a charlatan, Arnie (look it up), and charlatans should be exposed to all possible mockery.

      • arnash

        “The Law” was not handed down from Mount Sinai, it came from men, not gods, and it exists within a context, and that context is the natural world of human society. The box is not the law but unalienable human rights. Which trumps which? The government or your rights? By your way of thinking,the government can rightfully strip you of your rights since you don’t have any that it is not willing to give you.
        You and your way of thinking are a great threat to Liberty. Clearly you’ve never experience being stripped of all rights, nor much of anything else in the real world. You live in a protective bubble of legal protections with no consciousness of who is protecting that bubble. It sure isn’t you and your ilk.

  • arnash

    Ballantine wrote: “You are again being dishonest. You have been on these threads and have had a mountain of authority thrown at you which you ignore.”

    You utterly fail to comprehend what “authority” even is. You mountain is more like a molehill of opinion. The only authority which matters is that which you cannot offer since it doesn’t exist, namely a bunch of State statutes that invoked jus soli for children of its immigrants, much less for children of its citizens.

    I read that there were only four such states, no doubt they followed the Virginia model because they were fellow Southern States which had a different form of governance than New England states. I assume there are four but you have never enumerated them or their statutes, so don’t get on your high horsey and spout how you’ve offered a mountain of “evidence” when you’ve offered none.

    • Joel L. Lawler

      The authority on this matter is WKA, Arnie. Try reading Squeeky’s excellent easy version, and then get a real constitutional attorney to explain it to you. It can be summarized as follows: any person born on US soil, regardless of parentage (unless said parents are foreign diplomats or invading soldiers) is a natural born citizen. Jus soli, baby – period, end of story. See how easy that was?

      • ramboike

        I love Obot logic – it’s very entertaining.

        Obots will join with the Birthers and agree the Dred Scott Case was perhap the worst of some bad decisions by the SCOTUS, and even go so far as given credit [bless their little minds] to the Party of Lincoln for correcting that along with some other injustices to a group of our fellow Americans.

        Buttttt, because WKA presents an argument for them in defense of their Dear Leader, they can’t allow their minds to ever consider for a moment that the WKA was also a bad decision by SCOTUS.

        • th3bt

          Not agreeing with a Court ruling does not change the ruling. The question here is not should. It is can.

          Should President Obama be the President of the United States? In my opinion, no.

          Can he be President? Yes.

          The birther logic,displayed by Rambo, Nash, and Farrar, is to hold personal opinion higher than the rule. That is why you fail.

        • ramboike

          Here’s why I don’t fail: Should those abolitionists that became the Party of Lincoln held to their “Higher Opinion”?

          Lincoln said all his political understanding came from the Declaration.

        • th3bt

          Still fail Ike.

          Working to change a law you believe to be wrong, is not the same as declaring something against the law because you believe it to be wrong.

          Nice non-sequitur, though.

          And for nash, who rambled about the lack of natural law courses: first entry from google search of courses in natural law.

          https://www.evernote.com/shard/s306/sh/6836d41b-77af-4f01-9fbe-f99df47929fb/04873609899b17610d8095edda1b0459

          • arnash

            your link is inactive but here’s the first result of a search I just did, and it strikes me as something that no college of law would offer as a requirement since it is purely esoteric in relation to man-made law. Does this look like anything other than an elective? Clearly not. If not, then it is not taught as a requirement for obtaining a law degree. But that may depend on the college.

            Natural Law
            Ethan H. MacAdam (Section 01) Description:

            What is meant by “Natural Law”? This course will explore this strange legal category from the medieval period through the present day. What connection did (or does) natural law have to the will of a God or other deity? And yet how has it become something separate from “divine law”? What is “natural” about natural law, and does this quality make it somehow more primitive than, or prior to, or better than, positive (government-made) law? In modern secular societies, what are the post-religious understandings of the natural law idea, which is still thought by some to encompass our intuitions about justice or to frame our conceptions of positive law? In exploring the history and present state of this order of law which, in different moments, seems both to found positive law and to go beyond it, we will also ask: how easily does natural law coexist with positive law? If they conflict, which are we bound to follow? Does natural law jurisprudence have any role to play in actual legal proceedings? Can it govern conduct between governments? Can natural law be a justification for disobedience to the laws of governments, or even for revolution?

        • ramboike

          th3bt

          Your example doesn’t equate. You said “personal opinion higher”. I didn’t respond about any action.

          I ask the question which you haven’t answered: Should those abolitionists that became the Party of Lincoln held to their “Higher Opinion”?

          Yale Law Journal did a review right after the WKA decision and supported the dessenting opinion.

        • th3bt

          Your question makes no sense. It is another topic completely. It is the subject of books.

          Nice try with the personal opinion angle.

          You believe the dissent in Wong was right. You offer support from an anonymous article in the Yale Law Journal, which actually strengthens the meaning of the majority opinion.

          There are ways to change Court decisions, and commenting in birther blogs ain’t one.

        • ramboike

          Maybe I don’t understand. You said my logic was holding a personal higher opinion than the rule. I’m agreeing with you. Then I gave you an example with the abolitionists who had a personal higher opinion that originated from the Declaration against the rule. Now I’m sure you’ll agree with me that there has been some bad rulings/decisions made by SCOTUS.

          WKA is the only case I researched. Read the whole case & opinions on both sides from a minimum of 10 sites. From that I drew my own conclusion that it was bad law. That’s my opinion. I stated the Yale Law Journal review wrong. Should of been “favored the dissenting view”.

    • th3bt

      “You utterly fail to comprehend what “authority” even is”

      Okay Nash, explain authority. Do so without referencing yourself or religion.

      • arnash

        Facts are authority. Actual citeable law is authority. Accurately quoted and undistorted or amplified or verbally supplemented holdings of the Supreme Court are legal authority. Opinions of opinionated men are not authoritative because even when they all agree, they can all be wrong, as history has proven over and over and over. Piltdown Man authority is not authority but merely presumption.
        Humans are naturally susceptible to error due to various factors, but when bias is added to the mix, error is almost unavoidable.

    • ballantine

      Again, you just repeat the same nonsense over and over. I cited a link above to David that cited about a 100 authorities saying jus soli was our law including all relevant federal authority. Do you really not know what our attorney generals, secretary of states and courts said prior to 1866? And your statement about four states is also delusional. All early state case law conformed to the common law. Again, are you being dishonest or are your stupid?

      The facts are that all our states adopted the common law and all early citizenship law looked to the common law. Let me know how many authorities you would like me to cite. Oh, I forgot, no authorities count as everyone is stupid except you. Seriously, you need help.

      “At the formation of our present national government, the common law prevailed as a system of jurisprudence, in all the thirteen states which then constituted the nation…..Lynch v. Clarke (NY 1844)

      “There is no doubt but that in all the thirteen colonies, it was the common origin of our jurisprudence. And any one who will take the trouble to compare the whole mass of statute law of general application, which, up to the era of the revolution, had been enacted in the colony of New-York, with the immense extent of the principles of the common law which were then in actual force and operation here, regulating the rights of persons and property ; will be satisfied that we, as colonists, had drawn almost exclusively from that source; and with us, at least, the common law had been adopted to no very limited or restricted extent.” Lynch v. Clarke (NY 1844)

      “The Constitution of the United States, like those of all the original states (and in fact, of all the states now forming the Union, with the exception of Louisiana,) presupposed the existence and authority of the common law. The principles of that law were the basis of our institutions.” Lynch v. Clarke (NY 1844)

      “the question of citizenship can only be determined by reference to the English common law, which, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, was, to a greater or less extent, recognized as the law of all the States by which that Constitution was adopted.” Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 NY 356, 360-61 (1863).

      “The constitution of New York, of 1777, declared that such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, as, together with the acts of the colonial legislature, formed the law of the colony on the 19th of April, 1775, should continue to be the law of .the state, subject, &c. So the common law and statute law of England were referred to in Missouri by the statute of 14th January, 1816, as part of the known and existing law of the territory, so far as the same was consistent with the law of the territory, and which, in a modified degree, was the Spanish law. The common and statute law of England, prior to the fourth year of James I., and of a general nature, were adopted by the convention of Virginia, in 1776, and in 1795 and 1805, by the government of Ohio ; and such is the substance of the statute law of Arkansas. 2 Ark. 206. But the Ohio statute was repealed in 1806. In the Revised Statutes of Illinois, published in 1829, it was declared that the common law of England, and the English statutes of a general nature made in aid of it, prior to the fourth year of James I., with the exception of those concerning usury, were to be rules of decision until repealed. In 1818, the common law was adopted by statute in the State of Indiana, and in 1835, in Missouri, under the same limitations ; and it is understood that the common law and the statute law of England, down to the year 1776, and applicable to their constitution and circumstances, are the law in the states of Mississippi and Georgia. In the latter state the same was declared to be in force by the statute of February 25, 1784. So the common law of England and the statute law of England, prior to 1760, were adopted by statute in Vermont, so far as they were not repugnant to the constitution or statute law of the state. James Kent, John Melville Gould, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Commentaries on Americican Law Vol 1 pg. 643-44 (1901).

      “It was not to be doubted that the Constitution and laws of the United States were made in reference to the existence of the common law, whatever doubts might be entertained as to the question, whether the common law of England, in its broadest sense, including equity and admiralty as well as legal doctrines, was the common law of the United States. In many cases, the language of the Constitution and laws would be inexplicable without reference to the common law; and the existence of the common law is not only supposed by the Constitution, but it is appealed to for the construction and interpretation of its powers.” James Kent, Commentaries on American Law (1826)

      “There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.” Smith v. Alabama, 124 US 478 (1881)

      “The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Convention of the Thirteen States, were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them, but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.” Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 76, 108-09 (1925).

      “The only principles of law, then, that can be regarded are those common to all the States. I know of none such which can affect this case but those that are derived from what is properly termed “the common law,” a law which I presume is the groundwork of the laws in every State in the Union, and which I consider, so far as it is applicable to the peculiar circumstances of the country, and where no special act of legislation controls it, to be in force in each State as it existed in England (unaltered by any statute) at the time of the first settlement of the country. The statutes of England that are in force in America differ perhaps in all the States, and therefore it is probable the common law in each is in some respects different. But it is certain that, in regard to any common law principle which can influence the question before us, no alteration has been made by any statute which could occasion the least material difference, or have any partial effect.” Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 435 (1793).

      “The common law of England, so far as it was applicable to our circumstances, was brought over by our ancestors, upon their emigration to this country. The Revolution did not involve in it any abolition of the common law. It has been adopted or declared in force by the constitutions of some of the states, and by statute in others; and where not explicitly adopted, it is yet considered as the law of the land, subject to modifications and express legislative repeal. The common law of England, applicable to our situation and government, is the law of this country, except where altered or rejected by statute, or varied by local usages, under the sanction of judicial decisions. James Kent, William Hardcastle Browne, Commentaries on American Law, pg. 212 (1894).

      “The universal principle (and the practice has conformed to it) has been, that the common law is our birthright and inheritance, and that our ancestors brought hither with them upon their emigration all of it, which was applicable to their situation. The whole structure of our present jurisprudence stands upon the original foundations of the common law.” Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, pg. 65 (1833).

      “The common law principle of allegiance was the law of all the States at the time of the Revolution and at the adoption of the Constitution, and, by that principle, the citizens of the United States are, with the exceptions before mentioned, such only as are either born or made so, born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States or naturalized by the authority of law, either in one of the States before the Constitution or, since that time, by virtue of an act of the Congress of the United States. The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle… Horace Binney, American Law Register, 2 Amer.Law Reg.193, 203, 204, 206 (February 1854)..(cited in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649, 665 (1898)

      “When, therefore, they emerged from the colonial condition into that of independence, the laws which governed them consisted, first, of the common law of England, so far as they had tacitly adopted it as suited to their condition; second, of the statutes of England, or of Great Britain, amendatory of the common law, which they had in like manner adopted; and, third, of the colonial statutes. The first and second constituted the American common law, and by this in great part are rights adjudged and wrongs redressed in the American States to this day.” Thomas McIntyre Cooley, Victor Hugo Lane, A treatise on the constitutional limitations which rest upon the legislative … pg. 53-54 (1903)

      “I will refer you to a book which is in every man’s hand–Blackstone’s Commentaries.” James Madison, Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention18–19 June 1788Elliot 3:499—515

  • arnash

    “All early state case law conformed to the common law. Again, are you being dishonest or are your stupid?”

    “Conformed”?? Are you nuts? State law regarding citizenship was whatever the State constitution or legislature decided it would be. It was not left up to the English practices, because it was a matter of political law or principle, not civil law, -or else your claim would mean that all ecclesiastical law embedded in common law would have prevailed as well.

    “Do you really not know what our attorney generals, secretary of states and courts said prior to 1866?”
    It is irrelevant to what the law actually was, because there in fact was no law governing natural citizenship. Not in the Constitution nor any federal statute. There still isn’t. There is only interpretation of the a ambiguous14th Amendment, along with misinterpretation of it.

    “At the formation of our present national government, the common law prevailed as a system of jurisprudence, in all the thirteen states which then constituted the nation…..Lynch v. Clarke (NY 1844)

    That’s true, but natural citizenship has no relationship to jurisprudence. It is above and beyond and beneath it. It is the box in which the whole legal system exists. Without it there is nothing but dictatorship and tyranny. Natural citizenship is the aircraft carrier on which the airplanes of democratic government must land.

    Without it you a mess. You can believe that native-birth to any kind of parent can be construed to be natural citizenship but such a belief does not change the meaning of the word “natural” and could lead to a situation like you have Kuwait; 50% of the population are foreigners.

    How can such a situation produce a natural country with a natural population and society? It can’t. Outsiders are not natural members of a society to which they are strangers, as I just read about the Puerto Ricans. What an unnatural situation. Given U.S. citizenship, coming to New York by the tens of thousands, yet they were aliens. Alien citizens. How natural is that? Their island had no natural connection to America and neither did the natural Puerto Rican people to the American language and history and tradition and law. Worlds colliding!

    “the common law had been adopted to no very limited or restricted extent.” Lynch v. Clarke (NY 1844)”
    “rights of persons and property” were essentially civil and financial rights, -not a right of membership. Membership was the most fundamental issue of all. Since 99+% of people in American were born in America, and not running for President, the source or legality of their citizenship was never an issue because all immigrants who naturalized could hold any office, except that of the Presidency. And they enjoyed all the protections of the law. After WKA only contested cases involving foreign birth and foreign parents and foreign husbands ever came before the courts. None of them were about natural citizens unless a port official did to someone what was done to Mr. Wong. but for foreign birth, not foreign parents.

  • arnash

    ““The Constitution of the United States, like those of all the original states …presupposed the existence and authority of the common law. The principles of that law were the basis of our institutions.” Lynch v. Clarke (NY 1844)
    Common law is Civil Law, it is not Military Law nor Church Law, nor is it fundamental national philosophy. We retained common law in the absence of enacted law regarding whatever issue. BUT, we Mi>rejected the fundamental philosophy of the Monarchy.
    We abolished the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings to own everyone within his domain and adopted a new national principle based on the Law of Nature and Nature’s God, by which children belong to their parents, and wives belong to their husbands, and adult men are responsible for their nation’s survival, -not the King’s army.

    In that new civilization, children were whatever their father was. If he was an American, so were they. If he was a foreigner, so were they. It was very simple until the complication of adding citizenship for children born of foreigners but in the United States.
    It was easy to see and say that children born abroad of foreigners were not Americans, but it was a logical error to see and say that children born in America of Americans are Americans because that is an undefined ambiguous statement.

    That is equivalent to saying that babies born in their parents’ home are their children. That delineates nothing clear because it leaves open the misinterpretation that they are their children because they were born in their home. But where they were born is irrelevant, -to children and to citizenship. Natural inheritance is not dependent on geographical markers.

  • arnash

    Binney: “The common law principle of allegiance was the law of all the States at the time of the Revolution [-under the English; TRUE] and at the adoption of the Constitution,
    [FALSE. the “principle of allegiance” under the Crown ignored the duty of perpetual allegiance a foreigner owed his sovereign and considered him a subject of the Crown anyway, in effect imposing duel nationality via a presumed and imposed second allegiance.

    The United States rejected dual allegiance and only recognized the subjection under which one was born. -which was an obligation inherited from one’s father. If the father is a foreigner, then he is not an American. If he is not an American, then he is not subject to the duties and obligations of American citizenship, and his children are born subject only to his subjection, -his foreign subjection. Hence the motivation to become an American, if not for his own sake, then for his children.]

    “…and, by that principle, the citizens of the United States are, with the exceptions before mentioned, [mentioned regarding whom? CHILDREN OF FOREIGNERS!] such only as are either… born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States or ?naturalized by the authority of law,…by virtue of an act of the Congress of the United States.

    [That refers solely to immigrants and children born to them in the U.S. Naturalization for father, or jus soli citizenship for his children. No connection whatsoever to natural citizenship. It concerns only provisions for outsiders, none of whom were or are natural born citizens.]

    ” so far as the same was consistent with the law of the territory, and which, in a modified degree, was the Spanish law. ”
    “the statute law of England, down to the year 1776, and
    applicable to their constitution and circumstances,”
    “So the common law of England and the statute law of England, prior to 1760, were adopted by statute in Vermont, so far as they >b>were not repugnant to the constitution or statute law of the state. ”

    ” the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . .

    “The common law of England, applicable to our situation and government, is the law of this country, except where altered or rejected by statute, or varied by local usages,

    I think you get the picture or else you are as dense as a stone. [Now stupid junior high drop-outs can ingeniously quote that line back to me and I’ll just laugh and laugh because you are so incredibly funny. You and your whoopie cushions. Actually, whoopie cushions are pretty darn funny, and I think I have one somewhere.]

    • Dave B.

      What outhouse wall are you reading this stuff off of? Not, of course, the quotations. That other mess.

      • arnash

        I think you need to read what I wrote about 5-6 times before there’s any hope that it can penetrate the thick mental armor of your petrified biases. But I doubt there is any hope for such a mentality. It’s unmoldable by new information and new truth. Like hardened clay.

        • Dave B.

          I’m very receptive to new information, Adrien. I’m also very discerning. I can recognize junk when I read it.

          • arnash

            You are receptive to new information that confirms your bias. But anything that confuses you must be rejected. I’ve come out of left field attacking both yours and Mario’s positions, and you don’t know how to handle the truth that you weren’t prepared for. I’m not surprised. Because it is not the truth that you seek. It’s confirmation.

        • Dave B.

          Why that’s just silly. I’ve had to unlearn almost as much as I’ve learned in this whole process. When somebody contests what I believe, the first thing I have to do is see if they’re right, not if they’re wrong. Unless, of course, they just make stuff up like you do. You don’t have any kind of confirmation problem, because you don’t seem to care if anybody or anything agrees with you.

          • arnash

            No one’s opinion means squat to me. Including the nine kings in black robes. All that matters is seeing through the fog of error and misconceptions that sound really logical and persuasive but are not founded on reality. There are forms of philosophy which are inherently deceitful because they distort logic and perception of truth.

            They are the false reality that is as convincing as The Matrix. No one in the Matrix is going to tell you that you are in the Matrix. Only after you are out of it do you come to realize that the whole thing was a big fat falsehood.

            If someone inside the Matrix tells someone outside of it that it is in fact the real reality, well, what does it take to convince them otherwise? Nothing will work except leaving the Matrix and finding out it was all an elaborate illusion. That is what the issue of citizenship is like.

            It is all an elaborate illusion perpetuated for over a century as a thoroughly institutionalized error. Like the error that slavery and involuntary servitude are banned, when in fact they are both still perfectly legal. Read the 13th Amendment very, very closely and you’ll see at least part of the reason why. But everyone, including Supreme Court justices, are unaware of the truth that is there for everyone to read.

        • Dave B.

          Well, then, since we’re talking about something that only exists because it is agreed upon, Adrien, you’re nuts. That’s way past silly. You’re crazy as a betsy bug.

        • Joel L. Lawler

          Is Arnie crazy, or just a desperate racist scumbag who’ll say any stupid shit that pops into his head to defend his incredibly offensive and ridiculous ideas? Based on the evidence, I’d call it a draw.

        • Slartibartfast

          Joel,

          Why can’t it be both?

        • Joel L. Lawler

          Both it is!
          He’s actually kind of a dick, as well – a triple threat charlatan, one might say.

  • arnash

    Binney: [NOTE, This quote refers to children of immigrants only] “The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts.”
    SO TRUE! Native-born children of immigrants have no right of citizenship because it cannot descend from a father who has no citizenship except in a foreign nation. NOTE: common law contrasted with naturalization act; -both concerning the alien-born.

    “It (citizenship) is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle… Horace Binney,

    SO TRUE! The citizenship of a child of aliens is absolutely tied to birth in the country unless a legislature specially grants it. Such citizenship is equal to natural citizenship in all legal ways except one Constitutional way, the office of President.
    The same principle is the principle that both are members of American society and as such a deemed to be members of the nation also. That is one principle, but it ignores the other principle, -that being one of origin.

  • arnash

    ballantine said: “…and the supreme court, which cited Bates as being correct, made clear that jus soli was the basis of our law and, as Bates says, the basis of natural law.”

    What shear idiocy. “the basis of our law”? What law? Law governing the citizenship of aliens and children born to them. No one else. That much is provable, -anything else is pure supposition based solely on wide spread “common knowledge” (which is erroneous).

    When will it dawn on you that all such statements mistakenly conflate that which is written purely and solely for outsiders (the 3%) with what is NOT written about the 97%. THERE IS NOT LAW GOVERNING NATURAL CITIZENSHIP. The 97% do not need any law to be members because they are the ones who created the government which writes the laws on their behalf, -not to entangle and regulate them, its creator, but to govern the membership of outsiders and their children.
    If Bates actually said that jus soli was the basis of natural law then he was more stupid than someone saying that a child born in your mother’s bed is her child because it was born in her bed, -NOT because it was born to her.

  • arnash

    Ballantine wrote: “The facts are that all our states adopted the common law and all early citizenship law looked to the common law. Let me know how many authorities you would like me to cite.”

    How about one to start with. Your claim is just a claim, but even if you could cite an “authority” the question would be “what makes you think that they were truly an authority regarding all of the other states in which they were not born, did not live nor work nor study nor do business?”

    Undoubtedly, the colonies continued following the common law regarding civil cases brought before courts, but membership is not a civil matter. It’s a primal matter. A matter of belonging. Do you belong to the government or does the government belong to you?

    Many in the colonies, including many, many lawyers steeped in British law, were unable to grasp what had happened on the philosophical level in the new nation. A revolution had taken place in the fundamental role and relationship of what had always previously been “subjects”. After July 4, 1776, the only subjects still remaining in America were loyalists. Everyone else became some different. They became independent, autonomous, self-governed and self-protected CITIZENS.

    Citizens are not subjects, and nothing in the common law has any remote connection to their relationship to their nation. You think of citizens like con-jointed twins of subjects, but in fact they are only distant cousins.
    Self-owned, self-ruled, self-governed and self-defended independent men and States. At that fundamental level of State philosophy, all of the old relationships and identities were abolished. A new kind of creation emerged in America, and it rejected the reign of monarchs and dictators.

    It was not a slave to its previous master nor to the system by which he declared ownership over all those born within his property. Jus soli was dead as a mandate, but remained in some states as a gift of reasonable and beneficial self-interest. Such states did not want their native-born & raised members to be viewed as and treated as aliens or subjects or second-class “citizens” without the rights of citizens. So they were given citizenship with no strings attached.
    But in other states, all of the attention was on the mind-set of the father. Did he intend to become an American or remain a foreigner? By becoming an American then his children also automatically obtained citizenship through their jus sanguinis connection to him.
    By choosing to not be an American, he signaled to the state that he was not raising his children as Americans but as foreigners like himself.
    What sane society feels a duty to accept those inculcated with foreign ideology as being one of them? Hence, jus soli was not a government policy that such a society would see fit to continue after they were liberated from their previous tyranny.

    • David Farrar

      Great perspective, arnash. I don’t think our courts have realized yet a revolution has taken place on more than just the battlefields of Yorktown and Lexington.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • Joel L. Lawler

        Yes, what a wonderful world it would be if our courts, particularly the SCOTUS, could keep up with brilliant legal minds like Arnie and Davie.
        Just kidding. You two are a pair of ignorant morons, with no more understanding of or training in the law than a below-average middle-school student. You prevaricate and distort to support your racist bigotry. What’s worse, you pretend to know things (such as history and the law) that you don’t. That makes you both liars and charlatans, and no trained attorney or historian could care less what you have to say.

        • arnash

          You are right, soooo right. So right that you can’t possibly be wrong. After all “professionals” and “authorities” are NEVER wrong! They are ~Educated~ so that makes all the difference in the world.
          Well get a clue you deluded Piltdown-believing Luciferian. More often than not, on any major subject, the authorities all get it wrong, as they’ve done on “Climate Change”. And as they did with the theory of plate tectonics when proposed by the non-geologist Alfred Wegener ( a mere meteorologist) in 1912. That dis-credited non-expert amateur quack who dared to suggest that continents actually moved couldn’t have been right in a million years. Right?
          While you, with adulation leading to prostration before the alter of the goddess of conformity and consensus opinion, would have jointed with the other “experts” in draining the life out of President George Washington, thereby causing his premature death. You and your lemming establishment have so much to be proud of. How does your head even fit through a door?
          You’re like a bug trying to comprehend the Milky Way.

          ” no trained attorney or historian could care less what you have to say”
          Ooooo, ~not trained! Oh no! Must get training! Good sycophantic establishment adherents to the religion of academic intellectual superiority always self-admire and self-support, and self-idolize their own authoritative infallibility. But some forms of training just make new initiates who are more like “trained” monkeys than independent thinkers.

        • ramboike

          Chickenboy,

          Did you see the scathing character attack Patty da Perv posted up about you on his site. Claims you concoct all kinds of stories to make yourself out to be some kind of super-hero.

          Lmao

        • Yoel

          Of course, you’re smarter than all the REAL lawyers, aren’t you, Arnie? Better looking, too, I’d wager. I bet you’re smarter than all the doctors and college professors, too, aren’t you? Sure you are – don’t get all worked up. We’re all happy to have big smart Arnie to explain it all for us. Yes we are!
          Look up the word “irony”, Rambette – it’ll be an eye-opener for you.

        • ramboike

          I wonder if the people commenting here realize they’re in the presence of such greatness. A green beret CIA agent hitman, and cousin to Diana, Princess of Wales, was able to kill a Towelhead with his bare hands while wiping out an entire town in Georgia over a speeding ticket.

          This truly is someone who is a legend in his own mind.

        • Yoel Lawler

          Does anything seem different about me, Rambette? Think really hard!

      • arnash

        The average mind accepts the views of authorities without questioning them, much less challenging. It that were not totally true then Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan would have been impossible. But we are stuck with millions of such sheep and ever worse, those who knowingly deceive them.

        I have a question for all of the jus soli = natural citizenship crowd. Can the government revoke your citizenship if it wants to? Check mate.

        • Yoel P. Jawler

          I must invoke Godwin’s Law here, and claim victory.

        • Dave B.

          Do you know how that “average” thing works, Adrien? Where do you figure we’d find you on that scale?
          And what are you getting at with that revocation question?

          • arnash

            In regard to revocation, here’s what I just wrote to Apuzzo at his blog:

            Only fundamental truth governs fundamental matters. Not opinions, including yours or mine, nor human law. When the people and authorities are ignorant of those truths, then they follow opinions that are founded on nothing, as is your belief that natural citizenship is defined by the arbitrary opinion of men and not by the laws of language and nature.

            “…but until those natural rights and obligations of children and their parents and allegiance and citizenship were recognized and confirmed by positive law, what existed in natural law really did not matter.”

            That sounds right but is in fact incorrect. Fundamental rights are almost never written into law because they are “a priori” as the bedrock on which a legal framework is built to protect those rights and require the fulfillment of those obligations.
            There is no positive law needed for the right to life, liberty, property, family, justice, and natural group membership to be real and recognized by government as unalienable.
            Living beings enter the world with certain incontestable rights, beginning with the right to breath. Government and human law are not needed to validate that right, and thus there is no such law protecting one’s right to breath. Nor to be a member of one’s natural national group.
            Law doesn’t grant natural membership nor can it revoke it. Just ask yourself: “Can the government revoke my citizenship?” The answer is no, because it doesn’t own it. You do. Just like you own your membership in your own family. No one and no thing can revoke it, only you yourself can do that. Just as only citizens themselves can expatriate themselves.

            The ignorant government that thought as you think, for four generations thought it had the authority to revoke the citizenship of Americans who returned to live in the land of their birth after being naturalized. The entire federal establishment thought that it possessed the authority to legislate regarding the citizenship of those to whom it had given citizenship. But then something over-turned the entire apple cart and revealed the whole government for generations to be ignorant of fundamental American principles.

            That something was Afroim v Rusk. Beginning with its ruling by the Supreme Court, it began to be made clear that citizenship once given is not revokable because it no longer belongs to the government. It is no longer naturalized citizenship, because it became, via the doctrine of citizenship equivalency, natural citizenship –just like those born being Americans by nature.
            Such foreigners had been remade or reformed as natural Americans. THAT is a fundamental doctrine on which our nation is founded. It’s about time that you learned about it and recognized it.

            Congress possesses no authority over possession of citizenship except in regard to those who have no natural right to it. Children of Americans have an absolute unalienable birthright to belong to the same groups as their parents, including their racial group, ethnic group, religious group, and national group. It is not in the hands of the government or else it would not be known as “natural”. It would instead be “legal”.
            Legal citizenship is legally equivalent to natural citizenship in every way, but it is not constitutionally equal because the office of the President is not an American right. It is purely a privilege and a sacred honor. And no “legal citizen” is eligible to serve at that level and with that much power unless they have America parents.
            Nor are they entrusted with access to and control over nuclear bombs.

        • Yoel Lynn Lawler

          Wrong again, Arnie. Any child born on US soil has an absolute and unalienable right to US citizenship. Again, if you could only read without confirmation bias you’d know that from a cursory review of the 14th Amendment and Squeeky’s excellent Cliff’s notes version of WKA.
          The current twice-elected POTUS, for example, only had one American parent, but was born on US soil. He’s got “access to and control over nuclear bombs”, and lots of ’em!
          And you’re suspended from tournament play for a year for calling a false checkmate. Checkmate!

        • Dave B.

          Adrien, why are you wasting your time typing these pearls of your wisdom onto the internet when you could be chiseling them onto tablets of stone? We’re surely not worthy of receiving them, woe unto us. Perhaps some distant generation will discover your true worth. You could be a regular Hammurabi.

        • ramboike

          Lawler,

          It’s hilarious watching liberal weenie Leftys pervert Godwin’s Law so they can invoke it as an authority. I remember when the Right was using it during the Bush years.

        • Joel Lawler

          “Invoke it as an authority”? Do you even know what Godwin’s Law is, Rambette? It would seem not.

          • ramboike

            What are you claiming victory on? Only thing you’re showing is Godwin’s Law. You’re the 1st one I’ve ever seen go to the extent of misusing the intent of Godwin for a victory.

            Using Hitler is very applicable in todays politics. Also it’s a fact that you have shown yourself to have alot in common with Herr Wolf

  • Adrien Nash

    Dave B: “We’re surely not worthy of receiving them,”

    On that we can agree. But you know, the internet is a pretty big place, and everything that comes to mind that should be written ought to be written because it may never again come to anyone else’s mind, and would thus be “lost” forever. What I’ve written to you folks will one day be added to my website to illuminate others.

    In reply to Yoel, “Any child born on US soil has an absolute and unalienable right to US citizenship.”

    No, only children of immigrants have a legal (constitutional) right to citizenship. They have no absolute nor unalienable right to it, and it could in fact be repealed and then pure jus sanguinis imposed in its place.
    Outsiders and their families have no right to be accepted as members of a natural or national group to which they do not belong. As a natural principle, societies are not connected by soil but by blood (even more so than social ideology and religion).
    Answer this hypothetical: If the son of General Custer had been born in Sioux territory, on Sioux land, would he have an unalienable right to membership in the Sioux tribe? Would he have an absolute right to one day be Chief of the Sioux Nation?

    I rest my case. Check Mate.

    • Dave B.

      “What I’ve written to you folks will one day be added to my website to illuminate others.”
      Why make the world wait, Adrien? And you really ought to get on with that chiseling, too. You know, the internet might not really be forever.
      Oh, and that hypothetical of yours– is that one supposed to make sense?

      • ramboike

        Hypothetical: If the son of General Custer had been born in Sioux territory, on Sioux land, would he have an unalienable right to membership in the Sioux tribe? Would he have an absolute right to one day be Chief of the Sioux Nation?

        Ouch! The shot heard throughout Obotistan. A threatening, potentially fatal, wound has been inflicted to Obot Dogma. What will the loyal useful idiot sheeples do now? Will they look to their mind-controlling Overlords for answers or yell “man the lifeboats, time to abandon the Fool Ship Follipop ?”

    • Slartibartfast

      Adrien and Ike,

      This is your idea of an unanswerable hypothetical? That’s pathetic.

      Since it is unlikely that the Sioux tribe recognized jus soli citizenship, the child would, by statute*, inherit US citizenship from his father and might also inherit citizenship from his mother (depending on the laws of the nation of which she was a citizen).

      Can both of you try to get it through your thick heads that nations have the right to decide who they consider their citizens and how that citizenship can be acquired? This hypothetical, whatever the answer, says NOTHING about the child’s US citizenship.

      * Assuming General Custer met the conditions of the statute.

      • Adrien Nash

        You fail to grasp reality. Countries cannot decide, as they are establishing the government of their future nation, that they can make a rule that their own children do not belong to them. They can’t make a rule that they do not belong to their society, and to their future nation.
        Natural Law rules in the affairs of men because all humans are first and foremost social creatures, and social creatures cannot disenfranchise their own. So it is false that they can make any rule for national inclusion of those who are already included by nature automatically.

        The rules that they can make only involve those who are not automatically included because they are outsiders. Outsiders and their children can be accepted as members, as citizens, by the permission of law, in our case, the 14th Amendment.
        It does not apply to you unless one or both of your parents were foreigners when you were born.

        • Slartibartfast

          Countries are groups of people that have decided (or been coerced) to follow a set of rules. If a group of people forming a nation all agree that their children are not automatically citizens of the country, they are certainly within their rights and abilities to do so. The flaw in your “natural law” argument is that, since nations are agreements to abide by a given set of laws, they don’t exist in nature. Early man might have been born into a family, but they weren’t born into a nation since they didn’t exist.

          I do think, however, that you have a really good shot at having the craziest birther theory extant.

          The 14th Amendment, by the way, covers all citizens, naturalized or natural born, not just those you say are not covered by your made-up “natural law”.

          • Adrien Nash

            No society could do what you state they have the right and ability to do. What they cannot do is disenfranchise their own. Why can’t they do that? Because it is psychologically impossible. IMPOSSIBLE. Neither can societies that organize into nations do it either. It would be inhuman. Machines could do it but not humans. Could your mother gave thrown you out like you were a waste product?
            Society is a kind of mother when operating as one. The nature of how man is constituted determines the inviolability of certain bonds, and one of those bonds is a national bond. Governments have no authority to ignore or nullify those bonds because they aren’t under the purview of government control. We are not the Borg.

            Our bonds extend from mother and father to country and nation. We can’t divorce ourselves from them without very deliberate intent. But parents and governments cannot divorce themselves from their children because they are their primal responsibility. They are organically connected. That is the principle of natural membership. All other forms of membership are forms of adoption.
            No adopted citizen is eligible to be President. Obama is an adopted citizen, -not a natural citizen.

        • Joel Lawler

          Arnie’s first sentence in this post could stand alone as a definition of irony.

    • Yoel Lynn Lawler

      Wrong again, dickhead. The 14th Amendment guarantees irrevocable citizenship to any child born on US soil to any parent (except foreign diplomats and invadings soldiers, a common law concept later made clear by the SCOTUS in WKA). Legal immigrants, illegal immigrants, it doesn’t make any difference. Citizenship by birth cannot be revoked (although that doesn’t stop legislators from trying – witness s.1698 /hr3166 et al), unlike naturalized citizenship, which can be revoked under certain circumstances.
      These are the facts, Arnie. What you spout is bullshit. Check and mate, fuckface.

      • Adrien Nash

        How can I put this politely? You are a moron. The 14th Amendment guarantees nothing to anyone except children born of domiciled immigrants. Period. End of story. End of holding. It makes no exceptions for children of ambassadors or invading armies. They are not mentioned in its holding.
        As for naturalized citizenship and its revocation, it is a fundamental doctrine of the United States that naturalized citizenship does not exist. All citizenship (except provisional citizenship) is natural citizenship, making all citizens equal per the doctrine of citizenship equivalency.
        All laws to the contrary have been ruled unconstitutional, -even those in effect for generations.
        United States citizenship cannot be revoked by government because it does not own it. The citizens does. It can only be nullified by fraud committed in the dishonest taking of the oath.

        • Joel Lawler

          Keep talking, Arnie – it’s so much fun to listen to you catalogue your unique combination of stupidity and insanity.
          As always, wrong again, Arnie.

        • Joel Lawler

          You’re really fixated on Hitler, aren’t you, Arnie? That can’t be healthy, but then, you’re nuts.
          Everyone born on US soil is an insider in our little club called America, Arnie. You don’t like that because you’re a bigoted asshole, but that doesn’t make it any less true.

  • Adrien Nash

    Here’s what I just wrote to Mario:

    You make two gigantic errors, the worst of which is that you validate your misconstruence from the position that it is fact when it is not. It in fact is not supported by anything except your desire that it be fact.
    You cannot prove a supposition by claiming that it is not a supposition and therefore as a fact it is self-validating.
    First you must prove two things that you know you can’t prove. The first is that there is any historical record that your invented view (“citizen of the United States”) was the view of the framers and universally known and adopted as a term of art.
    That is impossible for two reasons. There is no record of the use of “a subject of the British Empire” being treated solely as a term of art.
    Second, there is no record of nor reason for “a citizen of the United States” to have appeared out of nowhere, in a country only a decade old, as a full-fledged “term of art”. Please explain when and how and why that happened.
    It didn’t happen. Not back then and not ever until you invented the idea.

    Your second giant error is in taking a position against sane and settled constitutional interpretation which takes words to mean what they mean, and doesn’t attach some arcane meaning to them. You have no right to toss that approach in the trash.

    In the naturalization acts, a citizen of the United States distinguishes a person from citizens of other countries. It is not enough to declare one a citizen (as opposed to a foreigner) because the nation of which one is a citizen must be stated, -otherwise ambiguity is the unwanted result.

    All white male citizens of the Union of the States who were alive before the Constitution’s adoption were eligible to serve as President, including the 2-3% who had been foreigners or born of them.

    After adoption only members of the Union (citizens of the United States) who were born as natural citizens of the state of their birth were eligible, with all other fellow citizens of the United States being barred.

    • Yoel Lynn Lawler

      Who cares what you wrote to Mario, stupid? You’re an ignorant racist bonehead (if you don’t want to take my word for it, take a look at this asshole’s website), and your opinion on citizenship, or anything else, is only valued by other boneheaded racist assholes. The only reason anyone responds to you at all is that you’re fun to mock. You’re like a dancing bear, except more pathetic.
      To sum up, fuck you and your racist unAmerican bullshit.

    • Slartibartfast

      Adrien,

      The conversation between you and Mario is like the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail fighting his clone. At this point, both of you are lying on the ground with no arms or legs threatening to gnaw each others ear off. Please continue to demonstrate that you can both rip the other person’s argument to shreds since neither has any discernable merit. It’s very amusing.

  • Adrien Nash

    Mario, like yourself, has a glass ceiling above which his mind cannot ascend. A blind spot through which his eyes cannot see. A bias blindness that is incurable and uncorrectable like a body’s immune response in rejecting beneficial medicine to cure its disease. An autoimmune response that is not in the best interest of the body but fights its own wellness.
    When being right is all that matters, truth becomes an orphan, because its rightful parents, Reason & Honesty, are slaughtered on the alter of the expedient.

    • Slartibartfast

      Adrien,

      Let’s take a timeout and talk about analogies. You suck at them. Analogies are not realistic or unrealistic, they are apt or not. Your analogies are not apt. On your blog you have a baseball analogy where you enumerate 7 strikes—if it had been apt, there would have been 3 strikes (in baseball, when a batter gets 3 strikes they are out). In a post here, you analogize the law to a game and refer to James Madison as the “game master” and “referee”. In this sense, James Madison would be the creator of the game (i.e. writer of the rules), like Abner Doubleday for baseball or James Naismith for basketball and the referee, as set forth by the rules (i.e. the US Constitution) would be the SCOTUS.

      In this case, you make some bizarre analogy to an immune response which shows you have no understanding whatsoever of what you are trying to analogize to. Please quit using these pointless and inept analogies. Not only do they make you look clueless, they add absolutely nothing to your argument because they fail to make the necessary connection between the two things you are analogizing and you always seem to make analogies to things that you just don’t understand.

      Sorry, but I just felt that someone should tell you that every time you use an analogy you seem to make a fool out of yourself. Not that the substance of your theories, such as it is, doesn’t tend to do the same thing…

      • Adrien Nash

        ” Not that the substance of your theories, such as it is, doesn’t tend to do the same thing…”

        And yet you deliberately avoided the substance of my seven strikes? Let’s see…how many did you dispute….2, or 4, or 6? How about ZERO!!!
        Why would that be? Because you would look like the fool that you’re allowing yourself to be by trying to refute facts.
        How about we only argue about facts. To do that, you have to mention some. But they are toxic to your position since they don’t support he whom you would fall on your sword to defend.

        • Slartibartfast

          Adrien,

          I was making a point about your stupid analogies, not your stupid theories. In addition, whenever one of your stupid theories is debunked, you just ignore the substance of the rebuttal and continue to say that you are correct because only you know how to interpret what the Founders really meant. We could argue about facts, but you eschew facts and citations to credible authority in favor of your own delusional ravings, so I doubt that will work. But I will at least address your “strikes”…

          1) Adrien: Big questions about his origins and no answers.

          Fact: Answers regarding his origins far more reliably established than any prior president or presidential candidate with no significant outstanding questions.

          Strike one.

          2) Adrien: But what about American-raised?

          Fact: Apart from a few years in Indonesia (which would have given a young President Obama a much better perspective on what it means to be an American than, say, a provincial bigot like yourself), President Obama spent his childhood in Hawai’i and Kansas being looked after by his American mother and grandparents. Sounds pretty American-raised to me…

          Strike two.

          3) Adrien: Hawai’i’s not ‘Merican ’nuff for me.

          Fact: Hawai’i has been a state since before President Obama was born and most people there are far more American than a seditious worm like yourself.

          Strike three. You’re out.

          Now, I could continue, but then I’d have to keep reading and considering your bile and I already feel like I need a shower to get myself clean from your narrow-minded, isolationist, bigoted, unAmerican filth. This country was set up as a democratic republic and has always been a nation of immigrants. The people, if they want to, can vote for politicians who are socialists or communists or fascists (you know, most like most Republicans these days) or whatever they like. That’s democracy. The people have seen fit to elect many people who campaigned on enacting socialist policies and these policies remain some of the most popular to this day.

          Hopefully all of the hypocrites like you that are against anyone that doesn’t look and think exactly alike will die off and leave the rest of us free to handle the serious problems we’re facing and once again make America into the exceptional nation that it has been in the past.

        • ramboike

          Slartibartfast,

          Myself and many others have laughed at you and also been shocked over your comments in the recent past here on this blog, but none of them reached the level of deceit you display here.

          I wonder, before I tear into your lying & misleading tripe, if one of your fellow Obots would like to step up to the plate, be a standup person, and correct some of it. I have no plan for being civil when I tear into it.

          I told Adrien a few days back in a post what you were all about, Here you confirm it.

        • Slartibartfast

          Ike,

          I only care about the facts and arguments made in good faith. While I’m sure that you’re working hard to make straw men out of my positions, anyone reading this with a smidgen of objectivity wont be fooled. I haven’t lied about anything, nor have I intentionally misled anyone—I seriously doubt you can honestly say the same.

  • Slartibartfast

    Adrien said “The average mind accepts the views of authorities without questioning them, much less challenging.

    You are conflating the “agent of the government” meaning of authority with the “relevant expert” meeting. Yes, you should always question the former, but the latter should be respected unless you can refute their position with the weight of greater authority or with an objective argument. You reject such authority on the basis of your own non-existent expertise, a debating tactic which is entirely dishonest, to say the least.

    • Adrien Nash

      “You reject such authority on the basis of your own non-existent expertise”

      There are no authorities in the arena of Natural Law because it is unrelated to law and government, although they are related to it, and grounded on it.
      My expertise is non-legal in nature. Rather it is merely in knowing the facts that others have not yet learned how to recognize because their minds are filled with legal thoughts and not natural thoughts.

      Their legal thoughts are nothing more than the presumptions of men who went before them and held presumptions based on the men who went before them, while none of them ever trace the origins of citizenship law back to its roots in Natural Law.
      I’ve managed to slowly do that over a long period of time, and to understand things that no one ever needed to understand because no one has ever needed to understand the nature of the citizenship of someone with the parental situation of Barack Obama.

      • Slartibartfast

        Adrien,

        No one has traced the origin of citizenship law to natural law because citizenship law didn’t have its origin there. Nations are legal fictions which are manifestly not a part of nature. You pretend to expertise due to your discovery of something which no one else has ever even heard of. That’s not expertise, it’s bullshit.

        The people agreed to follow the Constitution when they ratified it. The Constitution says that the SCOTUS is the arbiter of disputes regarding the Constitution. The state had a dispute with Mr. Wong. The SCOTUS decided that he was a natural born citizen. You can deny those things as much as you like but it doesn’t make them any less true.

        • Adrien Nash

          “No one has traced the origin of citizenship law to natural law because citizenship law didn’t have its origin there.”

          You’ve got that right, but not in the way you think. All citizenship law is law written for the issue of the national membership of foreigners and their children. Their issue is unrelated to natural law since it is purely unnatural. It is unnatural to uproot yourself, your wife and children, leave your parents and siblings, and travel half-way around the world to a new and unknown land. Citizenship law was and is written to deal with such an unnatural thing.

          As for natural citizens, -there is no law so non-existent law cannot be traced back to natural law. No law is needed because people have brains and can think. They don’t need to be told that their children belong to them and not to the State, or that they belong to the State into which they were born as children of its natives. So things don’t need to be said, and don’t need to be written either. And so they weren’t.

          “Nations are legal fictions which are manifestly not a part of nature”

          Nations that are not composed of human beings do not exist. Human beings are a part of nature, human nature in particular, and by it humans form bonds with other beings and those bonds result in relationships. One of which is family. Another of which is citizenship. Personal membership and national membership. It’s all a part of a continuum. The next higher stages are membership in the human race and then membership of the planet Earth. All relationships are expressions of natural law, -the law of how humans are wired.

          “You pretend to expertise due to your discovery of something which no one else has ever even heard of.”

          This is true and not an ideal situation. Unfortunately, there isn’t a lot I can do about it without devoting an unknown amount of time in trying to find the source of what I read and appropriated. It was found in a scanned Google Book, but a search does not locate it. It must be in something that I explored using “Advanced Search” at the bottom of the Google page (but which only appears after completing an ordinary initial search). I know I examined returns for a search for “natural citizen” and natural citizens” using the “exact words or phase” selection.
          I might have captured a screen shot, or bookmarked the page, but I can’t member since all that mattered at the moment was what I’d found. Then the Eureka! bell sounded, and I knew I’d found a Holy Grail.
          What am I talking about? “the doctrine of citizenship equivalency”. It changes everything because it explains the previously unexplainable.

          I intend to get around to finishing my exposition of what it all means from a historical legal perspective as revealed in Congressional law history and Supreme Court rulings that overturned them. I’ll call it The Da Vinci Code of Natural Citizenship.

        • Adrien Nash

          “The Constitution says that the SCOTUS is the arbiter of disputes regarding the Constitution.”
          That is incorrect. It states that it is the arbiter of disputes of law and equity arising UNDER the Constitution, -not “regarding” the Constitution. The language of the authority of the court does not envision disputes about the Constitution, hence the number of words devoted to the courts is only around 350 more or less, while the number devoted to Congress is about 7 times that. By the view of the Constitution, everyone that takes an oath to uphold it is an interpreter of what it means, principally the Congress and the President.

          The state had a dispute with Mr. Wong.”

          You oversimplify it just beautifully. “the state”? How about the entire executive branch of the United States federal government? Would you think that they, the experts, including the Attorney General and all of his highly schooled and experienced lawyers would know what the law of the land was and what the Constitution meant. How on earth could they have taken a view and an opinion that was opposite of what the six justices decided on? Because of AMBIGUITY! It was rampant! Nothing was clear except what had always been the executive policy. Note: POLICY! Not LAW! Policy is not law even though it is executed as if it is, including IRS rules and departmental policies of a millions sorts.
          Mr. Wong, and his wise and experienced lawyer (former Attorney General I believe) saw things differently and realized the vulnerability of the government’s position due to the ambiguity of the 14th Amendment’s language.

          “The SCOTUS decided that he was a natural born citizen.”

          That’s the end of the road for me. If you are so delusional as to believe that statement then there is nothing that will open your lock-jawed mind. You might as well join obama’s harem and be like his presstitute media that can’t find a single thing wrong with anything about him or his actions and inactions.
          May your chains rest lightly on your wrists and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

      • Joel Lawler

        What exactly is your expertise, Adrien?

        • Adrien Nash

          What is the expertise of the Supreme Court justices? They usually split along purely ideological grounds, often 4-5. Mark Levine just said as I sit here: “I’ve read some of these opinions, in making a living, and some of them are just so outrageous and outlandish…” So what does “expertise have to do with matters that are issues of either understanding or of ideology.
          I’ve come to an understanding that no one else arrived at because no one else has traveled the path that I have. The perspective I’ve arrived at is of philosophical landscape that hasn’t been seen since the founding fathers saw it and embraced it, and founded the nation on it. Few have seen it since.
          I don’t adhere to an ideology, -only to a preference, and that is that the rule of actual law prevail as long as it is not unconstitutional.
          I reject the authority of all laws that violate the Constitution, along with SCOTUS opinions that do likewise. The only hope for rule of law is if the States defend the supremacy of the Constitution by nullifying unconstitutional acts of Congress and the courts. Otherwise, the abandonment of the Constitution will only accelerate since it means nothing to Congress, and little to half of the Supreme Court.
          If we do not take a Spartan stand against the subservient armies of Xerxes who admire and yield to the authority of power and contribute to its increase and advance, then the power of the government will increase inexorably and exponentially until we all wake up one day are realized we’ve been conquered from within.

          • Joel Lawler

            You didn’t answer the question, Adrien, so I’ll pose it again. What exactly is your expertise, Adrien?

            • Adrien Nash

              My “expertise” is in the realm of logical thought, the structure of sentences, the ambiguity of words, the principles of social life and national obligation, the examples of and analogies to Natural Law, the principles of Natural Rights, and the elements & structures of human nature including the origin of impulses from below the sub-conscious level.

            • Dave B.

              And I’m Madame Curie.

            • th3bt

              If your expertise is in the structure of sentences, then you can explain the following sentence:

              Fish fish fish fish fish.

              A bracket diagram would be my choice, but if you are an expert then you could do a top down tree. Maybe you can explain the lexical ambiguity. This is actually a very basic exercise in the science of sentence structure, so an expert will have no problems.

              With your laughable attempt to explain the pronunciation of height, on your site, fresh on my mind, I seriously doubt you even know what linguistic disciplines are involved in your claims.

              You claim to have expertise. Prove it.

  • Adrien Nash

    “Fact: Hawai’i has been a state since before President Obama was born and most people there are far more American than a seditious worm like yourself.”

    I just had dinner with my sister who, while looking at my 7 Strikes exposition online, confirmed what I’d written since she has lived in and had children in both Hawaii and Alaska. She said that the attitude in Hawaii is “a world unto itself”. How “mainland America” does that sound like to you?
    See, there is a different between simply and childishly spouting factoids and actually understanding reality.

    As for seditious worms, the founding fathers were definitely seditious worms of a sort you would gladly have betrayed to autocratic government overlords who were crushing them with Obama-like regulations and usurpations.

    “The people, if they want to, can vote for politicians who are socialists or communists or fascists…”

    And what would be the result? The same thing that we are seeing in Egypt? Democratically electing tyrants with no respect for democracy whatsoever; aka the Muslim Brotherhood. Their brand of authoritarianism isn’t all that different from that of the obamunists except in degree.
    Apparently you love having others direct and order your life for you. You could make a great military person, but you make a horrible civilian.

    • Slartibartfast

      Adrien,

      I have a great respect for the Founders—unlike you, who disrespects the system they put in place at every turn. They were great men. Hopefully the great American experiment they started will survive people like you.

      Plato saw the inevitable result of a republic as tyranny—something that is very easy to envision as a result of electing more Republicans like George Bush and Dick Cheney. Anyone who did not expect groups like the Muslim Brotherhood to win democratic elections in the Middle East is a fool. Those groups are popular so they will win elections. The US doesn’t get to tell foreign countries who they should elect as their leaders—many of the problems in the Middle East are a result of the US trying to interfere in their governance. I think that, in the long term, democracy in that region will be a good thing, but no matter what we do it’s going to be a bumpy ride for a while and that right now we should leave them alone because history teaches us that whenever we try to meddle we just make things worse.

      As for the various -isms, I merely point out that the people have the right to choose the leaders they wish to vote for, regardless of those leader’s political views. If we keep electing politicians who favor lassiez-faire capitalism and deregulation, we will end up as serfs in a corporate feudalism controlled by the monied interests funding those politicians.

      Personally, I don’t enjoy having others direct and order my life—a favorite quote of mine is, “A free individual is society’s greatest friend, society is a free individual’s greatest enemy” (it’s a Buddhist quote, but I don’t recall exactly where it’s from). I’m generally very pragmatic in who I vote for (as Robert Heinlein said, the choice between bad and worse is much more important than the choice between good and better), and, historically speaking, business does better under the Democrats than it does under the Republicans (especially small business) and, in recent history (since 1980), we have only exhibited responsibility with regard to the national debt during Democratic administrations—for instance, every year in which the Bush administration was involved in writing the budget, the deficit increased, so far, every year the Obama administration has been involved in writing the budge, the deficit has decreased (a trend which is projected to continue, by the way).

      You can keep making straw men of my positions, but it wont change the fact that they are based on the empirical evidence (as a scientist, I am constantly testing my ideas to determine if they stand up to scrutiny), my understanding of how dynamical systems work (one of the areas of concentration in my graduate studies in math and I wrote my thesis on feedback systems), and my ethical beliefs (I’m an atheist who follows the teachings of Jesus).

      If you want to change my mind on a topic, it’s easy: just make a better scientific or ethical argument about it than I can. Good luck.

    • Joel Lawler

      Hawaii is America, Adrien. It doesn’t matter whether you or your sister understand that.
      Since you dislike democracy so much, why not emigrate to one of the many non-democratic countries in the world? I’m sure that you and your anti-American views could find many safe ports-of-call. You could probably get a deal similar to the one that traitor Snowden got. Think about it.

  • anotherparadox

    Wow, Squeeky. You have some people that are really smart and some people that are just plain dumb. Adrien Nash rejects the decisions of the Supreme Court because he knows more than they do. Too bad it doesn’t matter what A Nash thinks.

    As far as Mario, I’ve had these conversations with him on Amazon. He will never, ever agree that Wong Kim Ark is precedent when it comes to the definition of nbC.

    But if any birther wants to read the dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Fuller, it is clear that he did not agree with the majority because it meant that Wong Kim Ark could one day become president.

    Squeeky has written this many times before but she’s too “arsty farsty” for Mario. Mario needs to go back to handling DUI cases. The more he writes about the subject, the dumber he gets.

    • ramboike

      How can WongKimArk set a precedent for the definition of natural born citizen when SCOTUS wasn’t tasked to do so?

      • Reality Check

        That’s easy. The court had to find he was a natural born citizen in order for him to be a citizen at all since Wong could not be a naturalized citizen by law.

        • Reality Check

          Law journals at the time ran articles that showed they clearly understood the implications of the WKA ruling and presidential eligibility. Funk & Wagnalls: President Obama is Eligible

        • Adrien Nash

          That answer is almost too juvenile to even respond to, but I’ll lower myself into the pig pen anyway just so no non-thinker is deceived by your stupidity.

          “a naturalized citizen by law” refers to naturalization law. NOT to the United States Constitution and its amendments, -the 14th in particular. Naturalization-at-birth has nothing to do with any statute about the naturalization process.
          Are you really too dense to grasp such an elementary fact? A third grader can differentiate the two. Man! I’m outa here. This is just too damn juvenile.

          • Reality Check

            “Naturalization by birth” is not a phrase I seem to find in relation to United States citizenship in the body of law. It exists in the minds of demented Birthers desperate to show President Obama is ineligible retroactively. It was made up in desperate times by morons.

            • Adrien Nash

              Your lame misquote reveals the massive extent of your ignorance of what is being discussed. No one has ever written “Naturalization by birth” until you just mistakenly misquoted me. Why don’t you do your ignorance a favor and actually read what I wrote? If you did then you would understand and agree with it.
              Naturalization by birth is an oxymoron. Naturalization is only and always by law, never birth. I wrote of naturalization AT birth! I now have to resort to capitals because you are too dense to comprehend the significance of italics. AT birth, meaning FROM birth, not BY birth.
              You are supposedly a male by birth, and not a male At birth. So the question is are you an American BY birth or merely AT birth via the authority of the 14th Amendment? The answer is determined by who your father was. An America or a foreigner?

          • Joel Lawler

            You are more than welcome to stop bothering us with your idiotic racist bullshit, Adrien.

        • ramboike

          Reality Check,

          Will you provide for me without any spin, the exact statement in the majority decision, where the court is saying Wong is a natural born citizen?

          Didn’t we do this a year ago on Woodman’s blog?

      • Slartibartfast

        Ike,

        To expand upon what RC said, the court was asked to determine if Mr. Wong was or was not a citizen. The court was also told (by Congress*) that Mr. Wong was not a naturalized citizen. If you read the majority and minority opinions, it is very clear that everyone in the courtroom knew that the court had been tasked to determine if Mr. Wong was a natural born citizen or not a citizen at all. Those were the only options. For any intelligent, honest, and objective person reading the opinions there can be no doubt of this. The ongoing denialism of the birthers only speaks to their lack of integrity.

        * In the form of the Chinese exclusion act

        • Adrien Nash

          The only issue before the court was the meaning of what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant because it was the only fact being contested regarding the 14th Amendment since there was no doubt that Wong was born in the United States.
          The court completely ignored the one issue before it and used an illegitimate justification to arrive at the correct ruling, which over-turned the policy of the United States government since its creation. That was that foreigners were not subject to the central obligation of citizens, -namely; national defense.
          I’ve explained the truth at great length in dozens of expositions, including the one I just completed titled: THE QUASI-CITIZENSHIP OF WOMEN AND IMMIGRANTS.
          I’ll be posting to my blog in a few days for anything who wants to understand the mystery of the 14th Amendment’s real meaning. It makes everything crystal clear. It answers the questions that no one has even thought to ask.

          • Reality Check

            If the only issue was under the jurisdiction why did Justice Gray use most of the decision to talk about English common law and birth right citizenship?

            • Adrien Nash

              I’ve read some real eye-opening answers to that question but I don’t have the urls handy. But in a nut-shell, one of the purposes was to avoid discussing all of the court’s stare decisis which contradicted the ruling they were intent on giving.
              Just as another reason was to avoid discussing or allowing consideration of the stated intent and literally stated meaning of the language as revealed by its authors. What they said would have been fatally toxic to their intended ruling, and so it was barred. Hence, if you can’t arrive at a legitimate ruling based on the established practices of constitutional interpretation, then you have to saturate your analysis with the irrelevant fog of irrelevant history under the false pretense that old medieval traditions of a royal dictatorship governed the fundamental issue of national membership in a free democratic republic composed of free Citizens and not enslaved subjects.
              It was a bull-fighters red-cape “hey, look over here” distraction when since it was so amazingly exhaustive came across as amazingly authoritative, when it was mainly just smoke. But there was some fire in that smoke and it was proof that without subjection, children of foreigners were not subjects because their fathers were not subject.
              But the complicated reality is that everyone let the ambiguous language of the amendment go unchallenged in order to get enough votes to pass it, which was exceedingly difficult and even unconstitutional. They knew that sometime in the future the Supreme Court would rule that the words meant what they decided they meant and ignore the view of the authors. It was only a matter of time. Thirty years.

            • Adrien Nash

              Don’t you just love analogies?! Here’s one you’ll treasure:

              General Custer’s pregnant wife accompanies him and the 7th Cavalry into Sioux territory. She goes into premature labor and delivers a health baby boy, George II. His dad survives the battle of the Little Bighorn and goes on to raise his son to hate the Sioux Nation, of which he is a member since they incredibly are forced to follow their brain-dead ancient custom of ascribing automatic tribal membership to any child born on their land. So George II grows up to hate his Sioux “brothers” and one day returns to their territory with great stores of modern products which he uses to bribe his way into being chosen their Chief.
              Once he is installed he goes about winning their trust, until one night he uses a lantern to signal to a distant army waiting to do what he’d dreamed of all of his life, pay them rotten savages back for the untimely death of his over-stressed mother.
              The army invades and kills or captures the entire tribe. Mission accomplished, and all thanks to jus soli membership which required the Sioux Nation to not only accept an outsider as one of their own, but to even allow such a one to be their Chief (following the brain-dead logic that the territoriality factor is somehow a “natural” factor while his parents are essentially irrelevant being merely a non-natural factor is his existence.)
              Lesson: to whom you are born means nothing. Where you are born means everything. Who couldn’t agree with that? So let’s ignore that nagging question of how in the world George II could be considered to be a natural born Sioux native.

              End of lesson. Lower the curtains. Turn off the lights. Lock the doors. Truth & Reason win the day.

            • Slartibartfast

              Sheesh! First off, that isn’t an analogy, it’s a hypothetical. Second, it’s a stupid hypothetical. Finally, it’s fallacious.

              Law in the Sioux nation doesn’t trace itself back to the English common law and Calvin’s case. There isn’t any “ancient custom” of jus soli citizenship beyond the common law and certainly not anything which would apply to the native tribes.

              This may be a new level of idiocy even for you. How pitiful. It must be terrible for you to feel so impotent in a world you lack the intellectual gifts to comprehend.

            • Joel Lawler

              A new level of idiocy and racism way to go, Arnie!

            • Adrien Nash

              I see that I still have a tab open that is one of the sites I was thinking of: Wong Kim Ark’s Ship Comes to Port – Justice Horace Gray’s Miscarriage of Justice

              By William Buchanan
              Published in The Social Contract
              Volume 22, Number 2 (Winter 2011-2012)
              Issue theme: “AAAS – American Association for the Advancement of Silence?”

              http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_22_2/tsc_22_2_buchanan_printer.shtml

              It is EXTREMELY eye-opening.

            • Slartibartfast

              I followed your link and would point out this quote from Lord Coke: “Whatsoever is due by the law or constitution of man, may be altered; but natural ligeance or obedience to the Sovereign cannot be altered … Again, whatsoever is due by the Law of Nature, cannot be altered … ligeance and obedience of the subject to the Sovereign is due by the Law of Nature; ergo it cannot be altered.

              So, in other words, the Law of Nature is jus soli. Kind of destroys your entire argument that there is some unwritten Law of Nature that natural citizenship only descends from the father, doesn’t it.

              I would also point out that the author doesn’t seem to dispute that someone born in President Obama’s situation is a natural born citizen.

            • Adrien Nash

              Today I spent a couple hours writing the build-up to fully addressing the issue you raise in that “Law of Nature” quote. Now that I’ve laid the ground work to the subject, I need to address the issue itself. Soon I hope. It will blow that whole mind-set apart. Its title is The Supremacy of the King versus the Rights of Man

              Look for it in the future.

            • Slartibartfast

              Adrien,

              Just to be clear, I generally don’t read your trash. It seems to be equal parts nonsense, bigotry, and outright lies. None of what I’ve read has provided any reason to believe that you know what you are talking about and your many severe breaks with reality strongly suggests otherwise. There’s really no reason for anyone but your lickspittles to do anything but ignore your blog completely.

          • Slartibartfast

            Adrien,

            “Quasi-citizenship of women”? What a misogynistic twit you are. The SCOTUS declared Virginia Minor a natural-born citizen, not a “quasi-citizen” (whatever stupid thing you mean by that). She clearly would have been Constitutionally eligible for the presidency even though she couldn’t have voted for herself.

            • Adrien Nash

              You’ll be taking a trip back in time when you finally read about the quasi-citizenship of women and immigrants. I’ve written tons about it already, but today’s exposition was from a new angle. You need to grasp the fact that your modern mindset and viewpoint is completely disconnected from real history in the real world. Have you not yet read about the Naturalization Act of 1907? (as an example)

      • Northland10

        How can WongKimArk set a precedent for the definition of natural born citizen when SCOTUS wasn’t tasked to do so?

        How can Minor v Happersett be precedent?

        • Adrien Nash

          Both camps are idiots. Dicta is not holding. Dicta is not precedent. Mario’s fantasy definition of natural born citizen has no SCOTUS authority, neither does Wong provide immigrants’ children with natural citizenship. Dummies on the left and dummies on the right. The truth is in the middle.

          • Joel Lawler

            Yes, Adrien – if only everyone was as smart as you they’d understand.
            What an asshole!

            • Adrien Nash

              See, now that is the attitude that preventsunderstanding. It’s all a matter of attitude, -not smarts. A fifth grader can understand perfectly what is right in front of your eyes but rejected by your “I already know everything!” attitude. It doesn’t take smarts to know that a native-born person and a natural citizen are two different things.

              As for my website, you are a big fat deceitful liar with your false claim that “There are many Nazi images on your site,”. There is in fact one small image of a poster that I made which links to the full-size image which contains text that I added to each photo in the poster, -a poster that you have stubbornly and stupidly refused to click on. Click on it, read it’s comments, and then I’ll readily accept your sincere apology. I’ve already given you the link twice. I won’t do it a third time.

    • Adrien Nash

      “Adrien Nash rejects the decisions of the Supreme Court ”

      I do? Regarding citizenship? Actually, it is you who reject their decision which was quite specific in its holding that children of immigrants are U.S. citizens per the words of the 14th Amendment. You and your ilk choose to unconstitutionally expand on what they ruled to included every kind of foreigner under the sun whose wife delivers a child on U.S. soil.

      The Wong court would be aghast as what such a bastardized version of its opinion has wrought. They could scarcely believe it. Children of illegal invaders being viewed as United States citizens? Children of foreign tourists being viewed as United States citizens? Such people have no connection to America nor its government. How could their children be seen as being Americans when they are foreigners?

  • Reality Check

    Y’all need to ask Adrien to explain to you how Barack Obama was born in Vancouver.

  • Northland10

    Since Adrian and others are so big into what they think is “natural law” and citizenship, let’s look at somebody’s discussion of Natural Law and citizenship. Who can we look to? How about Lord Coke.

    “And the reason hereof is, for that God and nature is one to all, and therefore the law of God and nature is one to all. By this law of nature is the faith, ligeance, and obedience of the subject due to his Sovereign or superior…. This law of nature, which indeed is the eternal law of the Creator, infused into the heart of the creature at the time of his creation, was two thousand years before any laws written, and before any judicial or municipal laws.”

    and

    [I]f the obedience and ligeance of the subject to his sovereign be due by the law of nature, if that law be parcel of the laws, as well of England, as of all other nations, and is immutable, and that [the] postnati and we of England are united by birth-right in obedience and ligeance (which is the true cause of natural subjection) by the law of nature, it followeth that Calvin the plaintiff.., cannot be an alien born …. [F]or… the law hath wrought… a union of ligeance and obedience of the subjects of both kingdoms, due by the law of nature…. [A]nd this in substance is but a uniting of the hearts of the subjects of both kingdoms one to another, under one head and sovereign.

    You can read a scholar’s interpretation in Natural Law and Birthright Citizenship in Calvin’s Case (1608) written by Polly Price at the Emory School of Law.

    Even after a cursory, re-read of her article, I am reminded that every attempt to redefine natural citizenship to one based on descent has been done to restrict “others” from being citizens, despite their birth in this country (blacks, Chinese, recent Hispanic immigrants, etc.).

    • Slartibartfast

      Oh noes! Northland10 how could you? Adrien will be crushed!

      But wait a sec…

      This is written down somewhere so by Adrien’s rules it can’t be the really real natural law, just the biased interpretation of some person (who isn’t Adrien). *whew*

      Once again, if Adrien were a little more honest or a little less delusional…

    • Adrien Nash

      How ironic. You laugh, as you should at that religious based defense of monarchy and its Divine Right of Kings doctrine which was derived from various scriptures via an elaborate web of logical connections, none of which are related to “the Law of Nature and Nature’s God” by which “all men are created equal” (and that doesn’t mean equally subservient to the all-powerful Lord and Master, his royal Majesty, whose system you are defending with every ounce of your strength).
      Why would you want to defend such a monstrosity? Because it defends your lord and savior B.O. You are a pimp for jus soli slavery, which declares that you are owned by the estate or plantation master on whose property you were delivered from the womb.
      The womb…what does a womb have to do with birth and life and natural relationships? Nothing! It is all governed by the soil. Yes, the soil is the great determiner of everything. The few seconds or minutes during which one exited that meaningless womb are all-important for the rest of your life. If you could erase those minutes, then how would anyone know who you belong to? Everything, family membership and national membership, are all dependent on the very brief womb-exit event. Without those minutes you wouldn’t belong to your mother and father nor their nation because you blood connection to them is out-of-sight, out-of-mind. It’s all about where she was when “it” happened. Geography Rules! Biology is irrelevant. Makes perfect sense, to a robot.

      “every attempt to redefine natural citizenship to one based on descent…” Have you lost your mind? Apparently so if you think that natural connections are intimately connected with geography. Natural citizenship is natural national membership. Membership based on the caprice of a royal dictator and the boundaries of his royal property have exactly what to do with nature and natural anything? Talk about redefining.
      Jus soli is membership disconnected from nature because the nature that membership is connected to is human nature, not geographical nature.

    • ramboike

      Unbelievable? Nope. Coming from the Obama Zombies it’s believable.

      Northland reaches back into history to find an argument for perpetual subjugation, a form of slavery, and fellow zombies drool over what might have been. Their comments suggests something tyrannical/fascist in nature is at work inside their minds.

      Thank God that our Founders, with the crafting of the Declaration, changed us from subjects to citizens, and thus saying good riddance to that part of ECL.

      Polly Price is established in liberal academia and was endorsed by Justice Ruth Ginsburg and Bill Clinton.

      • Slartibartfast

        Ike,

        You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

        Don’t you think it is curious that there are “Obama Zombies” who oppose President Obama’s policies but still rip birther arguments to shreds on a regular basis, but there isn’t a single birther who says “I really like President Obama and his policies but I wont support him because I don’t believe he is eligible”?

        • Northland10

          I have been trying to post a link to John Woodman’s article, “Natural Law, Calvin’s Case and the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” but it keeps getting lost when I post the comment. A quick Google search by the title will bring it up.

          Does somebody think John is an Obama Zombie?

          • Slartibartfast

            Northland10,

            You are making the assumption that birthers think.

          • ramboike

            Professor Northland,

            I tried several times to post that link for you but it won’t take.

            Woodman was a strange creature. He called himself a conservative and a member of the Tea Party while at the same time joined in with the Obots smearing Conservatives, Republicans, and Birthers as racists.

            From a historical perspective I found alot of errors in his opinion & theory articles.

        • ramboike

          Slartibartfast

          Since you didn’t name it I’ll assume you are referring to “fascist”. The reason I added tyrannical along with it is so you’d get an idea of how I was using it. In modern times {post WWII] the term has become synonymous with the term “Bully” and is being applied to governments, groups, and people who act in such a way.

          Ripping Birther arguments is a delusion of grandeur in your own mind. You proved it when you went about a dozen posts spinning over a simple request. The Birther argument stood.

          I can’t speak for any Birther, but for myself, I have the utmost contempt for your Dear Leader.

  • David Farrar

    The fact that a definition of a natural born Citizen is missing from the US Const. wasn’t an oversight, or a simple laps in judgement. The founders, framers and ratifiers of the US Const., even the colonial (man) in the street knew perfectly well what a ‘natural’ born subject was before the American revolution.

    After the War of Independence, the republican constitutional theory conceived of the individual as a Citizen and assigned sovereignty to the people. Therefore, to find the proper definition of a “natural born citizen”, we must look at this enigmatic phrase, not through the eyes of a subject, but through the eyes of a sovereign.

    As sovereigns, their children would inherit their sovereignty from their father (partus sequitur patrem). As sovereigns, they were natural born subjects wherever their birth occurred, as natural law dictates.

    This definition then of an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen was reinforced by the definition provided for US citizens born overseas in the first Naturalization Act of 1790. Being the first after the US Const. was ratified only a few short months earlier, most scholars see this definition as the only closest to the definition the delegates to the constitutional convention had in their mind when they unanimously adopted the phrase into the US Const.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Reality Check

      Gee David that comment looks familiar. Oh I know why. You posted exactly the same drivel at my blog. I suppose I should post the same reply.

      David Farrar said

      The fact that a definition of a natural born Citizen is missing from the US Const. wasn’t an oversight, or a simple laps in judgement. The founders, framers and ratifiers of the US Const. knew perfectly well what a ‘natural born’ subject was before the American revolution.

      Well that paragraph was OK but then you devolved into your magic sovereign citizen bullcrap.

      The people who wrote the Constitution were well aware of what the term natural born had meant for over 100 years in English common law. That is why several state documents used the terms “natural born subject” and “natural born citizen” interchangeably after the Declaration and even after the ratification of the Constitution.

      No, the language of the Naturalization Act of 1790 does not help your case either as you, Apuzzo, and others have been shown many times.

    • Whatever4

      If the Framers and Signers of the Constitution had made a significant philosophical leap from subject to citizen, there would be essays and pamphlets about it. If they had changed the definition of natural born from the way they had thought about it for the prior 150 years as subjects of Britain, there would be contemporaneous writings. Where are they?

      • Adrien Nash

        “If they had changed the definition of natural born from the way they had thought about it for the prior 150 years as subjects of Britain, there would be contemporaneous writings.”

        “natural born”? What exactly is or was a “natural born”? I never heard of one. It’s hard to think about something that you can’t identify. I’m familiar with a natural subject (one born of subject parents, -without which one is not subject); and a born subject (one who was a subject either from birth via birth to foreigners, or a subject by birth via birth to natural subjects).
        By simple extrapolation, it doesn’t take a genius to realized that one who was born of natural subjects is a natural born subject. Duh. How exactly did that change in the United States aside from the fact that no one was anymore a subject? Who would need to read a book in order to understand something so simple?

        As for the switch from subject to citizen, well that was significant, but who was qualified to write about it? Very few since most were thoroughly steeped in and indoctrinated with thinking of them self and others as subjects. But if you read some of the statements made by our founders, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, they are shocking. It didn’t take many words to convey their views about human nature and the dangers of government.

        But what you speak of is above that level and outside of the realm of mere human nature. It’s from a philosophical plane. One on which men did not live, and hence did not feel compelled to contemplate. But they thought about it a hell of a lot leading up to committing treason against the most powerful government on Earth. You can be sure, they got their philosophical ducks in a row before pulling that trigger.