Friday, June 12, 2009

A day in the life of a dyed-in-the-wool true believing Obamabot

Dr. Keyes posted an article at Loyal to Liberty titled Obama's Stubborn Coverup Leads to Civil Rights Violations. While I think there's a problem with the article that Chiu Chunling deals with pretty effectively in a couple of comments under the entry, the focus of this post is on the topic of Hussein Obama's eligibility generally, and the self-important arrogant, blatant stupidity of his citizen-defenders particularly.

Commenter smrstrauss writes:

Re: "Barak Obama is not an American citizen at all, having made legal declarations of foreign nationality after attaining his majority."

If you have proof of this, show it. If you are referring to the allegation that Obama became an Indonesian citizen and used an Indonesian passport, a simple telephone call to the Indonesian Embassy in Washington should confirm or deny this. I did call, but please make your own telephone call to check me, and Indonesian authorities say that he was never a citizen and hence never had an Indonesian passport.

TM responds:

I did call, but please make your own telephone call to check me, and Indonesian authorities say that he was never a citizen and hence never had an Indonesian passport.

And you take them at their word, eh? What complete idiocy. It's on the level of thinking that presumes the average American citizen is privvy to the same information and intelligence as the POTUS, or the Congress for that matter.

Why would the Indonesian government (or any of its agents) divulge any information they have - good, bad, or indifferent - about Hussein Obama to little 'ol insignificant you, or me, or any other private American citizen for that matter? What (Indonesian) interest could such a thing possibly serve? You do realize, do you not, that the Indonesian government is most partial to serving its own interests, or what it perceives as its own interests? To do otherwise would be tantamount to treason.

I'm reminded of a discussion I had with a certain Native American commenter at my blog some time back related to this same topic. He said to me, after I'd pointed out the clear anti-American implications of his previous statements, that he had been invited to the White House as a delegate from his tribe (by a Republican president, no less), and that therefore (non Sequitur anyone?) he could have no ambition of destroying America as we've always known it through the "change" agent Hussein Obama. I simply pointed out to him, as I point out in this particular instance, what a laughable argument he was making, as if to say that no-one with ill-intentions towards the United States has ever darkened the door of the White House, under a Republican administration or otherwise.

Again, pure unadulterated idiocy.

Put on your hip-waders y'all, because it's fixin' to get pretty deep in here.

smrstrauss replies:

Re: "and you take them at their word."

Actually, yes. Indonesia has become a Democracy over the last few years, and I have always found the Indonesian people caring courteous and polite. And, like the folks at the Economist and the Far Eastern Review, I really believe that Indonesia is now a democracy. [TM: He/she finds the Indonesians to be caring, courteous and polite. AND he really believes that Indonesia is now a democracy! On these bases does he believe that the Indonesian Embassy would divulge sensitive personal information about Hussein Obama to a private U.S. citizen, over the phone, by simple request. Indeed, they're ready and willing to freely give this information out to any and all comers. All you need to do is let your fingers do the walking. Dear Lord!]

Moreover, they have no reason to lie. [TM: **rolls eyes**] If Obama had become an Indonesian citizen, that is good for Indonesia. It makes the citizens proud. And, it is only you who allege that if Obama had become an Indonesian citizen he would lose US citizenship. No, he would not lose US citizenship. He would become a dual national, and there is nothing in the Constitution that bars a dual national (much less one who was once a dual national) from being president. [TM: insert William James quote here.]

You may disagree with this, but most of us believe it, and the Indonesian authorities are likely to be among this group. If they believe that Obama cannot be affected by having dual nationality in Indonesia (as I do), they have no reason to lie and say that he was never a citizen. [TM: Wow!, why didn't I think of that? The Indonesian government has no reason not to divulve to every Tom Dick and Harry who comes along and requests it, any and all information they have on Obama's relationship to their country. Duh!] They have just as much motive to lie and say that he was a citizen even if he wasn't. [TM: Sure, contradicting Obama's own statements on the matter. But no matter, were it true it would be something for the Indonesians to be proud of. Thus the benefits would far outweigh the costs of a friendly foreign nation officially contradicting an acting president of the United States. Allow me another outburst -- DEAR GOD!!!]

The flip side of this is that you have no proof that he was an Indonesian or had an Indonesian passport. There are claims that in order to get into an Indonesian school you had to be an Indonesian citizen. But this is simply not true. There were schools that accepted foreign students, so it wasn't against the law. Moreover, in the schools that did require you to be an Indonesian citizen, it was easy enough to just say that you were an Indonesian citizen and get away with it--no requirement for proof. [TM: Oh, so he's a liar in any event. Must be that Muslim bloodline.]

Finally, it was actually difficult to become an Indonesian citizen specifically because the did not accept dual nationalities. Since a US child cannot renounce US citizenship, and the Indonesian authorities know that, if they made him an Indonesian they would be creating a dual national, and since they did not accept dual nationality, they would not nationalize US children--only US adults, who were legally entitled to renounce citizenship.

There is absolutely no evidence that Obama became an Indonesian citizen and the Indonesian government says that he was never an Indonesian citizen. [TM: Yeah, you already told us about your phone call to the embassy.] There isn't even proof that he was adopted by his stepfather. If he had, there would have to be a document proving it filed in a district court in Indonesia. [TM: Ya don't say. But wait, they say there isn't any such document, I almost forgot. And, of course, since the Indonesians are such a selfless, caring, and dare I say honest democracy, they could never be part of any coverup protecting Obama's infamous past. That is, if he had one.]

TM replies:

No, he would not lose US citizenship. He would become a dual national, and there is nothing in the Constitution that bars a dual national (much less one who was once a dual national) from being president.

Let me give you a free piece of advice:

If you're going to defend Hussein Obama against accusations of ineligibility based on Article II, U.S. Constitution (and all laws made in pursuance thereof, etc.), then you should at very least get on the same page with the folks at FighttheSmears.com. As it is you contradict the clear implications of the postings on the site itself, to wit:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.”


Ask yourself this very simple question: If there's no prohibition against a dual "national" serving as Chief Executive Officer of the United States, and perhaps more importantly, if the Obama camp truly believes that no such prohibition in U.S. law exists, then what would be the point of Fight the Smears posting an excerpt from an article specifically addressing the question of dual citizenship and denying that he retains dual citizenship status in the first place? Moreover, why wouldn't they just answer the accusation the way you did if this were the case?

And...

you think, because you think that Indonesia is a democracy, that their status as a democracy means that they're automatically going to divulge personal information about the current occupant of the White House to a private U.S. citizen whose motives they can have no knowledge of if there's any potential whatsoever of such information negatively affecting his presidency, and/or the relationship between the U.S. and Indonesia? You must be completely outside your mind.


End of initial entry.

90 comments:

smrstrauss said...

Obama was never an Indonesian citizen. Not only the Indonesian government but the US government, through the State Department,says that he was never a citizen of Indonesia.

And, there is NO proof that he was ever a citizen of Indonesia.

(The allegation that you had to be a citizen of Indonesia to attend school there turns out to be false.)

Terry Morris said...

smrstrauss,

Very impressive. I mean, really - you say it all with such conviction, and you seem so very sure of yourself. Of course, who wouldn't be that had gotten it straight from the horses mouth?

smrstrauss said...

I notice you haven't said anything to the contrary.

chiu_chunling said...

Because it doesn't matter whether he was a citizen of Indonesia when he lived there, what matters is that he is not a citizen (let alone a 'natural born' citizen) of the United States.

Someone (other than me) posted a comment to that effect recently. The point is not what the laws of Indonesia might say about considering minors citizens for various purposes, the point is that Obama legally affirmed that he was not a citizen of the United States to obtain certain benefits available to foreigners. He was an adult when he did so. As it so happens, the facts underlying his assertion are (mostly) not in dispute, so that affirmation is not fraudulent (as it would have been had I made such a declaration for whatever reason).

You keep turning the argument to irrelevancies because the central issue is not as you wish. Well too bad. I'm not a citizen of the moon-fairy kingdom*, and thus you can't prove that I am. There, argument decided in my favor.

* I really, really hope I'm not actually a citizen of the moon-fairy kingdom.

Terry Morris said...

Levi,

You ain't gettin' it. I'm not arguing that he was ever an Indonesian citizen. Or that he wasn't for that matter. Why would I? I simply don't know whether he was/is or whether he wasn't/isn't. Based on the evidence I have available to me, he's hiding something about his alleged U.S. citizenship, thus his eligibility to be president. That's all I can know with a reasonable degree of certainty based on the evidence I have available to me at this moment.

You see, Levi, I'm not like you. I don't go about claiming to know something that I cannot know.

Call Me Mom said...

smrstrauss,
The arguments I have read re: the Indonesian citizenship issue are as follows:
Mr. Obama attended a public school in Indonesia. While it was legal for a non-citizen to attend private schools, one was required to be a citizen of Indonesia to attend the public school.

Some arguments further state that Mr. Soetero(sp) adopted the young Mr. Obama after having married his mother.

There is an indication that according to Indonesian law at the time, if a male citizen married a foreign national, that foreign national was no longer a citizen of their original country, but became, legally, upon marriage, a citizen of Indonesia.

I have no idea, not having an interest in Indonesian citizenship issues, nor a prediliction for calling embassies, if this is true.

Aside from that, I know that if it is true and Mr. Obama was adopted and given an Indonesian passport it would be a very reasonable thing to have happened. US law favors children in such circumstances as it should. However, if Mr. Obama went to Indonesia to renew his Indonesian passport as an adult, (as seems likely from the reports that he traveled to Pakistan at a time when American citizens were not being admitted to that country) then, he has forfeited his American citizenship permanently.

The big question is, or would be, if the courts deigned to hear the cases before them, what criteria defines a "natural born citizen" for the purposes of filling the office of the presidency?

I note that congress (including a yes vote from Mr. Obama himself), passed a non-binding resolution, SB 511, to allow Mr. McCain to run. Mr. McCain's issue was that he was born on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone. The resolution states that Mr. McCain, having been born of American parents (please note the plural) on American soil (apparently a military base in another country qualifies as American soil-as it should), he should be considered to be a natural born citizen for the purposes of sitting as president.

Mr. Obama was not born of American parents as only one of his parents was an American. There are also those who note that under the laws at the time, his mother was unable to confer citizenship upon Mr. Obama due to her age and her previous travels.

I note, that even if she were able to do so, she would only be bestowing citizenship status, not natural born citizenship status as Mr. Obama's father was a foreign national and thus could never bestow natural born American citizen status to any of his children. It is not only my opinion, but the opinion of Congress in SB-511 and one could plausibly argue, the opinion of the founders of this country as well.

Terry Morris said...

Mom,

Credit where credit is due, you're a better person than I am.

It never ceases to amaze me how ridiculously idiotic are some of the arguments these people craft in defense of Obama. But then I shouldn't say that because it's always the same argument peppered with the same stupid suggestions of "if you have evidence, then bring it out" and such as that. Of course we have no hard evidence, because any hard evidence that exists has been suppressed. Then, of course, we're told to bring individual citizen lawsuits, which is yet another dumb*ss suggestion which I'm actually beginning to believe they really think is a proper way of going about it.

But I will say that this is the first instance that I've personally run across in which it was suggested to call the Indonesian Embassy for verification of Obama's personal information. So I'll give Levi credit for originality, if not the most idiotic suggestion of the year award. ;-)

It absolutely boggles the mind!

Anyway, no speculation, suspicion, whatever, will ever be sufficient to raise a question to Obama's eligibility in Levi's mind. And you can take that one to the bank.

Terry Morris said...

By the way, you all know what God and Obama have in common, right?

God doesn't have a birth certificate either.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "the Indonesian citizenship issue are as follows:
Mr. Obama attended a public school in Indonesia. While it was legal for a non-citizen to attend private schools, one was required to be a citizen of Indonesia to attend the public school."

This turns out not to be true. BUT there were schools in Indonesia that would not accept foreign students. Obama attended one of them because his parents claimed that he was an Indonesian citizen.

CLAIMED. It was easy to get away with that claim. No one ever asked for proof.

Not only Indonesia but also the US government (the State Department) have now said that Obama was never a citizen of Indonesia.

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/04/department-of-state-denies-birther-allegations/


The words were: "To the extent this paragraph alleges that President Obama may be an illegal alien or that President Obama is or ever was a citizen of Indonesia, those allegations are denied." Which appears in the US Department of State response in Strunk v. U. S. Department of State.

Re: "The point is that Obama legally affirmed that he was not a citizen of the United States to obtain certain benefits available to foreigners..."

There is no proof of this. If you have proof, show it.

Re: "Based on the evidence I have available to me, he's hiding something about his alleged U.S. citizenship..."

What? He was born in Hawaii and has legal proof of it. He lived in Indonesia and has admitted it. There is no proof that he ever used a Indonesian passport or any other passport. What is he hiding?

So he hasn't posted his college papers? So what? What president has?

Re: "Some arguments further state that Mr. Soetero(sp) adopted the young Mr. Obama after having married his mother."

Adoption in Indonesia, as in the USA, requires the action of a court, and the records of that court would be on file. If Obama had been adopted, there would be proof of that.

The US State Department also denies that Obama was adopted.

"To the extent this paragraph alleges that Lolo Soetoro is or ever was President Obama’s father by birth or adoption, that allegation is denied. To the extent this paragraph alleges that President Obama is or ever was a practicing Muslim, that allegation is denied."

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/strunk-answer.pdf

Re: "as seems likely from the reports that he traveled to Pakistan at a time when American citizens were not being admitted to that country."

This is particularly crude baloney, and someone has to be especially naive (sorry about calling names) to believe it.

In 1981, when Obama traveled to Pakistan, Pakistan was far more peaceful than now, so US citizens were not being kept out of Pakistan; they were welcomed with open arms. They were granted 30 days visas at the airports. There were travel articles in the newspapers about "Scenic Lahore" and Pakistan International Airlines had an office on Fifth Avenue.

So Obama, or any US citizen, could have traveled to Pakistan on a US passport. Does this prove that he DID travel on a US passport? No. But it disproves the idea that the Pakistan situation proves that Obama must have used an Indonesian passport.

Maybe he traveled on a FORGED passport, like Jason Borne. But, more than likely, like hundreds of thousands of other Americans, he just traveled on a US passport.

Call Me Mom said...

smrstrauss,
You will kindly note that I was simply indicating what the arguments re: Indonesian citizenship in my reading have indicated. Refuting them does nothing to address my points re: the definition of Natural born citizen or the writings of our founders regarding citizenship, i.e. citizen vs. natural born citizen.

Quite frankly I don't see why I should believe your statements as more factual or accurate than those of others who have investigated these things.

I have within my own faculties an ability to reason which suggests that an innocent man does not spend large amounts of money keeping something secret if simply giving his assent to the examination of those documents (for free) would not result in damage to that man.

Once again, you have neglected to address my points re: SB 511 and the definition of natural born citizen vs. citizen in the view of those who wrote the relevant bits of our Constitution covering those terms.

Terry Morris said...

Mom wrote:

I have within my own faculties an ability to reason which suggests that an innocent man does not spend large amounts of money keeping something secret if simply giving his assent to the examination of those documents (for free) would not result in damage to that man.

This is, in my opinion, one of the most important, if not THE most important reasons to pursue this fight unrelentlessly all the way to the goal line.

There are only two reasonably plausible explanations for why Hussein Obama would refuse to release his records to settle the issue, particularly in the face of mounting pressure to do so: (1) He has something to hide, or (2) it's a political strategy intended ultimately to aid in the forwarding of his agenda.

The second one seems unlikely to me, but I can't completely rule it out (who knows what this scumbag is thinking?!).

In either case it reveals a real and pervasive character deficiency in the man, which is simply another reason he is imminently unqualified for the high office of POTUS. He is in every sense of the word, a deceiver of the first order. Why people didn't immediately recognize this in him when came on the national scene, I will never know. But I said the same thing about Bill Clinton who is orders of magnitude more suitable for the presidency than Barack Hussein Obama, notwithstanding Clinton's infidelity to his wife, etc, etc, etc.

And I think this is what most repulses me about Hussein's cult-like followers. He is very clearly a deceiver yet they deny it all the way. It is on the level of "lying (to themselves) when the truth sounds better." But I strongly suspect that they know what he is, they just simply do not care, much in the same way they didn't care about Clinton's infamous exploits.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "an innocent man does not spend large amounts of money keeping something secret if simply giving his assent to the examination of those documents (for free) would not result in damage to that man."

Obama has not spent a single cent on any case designed to keep anything secret. All the cases against him were to stop the election or to stop the certification of the election.

Re: Natural Born Citizen. That is a legal discussion. The issues of where Obama was born or whether he lost citizenship are factual discussions. I have limited myself to these so far.

However. To take up Natural Born Citizen briefly. There is nothing in the Constitution itself or in the Federalist Papers that defines Natural Born Citizen. There is now good evidence that the writers of Article II were not referring to Vattel's definition because Vattel actually never used the term "Natural Born Citizen" either in his original (French) or in a translation published prior to the Constitution.

Then what does Natural Born Citizen refer to? To the term "natural born subject" that was well known in British Common Law and which was discussed by Blackstone, with which the lawyers on the Constitutional Convention were very familiar.

And what was a Natural Born Subject? Merely someone who was born in Britain other than the child of a foreign diplomat. A Natural Born Subject could have two parents who were not subjects. It could have two parents who were merely visiting Britain. So long as the child was born in Britain, she or he was a Natural Born Subject.

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

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

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

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

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

smrstrauss said...

Oh, and regarding the resolution that the Senate passed saying that John McCain was a Natural Born Citizen. That was to ADD John McCain to Obama whom everyone knew was a Natural Born Citizen because he was born in Hawaii.

Terry Morris said...

Smrstrauss,

Is it that you think we don't already know all of this, or is it that you're desperately trying to legitimize this guy?

Here's the rub...

You have to deny issue after issue after issue after issue, fact after fact after fact after fact, etc., spend inordinate amounts of time and energy and resources to be able to legitimize him. Why? Because everything relevant about the man is at least questionable, and most tend strongly to suggest that he has no primary loyalty to America or its people.

But I agree with you, a majority of the people made a huge mistake in electing him to the highest office of the land when issue after issue after issue strongly suggests that his deepest sense of self and his strongest loyalties most certainly lie elsewhere.:

His father was a black African Muslim with no loyalties to the U.S.,

his mother had some kind of infatuation with black African Muslims, and likely despised American men (white men in particular) and America herself,

his maternal grandparents raised his mother, instilling in her anti-American/pro-foreign sentiments, then later carried on that legacy with Barack,

he spent the first ten years of his life in a foreign country, a foreign culture, learning to appreciate a foreign religion and culture largely hostile to Western civilization,

and on and on and on, ad infinitum.

You'd have to deny his Muslim bloodline and its influence on him, his mother's and his maternal grandparents' anti-American sentiments and the impact that had on forming his character; you'd have to deny the influence Lolo Soetoro had on young Barack, the influence of the Indonesian culture on him during the first ten years of his miserable life; you have to deny his connections to the likes of William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright and the impact of their anti-Americanism on him; you have to deny his involvement in corrupt Chicago politics, and so on.

The great preponderance of the evidence - birth certificate issue aside - very strongly suggests that his preferences and his deepest loyalties lie elsewhere with a foreign people, a foreign culture, a foreign philosophy of government, of civilization, foreign ideas of God and his relationship to his creatures, etc...

One would have to be in an utter state of denial not to see it.

But let me simply suggest to you that you can't just thumb through the federalist papers and other founding documentation, or otherwise enter the terms "natural born citizen" into a search engine and expect to learn anything worthwhile about why the founders included the provision in Article II; why they were very guarded against providing a pathway by which foreign intrigue and foreign influence might make their way into our counsels and eventually destroy America. But that wasn't your goal anyway, now was it.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "You can't just thumb through the federalist papers and other founding documentation, or otherwise enter the terms "natural born citizen" into a search engine and expect to learn anything worthwhile about why the founders included the provision in Article II."

The framers (the founders were the first colonists) wrote Natural Born Citizen into the Constitution to ensure that the president was a citizen and not a naturalized citizen. What a kind of a citizen? A Natural Born Citizen?

Does this require two parents who were citizens at the time of birth? They did not say. Why didn't they say?

Because they were referring to the concept of a Natural Born Subject, who was merely someone who was born in the British realm.

Now, as for me defending Obama. I am one of those who voted for him.

However, I am a good citizen, and would say "he cannot be president" with you IF THERE WERE ANY PROOF THAT he (1) were born outside of the USA; (2) Lost his natural born citizen status; or (3) a Supreme Court ruling that Natural Born Citizen required two parents who US citizens at the moment of birth.

I have been pointing out that there is (1) no evidence of birth overseas or loss of citizenship; (2) Most legal scholars (and common sense) say that a Natural Born Citizen is merely someone born in the USA other than the child of a foreign diplomat.

Re: "You have to deny issue after issue after issue after issue, fact after fact after fact after fact, etc., "

Bring them on. Let's start with the grandmother tape. She didn't say that he was born in Kenya. She said that he was born in Hawaii.

This is the complete tape on Berg's blog: http://www.obamacrimes.info/Telephone_Interview_with_Sarah_Hussein_Obama_10-16-08.mp3

Listen to her answer after the question: "Whereabouts was he born?" which is at a little more than five minutes into the tape.

Call Me Mom said...

In addition to Mr. Morris' comments, I would like you to note that SB 511 was not a de facto recognition of Mr. Obama's citizenship as you seem to indicate. It was crafted to allow John McCain to run for president, not to legitimatize Mr. Obama by the mechanism of suggesting he would not need such a piece of legislation to run.

You said:"So he hasn't posted his college papers? So what? What president has?" I think that, if you check, nearly every president has. Mr. McCain had to produce his long form birth certificate to run. As far as I recall in recent years, every other presidential candidate, with the exception of Mr. Kerry, has produced any paperwork the public requested to prove that they were approaching the office of the POTUS with clean hands. That is an indication of good character. (You will note that the public did not elect Mr. Kerry.)

You said:"Obama has not spent a single cent on any case designed to keep anything secret." Do you really believe that? Or are you just playing with semantics? Because somebody is spending an awful lot of money and lawyer time representing Mr. Obama in these cases and those who are qualified to practice law at that level are not cheap. They certainly must have his permission to represent him - or are you suggesting that these folks are simply donating their time and expertise out of the goodness of their hearts? At the very least, (if I believe such a ridiculous claim), money is being spent on his behalf and he continues to allow it.
Do you lack the character or the curiosity to ask why? I ask about your character, because in denying the public access to these records, by keeping the question alive as to whether or not he is legally qualified to sit as president, he is committing an ethical violation of the highest order against the men and women of our military as well as the rest of the citizens of the United States of America.

As for the ignorance of the two conservative senators on the definition of the term natural born citizen, perhaps they should review their votes on SB 511 which was passed by unanimous consent. (And may I ask why I should care whether the opinions you presented were from conservatives? Were you suggesting that I cannot think for myself? Or perhaps you think that conservatives are infallible? Or perhaps you think that conservatives all agree and that upon reading your comments, I would immediately question the value of my own intellect and reasoning skills and agree with these senators. Surely you would not be suggesting that I would be so lacking in character as to dismiss the comments of liberals without examination solely on the basis that they are liberals?)

Factual discussions often have legal implications.

Whether or not Vattel ever used the specific phrase "natural born citizen" does not indicate a causal relationship as to whether or not our founders were using his reasoning. They were erudite men who were quite capable of coming up with a term that would describe what they wanted. I think Mr. Morris is correct when he told you: "But let me simply suggest to you that you can't just thumb through the federalist papers and other founding documentation, or otherwise enter the terms "natural born citizen" into a search engine and expect to learn anything worthwhile about why the founders included the provision in Article II; why they were very guarded against providing a pathway by which foreign intrigue and foreign influence might make their way into our counsels and eventually destroy America.".

There are legal, moral and ethical ramifications to Mr. Obama's failure to provide that documentation. His refusal to show "clean hands " in this matter is unconscionable.

Terry Morris said...

Re: "You have to deny issue after issue after issue after issue, fact after fact after fact after fact, etc., "

Bring them on. Let's start with the grandmother tape. She didn't say that he was born in Kenya. She said that he was born in Hawaii.


Bring them on? What is this, some kind of a game??? As if to say that this is some sort of a chess match in which we're trying to anticipate the moves of our opponents five moves ahead. That's useful in certain circumstances, but this ain't one of 'em.

The fact is that I gave you several items to consider (there are many more; use your imagination), but you still deny them. What difference does the statements of his paternal grandmother, as to the whereabouts of his birth, make in any event. Again, where have I personally argued that he was actually born anywhere?

Call Me Mom said...

"Most legal scholars (and common sense) say that a Natural Born Citizen is merely someone born in the USA other than the child of a foreign diplomat."
That is/was the British definition. We live in America.
Given the distinctions made in the writings of our founders, I think the definition used by congress in SB 511 is the one that is the most in accord with our founders intentions and common sense. It is current and was unanimously accepted. Born of American parents on American soil.

Terry Morris said...

Yeah, but see, that contradicts what Snopes and the rest of the Obamabots say about it. Not to mention what the Indonesian government has to say on the subject. So you and the Congress, and the constitutional stipulation that "laws made in pursuance thereof" are all thereby overruled.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "It was crafted to allow John McCain to run for president, not to legitimatize Mr. Obama by the mechanism of suggesting he would not need such a piece of legislation to run."

McCain needed the legislation. Obama didn't.

Re: "I think the definition used by congress in SB 511 is the one that is the most in accord with our founders intentions and common sense."

Then pass a Constitutional Amendment to that effect. The action taken in SB 511 is not even a law. A law has to be passed by both houses of congress and then signed by the president.

What we have in effect from SB 511, and I agree with it, is that to be a Natural Born Citizen, you can be EITHER born in the USA--the old definition under the common law, or have two US parents. You do not have to be born in the USA and have two US parents, and if you were simply born in the USA, you do not lose the right to be president due to 511.

As to your general point about the USA being different from Britain. Sure. But we are discussing the words "Natural Born" and what they mean. Under British common law, Natural Born meant simply born in Britain.

John Jay, who was the first US statesman to have been recording using the term, in a letter to George Washington, did not define Natural Born in that letter or in the Federalist Papers. He did not say that it was a new definition, a new tougher definition than "Natural Born" in the common law.

It is much more likely that he meant Natural Born to be an old, familiar legal expression, than that he had a new idea of what it should be. The old legal expression, "natural born subject" merely required birth in the country.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "
You said:"So he hasn't posted his college papers? So what? What president has?" I think that, if you check, nearly every president has."

Please show me Teddy Roosevelt's grades, FDR's, JFK's, Nixon's.

And what was being asked for in the suit was not merely the average grade of the candidate while at the college. The suit asked for the transcript, which means the grades for every course. NO PRESIDENT has ever shown his transcript.

The same lawsuit demanded that Obama show his housing record while he was at college. For what reason? Who knows?

Terry Morris said...

What, in God's name, is the point of all this??? Teddy Roosevelt? You have to be kidding me? Was there any question of TR's devotion to America? Stop acting like a complete idiot!

Call Me Mom said...

The point, Mr. Morris, is of course, to distract and re-direct.

smrstrauss said:"What we have in effect from SB 511, and I agree with it, is that to be a Natural Born Citizen, you can be EITHER born in the USA--the old definition under the common law, or have two US parents. "

Support your claim that the wording in this bill creates an either/or condition, because I'm not seeing it.
(And while you're at it, please support your claim that British common law definitions should be used to define American legal terms. Actually, don't I begin to tire of your nonsense.)

The relevant text of SB 511 reads as follows:"Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."


I am not seeing the word " either", nor do I see the word "or" anywhere in that text. Do you?

You will note that it specifically mentions that he was born to American parents on an American military base. This bill was also an effort to keep from disenfranchising the children of those who are willing to sacrifice the most for this country from their ability to hold that office. In effect, it was defining American military bases as American soil for this purpose. If it can be argued that a non-binding resolution can be used to ensure that the children of military families born abroad may serve as POTUS, then how can anyone argue that it cannot be used to establish this simple definition of natural born citizen? Natural born citizen = born of American parents on American soil.

You are correct that it is not a law, I never said it was. That's why I said non-binding.
If it were law, we wouldn't be having this discussion now, because it would have clearly disqualified Mr. Obama from sitting as president. What I said was that it was an example of our congress providing a current definition for the term "natural born citizen".

Why is that important? It's important for the very reasons you brought out regarding the lack of an official definition by the founders and, because, to a degree, I am in agreement with Mr. Morris, that we should not be ruled by what he has referred to as the tyranny of dead men. The fact that our founders envisioned and feared just such scenarios as Mr. Morris enumerated and that the current senate recognized that a natural born citizen should have two American parents AND be born on American soil should not be that difficult for you to grasp, sir. Stop thinking party and start thinking American.

chiu_chunling said...

"CLAIMED. It was easy to get away with that claim. No one ever asked for proof."

I laugh. And it feels good. Even though it is actually quite evil.

Anyway, congratulations on getting your Obamabot to entertain us here. So much more convenient (and fun) than a link.

smrstrauss said...

Re: ""Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."

Show me where that takes away someone else' rights. Clearly that was to give something to McCain. Was it to take away something from Obama? Nothing in the text shows that it takes away anything from anyone.

Since Obama's rights were well known, and I have quoted two senators that say that merely being born in the USA is A criteria for being a Natural Born US citizen, it was not necessary to write a bill saying that Obama was a Natural Born US Citizen.

The bill adds two parents to the previous definition which was merely born in the USA.

Someone has asked whether there was a US law case showing that the USA accepts the British definition of Natural Born. There is a very famous one, the US Supreme Court Case of United States v Wong Kim Ark (for a brief summary see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark)

In which this was discussed. I have seen conservative bloggers say that this case was a citizenship case, not a presidential qualifications case.

This is quite true. But still, it uses Natural Born Citizen as a synonym for born in the USA, and it cites British common law, and specifically "Natural Born Subject" in order to demonstrate that Wong was a citizen at birth who could not be deprived of his right of citizenship.

Wong was born in the USA of two parents, both of whom were subjects of the Emperor of China at the time. (Before 1911 China had an emperor.) The US government tried to show that he was not a citizen so that it could refuse him the right to return to the USA.

The court ruled that Wong was a US citizen, which was caused merely by his place of birth and not his parents' status, and the US government had no right to exclude him.

This, so far, does not apply to the use of the term Natural Born Citizen.

But, if you read the case, the court's ruling was that it was only because Wong was the US equivalent of a Natural Born Subject under British common law that he had the right of a native-born citizen.

Here is the complete ruling of the court in the case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html

Notice this quotation: “Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’

You see that the ruling is setting up to use the British common law in order to prove that Wong was a citizen.

It goes on to say: "Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said:

"By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality."

So, what makes Wong a US citizen? According to this reasoning because he was born in the USA just like a Natural Born Subject was in Britain. And since a Natural Born Subject could not be deprived of his status, then neither could a US citizen who was created as a US citizen by birth.

Subsequent cases have held that naturalized citizens can be stripped of their citizenship, but native born ones cannot. Why not? Because they are the US equivalent of Natural Born Subject.

smrstrauss said...

My point was that the Federalist Papers were PUBLISHED at the time, and hence were seen by thousands of people. That would be the place to discuss something new and different. So if the term "Natural Born Citizen" meant something other than "Natural Born Subject," the Federalist Papers would be an ideal place to tell people about the difference. But there was no discussion of Natural Born Subject, indicating that it was not something new and different, it was a common expression. What was the most commonly understood use of Natural Born at the time? A Natural Born Subject in British common law.

Although Vattel did not use the term "Natural Born Citizen" in anything translated before the writing of the Constitution, he did apparently have a definition of some category of citizen who had two citizen parents and be born in the country. But did he recommend that rulers of countries (what he called Sovereigns) be born in the country? No. Did he recommend that sovereigns have two parents who were citizens? No. Did he recommend that ELECTED sovereigns, and he does mention them, be citizens? No.

And, as "Natural Born Citizen" did not appear in a Vattel book published before the constitution was written, the framers were not thinking of Vattel when they used the phrase "Natural Born."

They must have been thinking of something that was commonly used, or they would have defined it in the text of the Constitution, or in some explanation. If they didn't, they would know that people would think that they were thinking about the most commonly used legal term that included the words "Natural Born"--which was Natural Born Subject.

John Jay, who used the term "Natural Born Citizen" in a letter to George Washington, was a lawyer and a judge (and would become the first chief justice of the USA). In New York, he is famous for being one of the authors of the first constitution of the State of New York (the colony had some such document), the Constitution of 1777.

Here is the complete text of it:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/New_York_Constitution_of_1777

I did a search in this document to see if New York required its chief executive, the governor, to be a Natural Born Citizen. To the contrary. He did not even have to be a citizen of the state. He only had to be "a wise and desceet (???)freeholder (meaning someone who owned land)."

Going further down in this constitution, you will see that it provides that the British common law continues to be the law of New York unless specifically changed by a New York Law. This makes perfect sense, and is even dull. Who cares? Ah! But it does show that the British common law was on Jay's mind.

Getting back to Natural Born Citizen. It is obvious that Natural Born Citizen excludes foreigners. It is obvious that Natural Born Citizen excludes naturalized US citizens. But it is not clear that it excludes the children of foreigners who were born in the USA.

Re: Teddy Roosevelt. No criticism of him. Only he did not publish his complete college transcript. Neither did Obama. Neither did ANY US president.

Terry Morris said...

Was Roosevelt asked to publish his transcript? Moreover, was there any question -- ANY QUESTION -- as to Roosevelt's Natural Born Citizen status?

I only ask because you seem to be inclined to search these things out. I am not so-inclined because the equation of so-called "birthright citizenship" with natural born citizenship is an utterly stupid concept to me, particularly in light of the founders' jealousy of the "raising of a creature of their own to the chief executive magistracy of the union". If Hussein Obama is not precisely that, by definition, then it isn't possible for a foreign power to do so in any event. Which brings me to my point...

Are you going to argue the utterly idiotic position that Hussein Obama would have gotten past the first rung of the political ladder with the founding generation; that they would have denied, as you do, all of the evidence suggesting Hussein's disloyalty to America? If that is what you're ultimately arguing, I suggest to you that you have yet to understand the first thing about the founding generation.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "was there any question -- ANY QUESTION -- as to Roosevelt's Natural Born Citizen status."

The only questions regarding Obama's natural born citizen status come from people who are willing to lie to say that his grandmother said that he was born in Kenya, when she said that he was born in Hawaii, and that Obama could not get into Pakistan without an Indonesian passport because Pakistan did not accept US passports at at time when it DID accept US passports.

These are people who say that when the officials in Hawaii said that there is an original birth certificate in Obama's file, they must be either lying or misleading in some way because who can believe that he was just an ordinary birth in Hawaii.

And these are people who say that the lawsuits against Obama which were to stop the election or to stop the certification of the election were really to get his birth certificate or his college papers.

So the fact that some obviously anti-Obama people make some claims is not a clue that Obama's birth was outside the USA--any more than Teddy Roosevelt's was outside of the USA.

IF McCain or Palin or the Republican National Committee made any claims, then there might be a reason for thinking that Obama was different in his birth status than Teddy.

But there is no proof of the absurd claim that Obama's mother went to Kenya to give birth. (In those days you had to get a Yellow Fever shot to go to Africa, which is really bad during pregnancy). A Us citizen cannot lose his citizenship due to actions taken by his parents when he was a child. Obama was never an Indonesian citizen. And a natural born citizen is either one who was born in the USA (like Obama) or one who had two US parents and was born on a US base (like McCain).

smrstrauss said...

Re: "he evidence suggesting Hussein's disloyalty to America?"

There is no evidence of Obama's disloyalty to America.

If there were, the means for removing a disloyal president are spelled out in the Constitution under the impeachment provisions.

But there is certainly nothing in the Constitution that says that the Supreme Court can remove a president if it thinks that he was disloyal. And there is nothing that says that because a person's father was not a citizen that person will be disloyal or may be disloyal, so he is not eligible.

The framers clearly thought that foreigners should not be eligible and naturalized citizens should not be eligible. But they did NOT say that the children of foreign citizens born in the USA should not be eligible.

Call Me Mom said...

"The bill adds two parents to the previous definition which was merely born in the USA.
"

You said it, live with it.
But then your logic is so poorly crafted in the rest of the post, I'm sure you didn't intend to say that the senate was defining the term "Natural Born Citizen" to mean born in the USA of USA parents.

I don't agree that born in the US was sufficient before the Senate defined the term so nicely for us, but since they have defined it, what else do I need to say?

Not a single word of your post shows that case to have defined citizen as equivalent to Natural Born Citizen for the purposes of the presidency. Non-binding SB 511 however does clearly state that it is establishing a definition of natural born citizen for the purpose of being eligible to sit as the POTUS.

further:
"And, as "Natural Born Citizen" did not appear in a Vattel book published before the constitution was written, the framers were not thinking of Vattel when they used the phrase "Natural Born." "

Once again, the founders were brilliant men capable of forming their own definitions. I find it highly unlikely, regardless of the ruling in the case you cited, that they would care to impose the same use of natural born citizen as the crown had imposed with the use of natural born subject in impressing those it considered to be natural born subjects into their military service when they found them on American ships that they had stopped in the course of attempting to quell our revolution.
It is hardly credible that they would want to use a British term that had been used to abuse people in this fashion to describe our citizens regardless of what Mr. Jay may have used as an "easy" button in setting the laws to maintain order during the transition phase in one state.

Beyond that, of course there could be no birth requirement for the office of Governor, for the same reason Article 2 section one makes the exception: "a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" And come to that, one does not have to be a natural born citizen to be a governor now - witness Mr. Schwarzenegger.

As for school records, I really don't have the time or inclination, my point was that every other president has provided documentation whenever it was called for by the American people to show that they were approaching the office of POTUS with clean hands. I clearly recall Mr. Bush's grades being poked fun at during the campaign and during his presidency. The reason some folks want his school records are because they believe those records will show that he attended college on a scholarship that is/was awarded solely to foreign students studying in America.

You will kindly note that I have said nothing about Mr. Obama's grandmother, nor, I believe, without giving the posts a quick review, has anyone but you.

Once again-SB 511 provides a current definition, by the US Senate, of the term "natural born citizen" for the purposes of the presidency. And it provided it before the election was completed. Mr. Obama is not eligible , by this definition to sit as president.

As for the documentation issues that so many others have argued, I think he should produce that documentation for ethical reasons, in the case of our armed forces and as a guesture of respect to the people who elected him if nothing else.

Call Me Mom said...

"There is no evidence of Obama's disloyalty to America."
Look here.

I find it highly unlikely that Mr. Obama's 500 person entourage on that trip did not contain a single protocol officer.
I consider this to be extremely disloyal.

smrstrauss said...

You say that bowing to someone is disloyal?

It is stupid. It is embarassing. But it is not disloyal. I'll bet he never bows to any king ever again.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "Obama has not spent a single cent on any case designed to keep anything secret." Do you really believe that?"

Answer. Yes. There was a lot of money spent, but all the cases were to stop the election or to stop the certification of the election. If he had not opposed those cases, the election would have been stopped or the election would not have been certified. This is money that was well spent.

But there wasn't a case against him that just asked to see records. If there were, and he opposed it, you could say that he spent some money opposing a case that sought his records. But the fact is, that he only fought lawsuits that tried to stop the election or the certification of the election.

Terry Morris said...

I'll bet he never bows to any king ever again.

I wouldn't bet on that because you'd surely lose. But perhaps he learned his lesson about doing it in front of a camera.

Call Me Mom said...

I do consider ignoring one's protocol officer to offer an independent demonstration of subservience to the monarch of a foreign country to be disloyal. Especially when you are acting as the president of a free republic who should be bowing to no one out of simple respect for and loyalty to the country and people who put you in that position.

As for your contention that Mr. Obama has not spent a single cent to keep anything secret, I'll bet you that he sent a letter or a lawyer to personally inform all those who are keeping those records sealed that they do not have his permission to release them. That would've cost a stamp at the very least, and last time I checked stamps cost more than a penny.
Oh wait, your contention was that the cases were not against him personally and that unless the cases were against him personally, any money spent to conceal his records doesn't count for the purposes of this conversation. Wow. Again, try thinking of yourself as an American first.

SB 511 provides a current definition of the term "Natural born Citizen" for the purpose of the presidency and it was approved by the senate unanimously before the election.

smrstrauss said...

Re: “I do consider ignoring one's protocol officer to offer an independent demonstration of subservience to the monarch of a foreign country to be disloyal. Especially when you are acting as the president of a free republic who should be bowing to no one out of simple respect for and loyalty to the country and people who put you in that position.”

Answer. We do not know that the protocol officer actually told Obama not to bow. More than likely the protocol officer forgot and said nothing. So the mistake was merely Obama’s. It was a mistake, not a disloyalty. Not like, say, sending US arms to Iran for US hostages held in Lebanon.

Re: “As for your contention that Mr. Obama has not spent a single cent to keep anything secret, I'll bet you that he sent a letter or a lawyer to personally inform all those who are keeping those records sealed that they do not have his permission to release them. That would've cost a stamp at the very least, and last time I checked stamps cost more than a penny.”

Pure speculation. The only case where the college records were demanded was in Keyes v Bowen, and we have no information that Occidental was going to give out anything. There is actually a US law that says that a college or university cannot give out the records of someone who went there without the approval of the person. Would Obama have given permission? Maybe, if the case had asked for the records and not demanded that the Secretary of State of California NOT certify the election. Because the case did demand that the Sec of State not certify the election, Obama opposed that lawsuit, and it was thrown out.

Re: “Oh wait, your contention was that the cases were not against him personally and that unless the cases were against him personally, any money spent to conceal his records doesn't count for the purposes of this conversation. Wow. Again, try thinking of yourself as an American first.’

Answer. No. I did not contend that. I said that the cases ALL asked that the election be stopped or that the election not be certified, and that Obama opposed those cases because he did not want the election stopped or the election not to be certified.

Re: “SB 511 provides a current definition of the term "Natural born Citizen" for the purpose of the presidency and it was approved by the senate unanimously before the election.”

Answer. No it doesn’t. It says that McCain was a Natural Born Citizen. It did not say that other people were not natural born citizens. It was passed unanimously because Obama and the other Democrats went along with the idea that McCain was just as eligible to run as Obama. But Obama and the other Democrats did not vote that ONLY McCain was eligible to run. They added but they did not take away any criteria for being a Natural Born Citizen.

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

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

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

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

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

And:

Gov. Bobby Jindal, who delivered the Republican response to Obama’s speech, said: “Regardless of party, all Americans are moved by the President’s personal story - the son of an American mother and a Kenyan father, who grew up to become leader of the free world.”

Call Me Mom said...

The protocol officer forgot? Hmmm. You know, the first thing I thought when I heard about that bow was : "The American president is not supposed to bow to foreign heads of state." I remembered it from my school years. When I informed my husband about it, his reaction was the same, as was my son's and that of nearly everyone I know. This is common knowledge. Mr. Obama is without excuse regardless of whatever breach of duty might have occurred on the part of his protocol officer. (And you accuse me of speculation for suggesting that Mr. Obama may have provided written document of refusal to release document which could scuttle his political career? Yeah, whatever.)

I have already addressed the remarks of the two Senators and Gov. Jindal is free to say whatever he likes. His proclamation, like the casual comments of two senators, does not have the force of law.

However, the definition provided in SB 511 is not only very specific, it is a piece of legislation introduced by the law making body of the United States Congress where it was unanimously approved. I think that does have the color of law whether it was non-binding or not. I think so because this same piece of legislation is widely acknowledged to be having the effect of making it legal for the children of American armed service personnel, born on US military bases abroad to be able to serve as president by the use of the definition specified therein. If it may be said to legally have that affect for those children, it may certainly be said to be providing a legal definition of the term "natural born citizen" for other purposes as well.

You say that they were merely adding to the definition - by which you mean what? First you argue that there is no definition and then you argue that the casual comments of two senators provide that non-existent definition for legal purposes?

SB 511 was specifying a definition, not adding to one. Yes they mention John McCain specifically, but that does not mean the definition is limited to Mr. McCain. In fact it was clearly intended to apply to the children of American service men and women born on US military bases abroad as well.
The fact that there hasn't been a specific written definition heretofore makes this piece of legislation very important in that regard. It is specific and clear. It was presented as part of a piece of legislation crafted and unanimously approved by the members of the US Senate.
It is being used to define the legality of thousands of American citizens (Those children I mentioned)to sit as president.

I think it is a valid argument to say that the US Senate, in passing this bill, non-binding or not, has created a simple,specific and reasonable definition for the term Natural Born Citizen for the purpose of holding the office of the POTUS.
And they did so prior to the election of Mr. Obama. Nothing you have said is a presents a reasonable counter-argument.

I tire of repeating myself. This is, Mr. morris' blog and I have my own to tend to. It has been fun. My Thanks Mr. Morris.

Dr.D said...

Some people can continue to recite the same, blockheaded arguments ad infinitum. smrstrauss will believe in Zero forever, with his eyes firmly shut, no matter what evidence is shown to him, or what arguments are presented. It really is not worth the effort with this sort; they are best written off.

smrstrauss said...

Non-binding SB 511 however does clearly state that it is establishing a definition of natural born citizen for the purpose of being eligible to sit as the POTUS.

The bill that was passed became SR (Senate Resolution) 511, and here is the complete text of that legislation:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:3:./temp/~c11020Zofv::

As you can see, it applies ONLY to John Sidney McCain III, and it says that because his family was in the military serving on a US base, he is eligible.

If this is the only criteria for being eligible to be president then ONLY persons whose parents were in the military serving on a US base would be eligible to be president.

And, as you can see, the document that says that McCain is eligible does not say that other candidates are not eligible. Indeed, it was co-sponsored by Obama.

The resolution does not say that two US parents are required to make a person eligible to be president, and it certainly does not say that a child born in the USA is not eligible to be president. It simply says that John McCain because of the fact that his father was in the military and he was born on a US base, is eligible.

So, as I said before, the legislation adds. It does not subtract. It does not take away anything that was the law before, and the law before this was that anyone who was born in the USA is considered a Natural Born Citizen, so long as she or he is not the child of a foreign diplomat. This is why the Republican Party never alleged that Obama was not eligible during the campaign, because he is as eligible as anyone born in the USA.

Re: “ Once again, the founders were brilliant men capable of forming their own definitions. I find it highly unlikely, regardless of the ruling in the case you cited, that they would care to impose the same use of natural born citizen as the crown had imposed.”

I agree they were brilliant men. So brilliant that if they had meant anything unusual, they would have said it. They knew that if they were not clear, people would misunderstand.

The law at the time was that citizens were created by the place of birth, jus soli. That was the law that they were familiar with. If they had meant to change it, they would have said so. You say that they required two parents who were citizens. That would have been jus sanguinis. If they had meant to make a major change, from soli to sanguinis, they would have said so. It they had been concerned that the children of foreigners were also foreigners, they would have said so.

THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US ABOUT IT. That is why the fact that Natural Born Citizen is not discussed in the Federalist Papers is significant. It indicates that they were not making a change from the normal meaning of “natural born” they were familiar with.

smrstrauss said...

Re: “I find it highly unlikely, regardless of the ruling in the case you cited, that they would care to impose the same use of natural born citizen as the crown had imposed.”

It is true that they hated the British, but they loved the British law. For example, John Jay was one of the authors of the 1777 Constitution of the State of New York. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/New_York_Constitution_of_1777

In it, there is a provision that the old laws of Britain and the common law remain the law of New York State unless there is a specific change made by state legislation.


XXXV. And this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare that such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on the 19th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same.”

That shows that they respected the British law, and the British common law, and it indicates that the term “natural born” that Jay was referring to was that of the common law. If the writers of Article II of the Constitution had meant “natural born” to mean something other than its use in the common law, surely they would have said so.

smrstrauss said...

Re: “there could be no birth requirement for the office of Governor.”

There could because the governor of New York at the time was the governor of an independent country. My point was that New York at the time did not worry about foreigners being the chief executive. The US Constitution did worry, and it barred foreigners from being president. And it barred naturalized citizens from being president. BUT, how do we know that it barred the CHILDREN of foreigners from being president? It seems a very large jump from allowing anyone to be chief executive to barring even the children of foreigners born in the USA.

The writers of the Constitution clearly worried about foreigners, but did they consider children born in t he USA to be foreigners? Under Jus Soli they were citizens. Article II also requires that they must have lived 14 years in the USA and be 35 before being eligible to be president. Did they think that a child born in the USA who has lived in the USA for 14 years was a foreigner? If so, surely someone would have said so.

Re: “The reason some folks want his school records are because they believe those records will show that he attended college on a scholarship that is/was awarded solely to foreign students studying in America.”

As I said before, Obama was never an Indonesian citizen. This has been confirmed by the Indonesian government and the US government in a legal filing.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/strunk-answer.pdf

It reads in part: “To the extent this paragraph alleges that President Obama may be an illegal alien or that President Obama is or ever was a citizen of Indonesia, those allegations are denied.”

smrstrauss said...

But, you may say, “what if Obama applied to college for financial aid as a foreign citizen, don’t I have the right to know that?”

I don’t know if you have a legal right, but perhaps there is a moral right. But the reason that those files have not been made public is that they were never asked for. What! Yes, it is true.

Here is the complete legal complaint in the case you are referring to, Keyes v. Bowen, which is the only case to mention the Occidental records. http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/WRIT-OF-MANDATE.pdf

You see where it says: “This writ requests a court order barring the SOS from both certifying to the Governor the names of the California Electors, and from transmitting to each presidential Elector a Certificate of Election, until such documentary proof is produced and verified.”

That was the purpose of the case. Not to get the records, but to stop the certification of the election. Since the election HAS been certified, the case was thrown out as moot.

smrstrauss said...

IF there were a case brought that simply sought the records and did not attempt to stop the election, that would be an entirely different matter.

You will notice also that the same case says that there were constitutional questions about Obama’s “Natural Born” status. So, even if Obama had provided the documents showing that he was born in Hawaii and never claimed to be a foreign citizen, the case would continue alleging (as you do) that even so he would not be eligible because his father was a foreigner.

Re: “Once again-SB 511 provides a current definition, by the US Senate, of the term "natural born citizen" for the purposes of the presidency. And it provided it before the election was completed. Mr. Obama is not eligible , by this definition to sit as president.”

NO it does not. It only says that because McCain’s family were in the military, he is eligible. If this were a definition, every candidate would have to have parents in the military.

smrstrauss said...

Re: “The protocol officer forgot? Hmmm. You know, the first thing I thought when I heard about that bow was : "The American president is not supposed to bow to foreign heads of state." I remembered it from my school years. When I informed my husband about it, his reaction was the same, as was my son's and that of nearly everyone I know.”

That was my reaction too. But it was just a stupid mistake. Obama should have known better. Sometimes really smart people make stupid mistakes. He should have asked the protocol officer, but he forgot, and the protocol officer thought that he already knew not to bow, so he or she didn’t say anything. Since then, he has seen the same king again, and DIDN’T bow. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/world/middleeast/04saudi.html?scp=1&sq=obama%20bow%20saudi%20king&st=cse

Re: “However, the definition provided in SB 511 is not only very specific, it is a piece of legislation introduced by the law making body of the United States Congress where it was unanimously approved.”

It applies only to John McCain and only because McCain’s family was in the military. Here’s the text again: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:3:./temp/~c11020Zofv::

Re: “You say that they were merely adding to the definition - by which you mean what?”

I mean that the definition is that a Natural Born Citizen is the same thing as a native-born citizen or a citizen at birth. That is the law, as discussed in the Wong case. The Senate, in 511, said that McCain is eligible. That is in addition to the current definition which is that people born in the USA are eligible. McCain was not born in the USA. So the senate, because he was born on a military base, said that he was eligible. The effect of that act was to add McCain as an eligible candidate to Obama, who was already an eligible candidate because he was a Natural Born Citizen.

Re: “Yes they mention John McCain specifically, but that does not mean the definition is limited to Mr. McCain. In fact it was clearly intended to apply to the children of American service men and women born on US military bases abroad as well.”

Okay, the act applies to the children of American servicemen and servicewomen. Does that mean that only the children of those two groups are eligible? No, the old criteria still apply. The new law did not and cannot take them away. And what were those requirements, being a Natural Born Citizen, and what does that mean, as Hatch, and Graham and Jindal, and the Wong case all say, being born in the USA.

Re: “I think it is a valid argument to say that the US Senate, in passing this bill, non-binding or not, has created a simple,specific and reasonable definition for the term Natural Born Citizen.”

A reasonable definition is that only the children of servicemen and servicewomen are eligible?

On the broader topic of whether the framers of the Constitution would allow the children of foreigners to be president, I should add that two of the justices of the Supreme Court had fathers who were born outside of the USA (Scalia and Alito). I believe that both were born after their fathers were naturalized. But they may have friends who were born before their fathers were naturalized. The normal question they would ask, if such a case were ever called before them, is “would I be any less loyal to the United States if my father were naturalized after my birth than if it were before?”

And, there is no evidence. If any of the framers had said “two parents’ or “follow the guidelines of Vattel,” it would be different.

And that is why Hatch and Graham and Jindal (who also is a lawyer) all say that merely being born in the USA is sufficient. And, if this case ever gets to the Supreme Court, that is what the court will say.

chiu_chunling said...

Um, by the way, the Special Resolution does not have or need the force of law because it merely affirms what the duly passed laws under which McCain was born clearly stated, that U.S. territory is U.S. territory for purposes of deciding whether something happened in U.S. territory.

You might think it pretty dumb that such a thing would be covered by law, but it is. U.S. territory = U.S. territory, according to U.S. law.

Call Me Mom said...

I do tire of this, but here is the entire text of the resolution for those who are following along. It's not that long and as smrstrauss is clearly unaware that the THOMAS system does not allow one to revisit the results of a database search indefinately, I thought it worth the effort.

"RESOLUTION

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen' of the United States;

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen', as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country's President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen';

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."

As you can all see for yourselves, the text I quoted is part of the passed resolution,(The part I thought relevant to the dicussion anyway) it does indeed specify born of American parents on American soil and therefore is defining, for the purposes of sitting as president-the term natural born citizen.

smrstrauss continues to attempt to blur the line between the terms "citizen", "natural born citizen" and "natural born citizen for the purpose of becoming POTUS"
because to do otherwise would cause him to have to admit that his favorite president is not sitting in that office legitimately.
He will no doubt ask why then, has nothing been done with this", and quite frankly I don't know. I am just a mom. I don't have reams of money and influence to be able to bring it to the attention of those who ought never to have certified this election in the first place, but that's the point of blogging isn't it? perhaps one of these readers will see the discussion and report it to those who could use it to do some good.

Terry Morris said...

Since I'm feeling generous this morning, I will give smrstrauss this credit:

He/she is considering all of the arguments against Obama's legitimacy and trying to answer them one by one. Yes, his predisposition is clearly favorable towards Hussein Obama, and he's desperately trying to legitimize him. In a number of separate comments here and at the Loyal to Liberty thread, for instance, he's made these apples and oranges comparisons such as Barack and Teddy Roosevelt, Barack's father and General Lafayette of all people. But still, his willingness to seek out answers - albeit answers the rest of us don't fancy - is at least commendable. If I were him I'd lay completely off of making the kinds of comparisons mentioned above simply because they destroy any credibility he might have otherwise established with the other side. These are not good faith arguments. He may well be arguing these points in good faith, but they can't be taken seriously, and they suggest bad faith on his part. As long as he's arguing them neither can he be taken seriously, nor can we trust that he's acting in good faith.

But again, he's stuck this out longer than most, and I haven't seen where's he's launched any personal attacks or cast about any personal insults. Which is rare in these discussions. So credit where credit is due.

Call Me Mom said...

Mr. Morris,
The lack of retreat into personal attacks on the part of smrstrauss is one of the reasons I have continued to post. That and his willingness to look for answers made me think it might be possible for him/her(?) think critically about what we were saying in regard to Mr. obama's citizenship. Thank you for pointing it out.

chiu_chunling said...

Well, I think it's mainly that smrstrauss' idea of a personal attack is to point out that we don't like Obama.

To which I have to respond that I don't particularly dislike Obama, nor do I very much care that he happens to be ineligible for the presidency of the United States. But he is ineligible and that's that.

Frankly, I'm even bored of arguing that arguments need to focus on the fact that he simply wasn't born a citizen at all rather than abstruse questions of whether or not the Founders would have approved of him being eligible for the presidency had he happened to be born in the United States.

Because I don't actually want Barack removed from office. What I want is for Americans to wake up to the fact that their government is no longer following the Constitution. Barack being removed from office won't change anything important. It will probably only make things worse, at least for the nation as a whole (which is already doomed anyway, so that hardly matters).

It would not overtly change the dynamics of prudent sovereignty movements at the state and local levels, but it would probably shorten the time-table for such preparations. So putting aside the fact that I don't believe it likely that the efforts to remove Obama will succeed, I do not even see the utility.

As a protest, however, demanding Obama prove his eligibility has real meaning.

smrstrauss said...

Re: Attempting to blur the line between “"citizen", "natural born citizen" and "natural born citizen for the purpose of becoming POTUS"

I am not attempting to blur anything. If there were proof that “Natural Born Citizen for the purpose of becoming POTUS were different from just an ordinary Natural Born Citizen, which legally is the same as “born in the USA,” I would agree with you. But there is no proof. And, in this case, there has to be proof. The writers of the Constitution would not say something like “Natural Born Citizen” unless they knew that all the lawyers who were going to read that document for hundreds of years could understand the words.

They knew very well that if they wrote something that was ambiguous, that would lead to confusion.

Therefore it is highly doubtful that they thought there could be any ambiguity in the words “Natural Born Citizen,” which passed in the Constitutional Convention without opposition, according to Madison’s notes.

It is alleged today, but never was at the time of the Convention, that the words “Natural Born” refer to Vattel, who required two parents for someone that ONE translation said meant “natural born citizen” and which translation was not published at the time of the Convention. Other recommendations of Vattel, such as that a country should have an established religion, were not adopted. Vattel’s rule, two citizens plus being born in the country, was distinctly different from the citizenship rules of the Colonies, which was full citizenship at birth, similar to the British common law. And they used the term “Natural Born Subject,” which was a synonym of native born, or born in the country.

Therefore, to write “Natural Born” and mean anything other than “born in the country” would have been ambiguous, and the framers did not want that. Moreover, there is not the slightest proof that the framers thought that a US born child of foreign parents (one or two) would be any less loyal or in any way a worse citizen than the child of two US parents. If they did, there would be something in their letters or articles. John Jay used the words “Natural Born Citizen,” but he did not say that that meant two US parents.

In order for “Natural Born Citizen” to mean anything other than just born in the country, the framers would have had to set up three categories of citizens, which either they defined or were already well known: Native born citizens, naturalized citizens, and two-parent US citizens. The three categories would have to be very well known. Everyone would have to know that there was a difference between ordinary native-born citizens, and the new category, two-parent citizens. But there is no evidence that at the time of the Constitution anyone knew that there was the new category. The Federalist Papers do not discuss it, the speeches and letters of the framers do not discuss it. It does not exist.

If you have evidence that a framer ever said "two parents" are needed to be a president or to be anything, I welcome you quoting it.

Call Me Mom said...

smrstrauss,
I could indulge you and find references to various writings regarding the differences between the terms "citizen" and "natural born citizen", but I don't have to. That was the point of my posts. You pointed out that there was no "officially recognized" definition of the term "natural born citizen" for the purpose of sitting as president. I have shown repeatedly that our current congress but one has created just such an official definition. I suspect that your main quibble with it is that it disqualifies Mr. Obama.
The bottom liine is that you and I can debate British legal terminology and the inclusion of Mr. Vattel's reasoning by the founders until the cows come home and it won't change the fact that our senate has provided a current definition for that term for the specific purpose of sitting as POTUS. Nor does it change the fact that said definition does not include people like Mr. Obama whose parents were not both citizens of the USA.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "I have shown repeatedly that our current congress but one has created just such an official definition."

Sadly you are deluding yourself. I sympathize, but no one believes you.

Imagine your case gets to the Supreme Court and one of the justices looks down and asks: "You mean you really think that because the Senate passed a non-binding resolution that said that in its opinion John McCain is eligible, that means that Barack Obama is NOT eligible?"

Zapem, whom i normally disagree with strongly, wrote on another blog: 'Congratulations, you have just usurped the Constitution of the United States.'

He gave his reasons. Mine are slightly different. If someone has a right under the Constitution, no legislation--even if it is passed by both houses and signed by the president--can take it away. And, for that matter, a bill or a law cannot amend the Constitution. Only an amendment can do that.

So, not only are you alleging that that bill or resolution took away Obama's Natural Born qualification. It did so unconstitutionally. Or, another way of putting it. If the resolution or bill was intended to change in any way Article II of the Constitution, it was unconstitutonal.

So was McCain eligible. Zapem says no. I say yes, but not because of the bill or resolution. I think that Natural Born means either born in the USA (which is the unquestioned criteria that every expert believes in, Hatch, Granaham, law review articles, etc). Or, there is a second criteria, some experts do not agree with, that you are eligible even if born outside of the USA, so long as you have two US parents.

But the criteria is not that you have to have BOTH two US parents and be born in the USA. That would be like having to wear both suspenders and a belt.

Call Me Mom said...

So, under your reasoning, if the congress redefines any commonly used word or term that might be in the Constitution, it would have no affect on any of the laws containing those words because that would be unconstitutional?
Let's not even go there. That's too ridiculous a rabbit trail to follow and it's terribly off topic.

Let's address your nonsensical treatment of "citizen" one more time. SR 511 is not saying that John McCain can sit as POTUS because even though he was born out of the country, he had two US citizens as parents. It is redefining US military bases abroad(or reconfirming the status of US military bases abroad) as US soil. This makes the definition of "natural born citizen for the purpose of sitting as POTUS" in SR 511 clearly "born of US citizens on US soil." Not one or the other, but both. The question had been raised about Mr. McCain's eligibility because he didn't have both unless US Military bases abroad were to be considered US soil. If simply being born of two US citizens had been enough, then there would have been no need for such a resolution.

The resolution specifies the necessity of both US citizens as parents and being born on US soil for Mr. McCain, so it must also apply equally to any other contender for the position.

Furthermore, as the court has said that there was no definition stated by the founders, (a position that is not exactly uncontested in legal circles by the way), then I think that it must be the court's position that it is the job of the lawmaking body of the legislature to provide such a definition. The US Senate (otherwise known as the law making body of the legislature)has done so in SR 511.

Terry Morris said...

The US Senate (otherwise known as the law making body of the legislature)has done so in SR 511.

Well, the law making body IS the whole legislature.

But again, if the constitution is, in and of itelf, the supreme law of the land, then I'm Santa Claus (my children know I'm Santa Claus, btw.).

Call Me Mom said...

Granted Terry,
You may change that to "a sizeable portion of the law making body of the legislature".
My son was concerned about the ethics of not telling others (at the age of 5-6) that there was no Santa Claus. He thought it the most heinous of acts for the parents of those other children to lie to them like that.

chiu_chunling said...

If you want to argue about the meaning of 'Natural Born', then you have to look at what it means in other usage.

'Natural Born' in other usage refers to biological parentage or naturally occurring genetic composition. And the original ratification of the Constitution did not comprehend the idea that birth citizenship was a matter of the location of birth, but did comprehend the notion of citizenship due to parentage.

Now, I think that a crappy argument because everyone already knew that Obama did not qualify for birth citizenship based on his parentage. Language purists may make a compelling argument that this was the intent and undisputed meaning of the term from the Constitution's ratification till a full generation after the 14th amendment. And I cannot dispute such a contention with reason (nor can smrstrauss).

But there is no point in advancing such an argument, because it will only convince those willing to subordinate all other considerations to reason. Those who voted for Obama need to be shown a simple explanation of how he deceived them. Pointing out that they deceived themselves simply will not help.

Now, on the issue of the Senate Resolution, I have to agree that it has no force of law. Nor was it intended to have any force of law. It merely affirms what is obviously already written in the law, that the child of two U.S. citizens (each individually able to transmit citizenship to any of their natural children) born on U.S. soil is a natural-born citizen. No plausible definition of 'natural born' citizenship compatible with birth citizenship could possibly exclude such a child.

The Senate Resolution adds nothing to the law. It merely affirms that the Senators understand what the law already said on the subject of John McCain's birth. It can be a useful starting point in considering similar cases because the Senate happens to be correct in this particular case. But it cannot speak to cases of citizenship not enumerated or described.

It certainly can't speak to the case of a non-citizen, which is where Obama's case is found.

By the way, I'm Black Peter. Not that it has anything to do with the issue at hand.

smrstrauss said...

Re: “So, under your reasoning, if the congress redefines any commonly used word or term that might be in the Constitution, it would have no affect on any of the laws containing those words because that would be unconstitutional?”

If congress were to define a word in the constitution for the purpose of changing the constitution. For example, if it were to say that “the new definition of ‘No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States’ means that where the Constitution said “no,” we mean “some.” It would be unconstitutional.

Often congress does things that it thinks are constitutional but are not so. For example, the line item veto: A great idea that would have saved a lot of money. But it was unconstitutional. Why? Because the Constitution says that every expenditure has to be approved or disapproved by congress. It does not say that congress can give that power to the president.

Re: “. SR 511 is not saying that John McCain can sit as POTUS because even though he was born out of the country, he had two US citizens as parents. It is redefining US military bases abroad(or reconfirming the status of US military bases abroad) as US soil.’

First, remember that it was a resolution of ONE house of Congress. Second, it applies only to John McCain. That is why it says: “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III…” Yes, as you say the argument “was clearly intended to apply to the children of American service men and women born on US military bases abroad as well.” But it is just a resolution for John McCain. If it were a resolution to make the children of service people born on bases eligible, then it would have been written as a piece of legislation to allow that, and it would have gone to both houses and be signed by the president.

Personally, I think that children born on US military bases are eligible, but this law does not make it so. It was always the case.

And this law does not take away anything. It does not take away the long-standing and first definition of Natural Born which stems from British law, and US Colonial law, meaning birth in a country. That is jus soli. No law, much less the resolution of one house, can take away jus soli. That was what the framers were thinking about – not Vattel – and that is the basis for at-birth citizenship in Article 14. Some conservative bloggers say that the framers did not mean jus soli to apply to the eligibility of the president. But there is no evidence that this was the case. There would have to be evidence because “natural born” meant “born in the country” at the time. If any framer had said: “There has to be two US parents” or “no children of foreigners,” then you would have a case. But there is nothing.

Re: “The resolution specifies the necessity of both US citizens as parents and being born on US soil for Mr. McCain, so it must also apply equally to any other contender for the position..”

No it doesn’t. It says that McCain has two things, parents and birth on soil. It does not say that someone else could not have only one of those two things and still be eligible. Say that Peter wears both suspenders and a belt. This keeps his pants up. Paul, however, wears only a belt, and it still keeps his pants up. We can say “how wonderful that Peter wears both suspenders and a belt,” but we are not saying that everyone has to do it. Same holds for saying that one guy has two qualifications. Unless you specifically legislate (and a constitutional amendment would be required) that two qualifications are needed, you are merely saying that he has two qualifications. If only one of the two is needed, then the other guy is just as eligible.

smrstrauss said...

Re: “And the original ratification of the Constitution did not comprehend the idea that birth citizenship was a matter of the location of birth, but did comprehend the notion of citizenship due to parentage.”

Not true. There is no mention in the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, or any of the writings of the founding fathers that says anything about citizenship due to parentage. “Natural Born” refers to birth in the country. If they had meant something else, they would have said it.

Here is a quotation that was drafted by three (at least) of the prominent men around the time of the Constitution, one being John Jay, who used the term “natural born” in a letter to Washington. If Jay or any of them had meant “two parents,” they could have said it. In particular, Jay could have in his letter to Washington.

Instead, this document shows that Jay, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin (and H. Livingston, but I do not know him) use the words “Natural Born Citizen” as a synonym for “Natural Born Subject.” I agree that citizens are not subjects, but the issue is with “natural born.” In any case, this quote shows that they were thinking that a Natural Born Citizen is equivalent to a Natural Born Subject.”

Draft Articles to Supplement the Preliminary Anglo-American Peace Treaty [ca 27 April 1787 (in Paris)]

Articles agreed on by David Hartley Esq., Minister Plenipotentiary of His Brittanic Majesty for &c in behalf of said Majesty on the one part, and J.A. [John Adams], B.F. [Benjamin Franklin], J.J. [John Jay] and H.L, ministers plenipotentiary of the Unites States of America for treating of peace….in addition to the articles agreed on on the 30th day of November 1782…The subjects of the Crown of Great Britain shall enjoy in all and every of Said United States, all Rights, Liberties, Privileges and Immunities and be Subject to the Duties and Allegiance of natural born Citizens of the Said States---and, on the other hand, all the citizens of the Said United States shall enjoy in all and every of the Dominions of the Crown of Great Britain all Rights, Liberties, Privileges and Immunities and be Subject to the Duties and Allegiance of natural born Subjects of that Crown, excepting Such Individuals of either Nation as the legislature of the other shall judge fit to exempt.

http://books.google.com/books?id=vemc7Vuqk1YC&pg=PA448&lpg=PA448&dq=%22draft+articles+to+supplement%22&source=bl&ots=Aojo7Iux2Z&sig=r8tN3gtsaDaRYWKBox5fOWNPo4M&hl=en&ei=K4pBSvW6ComJtge3iN2dCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3

Another way of wording the same thing, in another draft, was that “the subjects of his Brittanic Majesty and the citizens of the United States shall mutually be considered as Natural born Subjects & enjoy all rights and privileges as such in the Respective Dominions and Territories in the manner heretofore accustomed.”

http://books.google.com/books?id=vemc7Vuqk1YC&pg=PA214&dq=franklin+subject:%22History+/+United+States+/+Revolutionary+Period+(1775-1800)%22&lr=


What does this mean? It means that as far as the writers of this document were concerned (Adams, Franklin, Jay and Livingston on the US side), the term natural born citizen is equivalent to natural born subject.

The term “natural born citizen” meant to these US writers just what “natural born subject” meant to the British. And what did Natural Born Subject mean? It meant birth in the country other than to the children of foreign diplomats.

Terry Morris said...

If they had meant something else, they would have said it.

That's a dumbass non sequitur, and it needs to be stopped immediately. It is the same thing as saying that if you, smrstrauss, meant something else, you would have said it. But, you see, you wouldn't necessarily have said anything about anything (including this issue) that you weren't challenged on. And once again, it's a can of worms you definitely do not want to open, for it involves all sorts of things that the framers never stated explicitly in the constitution, yet that you would ultimately support nonetheless.

smrstrauss said...

Re: “. Language purists may make a compelling argument that this was the intent and undisputed meaning of the term from the Constitution's ratification till a full generation after the 14th amendment.”

Not true. And that is why, for example, Yale Law review wrote:

“It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born. It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization,” do not. (Jill A. Pryor, Yale Law Review, 1988)

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

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

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

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

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

smrstrauss said...

Oh, and I can just imagine the Supreme Court taking away a presidential election based on a resolution of one house of Congress that never intended to take away the rights of anyone.

Call Me Mom said...

"Personally, I think that children born on US military bases are eligible, but this law does not make it so. It was always the case. "
If it was always the case, and if Mr. McCain only needed two American citizens as parents OR to have been born on American soil, then why would he have needed this resolution to be considered eligible?

smrstrauss said...

Re: "If they had meant something else, they would have said it.

That's a dumbass non sequitur, and it needs to be stopped immediately. It is the same thing as saying that if you, smrstrauss, meant something else, you would have said it."

Answer: First, I thought we were being polite.

Second, "natural born" had a clear meaning at the time that the framers wrote. It had a clear legal meaning, and about 60% or more of the Convention members were lawyers.

The legal meaning of "natural born" was the meaning it had in the phrase "natural born subject." That meant birth in a territory in common law and in the laws of the colonies.

So when I say that if the framers had meant something they would have said it, what I mean is that if they meant "natural born means two parents who are citizens", they would have had to say it because the existing meaning was that it was only birth in a territory.

If Natural Born had meant two US parents, it would have been a complete change from the way "natural born" had been used before. See the Adams/Franklin/Jay quotation where "natural born citizen" and "natural born subject" are used as equivalents.

It is quite true that such things as the right of privacy and the right of executive privilege have been deduced, rightly or wrongly, out of the 'penumbras' of other parts of the Constitution. But you cannot deduce "two parents" out of a penumbra, and deducing penumbras is not considered a conservative thing to do. Remember strict construction?

In this case, it would be laughable to deduce "two parents" because there is nothing to deduce from. There are allegations that the framers were worried about foreigners, but were they worried about the US children of foreigners?

And besides the result would look like this: The requirement of 35 years is simple, and 14 years a resident is simple. The requirement "two US parents are required" is deduced out of a penumbra.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "f it was always the case, and if Mr. McCain only needed two American citizens as parents OR to have been born on American soil, then why would he have needed this resolution to be considered eligible?"

He didn't need it. His friends, the other senators, including Obama, were just being nice. This resolution did not have the power of law. Then why do it? Obama, and the other Democrats, wanted to show that they were gentlemen and ladies. Does it mean anything legally? No.

I notice you did not respond to my suspenders and a belt analogy. You can wear both, but you do not have to.

Terry Morris said...

There are allegations that the framers were worried about foreigners, but were they worried about the US children of foreigners?

Umm, yes. Why do you think they wrote such things as "I consider it a matter of infinite consequence, the cautious admission of foreigners to the rights of citizenship. Many of them have come here with violent prejudices against arbitrary government, and they seem to make no great distinction between arbitrary government, and a government of laws founded on free elections."?

Washington was so concerned with foreign influence that he announced his "indescribable regret" at seeing American youth traveling to foreign countries in order to acquire the higher branches of erudition. What was his reason? Because they had not yet well learned the value of their own system of government, and were therefore vulnerable to "imbibing principles not congenial with republicanism."

Your whole argument here is founded on the false supposition that being born on American soil, in and of itself, makes one a good and patriotic American. And that this is the view that the founders held because they "didn't say anything otherwise" in the constitution, or the Federalist Papers, etc. Pure bunk!

P.S. No; I acknowledged that you were being polite. I didn't say anything about "we." Had I meant "we" I'da said "we." ;-)

chiu_chunling said...

It was an idiotic statement, whether or not Terry was polite or perfectly accurate in expressing his opinion of it.

I don't particularly care about the issue of 'natural born' citizenship. I'm not even particular about citizenship, except as a matter of plain law.

And here's the thing I've been trying to point out. Nobody else actually cares about those things either. There is not one single person, anywhere in America or elsewhere on the damn planet for that matter, who has no problem with anything else about Obama's Presidency but is deeply concerned about the fact that he might not be qualified to be President.

Should "Natural Born citizen" be interpreted to mean a person who is a citizen by virtue of parentage. Yes, both on grounds of the language and because it's obviously a good idea. Not only did the founding generation intend that meaning when they wrote and ratified it, but it is a prudent and easily satisfied requirement.

Does that even remotely matter to the debate? No. The debate itself is whether or not we are going to have Constitutional self-government at all, not over what the Constitution plainly says (or what 'self-government' is).

Not sticking to these simple points turns the entire debate into a farce. And it isn't like anyone remotely inclined to ever agree with the clear meaning of 'natural born' would suddenly drop all opposition to Obama if he pulled out a valid birth certificate anyway. So why get hung up on it?

There are plenty of people who think that many of Obama's other transgressions against the Constitution are more serious than his disputed eligibility. I happen to be one of them. I think that the only value the eligibility issue has is that it can be made simple enough to rouse the people.

"Where's the Birth Certificate?"

It's a powerful slogan, partly because it speaks to so much else about Obama's past, partly because nearly every voter has one. Mainly because it's not about something that Obama can't control and never hid, it's about an issue on which he has consistently and blatantly lied.

Yes, I validate that you are correct to assert that 'natural born' should be interpreted as meaning 'by genetic heritage'. That's plainly what it means, and clearly a good idea too. But don't lose sight of the point of arguing that Obama is not eligible.

Terry Morris said...

Chiu,

It's not just about Obama's inability to produce a valid birth certificate. There's a significant movement in America (whether Obama cares to officially pay any mind to it or not) to restore to some degree the original intent of the framers.

On the other hand, the issue of our foreign exchange president's alleged citizenship, from my personal point of view, doesn't have much to do with the opinions of a dead generation, i.e., the founding fathers. And even though I ultimately agree with Washington who said that "the constitution which exists at any time, until changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory on all," when you get down to where the rubber meets the road, it's the opinons of modern Americans and modern American law that ultimately matters. In other words, the constitution means whatever the living deem it to mean, nothing more, nothing less.

Besides, as I've said many many times before, the founding fathers were speaking for themselves; they had no intention of strapping future generations with a form of government and laws made in pursuance thereof that future generations did not want. And clearly a large percentage of the modern American populace does not want the founding fathers' form of government for themselves. So there ya go.

But, as long as smrstrauss is making arguments impugning the character and good sense of the founding generation, and/or projecting his modern-centric view of the world and the U.S. Constitution onto them, then I'm not going to stand by and let that go unchallenged.

chiu_chunling said...

Then why not challenge him where he would rather not be challenged?

smrstrauss isn't "impugning the character and good sense of the founding generation," but arguing from a complete lack of understanding of their actual ideas and history. The superficial weakness, that smrstrauss is simply wrong on the facts as a result, is not worth attacking.

Because that weakness is only apparent to those who already have enough independent knowledge to see that smrstrauss is either completely ignorant or arguing in utter bad faith. To anyone not in possession of independent knowledge, you both appear equally reliable (or not). You've allowed yourself to be drawn into a game of "he said, she said", when you could be pointing out the basic contradictions in the opposing argument.

Obama's Presidency is completely unconstitutional, not because he's ineligible (though certainly if he really cared about the Constitution he wouldn't have even run, given his lack of credentials), but because of what he's done in office. This is so obvious that it requires a very clever bit of misdirection to obscure. This bit of misdirection is supplied in the form of a highly esoteric argument designed to create the impression that the Constitutional issues are somehow subtle or open to dispute.

And you are playing right into that.

I will admit that my own stance of "plain language" interpretation is originally based on the fact that the Constitution was written and ratified in very sparse language. I understand the reasoning behind this, and believe it sound, but my personal feeling is that encouraging "barracks lawyers" is of mixed value. I might have mentioned that I have tendencies which could be described as closer to an elitist mindset.

Still, going with simplest issue is a very powerful tool for cutting through the sophistic excuses of those who defend progressive innovations. Which is what you've got here. This is not a complicated issue, don't let the opposition pretend that it is.

Call Me Mom said...

smrstrauss,
What we (the two of us) are discussing is whether or not SR 511 creates a current definition of the term natural born citizen for the purpose of sitting as president.

You said: "His friends, the other senators, including Obama, were just being nice. This resolution did not have the power of law" in response to my query about why it was necessary to have such a resolution.

First of all, I'm not happy with the idea that they are wasting my taxpayer dollars crafting non-binding legislation to be nice to each other. As I recall the situation, they got together to make this resolution in some degree of haste, due to the time factor involved with the approaching election which was the explanation given for making it non-binding. This would seem to argue that they wanted to make it binding, but did not wish to do so in haste. There was considerable discussion regarding the children of our military born abroad.

Second, it was necessary to have such a resolution because the American people had challenged Mr. McCain's eligibility on the grounds that he had not been born in this country. Would such a resolution have been necessary if it were understood by the American people that this was an either/or situation? I contend that it would not. Therefore, the senate could be said to have acceded to the will of the people in defining the term in the way that they did. Once again the MSM was AWOL when it served the purposes of Mr. Obama and his handlers that they be so. This resolution was a second page, below the fold story that was only clearing up a necessary detail like Mr. McCain's presidential eligibility - no comments on what it might do to Mr. Obama's eligibility, nothing to see here folks, move along.

Third, you already agreed, in our discussions, that SR 511 was being used under color of law to legitimize the right of the children of our military personnel born on military bases abroad to sit as president. Not that our discussion here has the color of law, but you can't have it both ways. Either SR 511 can serve to legitimize those citizens by defining US military bases abroad as US soil and so may also be used to define the term natural born citizen for the purpose of sitting as the POTUS or it cannot and those children are just out of luck if they want to become president. If it can be used to legitimize one, it can be used to disqualify another. That's what criteria are for. If I'm judging a horse show and the show committee comes to me and says: "by the way, in order to compete in this class we, the show committee, have decided that we want the competitors to have both a martingale and a crupper", then I, as the judge am required to disqualify anyone who shows up in the ring without both pieces of equipment. (I would also be required to notify any show association which might be awarding points for participation in this show about that change if it was a violation of their rules, but that's a whole different topic.) The point is, if the senate has stated that a belt and suspenders are required, then, yes, logically, that does serve to disqualify anyone without both. (Happy now that I used your analogy?)

Chiu,
I tend to agree that Mr. Obama's lack of experiential qualifications and his actions in office should disqualify him, but since the impeachment proceeding has been gutted as far as being effective in removing such a person from office, what would you suggest - if you weren't thoroughly convinced of the futility of it all? I'm curious.

smrstrauss said...

Re: Washington was so concerned with foreign influence that he announced his "indescribable regret" at seeing American youth traveling to foreign countries in order to acquire the higher branches of erudition. What was his reason? Because they had not yet well learned the value of their own system of government, and were therefore vulnerable to "imbibing principles not congenial with republicanism."

Let’s start with the Constitution itself. As you know, it requires that a person be 35, have lived 14 years in the country and be a Natural Born Citizen to be eligible.

Consider the number of years themselves: 14 years residence and 35 years old. That means that the writers of the Constitution did not mind that the person had spent 21 years NOT being a resident out of 35 years, or 60%. Sixty percent of the time outside of the USA! George Washington might have worried, but the document itself allows a person to have spent a large percentage of their lives overseas. This does not indicate concern about foreign influence.

Re: George Washington. This is what he said in his farewell address: “Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.” http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

That does not sound like someone who distrusted foreigners.

Hamilton said in the Constitutional Convention debate over whether there should be a seven-year US residence requirement for membership in the House of Representatives, or only four as it is. That he supported the lower of the two year amounts because:

“the advantage of encouraging foreigners was obvious & admitted. Persons in Europe of moderate fortunes will be fond of coming here when they will be on a level with the first citizens. He moved that the section be altered so as to require merely citizenship & inhabitancy. The right of determining the rule of naturalization will then leave a discretion to the Legislature on this subject which will answer every purpose.(23)” http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/Citizenship/history.htm

And Madison supported him, saying: “He wished to invite foreigners of merit & republican principles among us."(24)

smrstrauss said...

And there is this: “Every foreigner of good character, who comes to settle in this State, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or by other just means acquire, hold, and transfer, land or other real estate; and after one years residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and intitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this State; except that he shall not be capable of being elected a representative, until after two years residence. First Constitution of the State of Vermont, 1777, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/vt01.asp

And this: “All persons who by their own oath or affirmation, or by other testimony shall give satisfactory proof to any court of record in this colony that they propose to reside in the same [7] years at the least and who shall subscribe the fundamental laws, shall be considered as residents and entitled to all the rights of persons natural born. Draft Constitution of Virgina 1777 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffcons.asp

There is also this interesting debate from the House of Representatives in 1790. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships8.html

As you can see, the committee that was drafting the naturalization law proposed a one-year period before a foreigner could become a citizen. One guy opposed it, saying that one year was too much. There was much debate and ultimately they settled on two years. Yes, the representatives did worry that foreigners were not qualified to be citizens, but many did not worry, and they only worried about it to the extent of two years (It is seven years now, and you have to take a test.) In the course of the debate, one representative said:

Mr. Burke said…”He was also in favor of admitting foreigners to hold lands on easy terms, if they would come to reside among us; and here he would take an opportunity of doing justice to some of them, as it might be supposed, from what had fallen from various parts of the House, that foreigners, educated under a Monarchy, were inimical to the pure principles of Republicanism. He was convinced that this doctrine was untrue, because he had often remarked, that foreigners made as good citizens of Republics as the natives themselves. Frenchmen, brought up under an absolute Monarchy, evinced their love of liberty in the late arduous struggle; many of them are now worthy citizens, who esteem and venerate the principles of our Revolution. Emigrants from England, Ireland, and Scotland, have not been behind any in the love of this country; so there is but little occasion for the jealousy which appears to be entertained for the preservation of the government.” Same web site.

There were, however, some representatives who were worried about foreigners, saying that we should take care against “the admission of a great number of foreigners to all the places of Government, may tincture the system with the dregs of their former habits, and corrupt what we believe the most pure of all human institutions.” Same

Madison was split, saying: “I should be exceedingly sorry, sir, that our rule of naturalization excluded a single person of good fame that really meant to incorporate himself into our society; on the other hand, I do not wish that any man should acquire the privilege, but such as would be a real addition to the wealth or strength of the United States.” Same.

This does not indicate overwhelming distrust of foreigners, just a sense of caution.

smrstrauss said...

I think this deals with the concern about foreign influence. It was mainly foreign governments that was the concern. Some people were more concerned about foreigners becoming citizens than others. Even if it were shown that the majority of the framers were concerned about foreigners, you are making a logical jump to the children of foreigners, and even then you are deducing something out of the “penumbra” of the dislike by some of foreigners.

Since two of the members of the current Supreme Court had fathers who WERE foreigners, Scalia and Alito, a discussion before the court that Washington or some other framer was concerned about foreigners to the extent of forbidding their children from becoming president might be, shall we say, irritating to them. You do need their votes, you know.

Re: “Your whole argument here is founded on the false supposition that being born on American soil, in and of itself, makes one a good and patriotic American.”

Considering that Benedict Arnold was born on US soil to two US parents (three generations of Americans before him!) who could say that being born on US soil makes you a good and patriotic America. However, who can say that having two US parents, or four US grandparents, or eight US great grandparents makes you a good and loyal American?

That is not the issue. The issue is whether the framers thought that the children of foreigners would be just as good as the children of Americans, just as loyal. Your argument is based on the VERY false supposition that the blood of a foreigner or the legal status of a foreigner at the moment of the child’s birth makes the child less loyal—or more suspect—than a child whose parents were citizens at the moment of birth. How this disloyalty arises, you do not say. It is certainly not scientific. You may not believe it yourself, but you think that the framers did (though there is no evidence of it.)


The evidence, however, is that the framers believed with Locke, that the influence of parents faded over time so that when the child becomes an adult it may have faded away entirely.

I have shown that Natural Born Citizen was used at the time as a synonym for Natural Born Subject, and the latter merely meant born in the country. You have not shown anyone saying “two parents must be citizens” or “follow Vattel.”

smrstrauss said...

Re: "This resolution was a second page, below the fold story that was only clearing up a necessary detail like Mr. McCain's presidential eligibility - no comments on what it might do to Mr. Obama's eligibility, nothing to see here folks, move along."

The resolution was handled as trivial because it WAS trivial. It only refers to McCain. It does not affect anyone else. It does not take away the basic criteria for being Natural Born, which has existed since far before the Constitution. And, since it is not binding, it has no legal effect.

As for the congress wasting money, have you noticed how often they pass things like "be nice to newts week," which also has no legal effect and no effect whatsoever.

Such as:

To designate the week beginning on the second Saturday in May as National Travel and Tourism Week. (Introduced in Senate)[S.RES.147.IS]

Designating the week of February 2 through February 6, 2009, as `National School Counseling Week'. (Agreed to by Senate)[S.RES.16.ATS]

Designating the first week of April 2009 as `National Asbestos Awareness Week'. (Introduced in Senate)[S.RES.57.IS]

Designating the week of March 1 through March 8, 2009, as `School Social Work Week'. (Agreed to by Senate)[S.RES.58.ATS]

So, what they were doing was the equivalent of "be nice to John McCain week."

smrstrauss said...

Re: "Obama's Presidency is completely unconstitutional, not because he's ineligible (though certainly if he really cared about the Constitution he wouldn't have even run, given his lack of credentials), but because of what he's done in office."

What are you suggesting? Impeachment? Revolution? John Wilkes Booth?

Call Me Mom said...

" which has existed since far before the Constitution" What? Did you even read this before you posted it? Oi!

It does not refer solely to Mr. McCain as we have both noted. It has an affect for the children of service personnel born abroad.(on American military bases) We have both commented favorably on that affect as did the members of the senate who voted for the resolution at the time. As for triviality, I'm sorry, I don't allow the MSM to dictate to me what I should regard as trivial.

As for "Be nice to John McCain week"-no, I don't think it compares to the things you listed.

First, This resolution refers directly to a specific article of our Constitution for the purpose of defining a term in a way that will allow an individual(or in this case a number of individuals) to sit as POTUS. To say that is the equivalent of a congressional declaration of travel and tourism week is ridiculous.

Second, those things you listed do have a positive economic or social impact on the communities or industries in which they originated. Declaring "be nice to John McCain" does not.

Third, you will undoubtedly argue that Congress often recognizes the contributions of individuals. Yes, they do. SR 511 is not a recognition of Mr. McCain's accomplishments or his dedication to the welfare of his country. SR 511 is providing a definition of a term for the purpose of allowing him to sit as POTUS if he won the election. (and, of course giving that status to those children)

I think that this definition, having been made by the senate, can legitimately be used to define the term natural born citizen going forward from the date of it's passage.

chiu_chunling said...

I would have suggested not electing Clinton, along with most of the other officials from the past couple of decades.

Removing Obama is completely beside the point. It would accomplish nothing of any consequence whatsoever, no matter what method is used.

I may regret saying this, but the plan to eliminate most of the human population of the Earth over the coming years has been thoroughly reviewed and meets with my full approval as a cyberneticist. Of course, at a personal level I'm very open to encouraging the survival of as many people as possible, but that doesn't change the essential character of the course with which I concur.

Not that my agreement with anything makes any difference whatsoever as far as events are concerned. But, if you ask me point blank what I think should be done, then honesty compels me to answer thus. I think that what is now being done is, on careful reflection, the best course of action. Even the bits that I very recently thought to be in rather poor taste (that I no longer feel even that objection is...well, if you knew the bits I'm talking about, you'd know that it's remarkable that I no longer feel them to be in particularly bad taste).

I am not quite to the point of being unable to understand why I once held certain elements of the plan to be in poor taste. And naturally I still fully understand the various objections to certain notable characteristics of this course (notably the deaths of billions of people, ranging from very unpleasant to unimaginably horrific).

I don't make the claim that it is a good way to do things, only that it will be effective. None of the various objections I've registered over the years has ever really been based on anything other than personal preferences (mainly aesthetic, but to some degree humanistic).

Yes, I would like for there to be more survivors. I cannot materially advance this personal agenda, but I do advocate it. Waking people up to the crisis they face is critical, and Obama's ineligibility has proved to be a Godsend in this regard. Americans getting back to the Constitution and realizing that America is over is also good. Independence from a doomed system is critical to survival as well.

But that's all just my selfish whims.

Terry Morris said...

smrstrauss,

As I've said, you have a modern-centric view of the world, and you project that view onto the founding generation. All of the quotations you cite deal with foreigners of Western descent, i.e., Europeans. And you make no great distinction between foreigners of Western descent -- the blood relatives of revolutionary Americans -- and foreign peoples vastly different than themselves -- everyone else.

As the adage goes, a text taken out of context is a pretext.

Now, you will undoubtedly reply that you're not taking anything out of context; that you're quoting the founders from various debates and so forth. But I simply say to you that you can't take a given quotation (or five or six of 'em) and remove them from the whole context of the entire world and life-view of the founding generation as a complete whole. Well, you can, but it doesn't serve any purpose except to obscure the truth.

Secondly, and also as I've mentioned before, you have a distinctively part-to-whole approach to the entire subject. Which is to say that rather than form a complete (or whole) understanding of the founding generation, and then to take various statements and so forth that the founders made about a given topic and properly fit them into the whole picture, you take an opposite approach -- you take the various parts and try to form a whole from them. And, of course, the whole you're trying to form neatly aligns with your modern-centric conception of things. It is a completely bassackwards way of doing it. But I get it, that's what we've all learned to do under the 'leadership' of progressive elitists who dominate in modern American society.

But the issue that you conveniently overlook is that never in history of the United States, until the 2008 election, have Americans knowingly elected to the presidency someone whose parents were not both U.S. citizens able to confer on him unquestionable constitutional natural born citizen status. That little fact speaks louder than a thousand quotes supposedly supporting your untenable position ever could.

Now, I'm not saying that all U.S. born (and raised) children of foreigners are necessarily going to hold to principles not congenial with American style democratic republicanism. Any rule always admits of the exception. But exceptions to the rule are just that, exceptions. Because we moderns tend to form rules from exceptions to them merely shows how far we've removed ourselves and our thinking from reality.

chiu_chunling said...

Well, here's the pickle.

Even accepting the plain meaning of 'natural born' in the phrase "Natural Born Citizen", we still must struggle with the question of how much genetic heritage is necessary to qualify.

This is an argument that you've addressed far better than smrstrauss has, but the fact remains that it is a disputable point. Washington's preferences do not settle the issue conclusively, there are many parts of the Constitution that represent compromises on significant differences of opinion. You can't just point to one side of any of those controversies for guidance and thus implicitly abolish the other side.

Now, the issue of what qualified as "Natural Born Citizenship" was not in dispute, which does present a certain difficulty for us in discovering it from the Constitution alone. As it turns out, though, that power was left to the Congress.

Congress drafted laws which established under what conditions citizenship was conferred on a natural child of an existing citizen. These laws were changed several times. At some times, a child of only one citizen, who had been a citizen since birth, would have enjoyed citizenship entirely by virtue of parentage.

Now, as it happens, when Obama was born, the requirements were a little more stringent. Some people will point to various acts passed by Congress back in the 1800's to try and prove that Barack qualifies as a 'natural born' citizen. I am forced to admit that there is a strong case to be made, that even though under U.S. law at the time of his birth, he did not qualify for citizenship based solely on his parentage, his parentage would be sufficient to qualify his birth citizenship as 'natural born'.

Except that Obama's birth citizenship isn't American.

Terry Morris said...

Chiu,

You keep saying that (that Obama wasn't born on American soil), and you state it dogmatically as if there's no question about it. I personally do not know that to be the case, therefore I don't argue the point.

The only things I have to go on is what I know to be the truth (which isn't much), and/or what Obama has revealed about himself (which isn't very reliable given that he's a deceiver and cannot be trusted). Because there seems to be not a single living American soul that recalls anything about the man's birth, his childhood, or his early adult life.

People like smrstrauss conveniently (and irresponsibly) dismiss such things, putting all of their faith in a scanned image of someone's Hawaii COLB, and a couple of one-liners in Hawaii newspapers which all three emanate from the exact same source. Whatever happened to the principle of verifying claims on the testimony of two or more witnesses? I know, it went out of vogue when the Bible went out of vogue, right? No!, it went out when the Messiah came on the scene.

But like I've said before, these folks would be singing a whole 'nother tune were circumstances reversed and a genuine conservative were the object of our attentions. But that's never going to happen because a principled conservative couldn't win the presidency to begin with, nor would he deceive the public into voting for him if he could.

Nevertheless, if you have reliable information to support your claim as to Obama's birthplace, I for one would sure like to see it.

Call Me Mom said...

If I might throw a few items into our little stewpot here.
Chiu referenced the laws at the time of Mr. Obama's birth. As Mr. Obama's father was a not a citizen and some of the bits I have read indicate that his mother had not lived in the USA for the requisite number of years required by the law at the time of his birth to hold citizenship herself much less confer it to any child she might have at that point, he cannot, legally be a citizen, much less a natural born citizen.
This is something that folks tend to overlook because US law is generally flexible in favor of the child.

As for me, besides the point I have been endeavoring to make, I submit this little historical tidbit for you. During the Congress' discussions on ratification of the Constitution, in Philadelphia, Mr. Wilson, said this:
"The President, sir, will not be a stranger to our country, to our laws, or to our wishes."

One might think someone raised in another country (or two) by non citizens, in cultures that do not resemble our own would hardly fit such a description. Especially when Mr. Washington was concerned about young people, who had been raised here and had their moral compass shaped here, going abroad to finish their educations in Europe, a culture quite similar (comparatively)to the culture here.

Just stirring the pot.

Terry Morris said...

Chiu wrote:

Even accepting the plain meaning of 'natural born' in the phrase "Natural Born Citizen", we still must struggle with the question of how much genetic heritage is necessary to qualify.

This is an argument that you've addressed far better than smrstrauss has, but the fact remains that it is a disputable point.


Well, if I've addressed the question far better, as you say, than strauss has, then it is only because I have the better, more rational position. And that is all.

But I absolutely and unflinchingly agree with you, it is not a foregone conclusion that one or two, or even five generations of genetic heritage is sufficient (or insufficient, as it were) to qualify a person under the Article II natural born citizen clause. Nevertheless, it can only be argued from irrationality that genetic heritage, as a general rule, is unimportant or irrelevant to that qualification.

Now, I have my preferences, of course, like anyone else has his/her preferences. But that doesn't mean much. All I can say is that this country and its governing constitution were created by an overwhelming WASP majority, and I do not think for a second that it could have been founded and maintained (to the extent that it has been maintained) otherwise.

Terry Morris said...

Mom wrote:

One might think someone raised in another country (or two) by non citizens, in cultures that do not resemble our own would hardly fit such a description.

Well, I already raised that issue early in the discussion here, and I think I've mentioned it two or three times since. But strauss would simply argue that the 14 years a resident requirement satisfies this dilemma.

chiu_chunling said...

I think that you could give the Anglo-Saxon bit of that the heave ho and broaden the definition of "Protestant" to include any Christians who regarded freedom of conscience as a vital element of sincere religious devotion...but yeah, whatever you came up with, they'd have to be pretty waspish for it to work.

Anyway, I'm not really that dogmatic about Obama's having been born in Mombasa, Kenya. All the available evidence suggests it, but I wouldn't bet on it. That might have something to do with my view of the morality of gambling, though. The closest thing I've heard to a serious argument against that being certain is the claim that there were no white people anywhere in Kenya at the time. I'm almost positive that's not true, though it might explain why Stanley decided to move back to the States for a short period of time after Obama was born.

Obama, brought to you by...'genocidal anti-white rage'.

Anyway, I long thought it impossible that the Obamanation was simply so utterly incompetent as to be unable to produce a reasonably good forgery of a birth certificate, so I discounted most of the strongest evidence that Obama was definitely not born in the United States (particularly the Obama campaign's endorsement of a badly faked Certificate of Live Birth posted online).

But I've remembered something important that sometimes gets forgotten (even though it's the main reason I'm not up with Nietzsche). Fascists are idiots. Indulgence of the appetites that motivate the pursuit of unlimited political power absolutely wrecks an individual's sentient potential, and that makes for a sharp decline in practical abilities and intelligence.

I hate the idea of making myself stupider, which is the main thing that keeps me honest. But those who abandon truth must rely on falsehoods. A dumb lie serves such better than a well-crafted one, because to craft a lie 'well' requires appreciation of the standards by which truth is discerned.

Obama is unquestionably a fascist at this point (I mean, nationalizing banks and industries? Just grow a mustache already). Fascists cannot promulgate the kinds of subtle plans that involve skillful manipulation of information rather than blatant falsehoods repeated with great energy. It requires close attention to evidence and reason, both of which they've willfully forsaken.

The games with the birth certificate aren't some intricate ploy to distract and confuse patriotic Americans. Just look at the results. At this point, even if Obama were to produce a perfect forgery, the response would be public outrage at him for taking so long. Some of those manipulating him may be machiavellians, but he's not one and can't effectively act like one.

When you put to rest the idea that Obama has some clever plan which involves tricking people into thinking he couldn't produce a convincing American birth certificate, there isn't any other interpretation of the evidence than that he really can't.

Which is so dumb it's horribly funny, but there you go.

Terry Morris said...

Yeah, no whites around during the Mau Mau Rebellion. Whatever.

Anyway, what if there's something on his long form birth certificate that is damaging to him?

chiu_chunling said...

You mean other than the whole "birth in Kenya" thing?

We already know he was born a Muslim, and has never repudiated Islam. We know his mother was named "Stanley". I have no idea how anything else on his birth certificate would even be embarrassing, let alone damaging. Maybe if he was born with horns and a tail...would they put that on the birth certificate, though? "Displayed neo-natal stigma of the anti-christ", "surgical removal of demonic features", "Shinto ritual used to suppress further outbreaks".

I don't think that would be on his birth certificate.

And let's face it, given the 'damaging' information that has come out about Obama before, we'd have to be talking about something really significant, something with definite legal consequences. Even if his birth certificate recorded his being born with deformities or some other medical issue, it wouldn't be worth so much as a denial. He glossed over his present day close relationships with terrorists and proponents of terrorism by saying it happened when he was a kid or just not paying attention. What could possibly be on his birth certificate that anyone could blame on him?

Nobody thinks Obama was at fault for being born outside the United States. But it does happen to make him ineligible to be President, just as much as if he'd done his best but didn't win the election.

Terry Morris said...

Okay, ha, ha.

No; I'm not referring to something that he himself has/had no control over. What if his mother was not Stanley Ann Dunham as he's iterated; what if his father is really not BHO I as he has stated, etc.? He has claimed this, that, and the other. What if his long form birth certificate (assuming for the sake of argument that one exists) says otherwise?

Btw, I'm thoroughly in favor of the "Where's the birth certificate?" movement, and for all the reasons aforesaid.

chiu_chunling said...

Well, if Obama isn't even who he claims to be, then his birth certificate wouldn't be legitimate.

But let's delve into particular cases. First, if he isn't even Stanley's child, then he has to prove his identity from scratch. We'd have to find the birth mother and establish that Barack was the same child mentioned on the birth certificate. That's simpler to determine these days, but still a significant hassle.

However, once he establishes that he was indeed born a citizen of the United States (which would be the case if he were born in Hawaii no matter who or what the mother was) everything still pretty much falls into place for him. There would be a minor media flurry (about 95% positive coverage focusing on the heartwarming story of his birth and adoption), but it would pretty much end there. In legal terms his sole claim to citizenship is already based on the notion he was born in America. If neither of his actual birth parents were citizens at all there might be some grumbling about his citizenship not qualifying as 'natural born', but only among the most hard-core of Constitutionalists.

As for his father...I cannot imagine a more politically damaging possibility than Barack Obama Sr. unless Satan is actually listed by name. You'd really have to give me something to work with there, I simply cannot come up with a plausible scenario for hiding the true identity of his birth father.

But, assuming there is such a scenario (and heck, even if it's Satan), the fallout would follow the same pattern (though with far less fanfare) as above. There would be no legal basis for requiring him to prove the identity of his biological father, nor would it be as juicy a tidbit for the media.

Then you have things like his own name being different at birth. In a legal sense that only requires that he prove himself the biological child of Stanne Duranne. It falls closer to 'wrong mother' in legal difficulty and closer to 'wrong father' in media fallout. Wrong race listed, attending physician unlicensed or certifiably insane,and other stuff like that aren't even worth mentioning.

So, finally you have items that basically prove that Obama cannot possibly be the child mentioned in the birth certificate. Stillborn (I don't imagine it's normal to issue certificates for that) or died immediately after birth, born a girl (actually moderately plausible...I'll revisit it), irreparable defect like anacephalic or something...these mostly fall under "okay, that's not your birth certificate."

Under "Barack Obama was actually born a girl, but somehow or other grew up to be a man", there are three basic categories. One, some idiot mistook a baby boy for a girl. Not exactly likely but far from impossible. After digging up some plausible story for how that could happen and when the error was discovered, it basically just becomes the basis for embarrassing and tasteless jokes about his marital relationship.

Then you have the possibility that he was born transgendered. This would be much bigger, but also pretty discrete. After all, it still isn't his fault. He was raised as a boy, traveled the world, went to college, and became President, all the while hiding this gender confusion la la la. If they do cobble something together at this stage, this would probably be a good fudge. There are significant upsides politically, though certainly obvious downsides.

Terry Morris said...

[I] simply cannot come up with a plausible scenario for hiding the true identity of his birth father.

Not even if his real birth father is Jesse Jackson? He (Jackson) did weep when he learned Barack won the election (real tears, I saw it with my own eyes!), and he did once say that he'd like to cut his n*ts out, which I think is pretty common for a biological father to say about his son. (Admit it, you did a doubletake when I mentioned Jackson. ;-))

But Chiu, it would establish that he is not who he's been saying all along that he is. And the whole foundation of his 'legitimacy' as a 'community organizer,' as a politician, and as the POTUS is built upon the supposition that he IS who he's been saying he is. Even if it were spun that he was ultimately lying to protect someone else, it still undermines his legitimacy and his trustworthiness.

Now, you may think that's kind of weak given that his supporters wouldn't really care and would defend him to the hilt in any event (I actually do too), but you said once before that what is most important is that he deceived people; that pointing out that they deceived themselves wouldn't effect anything. And I happen to agree with that, by the way.

Truth be told, though, and the only reason I even entertain such notions, is that I can think of only two remotely plausible reasons for why he has not unveiled his long form birth certificate, (1) it doesn't exist, or (2) there's something on it that would damage him, his credibility, and thus his presidency.

chiu_chunling said...

Uhg. You posted in the middle of my posting. Anyway, to that address, I'm not really sure what the difference is between an easily forgiven "white lie" and deception in the minds of most people, but I suspect Barak turning out to be the secret child of some famous black 'leader' would generally be regarded as the former. I don't really understand such things myself, so it is very possible I'm wrong. But try looking at it from his supporter's point of view and tell me what you think.

To continue what I was saying:

But, exactly because this would actually be such a boon to Obama's political agenda, I don't buy it for a second. There is no possible way that could be what he's hiding. If he'd run on a Christian Coalition ticket with a strong emphasis on traditional marriage, it would be embarrassing to have come out, but hardly politically disastrous even then.

Then there is the possibility that he's fully, medically, biologically, female. Okay, I'm laughing pretty hard right now. This does not seem likely, but it is remotely possible. Still, even if Barack is actually a rather ugly woman involved in an illegal same sex marriage, the solution is simple. Just claim to be transgendered. Who's going to check? Just on the face of it, who would even dispute a story that it was just a clerical error at birth, once he proved that he is the same child for whom the birth certificate was issued?

This is the very best I can do at creating a scenario where Barack Obama has a valid birth certificate but doesn't want certain details released to the public. And it simply isn't good enough to pass muster.

Besides, the way to settle such things is to request that the birth certificate be admitted as sealed evidence. That would have no legal difficulties, and as long as the media didn't decide to interpret it as an indication that there was some kind of horrible secret (unlikely, given that they've actively buried such issues in the past) there are no political downsides to it either.

So, I can't even come up with a good excuse for Obama not to publish any birth certificate he could produce, and then you have to factor in that there is absolutely no need for him to do anything other than release it to a court proceeding. Which is precisely what he is unwilling to do.

Obama's actions are totally inconsistent with any available hypothesis I can construct which involves his having a valid American birth certificate, no matter what I try to imagine as the content. At this point, they are even inconsistent with his having access to the resources to make a convincing fake, which is frankly astonishing to me. But a convincing fraud requires at least knowing how to simulate truth.

Which Obama and his associates cannot do.

Terry Morris said...

Well, okay, I do want to make it clear that the Jackson thing was a joke. You know, someone might be lurking.

But anyway, like I said, the only reason I even entertain such notions (and perhaps I shouldn't even do that) is that I can formulate no other remotely plausible reason why he doesn't just produce the damn thing if it exists. But certainly I lean very heavily in favor of the proposition that it does not exist.

On the problem with the forged COLB and his lack of resourcefulness to produce a better one, it simply boggles the mind. I mean, it took me all of three hours to produce one as good, and probably better (the jury is still out on that). My forgery establishes that I was born in Oklahoma. But in actuality I was born in San Diego. But mine, unlike his, has all of the other relevant information on it too -- name of mother and father, hospital, city, date and time of birth, etc.