I think that Polarik is correct about this.
As I said much earlier, this article is useful for what it focuses on, but somewhat lacking in other respects. What it usefully focuses on is the history of the term “natural born citizen” in legal cases and influential writings. Even that may need a bit of tidying up or correction, but it is useful in itself.
It is not the immediate concern of this essay whether or not the COLB is a forgery. That is a vital question, but it is not immediately relevant to the discussion here.
What I think is needed is a bit of tidying up and cleaning up, and a little less speculation about what an “original birth certificate” which no one has ever seen may say, if it exists at all. Also, as I said in my earlier post, history suggests that Hawaii was not all that reluctant to grant birth certificates to Asians and others who were actually foreign born, because of the peculiar history of this territory/state, and because of the large number of Asian residents and prospective voters.
Polarik offers a few other corrections or suggestions in earlier posts. I think that Touchen should read those carefully and consider them. It still seems to me that he has a very useful contribution here, but that it needs some cleaning up and revision to separate speculation from fact and concentrate on the main point—the constitutional meaning of “natural born citizen.”
I haven’t read Polarik’s earlier post since it first appeared on this thread, but as I recall there was just one point he makes that I would also clarify. He says that the Constitution grants citizens the basic rights as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, including Life, Liberty, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms and defend yourself, your family, and your neighbors, and so on.
That’s true in a sense, that the Constitution gives us those rights, but the Founders actually said that the Contitution recognizes these rights as God-given and “inalienable.” So, one could argue, these rights cannot legitimately be taken away even by a constitutional amendment.
I think this argument can be worked out, since Polarik and Touchen are really focused on two different aspects of the birth certificate problem.
That's why I posted it.
It is not the immediate concern of this essay whether or not the COLB is a forgery.
Correct. However it seems to some that if the document isn't all encompassing in its considerations, then it becomes useless.
I think this argument can be worked out, since Polarik and Touchen are really focused on two different aspects of the birth certificate problem.
I don't think so. Polarik believes the author is a liar and intends to deceive. I don't expect the author to get beyond that and I wouldn't ask him to do so. At this point, I'm sorry I invited him to FR, not because I believe I made a mistake in judgment but for dragging him into a fight that he didn't ask for and can't possibly win.
It is what it is.
First, if it was offered purely as sarcasm, it has taken as axiomatically the opposite that Hawaii issued what Obama claims is his 'valid' CoLB.
Second, it goes from the axiomatic to the 'double meaning turning the syllogism back into its assumptions' ploy, a typical leftist tactic ... re, 'intentionally committed fraud' is assumed the opposite of what the reader would believe of the Hawaiian authorities, and the natural reasoning flows to 'must not be a fraudulent thing if issued by Hawaiian authorities, because they would not intentionally commit fraud'.
Third, the assertion aims to apply Occam's power, the simplest answer to this doubled-over assertion is 'there is no fraudulent document so Hawaii didn't commit fraud.'
If you catch Paul Begala on CNN and MSNBC occasionally, he uses this same technique to herd the undisciplined minds of CNN viewership whenever he wishes to slam a conservative or conservative principle(s). The offered 'Primer' uses this same approach in several places, strategically, when playing 'surely Caesar was an honorable man' or 'the man is an Hawaiian by birth but there are sticking points as to his genuineness in some minds'.