US SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT STATES THAT OBAMA IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT

naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ^ | 06/21/2011 | Leo Donofrio

[rxsid]

"US SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT STATES THAT OBAMA IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT.

The title of this article is correct. After having completed a more thorough review of the relevant US Supreme Court cases discussing the Constitution’s natural-born citizen clause, I have discovered precedent which states that a natural-born citizen is a person born in the jurisdiction of the US to parents who are citizens. Read that again. I said precedent, not dicta. The precedent holds that Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States.

Up until the publication of this report today, all discussion of the natural-born citizen issue (from both sides of the argument) agreed there had never been a precedent established by the US Supreme Court, and that the various cases which mentioned the clause did so in “dicta”.

Dicta are authoritative statements made by a court which are not binding legal precedent.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines “precedent” as a “rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases“.

Precedent that must be followed is known as binding precedent. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, a lower court must honor findings of law made by a higher court. On questions as to the meaning of federal law including the U.S. Constitution, statutes, and regulations, the U.S. Supreme Court’s precedents must be followed.

It can no longer be denied that there is controlling US Supreme Court precedent concerning the definition of a natural-born citizen according to Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution. I predict satori will overcome those of you who have labored over this issue. This is not a remote obscure reading. It is, when revealed, a clear undeniable holding and binding precedent established by the highest Court of our nation which specifically defines an Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizen as a person born in the US to parents who are citizens.

Therefore, Obama – according to US Supreme Court precedent – is not eligible to be President.

PRECEDENT ESTABLISHED BY MINOR V. HAPPERSETT

The direct US Supreme Court precedent is stated in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875). Furthermore, the precedent stated in Minor is consistent with other US Supreme Court cases – both before and after Minor – which discuss the natural born citizen issue. While that part of the holding in Minor regarding woman’s suffrage was superseded by the 19th Amendment – which Constitutionally established a woman’s right to vote – the rest of the case is good law. And the remaining precedent stated regarding the definition of “natural-born citizen” – with regard to Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution – is still binding upon all lower courts.

Therefore, lower court decisions – such as the holding in Arkeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana – which have misconstrued the US Supreme Court’s holding in Minor v. Happersett are wrong. Below, we will review what the Indiana Court of Appeals had to say and explain why they got it wrong. But first we must revisit Minor v. Happersett.

THE SUPREME COURT IN MINOR V. HAPPERSETT DIRECTLY CONSTRUED THE US CONSTITUTION’S ARTICLE 2 SECTION 1 NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CLAUSE

Before revisiting Minor, we must revisit Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) to review a clearly erroneous statement made by Justice Gray concerning the prior holding in the Minor case:

“In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: ‘The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ “ (Wong Kim Ark at 655.)

This unfortunate remark by Justice Gray contains a clearly erroneous statement. The Supreme Court in Minor did not construe the 14th Amendment as to the issue of citizenship. Gray is absolutely wrong. The Court in Minor construed Article 2 Section 1, not the 14th Amendment. For over a century, it has been wrongly assumed that the Court in Minor did construe the 14th Amendment, and that the holding of Minor was later superseded by Wong Kim Ark. This is not correct.

A more careful reading of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Minor makes it clear that it did not construe the 14th Amendment with regard to the citizenship of the woman who wished to vote. The question presented was whether, since the adoption of the 14th Amendment, women had gained the right to vote. The Supreme Court in Minor held that nowhere in the Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, was anyone, man or woman, granted a right to vote. And it was only this part of the Minor case which was superseded by the 19th Amendment.

The other issue decided by the Court in Minor required the Supreme Court to determine if the woman was, in fact, a US citizen. As to this determination, the Court did not construe the 14th Amendment. In fact, the Court specifically avoided construing the 14th Amendment with regard to her citizenship. Instead, the Supreme Court in Minor chose to construe Article 2 Section 1:

“There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ‘ are expressly declared to be ‘citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.’ But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position …

“The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption. If the right of suffrage is one of the necessary privileges of a citizen of the United States, then the constitution and laws of Missouri confining it to men are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, as amended, and consequently void. The direct question is, therefore, presented whether all citizens are necessarily voters. (Emphasis added.)

There you have it. The Court stops short of construing the 14th Amendment as to whether the woman in question was a US citizen. The Court made a certain, direct determination that Mrs. Minor was a US citizen before the adoption of the 14th Amendment and that she did not need the 14th Amendment to be a US citizen.

The Court then, having determined that she was a US citizen, avoided any construction of the 14th Amendment as to her citizenship status. Therefore, the holding in Minor is in no way superseded by Wong Kim Ark.

The Court in Minor went on to decide the issue of whether citizens are granted a right to vote by the Constitution, holding that it did not. Again, this part of the holding was superseded by the 19th Amendment, but the determination that Mrs. Minor was a “natural-born citizen” is still controlling precedent.

Since the Court in Minor specifically avoided construing the 14th Amendment as to citizenship, it is clear that Justice Gray’s statement – concerning the citizenship passage by Justice Waite in Minor – was clearly erroneous. The Supreme Court in Minor chose to construe Article 2 Section 1 instead of the 14th Amendment. As such, Minor is the only US Supreme Court case which has directly construed the Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizen clause. Therefore, Minor’s construction below creates binding legal precedent:

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

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

Whether the holding here was influenced by Vattel is not truly important. Sure, it looks just like Vattel’s definition, but Vattel does not make legal precedent – the US Supreme Court does. All that matters here is what the Supreme court held. So we must carefully examine the actual words stated by the Supreme Court. We must not allow ourselves to be guided by what the Supreme Court did not say. What the Court actually said is what makes law.

In the above passage, the Court noted that Mrs. Minor was born in the US to parents who were citizens. The Court stated that such persons were “natural-born citizens”. The Court also stated – as to such persons – that their “citizenship” was never in doubt.

By recognizing Mrs. Minor as a member of the class of persons who were natural-born citizens, they established her citizenship. Establishing her citizenship was required before they could get to the issue of whether she had the right to vote. In doing so, the Court in Minor directly construed Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution.

The Court also noted that some authorities include as “citizens” those born in the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. The Court refers to these people as a different “class”. The Court in Minor refused to comment on the “citizenship” of such persons since Mrs. Minor was not in that class. They didn’t need to reach the 14th Amendment to determine if Mrs. Minor was a US citizen since the Court previously established that she was a “natural-born citizen”. Read the following again:

“It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.“

This class is specifically defined as “natural-born citizens” by the Court. The other class – those born in the US without citizen “parents” – may or may not be “citizens”. But the Minor Court never suggested that this other class might also be natural-born citizens.

It’s quite the opposite. The Minor Court makes clear that this class are not Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizens. If this other class were natural-born there would be no doubt as to their citizenship.

The Minor Court refrained from making a “citizenship” determination as to that class, but the Court did note that they were a different class. Later, in 1898, the Court in Wong Kim Ark took the question on directly as to who is a citizen under the 14th Amendment, but that case did not directly construe Article 2 Section 1, whereas Minor did.

In order to avoid construing the 14th Amendment, the Court in Minor had to define those who fit into the class of “natural-born citizens”. Mrs. Minor fit into that class. Mr. Obama does not.

This is so very evident by the fact that the Minor Court specifically states that the “citizenship” of those who have non-citizen parents was historically subject to doubt. Whether the 14th Amendment nullified those doubts was irrelevant to the Court in Minor, since Mrs. Minor was a natural-born citizen.

The 14th Amendment specifically confers only “citizenship”. In Minor, the US Supreme Court directly recognized that natural-born citizens were a class of citizens who did not need the 14th Amendment to establish citizenship. The class of natural-born citizens was perfectly defined in the Minor case.

Therefore, we have a direct determination by the US Supreme Court which defines a natural-born citizen as a person born in the US to parents who are citizens. The citizenship of this class has never been in doubt. The citizenship of the other class was in doubt. But even if that doubt was erased – as to their citizenship – that they are not natural-born citizens was established as precedent by the Supreme Court in Minor. In order for that precedent to be reversed, one of two things are necessary:

- a Constitutional amendment which specifically defines “natural-born Citizen” more inclusively than Minor did , or;

- a Supreme Court case which overrules the definition of natural-born citizen in the Minor case

We have neither.

Minor was decided seven years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court in Minor did not consider anyone but those born of citizen parents on US soil to be natural-born citizens. Later, in Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court stated that persons born on US soil to (some) alien parents were “citizens”, but that case specifically construed only the 14th Amendment.

Read again Justice Gray’s statement as to Minor, “In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said…“ Nope. Not true. Gray was wrong in that Justice Waite did not construe the 14th Amendment in the quoted passage. Chief Justice Waite construed Article 2 Section 1. Whereas, Justice Gray construed the 14th Amendment. Therefore, the two cases are not in conflict.

ARKENY V. GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF INDIANA

The Minor case has been severely misconstrued in the Arkeny opinion issued by the Indiana Court of Appeals. That court quoted Minor’s natural-born citizen language, then stated:

“Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.”

False. The Minor Court did not leave that question open. Nowhere in the Minor opinion does it state that the class of persons who are natural-born citizens is an open question. The Arkeny Court has it backwards.

The Supreme Court in Minor stated that the “citizenship” of persons who were not natural born citizens was an open question.

That is the most important sentence I’ve ever written at this blog. So please read it again. [edit: emphasis added] The “citizenship” of those born to non-citizen parents was a question that the Minor Court avoided. But they avoided that question by directly construing Article 2 Section 1. In doing so, the Supreme Court in Minor defined the class of persons who were born in the US to citizen parents as “natural-born citizens”.

Since Minor, no Amendment has been adopted which changes that definition, and no other Supreme Court case has directly construed Article 2 Section 1.

The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark only construed the question of who was a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment, it did not construe Article 2 Section 1. Therefore, Minor and Wong Kim Ark do not compete with each other at all. Minor is the standing precedent for construction of the natural-born citizen clause in Article 2 Section 1, and Wong Kim Ark is the standing precedent as to “citizenship” under the 14th Amendment.

WONG KIM ARK SPECIFICALLY DEFERRED TO PRIOR PRECEDENT REGARDING THE DEFINITION OF NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

That the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark limited its holding strictly to the issue of 14th Amendment citizenship – and did not make any new determination as to Article 2 Section 1 – is evident from the following statement by Gray regarding the dissent by Justice Curtis in the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford:

“In Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said:

‘The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, ‘a natural-born citizen.’ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.’

19 How. 60 U. S. 576. And, to this extent, no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges.”

At first glance, Gray’s reliance upon the dissent’s passage in the Dred Scott case would appear to contradict everything I have written above. But it doesn’t. It actually confirms my analysis.

Justice Gray chooses his words carefully and so we must examine them carefully. Note where Gray says, “And, to this extent, no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges.” Well, if we are talking only about “citizenship”, then – to this extent – Justice Gray is correct. But if we are talking about the definition of a “natural-born citizen”, then Gray is grossly mistaken.

The Dred Scott majority may not have expressed a different opinion as to “citizenship”, but the majority’s definition of a natural-born citizen is vastly different than that of Justice Curtis in his dissent. The majority opinion in Dred Scott, citing Vattel directly, stated:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society, bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.”

Again:

“I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen, for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country.”

Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p. 101.

From the views here expressed, and they seem to be unexceptionable…”

Unexceptionable is defined as; ” not open to any objection or criticism.” The Supreme Court majority, in the Dred Scott case, clearly states that a natural-born citizen is a person born in the US to parents who are citizens. Therefore, Justice Gray’s reliance upon the dissent in the Dred Scott case is strictly limited to its discussion of “citizenship” by Gray’s very choice of the words, “to this extent”.

Since Gray stated that none of the other justices in the Dred Scott case expressed a different opinion than Curtis did in his dissent, it is obvious that Gray’s statement only applies to general citizenship, and not to the definition of those who fall into the class of natural-born citizens. The majority in Dred Scott did, in fact, express a completely different opinion than Curtis on the issue of who was an Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizen.

Gray’s use of the words, “to this extent” – with regard to the dissent by Curtis – indicates that the extent to which the holding in Wong Kim Ark applies is to the definition of “citizenship”, not to the definition of who is a natural-born citizen eligible to be President. The precedent stated by the Court in Minor still stands to this day.

THE US SUPREME COURT DEFINITION OF PRECEDENT

In 1996, the US Supreme Court’s majority opinion by Justice Breyer in Ogilvie Et Al., Minors v. United States, 519 U.S. 79 (1996), stated that when the Court discusses a certain “…reason as an ‘independent’ ground in support of our decision”, then that reasoning is not simply dictum:

“Although we gave other reasons for our holding in Schleier as well, we explicitly labeled this reason an ‘independent’ ground in support of our decision, id., at 334. We cannot accept petitioners’ claim that it was simply a dictum.”

The Supreme Court in Minor specifically construed Article 2 Section 1 by defining – as natural-born citizens – those persons born in the US to parents who were citizens.

Again, the Supreme Court specifically avoided the 14th Amendment, by specifically construing Article 2 Section 1.

In order to determine whether Mrs. Minor had the right to vote, the Court first needed to determine if she was a US citizen. They determined that she was a citizen because she was in the class of “natural-born citizens”. And, in doing so, they made it clear that persons born of non-citizen parents were not natural-born citizens.

The Court left open the question of whether those born of non-citizen parents were “citizens”. But the Court did not leave open their specific construction of Article 2 Section 1. Their definition of a “natural-born citizen” was the core reason they found Mrs. Minor to be a citizen. Therefore, the Minor Court established binding precedent as follows:

“…[A]ll children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners...”

Please also note that the Court here makes specific reference to both aliens and foreigners as distinguished from natural-born citizens. Aliens are just that, aliens. They are not citizens. But we have always had many foreigners in this country who were citizens. Those who came here from foreign lands were foreigners naturalized as citizens. Some who were born in the US with dual citizenship – like Obama – were also citizens of the nation of their parents. These are citizens, but also foreigners. The Court in Minor made the careful distinction that a natural-born citizen is not an alien or a foreigner.

CITIZENS MAY BE BORN OR NATURALIZED

A common misconception of those who argue in favor of Obama’s eligibility is that if one is, at the time of their birth, a US citizen, then that person is also a natural-born citizen. False. This was unequivocally established by the majority holding in Minor, which states:

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

Again, at first glance this appears to provide a neat little soundbite for Obama supporters. But it doesn’t. The quote above is taken out of context. The Court’s opinion goes on to state:

“Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided…that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since.”

Here, the Minor Court cites the first naturalization act of 1790 to the effect that persons born of US citizen parents – outside the jurisdiction of the US – are “considered as natural-born citizens”. So, here we can see that while the Minor Court only recognizes two paths to citizenship, birth and naturalization… it is clear that some persons who, at the time of their birth, are US citizens, require naturalization for such status.

So, it’s clear that while there are only two paths to US citizenship, birth and naturalization, those two paths sometimes merge. But naturalized citizens are not eligible to be President. (The Minor Court failed to mention that the words “natural-born” were repealed from the naturalization act of 1795.)

Additionally, the current US Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual, at “7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency“, comments on the 1790 act as follows:

“This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.”

This is most likely because the statute did not actually deem such a person to be a natural-born citizen, the act simply stated that such a person was to be “considered as” a natural-born citizen.

The Minor Court also noted that the “substance” of the 1790 act, which granted US citizenship at birth via naturalization, had remained as law up until 1875 when the Minor case was decided. So, clearly, while citizens may either be born or naturalized, some born citizens are simultaneously naturalized at birth. Naturalized citizens are not natural-born citizens. Therefore, they are not eligible to be President.

I am not arguing that Obama was naturalized. But Minor does establish that not all “born citizens” are “natural-born”. Minor also gives an unequivocal definition of who fits into the class of natural-born citizens. Obama does not fit into that class. Born in the US to a citizen mother and a British/Kenyan father, Obama was born with dual nationality and dual allegiance, part US citizen, part foreigner. Minor makes a clear distinction between natural-born citizens and aliens or foreigners.

No Constitutional amendment supersedes Minor by defining natural-born citizen in a more inclusive way. No US Supreme Court case has overruled it. Justice Gray’s statement that the Court in Minor construed the 14th Amendment in the passage quoted is wrong. The Court in Minor directly construed Article 2 Section 1 while directly avoiding construction of the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark directly construed the 14th Amendment and specifically avoided construction of Article 2 Section 1. The two case are not in contradiction. They are consistent.

Wong Kim Ark is specifically limited to determining who is a citizen under the 14th Amendment.

Minor is specifically limited to determining who is a US citizen, natural-born.

According to the US Supreme Court precedent established by Minor, Obama is not eligible to the office of President of the United States. [Edit: emphasis added]

Leo C. Donofrio, Esq."

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/us-supreme-court-precedent-states-that-obama-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/

[Squeeky]

Actually, I first published that one on September 30, 2010. I started using the Squeeky website as a repository for most of my Internet Articles and if I edited one, or something it could have gotten on there twice.

Vattel Birthers Should Just STFU!!!

What happened was that I would be somewhere just beating Obots like carpets over a clothesline and some Vattle Birther would get on the thread and here came all these long cut and paste jobs that just confused the heck out of everybody, and the Obots would post long cut and paste stuff back at them, and people would lose track of the important stuff.

Which still happens. Like this law case tonight which doesn't even mean what the Vattle Birther said it meant and isn't going to convince anybody of anything. Where, if people would stay on important stuff like WHY it took Obama 3 years to cough up a $14 document, there is still a lot of room to slam Obama.

Plus, I have NEVER seen a Vattle Birther win an argument, whereas I clobber Obots all the time. So There!!!

[philman_36]

...if you dig deeper you will see another Internet Article, my first one about Vattle, that I wrote last year.
Well since you're so good at giving links why don't you just give it?

(I don’t spell Vattel right on purpose because it just seems so stupid to me.) Anyway, Vattle is a 300 year old French person from France so who cares what he thinks about anything!!! Plus, I have suggested the Vattle Birthers sue Obama in Lousiana which has French laws, and see if they can win there. Which I doubt.
With logic like that you're sure to go far!

[philman_36]

Where, if people would stay on important stuff like WHY it took Obama 3 years to cough up a $14 document, there is still a lot of room to slam Obama.
That is the most stupid thing you've posted so far.

Like this law case tonight which doesn't even mean what the Vattle Birther said it meant and isn't going to convince anybody of anything.
You've convinced me! You know this for fact yet you think that "Ark" in Wong Kim Ark means Arkansas.

...whereas I clobber Obots all the time.
Well pony that stuff up girl! Strut your stuff with some links where you do just that. I have yet to see it. I've seen links where you've said you busted some Obot's chops and not you actually doing it.

[Squeeky]

Uh, I DID give you a link to the earliest publishing (9/30/2010) at 141. Here it is again:

Vattel Birthers Should Just STFU!!!

Since you are supposedly "busting me out" (OH Tee Hee!) you might like this Internet Article. Dr. Taitz even published it IN FULL on her website:

No Brainer - $10 Birth Certificate or $23,876 to Lock Up Lakin For A Year!

[Squeeky]

Here is where the latest PJFogey fight started: Gratewire Thread

I will find you some more. I think the comments part at Obama Conspiracy Theories are closed down where you can't see the older ones.

Gretawire was closed down by Greta Van Susteran after PJFoggy, rikker, and Bovril and others disrupted the forum.

But, there is still 6 months or so of debate on the new Gratewire. I will try to find some of the better ones, or you can go there and just clicky on my name thingy and it will show you my threads and posts.

[philman_36]

Another shining example of your astounding intellect...
Squeeky Fromm September 30, 2010 at 11:13 pm
The Vattle birthers are all those people who say it takes two American parents to make a president person legal, and sometimes its this or that, but really the law is you just have to be born here. Period. There is a law case and some Chinese guy, too.
But I don’t understand all the stuff either and THAT IS WHAT MAKES ME SUSPICIOUS. I read the Vattle birthers and try and I just get pissed off and mad, and then I have to fix a drink, and then I still can’t follow all the stuff.

[Squeeky]

Thank you!!! I bookmarked that page. I thought all the old comments were closed down. Anyway, that is the first night I debated Obotski at Obotski Central. That was when I shot down the "The Obamas Could Not have Afforded To Fly To Kenya" Obotski Argument.

I later made it into a Internet Article.

How Birthers Can Debunk The Obot's Airplane Argument

[philman_36]

Anyway, that is the first night I debated Obotski at Obotski Central.
Okay, if you say so.

You're all over the place and it isn't flattering...
squeeky fromm Jennifer4Hillary

[Squeeky]

I am NOT that person and I don’t know why they keep saying it. Oh, it was fun reading back though that thread because I have certainly come a long way since then. Once I invented the KISS stuff the Obots got a lot easier to beat and on comment threads at newspapers and things I was really convincing a lot of people and getting a lot of “likes”.

I stopped arguing on Obama Conspiracy Theories back in January 2011 when they accused me of being a racist for spelling Fukino’s name as ‘Frujinko”, and threatened to ban me, which was absurd.

Sooo, now if I post anything it is as The Head Researcher and I just comment and don’t argue with them because it is like a group thinking echo chamber except for Dr. C and maybe one or two others. Plus, a lot of them come to Gratewire anyway.

Maybe you should read through some of my stuff and even if you stay a Vattle Birther, you will at least learn some good techniques to beat Obots in arguments.

Right now the Obotski are still in high gear on this stuff and they are still spreading some of the same lies that we are racists and stuff, and I have several Internet Articles on refuting that, and am going to write more. Because that part is going to get even worse the closer we get to 2012.

[BladeBryan]

editor-surveyor wrote:

This is nothing new. We’ve been discussing this case for two and a half years, and the honest among us have always agreed that MvH firmly established natural born citizenship as that of the child of two citizen parents.

Thing is, real legal scholars have been discussing it since before we were born. In the 1800's there were still doubts, but they were settled. As late as 1916 Breckinridge Long argued that Charles Evans Hughes was ineligible for the presidency, but Long's argumed that Hughes' citizenship must be considered as under the laws existing when Hughes was born, which was prior to the 14'th Amendment.

In our time, the remaining doubts were about jus sanguinis:

"It is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible and that naturalized citizens are not. The recurring doubts relate to those who have acquired United States citizenship through birth abroad to American parents." [Charles Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 19 (1968).]

"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. But whether a person born abroad of American parents, or of one American and one alien parent, qualifies as natural born has never been resolved." [Jill Pryor, 'The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility', 97 Yale Law Journal 881-889 (1988).]

I'd say that John McCain's candidacy settled the remaining doubts. "Natural-born United States citizen" means a United States citizen who has become a United States citizen at the moment of his or her birth.

There is not a shred of foundation for any other position.

Pure fantasy.

[Jeff Winston]

ping for later. maybe.

[Jeff Winston]

ping for later, perhaps.

[philman_36]

Maybe you should read through some of my stuff and even if you stay a Vattle Birther, you will at least learn some good techniques to beat Obots in arguments.

I have been reading your stuff! I hope it pays you well. I'm dumber for just having read it! And in my non-professional opinion...you're friggin' nuts!

And why in the hell would I want to follow any advice from a person who denigrates me whilst professing to not understand an issue and categorically declares that people who do understand it don't really know what they're doing?!

And as to winning arguments I would rather follow something a little more legitimate the the prattling of a women who has no basic understanding of many things on many levels.
Try reading this yourself!
Psychological Operations Field Manual No.33-1 - Propaganda Techniques

[Squeeky]

Well, since you think you are sooo smart, then YOU go to Obotski Central and YOU try arguing your Vattle Stuff there and see how long it takes for them to chew you up and spit you out. OK.

Meantime, I chew THEM up and spit THEM out sooo bad, they had to invent reasons to run me off.

So There!!!

[philman_36]

...then YOU go to Obotski Central and YOU try arguing your Vattle Stuff there and see how long it takes for them to chew you up and spit you out.
Who the hell do you think you are to tell me what to do, retread?!

Despite your purported age you're still a child.

[Squeeky]

Oh what, is the Big brave grunty little Malebeast afraid to go there and strut his stuff??? I am just a poor little Girl Reporter, and I went there all by my little lonesome self and debated many times, just me against 20 or so grown up Obotski, and as I learned more, pretty soon I had THEM begging for mercy.

So YOU just go on with your Big Self, and priss right off in there and start telling them all about this case and how it shows Obama is ineligible. See how long it is before you run out crying like a baby.

They won’t keep you from posting or debating as long as you are civil. Soooo just go on Big Boy and show me what you got. (Unless, you are too CHICKEN!!!)

So There!!!

[philman_36]

Oh, please! Don't drag out that tired old Jill Pryor crap! Even she stated this...
The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty
This Note (that means "this paper is nothing more than my opinion") argues that the natural-born citizen clause can only be properly understood if we appreciate the interplay of that clause with the naturalization powers clause of article 1,¹⁰ as modified by section one of the Fourteenth Amendment.¹¹
So according to her there was no way to determine who was and wasn't a natural born citizen before the passage of the 14th Amendment?! That's just ludicrous on its face!
And for Gordon...
2000 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOREIGN-BORN CITIZENS TO BE PRESIDENT HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.J.Res. 88
JULY 24, 2000
Over 30 years ago a legal scholar, Charles Gordon, addressed the question of whether people born overseas to United States citizens could be called ''natural born'' citizens and hence be eligible to be President. After reviewing the legal history of the clause and subsequent legislation, Gordon answers this question in the affirmative. However, he also points out that the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue and that ''that the picture is clouded by elements of doubt.'' This analysis leads him to the following conclusion:
It is unfortunate that doubts remain on an issue of such vital importance to many Americans. We live in a fluid and ever diminishing world. The interests of our nation and its people are constantly expanding and millions of Americans reside for short or long periods in foreign countries. They are there in pursuit of inspiration, enlightenment, profit, pleasure, repose or escape. All of these have a right to retain their status as American citizens while they live abroad. One can perceive no sound reason for shutting off aspiration to the Presidency for the children born to them while they are temporarily sojourning in foreign countries.

In the 1800's there were still doubts, but they were settled.
Oh? How were they settled?

[philman_36]

WOW! I haven't seen a good "Whig Out" in quite some time.
Well done!

[philman_36]

But whether a person born abroad of American parents, or of one American and one alien parent, qualifies as natural born has never been resolved.
Oh, one other thing. The "official, I shit you not" BC has been released and Gordon doesn't apply as the birth in question was stateside, not abroad.

[philman_36]

By the by...do you have anything more than just that small snippet of Gordon's. I see you've posted it several times so I'm assuming you have something more substantial than just that.
I can't seem to find much of his work online anywhere.