Does The CIA Director Have Barack Obama’s Records That Prove He Is Ineligible To Be President?

I didn't call for your head. One thing I'll say for Jeff-he has helped out on the Freepathon Thread. For that alone, he has my respect and gratitude.

I have looked through his posting history, and he seems to be conservative on other issues. It is for this reason that I don't think he INTENTIONALLY supports the Fogblower Democrat community, but support them and their goals he does.

Why any conservative would spend so much time and trouble trying to PROVE Obama is legitimate is beyond my comprehension. It's like a Jew trying to prove that Hitler wasn't such a bad guy. It's insane. I suspect it is his efforts on the Freepathon that makes him palatable to Free Republic at all. This website is, after all, a business, and money speaks loudest of all.

I sometimes wonder if we could come up with enough money to induce Free Republic to chuck him. It might be worth it. I'd put up the first $100.00.

Even recently, DiogenesLamp has told me, repeatedly, that if he had the opportunity to do so, he would "beat my ass."

Again, it is the nasty attitude, the constant refusal to tell the truth, the constant assertion that we have no facts on our side, the constant attempts by you to project a false equivalency, the constant shrill shrieking, and so on.

In any event, I tried, in the beginning, to set a tone of civility. Birthers wanted to adopt a harsh, adversarial tone. Okay. They've got it.

And the usage of the term "birther" as an intentional pejorative. Since you've been constantly asserting that "birthers" are stupid, ignorant liars, how are you claiming that you "set a tone of civility"?

So. DiogenesLamp presents you with a page from Samuel Roberts’ book.

As noted many times, Roberts was an obscure judge in charge of several COUNTIES in Pennsylvania.

He had absolutely no responsibility or authority in regard to national law, which is what determines the meaning of “natural born citizen.”

He was not a recognized Founder and is not known to have been close to any of the major Founders.

Roberts presents absolutely no authority or rationale for his claim that the children of non-citizens aren’t citizens. In other words, it is solely his own opinion, unbacked by any other authority.

He is absolutely contradicted by the more authoritative sources, including William Rawle, who was a member of Benjamin Franklin’s inner circle (the Society for Political Inquiries, which was an arm of the major Founders of the nation.)

This Society met in Franklin’s house in Philadelphia (the city of the Constitutional Convention) in the months leading up to that Convention, to discuss the relevant issues in preparation for the Convention.

As well as being a personal friend of both Franklin and George Washington (the Convention’s President), Rawle gave a presentation on immigration to the Society. He was basically their “expert” or “consultant” on that subject. So he was in a position to know very well what the status of children of immigrants was considered to be.

Aside from that, Rawle was appointed to a national legal position by Washington - United States District Attorney for the State of Pennsylvania. Washington actually asked him to be US Attorney General, but he declined the position.

Rawle was also a major national legal expert who wrote one of the widely-regarded expert legal works on the Constitution. It was used as a textbook in our universities.

And Rawle, in absolute contradiction to little several-counties judge Samuel Roberts, wrote:

“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”

Crystal clear.

Yet DiogenesLamp completely refuses to admit the evidence from Rawle (calling him, I believe, a liar), and claims that Samuel Roberts is the real expert.

THAT is the kind of bullsh*t we’ve seen again and again and again from birthers such as DiogenesLamp.

Another good example is his use of a small treatise written by David Ramsay, whose views on citizenship were voted down a stunning 36-to-1 by our First House of Representatives, including Father of the Constitution James Madison and half a dozen signers of the Constitution.

So his goal is to promote complete bullsh*t. And if someone stands in his way, he will call them names and then threaten them with physical violence.

Again, it is the nasty attitude, the constant refusal to tell the truth, the constant assertion that we have no facts on our side, the constant attempts by you to project a false equivalency, the constant shrill shrieking, and so on.

Every single thing I've ever posted here was absolutely true, unless an honest mistake (not often, but I'm sure it's happened), in which case I've promptly acknowledged and corrected it and not repeated the claim.

Far, far unlike you.

And the term “birther” is simply a short description of what you’re about. You claim that the current President is ineligible by reason of his birth.

What other term do you propose? I can’ think of any.

Although I must say that even to this day, I think my posts are still more civil than those of the laughingly-named “DiogenesLamp.”

There is no point in being civil to you. You are intellectually dishonest, therefore the best recourse to you is other than civil.

I personally think you WORK for some Republican Pol, to whom this is a nasty issue, (Rubio perhaps?) and you are both doing your job, and putting forth your own rationalized opinion at the same time.

It is the only explanation of which I have managed to contemplate so far for why a supposed conservative would work so very hard propping up our Nazi Dictator tyrant. This issue is important to you because it's personal somehow. (and your arguments reflect that's it's Personal.) It affects someone of interest to you in the same manner that it affects Obama, so the legitimacy of someone of interest to you is tantamount to Obama's legitimacy.

You argue from emotion. Not logic. Not facts.

His "evidence" is crap, usually misquoted or misdirected claims from people who weren't relevant to the topic, or who have barely tangential relevance, which he then posts in a massive wall of bulk text which nobody bothers to read.

Again, bullsh*t.

The problem is, there is so MUCH evidence from genuine early authorities, that DiogenesLamp tries to simply dismiss it with a wave of the hand, because that's about all he can do.

There are two very weak authorities from early America who claim otherwise. They have already been mentioned:

Samuel Roberts, a little several-counties judge who was not close to the Founders, not an expert on national law, gave no reason or authority for his opinion, and was contradicted by those of more authority.

And David Ramsay, a historian (a non-legal expert) fighting a sore-loser campaign to have the opponent who beat him in the election for the first House of Representatives declared ineligible, whose views on citizenship were voted down 36-to-1 by a group including James Madison and about half a dozen other signers of the Constitution.

Against that (touted as gospel by DiogenesLamp), we have:

The Meaning of Natural Born Citizen in Early America (Updated 5/18/13)

James Madison, House of Representatives (1789):

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony."

Madison, the Father of the Constitution, mentions both jus soli (the law of the soil, or place of birth) and jus sanguinis (the law of blood, or parentage) here. But notice the emphasis: "In general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."

The First Congress (1790):

"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens."

Our very first Congress specified that the overseas-born children of US citizens "shall be considered as natural born Citizens."

This Congress included James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution." These men were well aware of the Presidential eligibility clause, and they clarified that those born overseas to US citizens were eligible to the Presidency. It was obviously quite well known that "natural born citizen" made one eligible to be President, and that is the only place the phrase had been used in national law. So it's clear that the First Congress and President were saying that children who would be born overseas to US citizen parents were eligible to the Presidency.

This makes it absolutely clear: The idea that eligibility requires BOTH birth on US soil AND citizen parents is FALSE.

In this instance, our early leaders specified that citizen parents ALONE was quite enough.

And between the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Presidency, 16 signers of the Constitution - a full 40% of those who signed the Constitution - were members of the group who approved this Act.

They included: James Madison, Abraham Baldwin, Daniel Carroll, George Clymer, Thomas Fitzsimons, and Nicholas Gilman (US House of Representatives), William Samuel Johnson, Richard Bassett, George Read, William Few, John Langdon, William Paterson, Rufus King, Robert Morris and Pierce Butler (US Senate), and President George Washington.

James Bayard, A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1834) - with approval from US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall

"It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be 'a natural born citizen.' It is only requisite that he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country."

This was in Bayard's section on Presidential eligibility.

Chief Justice John Marshall, who was Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court for 35 years, starting just 13 years after the Constitution was ratified, read Bayard's exposition of the Constitution and sent him a letter correcting him that Congress probably didn't need to ask the States for permission to build post and military roads - they had already been authorized to make such improvements.

It was a fairly subtle error. Bayard had written "that the power of Congress extends to lay out military and post-roads, through the several States, 'with their assent.'"

Chief Justice Marshall then wrote:

"With this exception, I do not recollect a single statement in your book which is not, in my judgment, entirely just."

Now that's not 100%, but I think it's close. It's clear that Marshall read the book. And the tone of Marshall's note indicates that he read the entire book. If he had not, he could not have made such a blanket statement.

Presidential eligibility is a pretty important topic, and Marshall would not have missed any significant error in that section.

So we have pretty clear word from one of the best authorities in early America as to what "natural born citizen" meant: It means someone who is a citizen by birth. That includes those born citizens in the United States, and it includes those born US citizens because they were born to American parents abroad.

John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson (1785)

In a letter about a treaty with the English, two years before the writing of the Constitution, John Adams wrote:

"...I think about substituting the words 'natural born citizens of the United States,' and 'natural born subjects of Great Britain,' instead of 'the most favored nation.'"

Adams therefore used "natural born citizens of the United States" and "natural born subjects of Great Britain" together and as if the two terms were parallel terms, exactly the same except for the difference between "subject" and "citizen." And Thomas Jefferson was the other person in the dialogue.

"Natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" were used interchangeably by State of Massachusetts (1785-1790).

This is important because it again shows that "natural born citizen" and "natural born subject," except for the difference of subservience to a king, were understood to mean exactly the same thing in the early United States. And "natural born subject" had a long legal history. All persons born in the country, even of alien parents, were "natural born subjects," except for the children of representatives of foreign governments, and of invading armies. Here are some examples:

February, 1785, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.”in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”

March, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others, ”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

October, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children, ”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”

November, 1788, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”

In March, 1790, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

In many or most of the States, in fact, the use of "natural born subject" in law gradually gave way to use of "natural born citizen" in the same circumstances.

French translation of the Constitution by Phillip Mazzei, Thomas Jefferson's VERY close friend and next-door neighbor (translated, 1788):

“Nobody, without being a born citizen, or having been a citizen of the United States at the time…”

This is from Mazzei's sweeping 4-volume work in French, The History and Politics of the United States of America ("Recherches Historiques et Politiques sur les Etats-Unis de l'Amérique Septentrional").

One of the very earliest published statements of what the natural born citizen requirement meant, it equates natural born citizen with born citizen. Given the extremely close lifelong relationship of Jefferson and Mazzei, this can almost certainly be considered authoritative as to what Thomas Jefferson himself understood "natural born citizen" to mean.

French translation by Louis-Alexandre, Duc de la Rochefoucauld, friend of Benjamin Franklin (translated, 1792):

“No one except a ‘natural,’ born a citizen…” (or possibly, “No one except a ‘natural-born citizen’)

By the French Duc de la Rochefoucauld, who knew Benjamin Franklin personally. He and Franklin had previously co-published The Constitutions of the Thirteen United States of America ("Constitutions des Treize Etats-Unis de l'Amérique") in Paris, while Franklin was the American ambassador to France. No mention whatsoever of parentage.

Virginia citizenship law written by Thomas Jefferson (1779):

"Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth... shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed... "

Like so many other passages from history, birthers have tried to twist the wording and make this law say something other than it says. But the fact is, the citizenship law that Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1779 for the Commonwealth of Virginia was straight "jus soli," or "law of the soil." It provided that every white person born in Virginia, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, was a citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Zephaniah Swift, A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Books (1795):

"The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”

Speaks for the State of Connecticut. Remember, there is no documentation ANYWHERE that says "natural born citizen" ever meant anything different from "natural born subject," except for the difference between "citizen" and "subject." Swift's legal treatise was read all over the United States, including by several Presidents and several US Supreme Court Justices.

Alexander Hamilton on how to understand the meaning of the terms used in the Constitution (1795):

"What is the distinction between direct and indirect taxes? It is a matter of regret that terms so uncertain and vague in so important a point are to be found in the Constitution... unfortunately, there is equally here a want of criterion to distinguish duties, imposts, and excises from taxes... where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived."

Hamilton tells us that our jurisprudence has been derived from that of England, and that if we want to understand the meaning of terms used in the Constitution, the place to look is to the laws of England that came before. This is important because the English common law was the fundamental legal training for every lawyer in America. The Constitution contains a variety of legal terms which appear no place other than in the common law. Those who claim we got the definition from Swiss philosopher Vattel are simply not telling the truth. Vattel never even spoke of "natural born citizens." He spoke of "natives, or indigenes." The latter was mistranslated to "natural born citizens" by a translator in London, England, 10 years after our Constitution was written.

Hamilton said we got the terms in the Constitution from the English common law. It is clear that "natural born citizen" came directly from "natural born subject," which never required citizen or subject parents.

French translation, (translated, 1799):

“No one shall be eligible to the office of President, if he is not born a citizen of the United States…”

Born a citizen. Once again, it appears the correct definition of "natural born citizen" is simply: born a citizen.

St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803):

“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence… A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”

Tucker was one of the most important early legal experts. His book became "the most popular reference work for students and practitioners of United States law until the mid-19th century." He totally equates "native-born" (which always simply meant born in America) with "natural born," and approvingly quotes another writer who said natural born citizens are "those born within the state."

Garder v. Ward, 2 Mass. 244 (1805):

“...a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term “citizenship.”

In Massachusetts, they followed the common law. This is consistent with Wong Kim Ark and everything else. (Except, of course, the claims of birthers.)

Kilham v. Ward 2 Mass. 236, 26 (1806):

“The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born.”

Once again, Massachusetts uses the common law as the precedent for citizenship.

James Monroe Administration (1812):

In 1811, a James McClure was arrested and held by the French, who were at war with England. He claimed American citizenship but was initially denied help from the United States. Birthers have claimed that a newspaper letter regarding the incident, from a writer using the pseudonym of "Publius," reflected the position of the James Monroe Administration. But once the matter began to be talked about publicly, the Monroe Administration came to McClure's aid. They sent a letter to the French:

"I have the honor to enclose several affidavits and certificates... from the City of Charleston proving that James McClure now detained in France as a British Prisoner of War was born in Charleston since the Revolution. To these Papers is annexed a Certificate of W. Johnson Esq. one of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States before whom the affidavits were taken stating 'that agreeable to the laws and usage of the United States, the said affidavits and Certificates are sufficient to establish the fact that James M McClure above named is a Citizen of the United States.'"

So Supreme Court Justice Johnson and the Monroe Administration said that McClure was a US citizen solely on the basis of where he was born. No mention seems to have been made at all of his parentage.

Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, 456, 457 (1813):

“Our statutes recognize alienage and its effects, but have not defined it. We must therefore look to the common law for its definition. By this law, to make a man an alien, he must be born without the allegiance of the commonwealth; although persons may be naturalized or expatriated by statute, or have the privileges of subjects conferred or secured by a national compact.”

And once again for Massachusetts. In defining who an alien is, they also define citizenship, because everyone who isn't an alien is a citizen.

Amy v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326, 340 (Ky. 1822)

“The 5th section of the 2d article provides, “that no person except a natural born citizen,” shall become president. A plain acknowledgment, that a man may become a citizen by birth, and that he may be born such.”

Like Chief Justice John Marshall, the State of Kentucky equated "natural born citizen" with "CITIZEN BY BIRTH."

From a Spanish language book on the Constitution (translated, 1825):

“The President is elected from among all citizens born in the United States, of the age of thirty-five years…”

From among ALL CITIZENS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES. No mention of parentage.

French translation by the private secretary of the Marquis de Lafayette, who was a personal friend of our first six Presidents (1826):

“No individual, other than a citizen born in the United States…”

This translation is important for a number of reasons. First, the Marquis had himself been declared a "natural born citizen forever" of Maryland, by the State's legislature. So he had darn good reason to know what the phrase meant. Secondly, he was a good friend of every single one of our first six Presidents. This included George Washington, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe. (And John Quincy Adams, too.) He had served as a General in the Revolutionary War under Washington, was instrumental in our gaining France's support, and was such a hero in America and France that he was known as "The Hero of the Two Worlds."

James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826):

“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . 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.”

Common law, natural born subjects, SAME THING APPLIES HERE. Also, subject and citizen can be used interchangeably. Kent was another of our top early legal experts, which we are rapidly running out of. More from Kent:

“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”

Once again, NATIVE. Allegiance simply refers to the same historical precedent. Any person born within the country was born within the allegiance of the country, unless his parents were foreign ambassadors or royalty, or members of an occupying army. We also added two more exceptions: Indians in tribes, because Indian tribes were considered to be just like foreign nations that we did not control and made treaties with, and slaves, because they were legally considered to be property, not people.

French books on the Constitution:

“The President must be a born citizen [or born a citizen] of the United States…" (1826)

Born citizen, born a citizen.

“No one, unless he is a native citizen…” (1829)

Native citizen. No mention of parentage whatsoever.

By the way, the list of quotes from this time period saying the President had to be a "native" is not exhaustive. I have only included those from the most authoritative sources.

Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)

“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”

Again explicitly states that birth in the country makes on a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, even if one's parents are ALIENS.

William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 86 (1829)

“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”

You really can't get any clearer, well-stated, and absolute. Again, Rawle was a legal expert. He was VERY close to both Franklin AND Washington, held meetings with them in the months leading up to the Constitutional Convention, and was in Philadelphia WHILE THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION WAS TAKING PLACE.

Justice Joseph Story, concurring opinion, Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830):

“Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”

Story was a LEGENDARY Justice on the Supreme Court. He would soon write the first comprehensive treatise on the provisions of the U.S. Constitution (see below, in 1840). And he tells us, quite clearly, that NOTHING is BETTER SETTLED.

American Jurist and Law Magazine, January, 1834:

“From the close of the revolutionary war to the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United States, all persons born in this country became citizens of the respective States within whose jurisdiction they were born, by the rule of the common law, unless where they were prevented from becoming citizens by the constitution or statutes of the place of their birth.”

Again: The rule was by the common law.

Another French translation, 1837 (translated back):

“No one can be President, unless he is born in the United States…”

Once again, born in the US. No mention at all of parentage. As is ALWAYS the case.

State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838):

“Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens... Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State. The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ’subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a ’subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the State.”

Straight-out tells us: natural born subjects became natural born citizens, and NO OTHER CHANGE in the citizenship rules took place. In other words, children of aliens born in the US were natural born citizens, because they were always natural born subjects before.

Tennessee State Legislature, An Act to Regulate and Declare the Rights of Foreigners (1838)

"Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, That all natural born citizens, or persons born within the limits of the United States, and all aliens subject to the restrictions hereinafter mentioned, may inherit real estate and make their pedigree by descent from any ancestor lineal or collateral…”

Clearly defines what "natural born citizen" meant to the Tennessee State Legislature in 1838. Anyone born within the limits of the United States was a natural born citizen without any regard to parentage.

From Spanish-language books on the Constitution (translated):

“No one can be President who has not been born a citizen of the United States, or who is one at the time of the adoption of this Constitution…” (1837)

Born a citizen.

“The President must be a citizen born in the United States…" (1848)

Born in the United States. No mention of parents.

Acts of the State of Tennessee passed at the General Assembly, pg. 266 (1838):

“That all natural born citizens, or persons born within the limits of the United States, and all aliens subject to the restrictions hereinafter mentioned, may inherit real estate and make their pedigree by descent from any ancestor lineal or collateral…”

The State of Tennessee defined natural born citizens are those born in the United States. No mention at all of parents.

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in his Constitutional handbook, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States. (1840)

"It is not too much to say, that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be intrusted with an office so vital to the safety and liberties of the people."

Native citizen.

Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843):

“...no person except a natural born subject can be a governor of a State, or President of the United States.”

America's first prominent law dictionary. Uses NATURAL BORN SUBJECT as an exact equivalent for natural born citizen! Thus showing again, there was no practical difference between the two.

Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844):

“The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President… The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ”

Flat-out ruled that the US born child of alien parents was eligible to the Presidency.

Mr. Clarke's attorneys actually attempted to invoke Vattel. Vice Chancellor Sandford rejected their arguments, noting:

"[Vattel says] in reference to the inquiry whether children born of citizens in a foreign country, are citizens, that the laws have decided the question in several countries, and it is necessary to follow their regulations."

In other words, even according to Vattel, the citizenship laws of England and America were different from his Swiss ideas.

Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, pg. 119 (1845)

“Every person, then, born in the country, and that shall have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States, is eligible to the office of president.”

Once again, every person born in the country. No mention of parents.

The New Englander, Vol. III, pg. 434 (1845)

“It is the very essence of the condition of a natural born citizen, of one who is a member of the state by birth within and under it, that his rights are not derived from the mere will of the state.”

A natural born citizen is a member of the state by birth within and under it. Just another way of saying "citizen by birth."

There is no point in being civil to you. You are intellectually dishonest, therefore the best recourse to you is other than civil... You argue from emotion. Not logic. Not facts.

And yet you can't show one single thing I've ever said that was "intellectually dishonest."

And I've just pointed out how you base your case from early America on a total of two of the weakest, most invalid, most disputed authorities available, while ignoring or making excuses for not accepting the word of dozens of REAL authorities, including Founders, Framers, Supreme Court Justices, early legal experts, and so on.

Odd, that.

So in other words, the "natural born citizen" claims by you and other birthers are ALL BULLSH*T. ALL OF THEM.

Here's that lie again. Like I said, variations on a theme for this bozo.

Here is James Madison refuting you, but again, you will say its "ALL BULLSH*T".

I might not even fight back.

I suspect no one would be able to tell if you did. By the way. That crap you posted above...? Not worth responding to.

Of course that could be said about most anything you write.

And once again, you present another fallacy.

An opinion, expressed to a newspaper by some unknown person going by the pseudonym “Publius” - whose identity is unknown and who could’ve been literally anybody.

The original writer himself admits he isn’t even sure his opinion is correct:

“These ideas are suggested with a considerable diffidence - the case of James McClure is clearly a nice one - and even if I had not the best reasons to ascribe the purest motives to general Armstrong in this transaction, still there is that dubious complexion in the case which might lead me to think, that a very honest and enlightened man might honestly differ with me on the occasion.”

And this is what you build your case on? It’s bullsh*t.

An anonymous letter writer, with no claim to be any major authority, no claim even to have been a lawyer.

Ah, but you have the equally bullsh*t claim - without any hard evidence to support it - that the writer was none other than President James Monroe!

Except that President Monroe’s administration promptly came to McClure’s rescue, sending a letter stating that he was a United States citizen, and giving as their reason that McClure was born in Charleston, South Carolina.

So Monroe’s administration totally contradicts you.

Like I said, you have nothing but bullsh*t. And this isn’t the first time the BULLSH*T nature of this evidence has been discussed. It’s probably more like the 20th.

But it doesn’t stop you from repeating it, again and again.

If you’d like Exhibit 3 to follow Exhibits 1 and 2 (Roberts and Ramsay), of what bullcrap DiogenesLamp spins, see post #70.

He’ll probably spin some more bullsh*t again shortly, and I’ll slap that down, too.

So my original point was that I wasn’t aware of one single point, out of dozens and dozens made by birthers, that isn’t bullsh*t.

You’ve helped me illustrate that my immediately bringing up bullsh*t points that I then swat down like slapping a slow-moving, fat moth.

Thanks for helping me illustrate the point.

We can do some more if you like. What’s next?

You’ve helped me illustrate that my immediately bringing up...

Sorry, should've been:

You’ve helped me illustrate that BY immediately bringing up...

:)

I like the pup on your “About” page, by the way!

We got our first garden tomato today. It was delicious. :-)

Thanks! That's Joey. :)

Is there anything better than a home-grown tomato? My plants are only about 6-7 inches tall, but I'm not giving up hope. :)

Interesting how things were purposefully swerved so far from the original topic.

Fact is: Lieutenant Quarles Harris Jr. was found shot to death in his car on April 17, 2008, just over a month after the last breach. He was found in front of the Judah House Praise Baptist Church in the northeast section of Washington. He had been shot in the head.

Not up to the Clinton Deathlist standard, but there is so much we really don't know. We do know two things:

They have it all on the line with this misunderstood aspect of the Constitution, including their amnesty plan. And, the second is, the following is what was intended by Natural Born Citizen, and the underlying principles are common/similar to real estate, title, inheritance, etc. in addition to matters of citizenship and nationalization.

This is from Defining Natural-Born Citizen by P.A. Madison

Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Conclusion

Extending citizenship to non-citizens through birth based solely upon locality is nothing more than mere municipal law that has no extra-territorial effect as proven from the English practice of it. On the other hand, citizenship by descent through the father is natural law and is recognized by all nations (what nation doesn’t recognize citizenship of children born wherever to their own citizens?). Thus, a natural-born citizen is one whose citizenship is recognized by law of nations rather than mere local recognition.

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed this in 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”*

When a child inherits the citizenship of their father, they become a natural-born citizen of the nation their father belongs regardless of where they might be born. It should be pointed out that citizenship through descent of the father was recognized by U.S. Naturalization law whereby children became citizens themselves as soon as their father had become a naturalized citizen, or were born in another country to a citizen father.

Yes, birth is prima facie evidence of citizenship, but only the citizenship of the nation the father is a member.

Obama has all the records.

Maybe not all of them.
:)

And I ax ya...why would bill & hill share with him?

What did sandy berger take and who has it now?

How old is he? Looks like a pup.

We're kind of new at the tomato-growing (well, the successful tomato-growing, anyway), but we seem to have a pretty good crop coming along this year.

This one is an "Early Girl."

It seems to me that full sun, steady water and rich soil (and/ or fertilizer) are some of the keys.

But, as I say, I'm pretty new to this.

NSA, FBI, CIA, DOJ... have acess to all records.