Tubstain's Bizzaro World
Posted on 11/12/2010 4:53:42 PM PST by Retired Intelligence Officer
The only people out here that are helping Obama, the worst President in our lifetimes, are those wasting time trying to tell us Jindhal, who would make a fantastic replacement of Obama, is not eligible to be president in 2012.
The birthers are as off-target on their constitution as Obama’s lousy SCOTUS picks, Kagan and Sotomayor.
But when logic and facts are against you, you resort to calling names. And the silly graphics.
“Qualification..for the President. In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used, and excludes all persons owing allegiances BY BIRTH to foreign states”
Where does that definition exist in law?
“The answer is obvious, and it is obvious why Article 2, Clause 5 exists.”
To exclude dual citizens from serving? If that’s what they wanted, they could have said so, smart guys as they were. No, they said only born citizens can serve. That is why it exists.
“That’s an awful lot of whining for one who claims not to be whining.”
Quit whining about my whining, you whining whiner who whines.
By the way, nice try deflecting the fact that you’ve been called on using a double-standard as regards birthers/faithers. It’s either hurt feelings, a genuine sense of its inaccuracy, or both. I don’t know, but you want your cake and to eat it, too. You reject the term birther, but are more than happy to use the less acceptable, less popular, less meaningful, comeback term faither. Busted.
Still punching the Obot clock we see.
The birthers are as off-target on their constitution as Obama’s lousy SCOTUS picks, Kagan and Sotomayor.
Gotta say something that sounds "CONservative" Now back to the big issue that would devastate Obama and ther lying rats. Gotta protect the Usurper and Chief's backside.
By the way, so we’re clear, birthers are allowed to disregard Supreme Court justices, but if I disagree with the Law Review I’ve been conversationally pummeled. Right.
Continue having fun in your bizarro world.
“The logical fallacy that birthers have is to conclude that ONLY THOSE WHO SATISFY REASON X can be natural-born citizens.”
“It’s not a fallacy. Waite said those who were born in the country to parents who were citizens were natural born citizens ... (pay attention) as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
It is a fallacy. One quote, out of context. Natural-born citizens are not aliens, we know that. NOTHING there says that the ONLY way to be a natural-born citizen is to have citizen parents. NOT THERE. YOU MISREAD IT.
You have ONE or TWO quotes - MISREAD ONES - against the weight of evidence ...
Blacks Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.” That definition does not require citizens to be parents.
“The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that “natural born Citizen” means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth,” including any child born “in” the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.”
Albert Orville Wright, AN EXPOSITION ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES (31st Ed.) (1888)
“All persons born in the United States, except wild Indians, are natural-born citizens, and any foreigner may become an adopted citizen by being naturalized....”
Black defines “natural born” as “In English law one born within the dominion of the King.” Black defines “naturalize” as “to confer citizenship upon an alien; to make a foreigner the same, in regard to rights and privileges, as if he were a native citizen or subject.”
Bancroft’s History of the U.S. (1876) VI, xxvi. 27, states. “Every one who first saw the light on the American soil was a natural-born American citizen.”
As stated in Van Dyne on Citizenship of the United States, pp. 32:
“It was almost universally conceded that citizenship by birth in the United States was governed by the principles of the English common law. It is very doubtful whether the common law covered the case of children born abroad to subjects of England. Statutes were enacted in England to supply their deficiency. Hence, it was deemed necessary to enact a similar law In the United States to extend citizenship to children born to American parents out of the United States.”
In Doe v. Jones, 4 T.R. 300, 308, 100 Reprint 1031, Lord Kenyon stated:
“The character of a natural-born subject, anterior to any or the statutes, was incidental to birth only; whatever were the situations of his parents, the being born in the allegiance of the King, constituted a naturalborn subject.”
In Dicey’s Conflicts of Law (1896) It is stated: (pp.173).
“Natural-born subject” means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of birth.
“A naturalized British subject means any British subject who is not a natural-born British subject. (pp 175) Rule 22. Subject to the exceptions herinafter mentioned. any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject.”
Liacakos v. Kennedy, 195 F. Supp. 630 (D.D.C. 1961) (holding that where evidence supported contention that person was born in US (to two citizens of Greece), he was a “natural born citizen” of the US):
The plaintiff claims that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States, having been born in Wheeling, West Virginia, on July 14, 1900. He claims that when he was two or three years of age his parents returned to their native Greece… ***
The Court is of the opinion that, weighing the evidence on both sides, the plaintiff has established by a fair preponderance of the evidence that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States, and the Court so finds.
Nyman v. Erickson, 170 P. 546 (Wash. 1918) (child born in the US to Russian citizen was “natural born citizen” of US):
Appellant was therefore, as correctly decided by the General Land Office and the Department of the Interior, not an heir of the deceased entryman, while at the time of the final proof at least the grandchild Esther Gustafson undoubtedly was. She was born in a state of the United States, and whether her parents were naturalized or not, under the Constitution she is a natural-born citizen of the United States entitled to the benefits of all the laws of the United States and of the state. U. S. Const. Amend. 14, § 1.
“Subjects are of two kinds: Citizens and Aliens. A citizen is one who owes to the state, of which he is a citizen, an universal and perpetual allegiance. Citizens of the United States are of two classes: Native born and Naturalized. A native born citizen is one who was born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. The jurisdiction of the United States is co-extensive with its territory, and embraces all persons resident therein, except Indians and the official representatives of foreign states. The allegiance of the United States includes all its citizens, whether at home or abroad, and all other persons, *except Indians and the official representatives of foreign states,) who are permanently domiciled within its jurisdiction. The persons born within this jurisdiction and allegiance are the following: 1) Those born either at home or abroad of parents who are citizens; 2) Those born within the territory of the United States of alien parents (Indians and the official representatives of foreign states excepted) who are permanently domiciled within the United States.” - William Callyhan Robinson, Elementary law, 1882
This is from the Congressional record 1967:
” To summarize; a natural-born citizen of the United States, as that term is used in the Constitution of the United States, means a citizen born within the territorial limits of the United States and subject to the laws of the United States at the time of such birth. ”
In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at page 655, the court said:
“The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also calling ‘ligealty,’ ‘obedience,’ ‘faith,’ or ‘power’ of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -as expressed in the maxim, protecti trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience or the power, or, as would be said, to this day, within the jurisdiction Of the King.” (Thus, a child born In Mexico of English parents was not a natural-born subject, despite his automatic naturalization by Act of Parliament). Later In the same opinion (l.c. 658) the court said: “It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign; and therefore every child born in England, of alien parents, was a natural born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”
The Court further held:
“The same rule was in force In all of the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continues to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:
“There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”
Albert Orville Wright, AN EXPOSITION ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES (31st Ed.) (1888)
“”1. Citizenship Defined.—The question of who are and who are not citizens had been left somewhat vague till this amendment (14th Amendment) was adopted. And the exact position of free negros was in doubt. The thirteenth amendment had made all negroes free persons. This amendment now made them citizens. Hereafter there can be no question as to who are citizens of the United States.
All persons born in the United States, except wild Indians, are natural-born citizens, and any foreigner may become an adopted citizen by being naturalized....”
The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that “natural born Citizen” means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth,” including any child born “in” the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements. [28] The Constitution of the United States of America, Analysis and Interpretation, prepared for the United States Senate by this agency, agrees with the majority of scholarship on the issue, noting that “[ w ]hatever the term ‘natural born’ means, it no doubt does not include a person who is ‘naturalized’,” that is, one who must go through the legal process of naturalization and, after discussing historical and legal precedents and arguments, concludes that “[t]here is reason to believe … that the phrase includes persons who become citizens at birth by statute because of their status in being born abroad of American citizens. [29]
[28] Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F.Supp.2d 1144, 1145-1146 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Jill Pryor, “The Natural Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach to Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty,” 97 Yale LJ. 881 (1988); Charles Gordon, “Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma,” 28 Md. L. Rev. I (1968); Michael Nelson, “Constitutional Qualifications for President,” Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. XVII, Number 2, at 384-391 (Spring 1987); Warren Freedman, Comment, “Presidential Timber: Foreign Born Children of American Parents,” 35 Cornell L.Q. 357 (1950); Alexander Porter Morse, “Natural Born Citizen of the United States – Eligibility for the Office of President,” 66 Albany LJ. 99 (1904); Akil Amar, “Natural Born Killjoy, Why the Constitution Won’t Let Immigrants Run for President, and Why That Should Change,” Legal Affairs, 16, 17 (Mar-Apr. 2004): ” … the presidency and vice presidency were reserved for citizens by birth.” For the opposing view, see Isidor Blum, “Is Gov. George Romney Eligible to Be President?,” N. y’LJ., Oct. 16 & 17, 1967, at I. In a more restrictive analyses one author would include children of U.S. citizens who are born abroad when one or both of the parents are abroad under the direction of and officially representing, or on duty for, the United States Government, either in the military or in a civilian governmental role. Lohman, Christina. “Presidential Eligibility: The Meaning of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause,” 36 Gonzaga Law Review 349, 369 (2000/2001).
[29] The Constitution of the United States of America, Analysis and Interpretation, S. Doc. 108-17, 108th Cong., 2d Sess. at 456- 457 (2004). The United States Senate has also stated its opinion by way of unanimous consent, in S. Res. 511, 11 Oth Congress, that “natural born citizens” include those persons who are citizens “at birth” by statute by virtue of being born abroad of United States citizens.
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: “All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.”
“Now back to the big issue that would devastate Obama and ther lying rats. “
Their destruction of our economy and our freedoms ... not the false claim that he’s not a natural-born citizen.
This silly birther nonsense is an embarrassment to the conservative movement.
Now, besides Obama, and that other lying and hiding Arthur, who else usurped the presidential office? You see in black and white, the words of a Law Review other than the hackneyed tripe you drivel about. The same we get from Dr. CON and et al.
“Now, besides Obama, and that other lying and hiding Arthur, who else usurped the presidential office?”
What’s your point?
“You see in black and white, the words of a Law Review other than the hackneyed tripe you drivel about”
What hackneyed tripe? Actual LAW?
Tubstain's Bizzaro World
What hackneyed tripe? Actual LAW?
I have actually cited Stare Decisis in two Supreme Court cases where you have cited BS and other rubbish.
Tell that to the almost 700 new legislators in state houses around the country, you Obot, who are about to pass new legislation for presidential candidates to prove they are natural born citizens. It's all about Obama.
ANY loyal American (sans divided allegiances)would make a better President than Obama!
However, we are a Constitutional republic -- based on law.
If the law is on your side, Jindhal will have no problem running for President -- in spite of those of us who disagree with you, at this time.
IF you are so confident in your position:
WHY is it SO important to you to argue with those that disagree with you on a point of law that none of us will be deciding, on this forum?
If "birthers" are wasting their time, why are YOU wasting YOUR time arguing with them?
A reasonable man could be led to believe that you "protest TOO much"!
If you are as confidant as you pretend... that the law is on your side... then WHY are YOU spending so much of your time here?
STE=Q
Sorry, you're so sensitive about this, but all I've done is use a media-parrot term (see citations and links below). By contrast, faithers is a descriptive term to describe those who accept Obama's nativity claim on blind faith. Sandheads are those who aren't educated about the issue and put their heads in the sand.
"And though it could hamstring show host Lou Dobbs, CNN's very own Obama-birthplace skeptic, the network's President Jon Klein — after a "reinvestigation of the fable" — proclaimed the so-called birthers story dead."
link to NPR piece by Liz Halloran
"I’ve held fire for the last several months as I’ve watched the so-called "Birther" movement gain steam."
"On Oct. 31, Fukino originally tried to put an end to the belief among so-called "birthers" that Obama was not born in the United States and thus was ineligible to run for the office of president."
Yup, the other two clowns you posted to are here because they are punching the Obot clock.
A reasonable man could be led to believe that you "protest TOO much"!
If you are as confidant as you pretend... that the law is on your side... then WHY are YOU spending so much of your time here?
Their actions are that obvious? /complete sarcasm.
I don't disagree. He is indeed eligible to be both president and vice president, since he was born in the USA under US Jurisdiction. The fact that his parents weren't citizens doesn't matter, just as it doesn't matter that Obama's father wasn't a citizen.
And that CNN Obot Klein lied about that all the Hawaiian long form birth certificates were destroyed.
Ah... the "Tu Quoque" Fallacy (YOU TOO!)
Whether or not "birthers are ALLOWED to disregard Supreme Court justices" is debatable.(emphases mine)
However, it is NOT debatable that you -- admittedly -- "disagree with the Law Review"(see above)
Maybe I am wrong, but I would think the Law Review would carry more authority in the legal community than "Tublecane" --yes?
STE=Q
Making these birther claims based on false legal theories that get tossed out of courtrooms won’t do a danged thing to stop Obama, and if you are not obtuse you know it.
We will stop him the old-fashioned way, beat him in 2012.
“ANY loyal American (sans divided allegiances)would make a better President than Obama! However, we are a Constitutional republic — based on law.”
Yes and yes.
“If the law is on your side, Jindhal will have no problem running for President — in spite of those of us who disagree with you, at this time.”
Correct, he will have no problem running for office. Just as Chester Arthur didnt have any problems becoming President despite having an Irish father, Spiro Agnew and his Greek father, and Obama and his Kenyan father have been unaffected by the issue of having non-US-citizen parents. So too with Bobby Jindhal, a natural-born US citizen born of immigrant parents.
“IF you are so confident in your position:
WHY is it SO important to you to argue with those that disagree with you on a point of law that none of us will be deciding, on this forum?”
Ask the question of those who have made it a point to attack me and argue with me. The truth is important to me, so making sure the truth prevails is my only goal here.
“If “birthers” are wasting their time, why are YOU wasting YOUR time arguing with them?”
So they quit doing damage to the conservative movement with their embarrassing misrepresentations of what the Constitution and our laws say.
It would be further embarrassing if deluded or misled freepers go around saying Jindhal is not eligible when in fact he is.
” A reasonable man could be led to believe that you “protest TOO much”! “
A reasonable man could be led to believe that birthers “protest TOO much”. I respectfully suggest you direct your questions their way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.