I would think that if Abercrombie is gonna [say he'll produce the birth certificate], he's not the Lone Ranger. He's gotta be calling the White House, "Okay, look, we have a potential problem here. I want to find this thing and I want to make it public." If that happened, somebody at the regime did not say, "No, don't do it," because Abercrombie is still alive. If they had said, "No, don't do it," and Abercrombie is still doing it....So Rush thinks the birth certificate is there and the delay is about trying to get Obama's opponents to go on record spouting birtherisms that will make them look stupid and mean-spirited when the birth certificate is finally whipped out.
I can't imagine Abercrombie being a free agent on this. Abercrombie gets inaugurated governor and out of the blue says, "Ah, you know what, I'm worried about this birther thing, they may have something there. I gotta find that birth certificate, and I'm gonna release it, I'm gonna prove it once and for all." Then he says, "I can't find it. Oh no, I'm in trouble. I'm really embarrassing myself here." And that's the hook and the bait, the unsuspecting and the beguiled are expected to chomp on that hook, line, and sinker and be reeled in.
By the way, if it were actually true that Obama is not a natural-born citizen — as the Constitution requires as a qualification for the presidency — wouldn't it be the case that Obama is not a citizen at all?
पोस्ट्स
१८२ टिप्पण्या:
I don't know. It could be that the White House finds birtherism politically useful and wants to keep it alive at sort of a low boil. Use the birthers to tar the rest of Obama's critics as nuts and cranks.
It's also possible that Abercrombie is a little nuts himself and is doing this all on his own.
If the White House is stoking this nonsense intentionally, I think it's a mistake. Anything that casts doubt on Obama's "Americanness" is bad for him politically, IMO.
At least one person is of the opinion that the birth-mother filled in "Islamic" under "Race", and for face-saving reasons, Obama doesn't want that to come out.
Think of the international trouble if the Muslim world thought our President was an apostate Muslim?
I mean, Obama has done his best to convince America that he is Christian, or at least church-attending. I assume the rest of the world thinks that he is a Christian.
...if it were actually true that Obama is not a natural-born citizen — as the Constitution requires as a qualification for the presidency — wouldn't it be the case that Obama is not a citizen at all?
But, assuming that's all true, who has standing to bring the claim? Only Obama himself? Like this: a state denies him a spot on the ballot on the grounds that Obama hasn't established himself as Constitutionally qualified, forcing Obama to sue and prove his is. I don't see who else has standing in any other scenario.
I thought the governor of Hawaii was that hot chick from Designing Women.
It least it was the last time I saw Hawaii Five-O.
You just can't believe anything you see on TV anymore.
"But, assuming that's all true, who has standing to bring the claim."
Not everything is a court case!
if it were actually true that Obama is not a natural-born citizen . . . wouldn't it be the case that Obama is not a citizen at all?
He'd be an undocumented person of color.
'Nuff said.
Here she is with Steve and Dann-O.
And of course with her other two best friends.
I assumed (reasonably I think) that he was born with dual citzenship--as he should have been--and that the non-production of the document had something to do with that.
"By the way, if it were actually true that Obama is not a natural-born citizen — as the Constitution requires as a qualification for the presidency — wouldn't it be the case that Obama is not a citizen at all?"
No, it would be the case that Obama isn't president at all.
Doesn't really matter any more any way because Barack Obama is powerless at this stage of his presidency.
He can't even order his own military to close a brig. He's limp. A weak horse.
He'll golf for two more years, take nice long Hawaiian vacations while his wife vacations in Spain on our dime and soon enough our long national nightmare will be over.
Then it will be morning in America again and we can all go back to work and feed our families and raise our children to be proud of their country again.
It's going to be a great day.
The truthers gave the left lots of energy in the 2000s. I'm not sure why Obama would want to give the birthers the same sort of encouragement.
(Think of the Tucson assassin, who registered to vote to propel the Democratic wave in 2006 and 2008, but didn't turn out to vote in 2010. Maybe the Democrats are playing a very long game, expecting the birthers to be as demoralized as the truthers?)
"Think of the international trouble if the Muslim world thought our President was an apostate Muslim?"
What do you mean "thought?" They already know it.
Barack Obama is a Muslim apostate who rejected Mohammed and who deserves death according to Islam and the Qur An.
Muslims already know this.
"Not everything is a court case!"
????
And you--a law professor!!!
The problem has been that even though there's a constitutional requirement that a president must be at least 35 years old and a natural born citizen of the United States, there doesn't seem to any statutory law in place to enforce the requirement. Wouldn't the proper place for such a law be at the state level, and is there not plenty of time for a state with a majority Republican legislature to pass a law requiring proof of citizenship before one's name can appear on a presidential ballot?
wv: decork - Decork the wine before you try to decant.
I still suspect that there's something in the formal birth certificate that is at least mildly embarrassing to Obama. Perhaps his mother identified someone else as the father? Or listed the father as "unknown" to scan the AFDC?
Perhaps karrde's guess is right? Except that Islam would be filled in under "religion" instead of "race," wouldn't it?
Maybe his gender was listed as "female," making the Obamas the first same-sex marriage in the White House?
Lotsa possibilities. You pay your money, you make your choice.
Not everything is a court case!
Whoa! Now for certain the Wisconsin L3's have a reason to sue your university.
I really don't care about this issue in isolation, but I do think that there are so many blank spots in this guy's map that it is cause for wonder about ourselves as a nation that we were so incurious as to hire him for the top job. A mid level employee at a mid tier public company would get a lot closer going over than we gave this guy for the most senior position.
"I'm not sure why Obama would want to give the birthers the same sort of encouragement."
If you think about it, Barack Obama's been kind of a douchebag to the left. I mean, he's made them all look like a bunch of fucking chumps and dupes.
Not only did he not close Gitmo, he stopped in-progress trials and instead is torturing these people without giving them a fair trial - no wait ... without giving them any kind of a trial fair or not!
Not only did he not bring troops home from Iraq (we still have 50,000 there guarding our oil), he sent 30,000 more of them into Afghanistan with instructions to kill as many brown people as they can target with their flying robot drones.
Not only did Barack Obama not raise taxes on the rich ... he gave them a fucking 2-year tax break! Hahahaha ... you fucking suckers.
Now Obama is surreptitiously planning the destruction of the nation's public employee unions by allowing states to declare bankruptcy and poorhouse all those retirees who trusted them! I mean ... you gotta be fucking kidding me! Never trust a fucking Democrat. Jesus you people are fucking stupid.
Barack Obama has been the best Republican president since Ronald Reagan fired all those fucking union scum air-traffic controllers.
The only way he could be a better president would be to nuke North Korea ... and he's got two years left to do it.
I fully expect some radiation release. That will be the topper.
Big Mike wrote: Or listed the father as "unknown" to scan the AFDC?
You meant "scam," I assume. Did AFDC exist in 1961?
"Did AFDC exist in 1961?"
Nope; that's why it was such a ballsy scam.
Florida:
Your post at 7:34 is being quoted on my blog.
What Michael said, and his term will be over before any court suit can make it anywhere.
Not natural born.
Natural born is when mommy AND Daddy are yanks...
No amount of lawyertons' yhaddy yhaddah will change that
Gov. Abercrombie claims there is a hand-written note in the state's files that says "The president's birth certificate should be right here between Baby Newell and Baby Powlowski who were born on the same day. But it's not."
Well what does Fitch have to say about this?
95% of the public has no problem looking at Americans past and present as full, uncompromised US citizens provided they are born to one or more bona fide US parents in US territory, even abroad in a foreign country (provided the parents, esp if one is non-American, fill out paperwork claiming their infant is bound to the USA).
That covers AZ territory Goldwater fit to run, George Romney born in Mexico in a Mormon Colony to Americans descended from REvolutionary times, John McCain to Americans defending us stationed in US Panama Canal Zone territory, and of course Obama.
==========
Worse for Birthers, the courts had no problem with saying George Romney was all-American, so was Goldwater when he ran.
=================
I think Rush has it right, unless Mom Stanley listed her byproduct of jungle fever as a Muslim or claimed, as many did of half-breed Hawaiian progeny they were "white" not half-white, half-asian.
Rush sees hardcore liberal Abercrombie as baiting the Birther nuts...the Birthers pop up to snap down the bait, then all Obama critics can be smeared as nutty as the Birthers.
According to wikipedia, AFDC ran from 1935 to 1996.
Then, not so ballsy after all, huh?
Interesting!
Busy bees buzzing about the latest...what...
"FACT"?
``Not natural born.
Natural born is when mommy AND Daddy are yanks..''
Wait. Does that mean that my mother (born in Pennsylvania in 1919) isn't a citizen because she had parents who had immigrated from Austria-Hungary? A-H doesn't exist anymore. Is she stateless? And then Big Mike says:
''Perhaps karrde's guess is right? Except that Islam would be filled in under "religion" instead of "race," wouldn't it?''
Does *any* state in the Union list "religion" as a category on a birth certificate? Illinois sure doesn't. New York doesn't, at least it didn't when I was born. What about the rest of you?
Maybe my backyard bees are different than your backyard bees?
My bees pollinate...
They sure know a flower when they need one.
"And you--a law professor!!!"
Here's a clue: One of the standard things a law professor teaches are the ways in which not everything having to do with law is what goes on in court cases. I was just teaching that very thing yesterday In Constitutional Law I.
Trooper grew a 'stache.
But now you have me thinking!
Ha ha
What if busy bees went in search of "FACTS" instead of flowers?
Has Abercrombie had any large sums wired into his Swiss account from a G. Soros of late? If Barry cannot deliver on Cap and Trade, then of what use is he anymore?
"The problem has been that even though there's a constitutional requirement that a president must be at least 35 years old and a natural born citizen of the United States, there doesn't seem to any statutory law in place to enforce the requirement. Wouldn't the proper place for such a law be at the state level, and is there not plenty of time for a state with a majority Republican legislature to pass a law requiring proof of citizenship before one's name can appear on a presidential ballot?"
In my view, the question was resolved, conclusively, when Congress accepted the electoral votes. Look at the procedures in 3 U.S.C. §15 -- http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.html
Once that happened, it's resolved. You can argue about qualifications in the next election if you want, but it is not the role of the courts to interfere with the decision made by Congress.
In my view, the question of Obama's qualification to serve as President in this term is conclusively resolved.
These questions should all have been raised during the campaign. People satisfied themselves that Obama was qualified enough. Maybe we should have demanded more, but it's too late now. We voted for him, the electoral college performed its work, and Congress accepted the results. That is the legal determination that we have, and it would be wrong for courts to undo that result.
I'll bite, let's see it.
By the way, if it were actually true that Obama is not a natural-born citizen — as the Constitution requires as a qualification for the presidency — wouldn't it be the case that Obama is not a citizen at all?
Yes.
Ergo ....
I don't think the case of George Romney's status as a "natural born citizen" is germane, seeing as he withdrew from the race well before the Republican national convention, so it didn't lead to a nationwide discussion of the constitutional requirement. Had he won the nomination Romney's eligibility for office would have become a issue.
BHO, Jr., is a Keynesian
It is quite possible that Neil Abercrombie is just an idiot. Never discount the simplest explanation.
It is all kind of strange. The obvious issue, as people have pointed out, is that the birth certificate has something politically painful on it, like Arab.
However, as I have said, Obama is as much of a citizen as anyone under the law because his mother was an American. The Equal Protection Clause pretty clearly overrides whatever gibberish birthers have found to the contrary.
Finally, as others have also said, Obama is president. No one can throw him out except Congress. A judge cannot toss the president. And Congress won't touch this issue.
In conclusion, it's all a non-issue. If what Althouse suggests here by way of Limbaugh is true, then Obama once again proves himself politically inept. I don't recall Bill Clinton playing rope-a-dope with the Mena Airport ass clownery. Birthers are nutballs, but the issue is just one more thing hanging over his political head in November 2012.
The reasons are not so nefarious! I think the good governor just wanted the name 'Abercrombie' to be remembered.
Oh, and wikipedia has a lengthy section on past presidential eligibility controversies. The candidate who most closely resembles Jindal's circumstances is Charles Hughes.
And if Obama were found to not be constitutionally eligible, I think the most likely course for removing him would be impeachment and not some court case where questions of standing are relevant (though I'm sure both Hillary and McCain would have standing. Obama's lies dashed their dreams!). I'm curious whether violating the election laws of the several states qualifies as a high crime or misdemeanor.
But that's all hypothetical. I'm not a birther and fully believe Obama was born in Hawaii.
Ann wrote: That is the legal determination that we have, and it would be wrong for courts to undo that result.
It would be pointless for any court to attempt to undo the result. The Constitution provides only one means to remove a sitting president. Ineligible or not Barak Hussein Obama is the President of the United States. Even if the most egregious claims of the birthers was proven true it wouldn't mean squat unless the House decided to deliver a true bill of impeachment, and the Senate followed through with a conviction.
However, November 2012 is not far away. The question of Obama's citizenship might rear its ugly head in a number of ways before then.
The Zero '08 campaign tried to raise the idea McCain wasn't eligible because he was born in the Canal Zone. At the time, I simply thought they were trying to delegitimize him in the minds of people who didn't know that the CZ was US territory when Junior was born.
Now it looks as if they may have been trying to forestall attention towards The Zero.
Linda Lingle, who was gov when they were casting the new 5-0, said she had seen the birth cert, but, if this moron can't find it, suddenly things get interesting.
When Congress impeaches him, and I think the issue of accepting the electoral votes is irrelevant since it was a Democrat-controlled congress, which high crime do they use - fraud? And are Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the National Socialists accessories?
PS OT: Troop, what was so bad about Turks and Caicos?
I think Althouse has it right on the conclusiveness of the election, the electoral college and it's ratification by Congress.
I suppose he could be removed by impeachment and conviction, but that ain't gonna happen over this issue.
We voted for him, the electoral college performed its work, and Congress accepted the results. That is the legal determination that we have, and it would be wrong for courts to undo that result.
Since Marbury v. Madison the court has been undoing the results of congressional votes and presidential signatures, if they were found to be unconstitutional. If it can be shown that the president does not meet the constitutional requirements, why would it be wrong for the court to correct this constitutional violation?
Since Marbury v. Madison the court has been undoing the results of congressional votes and presidential signatures
Where is the congressional vote and presidential signature conferring the presidency upon Obama?
Why isn't Mick here?
Just when there's an actual debate on Mick's issue, he fails to show. It's like that night I was supposed to go on a date with circa 1983 Phoebe Cates...
The 12th Amendment stipulates that the House counts the electoral votes and declares a winner. Some demented judge on a federal bench might try to invalidate that declaration on birther grounds, but that would be vacated faster than sound.
The whole birther brouhaha is pointless regarding Obama's current status as POTUS. However, it would be nice to force the issue when he runs for re-election. I, for one, would like to see that long form document.
In a just society, a federal judge could only invalidate a count of votes if the count was somehow wrong or, perhaps, fraudulent. As bad as the last Congress was, I do not doubt its excellence at arithmetic.
Michael wrote: [T]here are so many blank spots in this guy's map that it is cause for wonder about ourselves as a nation that we were so incurious as to hire him for the top job.
Michael nails it IMHO. Obama actively hid his past from us and his lackeys in the MSM let him do it. Instead of an honest background check we got a 24/7 anti-Palin screed. Thanks to Chrissy Matthews and the Olberbeast know everything about Sarah Palin, including much that isn't true (funny how we can know so much that's false) and yet Obama's bio is mostly conjectural.
tradguy,
"Has Abercrombie had any large sums wired into his Swiss account from a G. Soros of late?"
So now we know what that recently-publicized hand-over of banking info to Wikileaks was about...
For cryin' out loud Mick gets beaten to a pulp or shoved into a corner every time he shows up. Why should he be here?
Besides, someone can do his posts for him.
Don't forget that Abercrombie says he saw baby Obama and his parents at social events.
Plural.
Of course Stanley Dunham bailed to Washington when BHO Jr was what -- a month old? And stayed for a school year? And her "husband" left for the East coast when she got back.
So how many social events was an 18 year old college student taking her baby to?
If it's a set up does this embellishment make it more believable? (And more easily refuted?)
Just. Plain. Weird.
(Anyone found out what passport Obama used when he went to Pakistan?)
When it comes to government incompetence is always the way to bet.
Maybe they did just lose it. Hawaii's state government is inefficient.
My next guess would be the names are different. Maybe the President was named something other than "Barack," or something else is not what we've been told.
Otherwise, this doesn't make much sense. My level of care is very low, but the official blundering on display here is making me wonder.
Don't assume competence from the Obama administration (or any administration). They've made plenty of mistakes. Remember how everyone assumed that Chicago must be getting the Olympics because the President went to address the Olympic committee? Oops. Plenty of other examples.
Anne B said...Wait. Does that mean that my mother (born in Pennsylvania in 1919) isn't a citizen because she had parents who had immigrated from Austria-Hungary? A-H doesn't exist anymore. Is she stateless?
Your mother was subject to the provisions of the 14th Amendment? Who knew? She must have been famous. :)
If Austria-Hungary had been able to confer citizenship on your mother, then yes, I think her allegiance was diluted because of jus sanguinis citizenship laws. Why should a citizen who owes allegiance to two nations be as qualified? Dual citizenship is more than just a "cool" permit to work overseas or to avoid the slower line at customs.
I am so tired of the denunciation and insults heaped upon people who are legitimately concerned that the current president did not and does not meet the constitutional requirements for the office. If Obama is not a natural born citizen, than he is illegally occupying the White House in a CRIMINAL manner. In other words, the man is breaking the highest law of the land (THE CONSTITUTION). Either the constitution means what it says or it is just a piece of toilet paper that Obama can use as he wishes (and we thereby live in a dictatorship). If Obama is a Natural Born Citizen, then he needs to prove it, and I will shut up about it for once and for all. But if he is not a Natural Born Citizen, the all of you who dismiss this crime are abetting this traitor in his criminality.
We voted for him, the electoral college performed its work, and Congress accepted the results.
"We"? A line from a classic Bill Cosby routine comes to mind.
Surely the Constitution trumps whatever Congress may have decided? (I thought that was the whole point of a constitution). If the President is not a natural born citizen of the United States, then he is not the President, but an imposter, and a qualified President should be immediately declared? Surely if someone became President and they were suddenly found, say, to be only 33 years old, then the office would, constitutionally, immediately be vacant?
As someone else has pointed out, this is all academic, however. Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States by virtue of the American citizenship of his mother. Federal law defines who is a citizen at birth, and Obama qualifies, regardless of where he was born.
We voted for him . . .
What you mean "we," Kemosabe?
Ann Althouse said...
Trooper grew a 'stache.
Then he should be called Trooper Brittles.
(Hmmm, doesn't have quite the same ring)
Blair said...
Surely the Constitution trumps whatever Congress may have decided? (I thought that was the whole point of a constitution). If the President is not a natural born citizen of the United States, then he is not the President, but an imposter, and a qualified President should be immediately declared?
Now we know why he picked Halo Joe.
Blair -- The dude's mom is undeniably American. Therefore, Obama is American. Why belabor this?
Surely the Constitution trumps whatever Congress may have decided?
Not exactly, as I noted in the previous thread:
There are constitutional requirements, Rev. However, I will concede that - as a practical matter - we've moved beyond such requirements regarding Obama.
Having been duly elected, he's now effectively immune because of our adherence to the political Doctrine of Greater Good. Which states that we should avoid looking like a banana republic, much lass a colony of Kenya or Zimbabwe.
Still, the concept of greater-good is complicated when it runs afoul of the Constitution. In other words, naive (i.e., gainfully employed) citizens may rightfully wonder if our very foundations are simply an elaborate expression of classical lip service.
I'll stick with my usual approach of not suspecting malice when incompetence can explain everything.
Nevertheless, the so-called "birthers" have nothing to lose by continuing to raise holy hell. As they did before Obama was [duly] elected. Because we are a banana republic as long as Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Obama) is U.S. president.
Keeping in mind that the very same operative political philosophy, namely expediency (aka Greater Good), is also directly responsible for hundreds of wrongful convictions in capital cases.
the so-called "birthers" have nothing to lose by continuing to raise holy hell
No. The birthers discredit legitimate criticism of Obama, just as the lunatic left discredited legitimate criticism of Bush.
Ali -- Obama was elected president. His Mom was born in Kansas as an American. So he is an American at birth.
Get over it.
just as the lunatic left discredited legitimate criticism of Bush.
By virtue of Obama's ongoing reticence to verify his birth status (i.e., eligibility), he's handed the "birthers" a free pass. Only the most partisan hacks would now hold such disbelievers accountable for screaming KENYA!! in a crowded theater.
Ali -- Obama's mother is an American. It doesn't matter where Obama was born. He is an American because of her American status.
And, like racists and the anti-fluoride crowd, drooling birthers make the rest of the right look bad.
Ali -- Obama was elected president. His Mom was born in Kansas as an American. So he is an American at birth.
In Islam, "mom" is a form of expendable property. Even if she was born in the White House.
I'm personally "over" the election part, as I explained here and in the previous thread. Nonetheless, violations of the Constitution should not be taken lightly - especially during the fact.
In Islam, "mom" is a form of expendable property. Even if she was born in the White House.
Great. In the United States, having a mother who is an American confers upon you American citizenship.
Tell us: where in the United States is the law of Islam supreme over the federal law? I look forward to another evasion of the central issue...
You can't reason with birthers, it's a cult.
Just remember that you should never attibute to craftiness what you can attribute to stupidity. After all, this is a politician we are talking about.
wv: pandes - what you call a pair of panda bears.
I think I'd be satisfied if a mainstream media interviewer would just pin Obama down with a question about why exactly he doesn't just release the long-form birth certificate and be done with this issue.
How can it be that he never gets asked that by anyone? How can he have gotten through an entire campaign and two years of Presidency without even once an NBC/CBS/CNN/Fox/etc reporter at a news conference or in one of those periodic sit-downs he does just ask him why he doesn't release his birth certificate? And when he answers "we did release it during the campaign", reply "no, you released the Certificate of Live Birth, not the original doctor-signed, long-form birth certificate. Why don't you release that? Why did you spend millions on lawyers to fight lawsuits requiring you to release it?"
Apparently these media people are either afraid of making him mad or are afraid that he really can't produce it because it doesn't exist.
I think the new Hawaii gov let the cat out of the bag when he said that there is a "written" notation in the records. I think Obama was born when his mother was visiting Kenya prior to his claimed birthdate and his grandparents, wanting him to have US citizenship, took the route of reporting to the birth registrar that he was born at home. That would explain the newspaper records, since those are triggered off of the registrar's records, and it would explain why no hospital has a record of him being born there.
"Revenant said...
""I'll stick with my usual approach of not suspecting malice when incompetence can explain everything.""
Almost agreed with you, Rev.
BUT then I noticed you TOO use the "double parenthesis"...double quotes to most.
It's Friday night, so I will not Google you down.
You do need to know, however, that you are on my "List of people to track."
UP and DOWN.
Mark -- If you are satisfied that Obama is American, as you should be since you know that his mother is an American and, therefore, he is American, why must Obama answer some question?
There is no issue here. You have said so. Get over it.
This is really going to piss off Althouse!
And I am truly sorry for that, most gracious hostess.
Honest.
*I am*
Seven:
Your mother may have been a citizen but if you refuse to provide adequate proof you were was born here, you are not eligible to be president.
I prefer keeping things simple and so we should follow & enforce our laws or we should change laws we refuse to enforce [i.e. we look the other way when they are broken.]
AJ -- I disagree. Obama could have been born anywhere -- Kenya, Ljubljana (a beautiful little city in Slovenia that I highly recommend), even Canada. It doesn't matter. His mother was an American so he is, was, has been, and always will be a full-fledged American. The location of birth has nothing to do with Obama's birth since his mother was an American.
I'm going to pull out the consul card here. I was one. I had to take a pretty substantial course and pass a test. The fact is that this issue has never been litigated. The fact is also that anyone born to an American parent is equally American.
*I yam*
NOTE!
No double parenthesis, meaning quote marks, and not a single link to be seen?
So now what, Popeye?
Sailorman or Doyle?
Cripes, all of a sudden I feel sympathy with my hostess.
While I always admired Althouse, it seems she is left behind to respond to her "accusers".
I feel certain she will shut them down, as the mini-Sarah she is!
Ha ha! It's Parody!
So there are people here who believe Sarah Palin and her mini-me, Ann Althouse, can make "this" work?
The Constitution provides only one means to remove a sitting president
Doesn't one of the last amendments allow for removal in certain circumstances by the VP and some Cabinet officers, or was the movie "Air Force One" making shit up?
What's really strange is that most of what we know about his past is from Obama himself. My best friend for many years was in Obama's high school class for 3 years, but all he remembers is they were on the same JV basketball team until my friend was cut (it's a big school).
Think of it this way, people: "natural born" simply means "not naturalized". You are either one or the other. There's no other option, unless you somehow lose citizenship along the way in life, which is certainly possible under a number of circumstances.
I'll have some of what Penny's having, even if he smells a little.
Here's my challenge...
Your job is to "figure it out and to make it work".
A few rules...
ONE...No Googling!
TWO...NO Googling!
Three times, you're out.
The number of conservatives here who have turned out to be closet Birthers is disturbing. It's like I'm in a Twilight Zone where DailyKos isn't wrong about absolutely everything.
"I'll have some of what Penny's having, even if he smells a little."
I just BET you want some of me.
"Only so much to go around though."
Did everybody miss that story that came out a couple of months ago about that recently retired Hawaii
employees that testified under oath in one of those Obama birth challenge cases? Of course it got zero coverage in the MSM. Anyway, he said that there is nothing other than what had already been released, in the State archives. And he said it was common knowledge of people in that department. He was an Obama supporter, if that makes a difference to you. He also said that State employees got permission to search the archives at the two relevant hospitals by hand and on their own time. The thought was that the full document got filed rather than sent to the State. Nothing turned up in any of dozens of boxes searched (from the time period and proximity on the shelves).
Before the certification (and before Hawaii shut it down) someone got hold of the State's index page on a FOI request and the State had cross-referenced Stanley's file with a "Steve Dunham." FOI requests were shut down at that point.
It's not worth linking anything.
Just know that President Steve Dunham appreciated your vote.
The latest news was that Abercrombie has postponed the search for the real killer. No, wait! That was OJ Simpson.
Anne B. said...
``Not natural born.
Natural born is when mommy AND Daddy are yanks..''
Wait. Does that mean that my mother (born in Pennsylvania in 1919) isn't a citizen because she had parents who had immigrated from Austria-Hungary? A-H doesn't exist anymore. Is she stateless? And then Big Mike says:"
Geez, how many times. It's really a simple concept. What makes a natural born Citizen is the Unity of Blood and Soil. When immigrants to America become naturalized, then have a child on US Soil, that child is a natural born Citizen. There is nothing racist or nativist about the requirement of A2S1C5. It is a Security Requirement to ensure the HIGHEST PROBABILITY of Allegaince and Attachment to America in the CIC of the Armed forces. Natural Born Citizens are Naturally occuring citizens, or citizens of Original Common Law (Natural Law, not British Common Law). Natural Born Citizens represent the largest segment of the citizenry.
g2loq said...
" Not natural born.
Natural born is when mommy AND Daddy are yanks...
No amount of lawyertons' yhaddy yhaddah will change that"
DING DING DING!! Finally! someone gets it
Seven Machos said...
" Blair -- The dude's mom is undeniably American. Therefore, Obama is American. Why belabor this?"
Uh, because he has Usurped the highest office in the world. The question is not whether he is "American", or a "Citizen", or a "bona-fide American" or a "native citizen". It's whether he is a natural born Citizen as requires by A21C5. And he is not. And Congress knows he is not, as evidenced by the discussion of the matter regarding McCain at the Res. 511 hearings (and he isn't a nbc either) where they determined that birth to 2 US Citizen parents in US territory is a natural born Citizen. It's called treason.
Ann Althouse said...
"The problem has been that even though there's a constitutional requirement that a president must be at least 35 years old and a natural born citizen of the United States, there doesn't seem to any statutory law in place to enforce the requirement. Wouldn't the proper place for such a law be at the state level, and is there not plenty of time for a state with a majority Republican legislature to pass a law requiring proof of citizenship before one's name can appear on a presidential ballot?"
In my view, the question was resolved, conclusively, when Congress accepted the electoral votes. Look at the procedures in 3 U.S.C. §15 -- http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.html
Once that happened, it's resolved. You can argue about qualifications in the next election if you want, but it is not the role of the courts to interfere with the decision made by Congress.
In my view, the question of Obama's qualification to serve as President in this term is conclusively resolved."
Ah finally, your opinion on the matter, although a typically relativist and lawyeristic view . Still you don't define the term, saying only that "he is there so he's qualified".
The point here is that ALL of congress has committed treason by allowing Obama to pass the electoral college (including Cheney). The requirement of A2S1C5 is national security, but you are fine with allowing a precedent to be set that reduces that security.
They ALL know he's not qualified as evidenced by Resolution 511.
The issue WAS brought to the SCOTUS BEFORE the election by Leo Donofrio. He sued the Sec. of State of NJ for allowing 3 ineligible candidates on the ballot (Calero, McCain and Obama).
No one wanted to appear racist, and the World Bankers wanted this candidate for their thievery of America, so here he is.
If there is no mechanism for checking eligibility then how was Calero, the Socialist Party candidate (born in Nicaragua), kept off the ballot in 8 states?
The 25th Amendment provides Congress with the avenue for the removal of an ineligible Federal Officer by Quo Warranto in the DC district. So there is an avenue. That is the only Constitutional avenue. Otherwise it could be pitchforks or worse.
Seven Machos said...
" Think of it this way, people: "natural born" simply means "not naturalized". You are either one or the other. There's no other option, unless you somehow lose citizenship along the way in life, which is certainly possible under a number of circumstances."
You're correct to an extent. What you don't get is that everyone made a citizen by statute is naturalized. The only "Born Citizens" of the 14th Amendment are those Born in the US of US Citizen parents, those are naturally occurring citizens of natural law. EVERYONE ELSE is naturalized (either passively by election of residence or by oath).
For instance if you are born in the US of 1 US Citizen parent and 1 Britsh parent you may by statute become an American citizen by election of residence at the age of majority. Or by naturalization of the British parent. Before that, possession (or place of residence) determines which country has controlling jurisdiction (See Perkins v. Elg). That passive naturalization is by congressional statute, therefore that child cannot be a natural born Citizen eligible to be POTUS.
In my experence, the lines on what it means to be a 'Natural Born Citizen' are a little blurry. My sister was born to two American born citizens (My father was serving in the USAF at the time, and was stationed at Aviano) in a US Military hospital in Vicenza. However, due to a mistake by an employee at the State Department, she is offically a naturalized citizen.
So it does not follow that merely because one (or both) of your parents are US Citizens, or that you were born on US Soil (since legally speaking, US Military facilities are considered US Soil), that you are a 'Natural Born Citizen'. Only what your paperwork says is what matters.
Show me the paperwork, and I'll make up my mind. No tickee, no laundry.
wv: plasherr - what you put on the lath when you're drunk.
Even if the initial Constitutional question was resolved by the electoral college vote -- and I think Ann's right about that -- the political consequences of a revelation, at this point in his Presidency, that he lied to the American people to get elected would be huge.
Blair said,
"As someone else has pointed out, this is all academic, however. Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States by virtue of the American citizenship of his mother. Federal law defines who is a citizen at birth, and Obama qualifies, regardless of where he was born."
And that's the point. Federal Law doesn't decide who is a natural born Citizen, since no statute is needed to make natural born Citizens US Citizens. If one is born in the US of 2 US Citizen parents, or to a single mother US Citizen then that child is an American citizen by no authority than Original Federal Common Law (Natural Law). Any statute needed constitutes naturalization, and would eliminate the possibility of natural born Citizenship.
Ann Dunham was married to Barack Obama Sr., a Kenyan National. Barack Obama 2 is listed as the son on a 40 year old divorce decree. Obama 2 has propagated the story of his foreign father for a reason, and that is to set the precedent that Chester Arthur couldn't set (he was the only other Usurper, but committed fraud in hiding his father's non citizenship, fraud is not precedent).
Prof Althouse is blithely OK w/ this dangerous precedent, but there are many who are not OK w/ this invasion of foreign influence into the highest offices, damaging our security.
Obama has ADMITTED that his citizenship status was controlled by Britain. How could he possibly be an eligible natural born Citizen.
opfor311 said...
"In my experence, the lines on what it means to be a 'Natural Born Citizen' are a little blurry. My sister was born to two American born citizens (My father was serving in the USAF at the time, and was stationed at Aviano) in a US Military hospital in Vicenza. However, due to a mistake by an employee at the State Department, she is offically a naturalized citizen.
So it does not follow that merely because one (or both) of your parents are US Citizens, or that you were born on US Soil (since legally speaking, US Military facilities are considered US Soil), that you are a 'Natural Born Citizen'. Only what your paperwork says is what matters.
Show me the paperwork, and I'll make up my mind. No tickee, no laundry."
I appreciate your scepticism, however your sister would only be a natural born Citizen if born between 1790 and 1795. That is the only period of time that Military bases were considered US territory, and children of US Citizen military personnel were considered natural born Citizens.
Since then ALL children of US Citizen military personnel born overseas are naturalized (passively). John McCain was not a natural born Citizen for this reason.
opfor311 said...
"In my experence, the lines on what it means to be a 'Natural Born Citizen' are a little blurry. My sister was born to two American born citizens (My father was serving in the USAF at the time, and was stationed at Aviano) in a US Military hospital in Vicenza. However, due to a mistake by an employee at the State Department, she is offically a naturalized citizen.
So it does not follow that merely because one (or both) of your parents are US Citizens, or that you were born on US Soil (since legally speaking, US Military facilities are considered US Soil), that you are a 'Natural Born Citizen'. Only what your paperwork says is what matters.
Show me the paperwork, and I'll make up my mind. No tickee, no laundry."
The 25th Amendment provides the avenue for Congress to remove a sitting Federal Officer in the DC District by Quo Warranto (by what authority do you assume this office).
There is also an avenue to remove an incapacitated President in that Amendment.
Otherwise Impeachment can only happen by discovery of Presidential crimes or misdemeaners.
It is not illegal to seek an office that you are ineligible for, and Barack Obama has been careful not to explicitly state that he is a natural born Citizen He only says he is a "native born American Citizen" at Fight the Smears. He is careful not to outright lie. That is the reason that the dual citizenship issue is being covered by the BC, so that he won't have to lie, since that is an impeachable offense.
Congresses culpability is apparent when you see the certificates of nomination, sent to the states, only claim that he was "duly nominated", and nowhere claim that he is "constitutionally qualified".
They ALL know that he is not eligible, and now seek to cover their asses. A fact that Prof. Althouse seems to not care about.
woof said...
" You can't reason with birthers, it's a cult."
And the willfully blind and hypnotized never lie.
Ann Althouse said...
"These questions should all have been raised during the campaign. People satisfied themselves that Obama was qualified enough. Maybe we should have demanded more, but it's too late now. We voted for him, the electoral college performed its work, and Congress accepted the results. That is the legal determination that we have, and it would be wrong for courts to undo that result."
No you don't get off that easy, as a "law prof" you voted for an ineligible candidate of very questionable provenance. What were you thinking?
Quo Warranto in the DC district is the constitutional avenue to remove Obama.
Seven Machos said...
"AJ -- I disagree. Obama could have been born anywhere -- Kenya, Ljubljana (a beautiful little city in Slovenia that I highly recommend), even Canada. It doesn't matter. His mother was an American so he is, was, has been, and always will be a full-fledged American. The location of birth has nothing to do with Obama's birth since his mother was an American.
I'm going to pull out the consul card here. I was one. I had to take a pretty substantial course and pass a test. The fact is that this issue has never been litigated. The fact is also that anyone born to an American parent is equally American."
And of course you are wrong for all the reasons already stated. There is a lot of precedent for the understanding of what is a natural born Citizen from the Dicta of SCOTUS cases, although no case has been on point in deciding one's natural born Citizenship status. And you're just REALLY wrong if you think that one born of 1 US Citizen overseas is eligible to be POTUS.
Here for example from Minor v. Happersett (and repeated verbatum in Wong Kim Ark):
"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. "
The "Common Law" that is referred to is Natural Law, Original Federal Common Law (see the declarartion of Independence).
Anyone not an original Federal Common Law citizen of natural law is naturalized in some way by congressional statute.
"Maybe we should have demanded more, but it's too late now. We voted for him, the electoral college performed its work, and Congress accepted the results."
As Glenn Reynolds would chuckle ... "another dupe self-identifies."
" ...the electoral college performed its work, and Congress accepted the results."
What if the Electoral College was brought together again to de-certify their results ... now that they know they were fraudulently misled by the candidate himself?
A certification based on the fraudulent representations of the candidate himself cannot be allowed to stand.
Results that flow from fraud are never official.
If he's not, then we can deport him. Hoooray!
Free Republic has posted the name Barack Hussein Obama was illegal under Hawaii law in 1961. Seems there was an Act passed in 1860 a child's name must be Christian.
Seven:
I did not say Obama was not a citizen. I am simply asking if he has supplied adequate proof that he is eligible to be president which requires being born on US soil.
Rev:
If you are including me as a secret birther, don't. I simply favor laws be followed and enforced [i.e voter registration, border enforcement, eligibility to be our president]. It seems our current system picks & chooses which of our laws will be enforced and which won't.
AJ Lynch said...
" Seven:
I did not say Obama was not a citizen. I am simply asking if he has supplied adequate proof that he is eligible to be president which requires being born on US soil.
Rev:
If you are including me as a secret birther, don't. I simply favor laws be followed and enforced [i.e voter registration, border enforcement, eligibility to be our president]. It seems our current system picks & chooses which of our laws will be enforced and which won't."
Again, the question is whether Obama is a natural born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS, not whether he is a citizen (although it may be).
Birth on US Soil is 1 part, 2 US Citizen parents close the circle and prevent dual citizenship and allegiance at birth.
Some Democrats decided that obama was qualified. That is somewhat different than the American People. Then Congress fell down on it's job.
I am of the camp that says Obama is a US citizen. I just resent that everything about this pencil neck is an effing mystery. We know Bush's grades. Not Obama's. The media devoted far more time looking at the pay stubs from Bush's Air National Guard Service than anything in Obama's past.
I just really want to know one thing. A guy claims in his own autobiography that he got to NYC unable to afford a cab ride. So, how did he get to "Pockistan" and, since the State Dept had an advisory out, on what passport?
There were no restrictions on traveling to Pakistan.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/passport.asp
Meanwhile, Gov. Abercrombie is staggering around Honolulu, shell-shocked.
And he gets an "A" for effort, also an A+ for becoming, by default, the world's #1 birther.
"And he gets an "A" for effort, also an A+ for becoming, by default, the world's #1 birther."
Rush Limbaugh has warned you not to assume Abercrombie is an idiot. That is what you are doing. The working theory should be that Abercrombie is in the middle of a political trick. Don't fall for it.
The working theory should be that Abercrombie is in the middle of a political trick. Don't fall for it.
One take away message of that is don't be a dupe--just drop the whole thing already.
The issue remains a legitimate concern for people who didn't accept it first around and it shouldn't go away this election cycle until the man (or his handlers) produces the document. Althouse is in effect saying that the President deserves the benefit of the doubt. Yet it is within the President's power to remove the doubt and he remains the one who created the doubt in the first place. Given that the President and his handlers practiced open deception recently with the Giffords eye-opening story (which nobody but Crack MC seem to want to talk about in a rational way), I'd say that POTUS has temporarily used up his stock of trust.
All in all, the episode has been instructive for those of us who were not as familiar with the 14th Amendment and our country's (and other's) citizenship laws. I'll give him kudos for that at least.
12/24/52 and
prior to
11/14/86
Citizen parent physically present in U.S.
or possession 10 years prior to child’s
birth, 5 of which after age 14.
Note that Stanley Ann Dunham was 18 when she gave birth to our president, so she could not have resided in the United States for 5 years after the age of 14 prior to his birth.
Of course, all of this is moot if he was born in Hawaii--which I think is the case.
Honorable
military service, employment with the
U.S. Government or intergovernmental
international organization, or as
dependent unmarried son or daughter
and member of the household of a
parent in such service or employment,
may be included.
§301(a)(7), now §301(g) INA;
7 FAM 1133.2-1, 1133.3-1c; 8
USC §1401
I have an idea for the birther mouthbreathers who want Obama out of office. Why don't you try to find someone who can beat him fair and square in the little election we're having in two years?
Is it because conservatism as fielded by the current Republican party is little more than a media stunt, with no substance, and will be carried forward by craven mopes that no one wants to vote for?
Awww. 6 more years of Obama is gonna be tough on you guys. I almost feel sorry for you.
I have my own game-theory, that he (Abercrombie) wanted to become at least a footnote in history, and cooked up this whole Sherlock-Holmes thing on his own.
It's a win/win for the formerly obscure governor. And an upcoming question on Jeopardy.
Where in the Constitution does it say that the president must be born in the Unites States? Natural born does not mean native born.
Also Mick is hilarious.
Seven:
I assumed that it is somewhere in the rules or laws. If not, why did Obama campaign / Dems raise the issue of McCain being born in Panama?
I looked it up. Obama is considered natural born only if he was born in Hawaii but not if he was born in Kenya.
No. An American woman gives birth to an American child anywhere in the world and anywhere beyond the world.
I looked it up.
Where? Both the US legal code and the Constitution are available online. Let's have a link to the relevant rule.
Ann Althouse said,
"Rush Limbaugh has warned you not to assume Abercrombie is an idiot. That is what you are doing. The working theory should be that Abercrombie is in the middle of a political trick. Don't fall for it."
It is absolutely a "trick", since the conspiracy theory is used to paint "birthers" as crazies, when the real constitutional violation hides in plain sight. Of course you never address that real violation (Obama's admitted dual citizenship at birth), Why, is the question.
Revenant said...
"I looked it up.
Where? Both the US legal code and the Constitution are available online. Let's have a link to the relevant rule."
Just like the passage from Minor v. Happersett (and WKA) said, the definition is NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION. It's alson mot in US Code, since natural born Citizens need no Congressional statute to make them a citizen. It's already apparent, since they are born in the US of US Ciizen parents. No statute is needed. Thus the term "natural" as in "naturally occurring."
You can find it in Vattel's Law of Nations. The treatise describing ancient Natural Law, written by Vattel in 1757, and studied by the framers.
Seven Machos said...
"Where in the Constitution does it say that the president must be born in the Unites States? Natural born does not mean native born.
Also Mick is hilarious."
You really aren't that smart, but you are partially right. "Native born" doesn't mean "Natural born", although "Native " by itself could be natural born. All Obama admits to being in Fight the Smears is being a "Native born American citizen", which means he was supposedly born here, NOT THAT HE'S AN ELIGIBLE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. Why does he not use the correct term? Answer because an outright LIE would be an impeachable offense.
All natural borns are native born, but not all native borns are natural born.
From Law of Nations:
'THE NATIVES, OR NATURAL BORN CITIZENS, ARE THOSE BORN IN A COUNTRY OF PARENTS WHO ARE IT'S CITIZENS".
I think that you are so aghast that nbc requires citizen parents because either you or your children are not born of US Citizen parents, and feel slighted. I find that a lot, as people are selfish. Not to fear, nbcs and US Citizens by naturalization have the same rights, just are not eligible to be POTUS.
dbp said...
"12/24/52 and
prior to
11/14/86
Citizen parent physically present in U.S.
or possession 10 years prior to child’s
birth, 5 of which after age 14.
Note that Stanley Ann Dunham was 18 when she gave birth to our president, so she could not have resided in the United States for 5 years after the age of 14 prior to his birth.
Of course, all of this is moot if he was born in Hawaii--which I think is the case.
Honorable
military service, employment with the
U.S. Government or intergovernmental
international organization, or as
dependent unmarried son or daughter
and member of the household of a
parent in such service or employment,
may be included.
§301(a)(7), now §301(g) INA;
7 FAM 1133.2-1, 1133.3-1c; 8
USC §1401"
All nonsense. Have you guys no logic at all? I thought there were some lawyers here.
Dunham's age only would make a difference if Obama was born in Kenya (since then he wouldn't even be a citizen, much less a nbc).
US Code has nothing to do w/ who is a natural born Citizen. No One, including Prof. Althouse, has refuted my correct argument over a long period of time. No One.
Seven Machos said...
" No. An American woman gives birth to an American child anywhere in the world and anywhere beyond the world."
Says who? (USC 8 S1401 is not relevant, the words "natural born" NEVER appear there).
Let me guess; your US Citizen mother birthed you in a foreign country, of a foreign father, and you want to think you're eligible, aw.
Peter said,
"I am of the camp that says Obama is a US citizen. I just resent that everything about this pencil neck is an effing mystery. We know Bush's grades. Not Obama's. The media devoted far more time looking at the pay stubs from Bush's Air National Guard Service than anything in Obama's past."
Geez, another one. Are you guys THAT tone deaf? Read my entries above and learn something. The question is not whether Obama is a Citizen, US Citizen, Bona- fied Citizen, Real Citizen, Native Born Citizen or any other euphemism. A2S1C5 requires the POTUS to be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
It was not put there for kicks. It has definite meaning in Natural Law, which is our original Common Law, i.e born in the US of US Citizen parents. Obama's foreign father disqualifies him, even if born in the Oval office.
Mick -- One facet of your hilariousness is your hilarious failure to account for the Equal Protection Clause, or any of the Constitution as written after the Civil War, or any of a long line of alien and bastard cases.
Further, the issue hasn't been litigated. Further still, the issue is not going to be litigated concerning Obama. Therefore, you are never, ever going to win. Your issue is a guaranteed political loser.
Finally, natural born merely means not naturalized. And naturalized merely means not natural born. There are no other classes of citizens.
But make me laugh some more. Dance for me!
Ann Althouse said,
"Rush Limbaugh has warned you not to assume Abercrombie is an idiot. That is what you are doing. The working theory should be that Abercrombie is in the middle of a political trick. Don't fall for it."
What IS a natural born Citizen Prof. Althouse? Why won't you say?
How does a "law prof" vote for an ineligible candidate?
Natural Law, which is our original Common Law
Really? Oh please: do tell. Tell us how common law, made by appellate judges and based on the standard of what reasonable people are doing, anyway, is natural law.
This is going to be awesome.
Obama is president, dude. He is not going to not be president unless is voted out in 2012. Your loony diatribes make that more likely, however marginally.
Seven Machos said...
"Mick -- One facet of your hilariousness is your hilarious failure to account for the Equal Protection Clause, or any of the Constitution as written after the Civil War, or any of a long line of alien and bastard cases.
Further, the issue hasn't been litigated. Further still, the issue is not going to be litigated concerning Obama. Therefore, you are never, ever going to win. Your issue is a guaranteed political loser.
Finally, natural born merely means not naturalized. And naturalized merely means not natural born. There are no other classes of citizens.
But make me laugh some more. Dance for me!"
It's OK if you are not eligible for POTUS Seven, really. So you father was a foreigner, no biggie, you're just not eligible to be POTUS.
It is only your opinion that it won't be litigated, but the argument I make is rock solid and correct. It remains to be seen.
Equal Protection Clause???? Now that's funny. It is an eligibility requirement, just like age 35. So you mean that that A2S1C5 discriminates against 34 year olds? The EPC is the favorite tool of progressives in their destruction of America, and they use it to confer a slew of "rights" that are not there by Natural Law. The EPC as written refers only to equal footing and treatment in a COURT OF LAW.
Dude, you are simply wrong. Natural born means born American, as opposed to naturalized. This simple, clean, and elegant explanation is far better than your morbidly convoluted explanations which bring in what you call "natural law" and God only knows what else.
As for my American bona fides, don't worry your pretty little head. I did give out visas and, unlike you, I actually had to learn something about citizenship law over the course of several weeks, and constantly apply it on behalf of the United States.
You? Ass clown? How'd you do on the Foreign Service exam?
P.S.: Age is not a protected class.
Seven Machos said...
" Natural Law, which is our original Common Law
Really? Oh please: do tell. Tell us how common law, made by appellate judges and based on the standard of what reasonable people are doing, anyway, is natural law.
This is going to be awesome."
Sure, here in the Declaration of Independence (you haven't been following along have you)
"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the LAWS OF NATURE and of NATURE"S God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
Then there is A1S8C10----"law of nations" is mentioned as our common law of international relations.
Where do you think the Bill of Rights comes from? For instance the 2nd Amendment reflects the Natural Law right of Self Defense.
The USC means what it meant when written, it is becoming unrecognizable from the original intent of the Natural Law right to Self Govern by the abuse of weasel lawyers playing "Telephone" w/ it for over 200 years.
Seven Machos said...
" P.S.: Age is not a protected class."
Really, now you're reaching. Tell that to older people that are winning lawsuits for age discrimination.
Mick -- Tell us more about this great common law tradition used by the federal government. Can you point me to some federal common law used in the federal courts established by the Declaration of Independence?
Mick. Ass clown. The age discrimination lawsuits are not brought under the Equal Protection Clause. They are brought under specific federal and state laws, enacted by Congress and state legislatures, and in no way part of the Constitution.
Thus, you have demonstrated again that you have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. But go ahead, dude: double down. The cognitively dissonant always do.
Seven Machos said...
" Dude, you are simply wrong. Natural born means born American, as opposed to naturalized. This simple, clean, and elegant explanation is far better than your morbidly convoluted explanations which bring in what you call "natural law" and God only knows what else.
As for my American bona fides, don't worry your pretty little head. I did give out visas and, unlike you, I actually had to learn something about citizenship law over the course of several weeks, and constantly apply it on behalf of the United States.
You? Ass clown? How'd you do on the Foreign Service exam?"
Right, so your father WAS foreign, and you are not eligible. I Knew that. It's usually apparent as to why one doth protest to much.
You're argument is full of holes "dude". ANYONE not born in the US of US Citizen parents IS naturalized by Congressional Statute in some way. That argument is as clean as it gets. If USC 8 S1401 described nbcs, eligible to be POTUS, then Congress can amend the constitution illegally by changing that law, DUH. Beside that "Natural Born" appears NOWHERE in that law.
If the well known reason for the natural born requirement was to prevent foreign influence, then how can it possibly be true that the children of foreigners, or of foreign birth, could be eligible.
Your argument is BS, and self serving, since you are not eligible.
AND obviously you didn't study hard enough.
My father was born in Missouri. My mother was born in Missouri. I was born in Missouri.
You are not eligible to be president of the United States because you are not a real American. Also, you are a loon.
ANYONE not born in the US of US Citizen parents IS naturalized by Congressional Statute in some way.
Then everyone born in the United States of U.S. parents is also naturalized in some way because statutes describe their attainment of citizenship.
Clearly, then, no one born in the United States of American parents can be president, as a federal statute naturalizes their citizenship. And so you are right: I cannot be president. No one can.
Seven Machos said...
"Mick -- Tell us more about this great common law tradition used by the federal government. Can you point me to some federal common law used in the federal courts established by the Declaration of Independence?"
The whole Bill of Rights is about Natural Law Rights, as I've already pointed out. I shoot down all of your arguments, and you just move on to another Nonsense argument. Law of Nations, as provided in A1S8C10 is the body of law called Natural law. It is well known that ALL of the founding documents contribute to the force of law known as the United States. I guess you think they wrote "Laws of Nature" because it has no meaning, just like you think of natural born Citizen.
I've embarrassed you w/ EVERY argument you try to make for months. But the real issue is that you feel inadequate because you are not a natural born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS. You think it's your right to be eligible. The eligibility requirement is not a "Right" it is national security, and Obama is proving it.
P.S.: Obama is president. You lose. Ass clown.
Sure you were!
No you're wrong, Natural born Citizens need NO STATUTE to make them citizens, since they are born in the US of Citizen parents. What else could they be? They are Naturally occurring citizens, the largest pool of the citizenry, and the POTUS is chosen from the largest pool.
Mick, my American-ness is beyond dispute. Yours actually is still suspect.
Further, only a severe dumb ass would try to equate "natural law" with "common law." These two things are polar opposites.
But, anyway, where you are born has nothing to do with your status as an American citizen, or a natural-born American citizen. You need only have an American mother or an American father. Father is a harder deal documentally, but no different. An American eligible to be president may be born anywhere in the world.
Seven Machos said...
"P.S.: Obama is president. You lose. Ass clown."
That's what the argument is, whether he is eligible. Prof. Althouse helped elect an ineligible POTUS who is hurting our security.
He is the Putative POTUS, and there are avenues to unseat him, and make everything he signed null and void.
I can see that he sits in the chair obviously, but that doesn't mean that he is eligible.
It's OK that you're not though.
It makes me very sad to know that there are people in this country so stupid that they don't understand that there are laws conferring citizenship at birth, and treaties providing for what happens to displaced citizens when nations fail.
A child born in the United States could not be a child with United States citizenship unless the United States has laws providing for the citizenship of that child.
Lastly, you are incredibly stupid, and probably crazy.
Good luck unseating Obama, Mick. I wish you luck.
Say, whatever happened with that court case you were just sure was going to your way? Also, under what authority under the Constitution or "federal common law" (or, heck, even natural law) can a judge evict Obama from the presidency?
You chew on that and get back to us. Meanwhile, every child born to an American anywhere is natural born and eligible to be president.
Seven Machos said...
"Mick, my American-ness is beyond dispute. Yours actually is still suspect.
Further, only a severe dumb ass would try to equate "natural law" with "common law." These two things are polar opposites.
But, anyway, where you are born has nothing to do with your status as an American citizen, or a natural-born American citizen. You need only have an American mother or an American father. Father is a harder deal documentally, but no different. An American eligible to be president may be born anywhere in the world."
Sure it is.
Anyway American Common Law is the Constitution, based on Natural Law. Common Law is NOT British Common Law, that would be silly, and is what you base your silly argument on, and why Obama was born a British Subject (and still may be). You still ignore arguments that blow your whole BCL definition out of the water, but that is par for the course. I would guess that your father was a foreigner, and you pray to an effigy of the Usurper, hoping he will set the precedent making you eligible to be POTUS.
American Common Law is the Constitution
Dude, really. There is no law that is more statutory than the United States Constitution.
You obviously aren't getting the joke, so I'll tell you out of pity: there is no federal common law. This is an elementary fact. The Constitution is not "common law" because a judge did not create it. The Constitution is highly statutory in nature. Judges do not and cannot create statutes.
Get over yourself. You don't have the remotest fucking idea what you are talking about.
Seven Machos said...
"Good luck unseating Obama, Mick. I wish you luck.
Say, whatever happened with that court case you were just sure was going to your way? Also, under what authority under the Constitution or "federal common law" (or, heck, even natural law) can a judge evict Obama from the presidency?
You chew on that and get back to us. Meanwhile, every child born to an American anywhere is natural born and eligible to be president."
All of the cases have failed because the courts hide behind the legal sleight of hand known as "standing". An Invention meant to bar the people from redress in the courts. SCOTUS NEVER ruled on the merits of the cases. The Kerschner case was doomed to fail for "standing".
The only legal constitutional avenue is set up by the 25th Amendment, which gave congress the ability to enact Quo Warranto petitions (by what authority do you assume this office) challenging the eligibility of Federal Officers in the DC District Code.
Seven Machos said...
"American Common Law is the Constitution
Dude, really. There is no law that is more statutory than the United States Constitution.
You obviously aren't getting the joke, so I'll tell you out of pity: there is no federal common law. This is an elementary fact. The Constitution is not "common law" because a judge did not create it. The Constitution is highly statutory in nature. Judges do not and cannot create statutes.
Get over yourself. You don't have the remotest fucking idea what you are talking about."
Our Common Law statutes are based on Natural Law (Bill of Rights). Laws written by Congress have to conform w/ the Bill of Rights.
And you still can't refute anything I have said. Now you seek to parse every word, since your general argument is nonsense.
Seven Machos said...
"Good luck unseating Obama, Mick. I wish you luck."
No you don't, you hope he sets the precedent allowing you to be eligible.
You hope Obama sets the precedent allowing you to be eligible.
Anyhow, yow have you been harmed by Obama's presidency? You haven't, dude. You've been given a way to channel your insanity. That's a gift. You should send Obama money.
But since you have not been harmed, you have no standing. Just one reason to give up.
Seven Machos said...
"It makes me very sad to know that there are people in this country so stupid that they don't understand that there are laws conferring citizenship at birth, and treaties providing for what happens to displaced citizens when nations fail."
Laws conferring citizenship at birth have nothing to do w/ who is a natural born Citizen, since nbcs need no statute to make them a US Citizen.
Displaced citizens of failed nations may become US citizens by statute, and after that, when they have a child on US Soil, that child is a natural born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS. Pretty simple and logical really.
Seven Machos said...
" You hope Obama sets the precedent allowing you to be eligible.
Anyhow, yow have you been harmed by Obama's presidency? You haven't, dude. You've been given a way to channel your insanity. That's a gift. You should send Obama money.
But since you have not been harmed, you have no standing. Just one reason to give up".
Why yes I have. Obama has shown that he has neither the allegiance or attachment to the US to protect our security. He is exactly the type of "Citizen of the World" the framers would have prevented. Everyone has been harmed, it is not a "particular harm", thus the circle jerk of the "standing doctrine".
The SCOTUS has the sole responsibility to define Constitional terms, and John Marshall said that the SCOTUS should reach out and take a case when it should. John Roberts knows he is ineligible. Why do you think the oath was flubbed, then "performed" in private, with no press, and no witnesses.
Why do you think the oath was flubbed, then "performed" in private, with no press, and no witnesses.
Because of the illuminati, probably. Look, dude: you are not a natural born citizen. Sorry. Sucks to be you.
As an aside, does anyone ever notice how conspiracy theorists cannot separate substance from symbolism? This oath is a great example. It means nothing. It is purely symbolic. But to the conspiracy theorist, the symbolic takes on vital substantive effect. Here, Mick, not a natural born citizen, confers great meaning on the oath of office -- as if it has some power on the office itself. Had Obama not taken some mystery oath, he wouldn't be president now.
Weird. Plus Mick is a fraud because he is not a natural born citizen. But Obama is one. Galling...
The SCOTUS has the sole responsibility to define Constitional [sic] terms
Where does the Constitution say this?>
Blogger Seven Machos said...
"Why do you think the oath was flubbed, then "performed" in private, with no press, and no witnesses.
Because of the illuminati, probably. Look, dude: you are not a natural born citizen. Sorry. Sucks to be you.
As an aside, does anyone ever notice how conspiracy theorists cannot separate substance from symbolism? This oath is a great example. It means nothing. It is purely symbolic. But to the conspiracy theorist, the symbolic takes on vital substantive effect. Here, Mick, not a natural born citizen, confers great meaning on the oath of office -- as if it has some power on the office itself. Had Obama not taken some mystery oath, he wouldn't be president now.
Weird. Plus Mick is a fraud because he is not a natural born citizen. But Obama is one. Galling..."
No matter how many times that you cannot refute anything I say, and I bury EVERY argument that you have, you continue to the next nonsense.
You cannot refute that the Declaration of Independence said that our laws are based on Natural Law.
or that "law of nations" in A1S8C10 is the body of law known as Natural Law.
or that the dicta of Minor v. Happersett, Wong Kim Ark, The Venus, Dred Scott, and Perkins v. Elg described natural born Citizens exactly the same as Vattel, and The Venus cited LON by name
That Vattel's Law of Nations was the most cited source by SCOTUS in the 19th century, and Scalia sourced it in the Dicta of Heller as the natural law right of self defense.
That the writers of the 14th Amendment described natural born Citizens as those born subject to the US and NO OTHER FOREIGN POWER (that was Bingham, Howard and Trumbull). And their is NO MENTION in the hearings for the 14th A that said thay were amending the requirements for POTUS.
That the REASON for the requirement was to prevent foreign influence.
That Resolution 511 described McCain as being Natural Born because he was born "IN US CONTROLED TERRITORY OF US CITIZEN PARENTS".
That Leahy and Chertoff both agreed at Res. 511 that "if your parents are US Citizens, then naturally you are a natural born citizen"
Laurence Tribe, and Ted Olsen, at Res. 511 defined natural born Citizens as those born "WITHIN the TERRITORY and ALLEGIANCE of a nation".
That Federalist #68 says the reason for the requirement was to prevent foreign influence, and assure that the chief magistrate was a "creature of our own".
That the founders studied Natural Law and particularly Vattel's Law of Nations extensively.
That there have been NO CONTROLLING authority that has said
that simple birth in the US constitutes a natural born Citizen, or that USC 8 S1401 describes natural born Citizens, and you cannot refute that any changes to USC 8 s1401, (if that was the definition) would be illegally amending the constitution.
That Obama never took the correct oath in public, and it could have been recorded by the media in private, but wasn't.
That Obama has NEVER explicitly said that he is a natural born Citizen.
That a pic on a website is proof of nothing (it's hearsay).
Just to name a few. But you continually resort to name calling, and ridicule in the Typical Alinskyan method, and project your failings onto others. You obviously have lost your ability to reason, due to your adoration of your master, the Usurper, and are probably a paid internet operative of said Usurper.
"By the way, if it were actually true that Obama is not a natural-born citizen — as the Constitution requires as a qualification for the presidency — wouldn't it be the case that Obama is not a citizen at all?"
Correct. Assuming that parentage information (Stanley Ann & Barack, St.) and publicly available (i.e., Google-fu) vital stats (i.e., birthdate) for the president's U.S. citizen mother are correct, the president _must_ have been born in the U.S. or its territories in order to qualify under citizenship laws in force at the time of his birth.
It's mathematics. Stanley Ann Dunham was too young at the time of Barack Jr.'s birth for her to attained five (5) years of U.S. presence since reaching the age of 14.
That provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) was amended in 1986, but since the president was born in 1961, that doesn't help him if he wasn't born in Hawaii (or some other U.S. state/territory).
IMHO, none of this matters, de facto, until the next, de jure, presidential election.
@ Seven Machos (1/22/11 12:54 AM)
re: your "consul card"
Perhaps it's time you re-took the test. I hope they don't give me the job of reviewing all the citizenship cases you apparently didn't understand the INA well enough to adjudicate IAW 8 U.S.C.
Cheers!
@ Seven Machos:
"No. An American woman gives birth to an American child anywhere in the world and anywhere beyond the world.
1/22/11 7:49 PM"
No. It's gotten easier, as of the 1986 amendments to the Immigration & Nationality Act, but it's still not automatic.
Look, until the resolution regarding Sen. McCain's qualification was passed, it was pretty much accepted (if never officially settled in court) that U.S. citizens born abroad _didn't_ qualify as "natural born citizens." The "nonjudicial national consensus" on that has now shifted, but it's still unclear just how far.
until the resolution regarding Sen. McCain's qualification was passed, it was pretty much accepted (if never officially settled in court) that U.S. citizens born abroad _didn't_ qualify as "natural born citizens."
No. It wasn't, except possibly by people who cannot read very well and don't understand what words mean.
@Seven Machos (1/23/11 7:09 PM)
It's a difference of matter of opinion then.
And, as someone who falls into a nearly identical category as Sen. McCain, it was something I had paid only a little attention to before my current profession.
"7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that ―No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.‖
c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The ―Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization‖, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, ―...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in
the United States.‖
d. 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."
link: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
Cheers!
It's touching that you believe you are citing law there.
@Seven Machos (1/23/11 9:05 PM)
No.
As you well know (or may recall), that is regulatory guidance from the Foreign Affairs Manual, which amalgamates and explicates a number of statues, to include the citizenship/nationality portions of the Immigration & Nationality Act.
Dag.
My hands never want to spell "statute" properly.
regulatory guidance from the Foreign Affairs Manual
What force of any kind does such talk about talk about talk about a law have?
None.
There are two kinds of citizens: natural born and naturalized. Obama is not naturalized. Therefore, he is natural born.
Have fun at your little window.
Seven Machos said...
"regulatory guidance from the Foreign Affairs Manual
What force of any kind does such talk about talk about talk about a law have?
None.
There are two kinds of citizens: natural born and naturalized. Obama is not naturalized. Therefore, he is natural born.
Have fun at your little window."
Right, and everyone not born of US Citizen parents in the US is naturalized in some way by congressional statute. Obama (at best) was born a dual citizen who needed a statute to make him a US Citizen, therefore NOT ELIGIBLE.
I see that you can't respond to anything I said in post #169. The truth sets me free.
Mick -- I stopped responding to you when I realized that you are a not an American citizen.
Also, you are a loon.
Seven Machos said...
"Mick -- I stopped responding to you when I realized that you are a not an American citizen.
Also, you are a loon."
No you stopped responding because you're wrong, and have no response.
@Seven Machos (1/23/11 11:53 PM)
"Have fun at your little window."
Dude. After having my own "little windows" at a couple of different posts, on two different continents, I moved up to having a cubicle and owned all the windows worth mentioning.
My next gig (being out of cone) will have no windows of any kind. It'll be more about keeping you safe at home than helping people abroad with their legitimate travel.
But thanks for asking!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा