George Washington, John Jay, and the Natural Law Definition of “Natural Born Citizen”

On April 30, 1789,  George Washington took the oath of office as President of the United States from the balcony of Federal Hall in New York City.  The President and Congress shared space in Federal Hall with the New York Society Library.

Some of the records of that Library are of particular interest when considering the influence of the works of Emmerich de Vattel on our Founding Fathers.

Why does this matter? Because of how Vattel defined explained the Natural Law definition of a term that our Founders wrote into our Constitution, and the implications to Barack Hussein Obama.

From Article II Section 1:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

From Vattel:

natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens

There is good reason to believe that Vattel’s explanation of the definition of “natural born citizen” played a central role in a letter that Founder John Jay wrote to George Washington, then Presiding Officer of the Constitutional Convention, on July 25th, 1787:

“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

On October 5, 1789, President George Washington checked out two books from the New York Society Library: Emmerich de Vattel’s “Law of Nations” and volume 12 of the English House of Commons Debates.

The ledger does not record whether the president came in person or sent a messenger, nor is there any record of either volume being returned, or the president or vice-president being fined.

A few news stories recently have made much ado about how large the library fine would be in today’s dollars. But those same stories have neglected the importance of which books Washington checked out.

Again, it is important that we understand the relationship between President George Washington, first Chief Justice John Jay, the works of Vattel, and the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court held its first session on Feb. 1, 1790, in New York City. The New York Society Library charging ledger provides a record of the books borrowed by Chief Justice John Jay, including:

Literature

    . The works of Jonathan Swift; “Don Quixote”, Voltaire’s, “Candidus, or “All For the Best,” as the volume is noted in the ledger; “The Fair Syrian, a novel”; Frances Burney’s, “Cecilia, or Memoirs of an Heiress”; “Arabian Nights Entertainments, consisting of one thousand and one stories, related by the Sultaness of the Indies” and John Aubrey’s “Miscellanies,” a collection of stories on ghosts and dreams.

History

    . Plutarch’s, “Lives”; “Lives of the Admirals, and other Eminent British Seamen”; “The History of the Five Indian Nations of Canada”; “The History of the Revolution of South Carolina, from a British Province to an Independent State”; and “An Essay on the Life of the Honorable Major-General Israel Putnam.”

Travel

    . Captain James Cook’s, “A Voyage towards the South Pole, and Round the World”; “A Tour through Sicily and Malta”; “Travels into Muscovy, Persia, and Paris of the East-Indies, containing an accurate description of whatever is most remarkable in those countries”; “A Voyage Round the World in the Years 1766-1769,” by the Comte Louis Antoine de Bougainville; “A General Description of China, containing the topography of the fifteen provinces which compose this vast empire”; “Travels in Spain”; “Travels to Discover the Source of the Nile in 1768-1773″; and “Travels in North America in the Years 1780-1782″, by the Marquis Francois Jean de Chastellux.

Science

    . Comte de Buffon’s “Natural History”; “Chambers’, Cyclopaedia, or General Dictionary of Arts and Sciences”; and “Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man.”

Chief Justice Jay must have had his own collection of law books, for few of the books borrowed by him from the New York Society Library are law-related.

As that author concluded, there is little doubt that the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court had his own collection of law books. And since John Jay wrote to George Washington on multiple occasions, sometimes referencing Vattel, I think there is little doubt that John Jay’s library included the works of Vattel. Here is an excerpt from one of Jay’s letters to Washington… this one being from 28 August 1790:

… comprized within two Classes vizt cases of urgent necessity, and cases of convenience—The present case belongs to the latter. Vattel who well understood the Subject, says in the 7th chapter of his 3d Book— That an innocent Passage is due to all Nations with whom a State is at Peace, and that this …

(That URL link may not preserve the search results, so just do a search yourself on the bolded text).

Other references by the Founders to Vattel can be found here.

Now George Washington, having a background as a military General, not an attorney, did not have a copy of Vattel’s works in his personal library. At one of his earliest opportunities to check out Vattel’s work, George Washington did so, and apparently kept it in his library permanently.

Our Founders founded this country on “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God“.

Vattel was the de facto authority on the “THE LAW OF NATIONS OR PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS”. 

Now, if John Jay and George Washington had meant for the usage of “natural born citizen” in Article II Section 1 of the United States Constitution to mean something other than how Vattel defined it the Natual Law definition as explained by Vattel, don’t you think they would have explicitly said so?

About these ads
This entry was posted in Presidential Eligibility. Bookmark the permalink.

72 Responses to George Washington, John Jay, and the Natural Law Definition of “Natural Born Citizen”

  1. Mick says:

    A truly eye-opening discovery that is of course being glossed over by the media.

  2. skeeter says:

    Was Obama ever the subject of a foriegn power? Did his father establish a resident citizenship in the United States?If so did he, Obama Jr., disavow his allegiance to that power? Is the “Natural Born” Law avoided because Obama was too young to consent at birth? Which reverts to the previous question: “Did Obama’s father establish a resident citizenship in the United States or did he maintain his Kenyan citizenship.? Hint: upon his, Obama Sr’s, return to Kenya he bacame a participant (member) of the Kenyan government.. ” IE was/is Obama Jr. an African Kenyan or an African American”? He can’t be both.

    http://famguardian1.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/expatriation-RS1999-1868.pdf

    Did honest Abe (Lincoln) foresee this conflict? I believe he did, but that is just an opinion. Abe was a humanitarian but he was also a realist.

    “When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,-to their own native land. But a moment’s reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope, (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough to me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them POLITICALLY and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment, is not the sole question, if, indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot, then, make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the South.

    “When they remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingly, but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives, which should not, in its stringency, be more likely to carry a free man into slavery, than our ordinary criminal laws are to hang an innocent one.

    “But all this, to my judgment, furnishes no more excuse for permitting slavery to go into our own free territory, than it would for reviving the African slave-trade by law. The law which forbids the bringing of slaves from Africa, and that which has so long forbid the taking of them to Nebraska, can hardly be distinguished on any moral principle; and the repeal of the former could find quite as plausible excuses as that of the latter.”

    I have reason to know that Judge Douglas knows that I said this. I think he has the answer here to one of the questions he put to me. I do not mean to allow him to catechise me unless he pays back for it in kind. I will not answer questions one after another, unless he reciprocates; but as he has made this inquiry, and I have answered it before, he has got it without my getting anything in return. He has got my answer on the Fugitive Slave law.

    Now, gentlemen, I don’t want to read at any greater length, but this is the true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the institution of slavery and the black race. This is the whole of it, and anything that argues me into his idea of PERFECT AND and POLITICAL EQUALITY with the negro, is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. [Laughter.] I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce POLITICAL and SOCIAL EQUALITY between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably FOREVER FORBID THEIR LIVING TOGETHER UPON THE FOOTING OF PERFECT EQUALITY, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, AM IN FAVOR OF THE RACE TO WHICH I BELONG HAVING THE SUPERIOR POSITION. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. [Loud cheers.] I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man. [Great applause.

    The Lincoln – Douglas Debates 1858.

    ]http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/debate1.htm

  3. Obama – Maybe a Citizen of the United States but Not a Natural Born Citizen

    No one doubts that if Obama was born in Kenya, then he is not a natural born citizen of the United States.

    However, even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he still is not a natural born citizen of the United States.

    In 1916, long before Obama (or his mother) were born, lifelong Democrat Breckinridge Long wrote the following:

    “Natural Born Citizen” means born on the soil to a father who is a citizen

  4. Obama’s “birth narrative” is that he was born at the Kapi’olani Medical Center in Hawai‘i at 7:24 PM on August 4, 1961, to Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and Barack Hussein Obama (Sr.).

    Obama has never released, directly from the State of Hawaii, any documentation to prove that “birth narrative” is true. The COLB was produced at and by the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago, not by the State of Hawaii, and it does not confirm the birth hospital.

    That “birth narrative” is either 100% true or it’s not. But, either way, Obama is not eligible to hold the office of President and Commander in Chief.

    Why not?

    Because if Obama’s “birth narrative” is 100% true, then he is not a “natural born citizen” because his father was not a U.S. citizen. In this scenario, he is an usurper who never legally held the office of POTUS. All documents signed with his signature are invalid.

    And if Obama’s “birth narrative” is NOT 100% true, then he is guilty of fraud and obstruction of justice. If, for example his true father was Malcolm X, as suggested above, then Obama may in fact be a “natural born citizen”, but he could and should be impeached for fraud and obstruction of justice.

  5. skeeter says:

    There is the distinct possibility that even Obama does not know for certain who his biological father is. He knows for certain who his step-father, Lolo Soetoro, was and that too could present another question of citizenship. Obama’s original BC, regardless where it was generated, may not list his father’s name but only Obama’s “home country”.

  6. skeeter says:

    I, believing our founding fathers were all brethren of the Christian faith have to believe, they drew up the constitution based on Christian biblical teachings. What then, is the determination of dual citizenship according to biblical teachings?

    Matthew 6:24
    24 “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

    This was important enough that it was written twice:Luke 16:13 (New King James Version)

    13 “No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”

    Of course “mammon” is wealth, money, or any worldly treasure, or power. However, the same can be applied to politics, power, and/or any nation and it’s philosophy. IE Dual Citizenship. Who does Obama serve? He bows to the son of the head of a nation (Japan) that bombed Pearl Harbor. He bows to the family of Osama Bin Laden. He says he has known Islam on three continents and their call to prayer is the most beautiful sound he has ever heard. Obama is the servant of the Islamic Allah. At what time has Obama ever declared the “Lord’s Prayer” to be among the most beautiful sounds he has ever heard” NEVER!

    John Adams

    The people in America have now the best opportunity and the greatest trust in their hands that Providence ever committed to so small a number … if they betray their trust, their guilt will merit even greater punishment than other nations have suffered, and the indignation of Heaven …

    — 1787

    We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    Benjamin Franklin

    , the rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors and sovereigns …

    Patrick Henry

    An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not to the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death.

    It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religious, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here.

    The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun.

    — Virginia Convention on ratification of the Constitution

    John Jay; first Supreme Court Justice

    Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian Nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.

    Thomas Jefferson

    The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.

    — 1774

    The most effectual means of preventing the perversion of power into tyranny are to illuminate … the minds of the people at large, and more especially, to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that they may … know ambition under all it shapes, and … exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes.

    — 1779

    History, by apprising the people of the past, will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views.

    — 1782

    The boys of the rising generation are to be the men of the next, and the sole guardians of the principles we deliver over to them.

    — 1810

    Unless the mass [of people] retains sufficient control over those intrusted with the powers of their government, these will be perverted to their own oppression …

    — 1812

    If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.

    — 1816

    Lay down true principles, and adhere to them inflexibly. Do not be frightened into their surrender…

    — 1816

    In the maintenance of … (our) principles … I verily believe the future happiness of our country essentially depends.

    — 1819

    On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

    — 1823

    I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

    The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best … When all government … shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as … oppressive as the government from which we just separated.

    James Madison

    Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation …

    — 1788

    — Federalist Paper No. 26

    The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many … may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

    We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.

    Although all men are born free, slavery has been the general lot of the human race. Ignorant—they have been cheated; asleep—they have been surprised; divided—the yoke has been forced upon them. But what is the lesson? … the people ought to be enlightened, to be awakened, to be united, that after establishing a government, they should watch over it … It is universally admitted that a well-instructed people alone can be permanently free.

    The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

    George Washington

    It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

    — Farewell Address; 1796

  7. Pingback: Obama In Violation of Current Immigration Law « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)

  8. Mick says:

    During his testimony at the Resolution 511 Hearings, Lawrence Tribe defined Natural Born Citizen as one who is “born w/in a country’s territory and ALLEGIANCE”. Although he is a Hahvahd man and an Obama apologist, intent on burying this Constitutional question, despite years of scholarly study of the great document, he unwittingly said precisely why Obama is not eligible (maybe he didn’t want to outright lie).
    That last little word, ALLEGIANCE was ignored by everyone at the time, but it is the same a “subject to the jurisdiction”, that clause that was muddied by Wong Kim Ark 112 yers ago. Going back to the above poster’s comment about serving 2 masters, “allegiance” is a singular concept, is it not? One cannot have “allegiance” to 2 different countries by definition of the word. Allegiance to the 2nd country makes one not allegiant to the first.
    Why was there no discussion? He made 2 conditions that had to be met for a Natural Born Citizen, Birth and Allegiance. Obama’s allegiance to Britain, and then Kenya certainly void his allegiance to America.

  9. Mick,

    Thank you for your comment. I agree with you. The intent of our Founders, including our first Chief Justice and first President, was:

    1) “to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government”.

    That led to the citizenship requirement for Representative, and higher citizenship requirement for Senator.

    2) “and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

    That led to the highest citizenship requirement for President – someone who had never been a citizen or subject of a foreign country… someone who had unquestioned allegiance to America.

    Clearly they did not intend to allow someone whose very own wife said had a “home country” somewhere other than the U.S.A.!

  10. There’s more interesting info aobut Senate Resolution 511 here and here.

  11. I think that all too much is made of the John Jay letter to George Washington insofar as it is used to try to make Jay the means through which the phrase “natural born citizen” was introduced to the Constitutional Convention.

    The fact of the matter is that the phrase “natural born citizen” was used in a resolution before the Continental Congress as early as 1777 and connected to several of the Constitution’s framers at that time. When Jay suggested that the commander in chief should be a natural born citizen, he was using a term of which they were already aware.

    Let me leave you with a puzzle. Jay suggested a single, unqualified requirement for commander in chief of the Army–natural born citizen. Do you think Jay intended to exclude George Washington himself, born of a British subject who died before the Revolution?

  12. Jay suggested a single, unqualified requirement for commander in chief of the Army–natural born citizen.

    False premise. Jay did not suggest a single, unqualified requirement. Jay suggested a strong check against the admisssion of foreigners into our government. That is not to say that Jay opposed other requirements, such as the graduated age requirements for Representative, Senator, and President.

    Do you think Jay intended to exclude George Washington himself, born of a British subject who died before the Revolution?

    No. The first citizens of the U.S. became citizens with the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. Therefore, the first natural born citizens of the U.S. were born on or after July 4, 1776. The Constitution was written in 1787, when the oldest natural born citizens were only 11 years old. It is precisely for this reason that the “natural born citizen” requirement was reduced to just a “citizen” requirement for those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution:

    No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    To suggest that John Jay wanted an 11 year old President, or wanted to exclude Washington, is ludicrous.

  13. Let me see if I understand what you people are suggesting:

    1. 221 years ago Geo. Washington checked out a book dealing with international relations in which the author defined a natural born citizen as one who had to be born within the US, and who’s parents also had to be natural born citizens.

    2. Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention that resulted in our current constitution 2 years before the book was checked out.

    3. You don’t have any idea what contribution Washington had to the specific determination of what a natural born citizen was supposed to be defined as in the Constitution.

    4. The Constitution does not say that one’s parents must be born in the US, only that the President needs to be a citizen.

    5. Yet you think he’s a fraud, because John Jay wrote a letter to Washington two years before Washington checked out that book, indicating his feelings about foreigner’s eligibility to be President.

    Frankly, I think you’re reading the Constitution all wrong. It says:

    No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

    Notice the commas in there. The first clause concerning natural born citizens relates to the third clause, so that “natural born” citizens refers to people who are naturally born prior to the adoption of the Constitution (since clearly no one is a citizen at the time of the Adoption, since the US didn’t exist prior to that), and thereafter, all others who are “citizens” shall be eligible to become president.

    I’m sure you’re aware that the 14th Amendment of the Constitution allows Congress to clarify by statute what citizenship is. The United States Code does just that. A Citizen is simply someone who was born in the US.

    Obama was born in the US, as indicated both by his birth certificate and by the birth notice from the local paper. There would have to be a massive conspiracy to get a birth announcement in the local paper in anticipation of a President election 47 years later. There was an argument that John McCain wasn’t legible, because the Panama Canal Zone is “not within the US”. I don’t buy that either, but it’s a stronger argument than the one that claims a man born in Hawaii is not a citizen.

    As an academic exercise, it’s interesting but to someone like me, you people look like you will jump through whatever hoop you can, and twist yourself into a logical pretzel in order to rationalize what can only be rationally explained as bigotry. The fact that you have to resort to biblical scholarship, as if that has any bearing on the question, shows a peculiar desperation on your part.

    Perhaps you took the blue pill?

  14. Let me see if I understand what you people are suggesting:

    You don’t. I’ll try to help you understand.

    1. 221 years ago Geo. Washington checked out a book dealing with international relations in which the author defined a natural born citizen as one who had to be born within the US, and who’s parents also had to be natural born citizens.

    The book was about “PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS”. The Law of Nature. Natural Law. Applied to the conduct and affairs of nations. It’s much more than just “international relations”. The affairs of nations are both internal and international. The word “natural” in “natural born citizen” refers to natural law. And Vattel was a recognized authority in this area. Other Founders had their own copy of Vattel’s works. Washington did not, but in what may have been his earliest opportunity to do so, he checked out a copy from a library. That library had been closed during the Revolutionary War, and many books had to be hidden elsewhere to prevent them being taken and/or destroyed by the British.

    2. Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention that resulted in our current constitution 2 years before the book was checked out.

    Many at the convention were already very familiar with Vattel’s works.

    3. You don’t have any idea what contribution Washington had to the specific determination of what a natural born citizen was supposed to be defined as in the Constitution.

    Washington was President of the Constitutional Convention. That contribution is known. As to the specific determination of what a natural born citizen was supposed to be defined as in the Constitution, please show me where, in the records of the Constitutional Convention, there was any dispute over the meaning of “natural born citizen”. Show me where any definition contrary to Vattel’s definition was suggested. Many of the Founders referenced Vattel on multiple occasions. Vattel’s definition is not really even “Vattel’s definition”… it is the “Natural Law definition”, as explained by Vattel.

    4. The Constitution does not say that one’s parents must be born in the US,

    Not directly, but indirectly via the meaning of “natural born citizen”.

    only that the President needs to be a citizen.

    No, “citizen” was the grandfather clause. The President needs to be a “natural born citizen” (not just a “citizen”) if born after 1787.

    5. Yet you think he’s a fraud, because John Jay wrote a letter to Washington two years before Washington checked out that book, indicating his feelings about foreigner’s eligibility to be President.

    You act as if the fact that Washington checked out the book after the Constitutional Convention automatically invalidates the premise that the Founders who wrote the Constitution were very familiar with Natural Law and the Natural Law definition of “natural born citizen”, as explained by Vattel. That is both wrong and ludicrous.

    Yes, Jay warned about letting foreigners into our government, and specifically wanted foreigners excluded from the Presidency. That warning was codified as the natural born citizen requirement. Foreigners are not natural born citizens, so that requirement excluded foreigners.

    Frankly, I think you’re reading the Constitution all wrong. It says:

    No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

    Notice the commas in there. The first clause concerning natural born citizens relates to the third clause, so that “natural born” citizens refers to people who are naturally born prior to the adoption of the Constitution (since clearly no one is a citizen at the time of the Adoption, since the US didn’t exist prior to that),

    You lose all credibility right there. You don’t even understand when or how the U.S. was founded. You think the U.S. didn’t exist prior to the Constitution. How sad.

    I’ll give you a hint about when the U.S. was founded. As Abraham Lincoln said in 1863,

    Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

    Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

    But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate…we can not consecrate…we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

    A “score” is twenty. “Four score and seven” is 87.
    1863 – “Four score and seven (87) years” = 1776.

    The United States of America was founded on July 4, 1776. That’s why it’s called “Independence Day”. The first citizens of the United States became citizens that day, when the Founders ended the Declaration of Independence with these words:

    We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world [God] for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

    You dishonor our Founders, and broadcast your ignorance, by claiming that the U.S. didn’t exist prior to the Constitution. But you don’t stop there. You go on to say:

    and thereafter, all others who are “citizens” shall be eligible to become president.

    Ludicrous. Absurd.

    A “grandfather clause” was necessary because the oldest “natural born citizens” of the United States could have been born no earlier than July 4, 1776, and as such they were at most only 11 years old when the Constitution was adopted. “Citizen” was sufficient to become President if and only if you were a citizen when the Constitution was adopted. If you were not a citizen when the Constitution was adopted, then you have to be a “natural born citizen”.

    I’m sure you’re aware that the 14th Amendment of the Constitution allows Congress to clarify by statute what citizenship is. The United States Code does just that. A Citizen is simply someone who was born in the US.

    Not quite. One can become a citizen without having been born in the U.S. And being born in the U.S. is not sufficient. You must also be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, and there is dispute over whether someone who is born on U.S. soil, but subject to the jurisdiction of another country (as Obama was, having been born a subject of the British crown), should even be considered a citizen at all. This relates to the “anchor babies” issue as well. Go reread the first section of the 14th Amendment:

    1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    People gloss right over “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

    Obama was born in the US, as indicated both by his birth certificate

    Obama has never released a birth certificate from the State of Hawaii.

    and by the birth notice from the local paper. There would have to be a massive conspiracy to get a birth announcement in the local paper in anticipation of a President election 47 years later.

    No, all that was necessary was for a relative to report his birth. And his Dunham grandparents likely did so. A newspaper birth announcement is not acceptable documentation for an I-9 form to prove employment eligibility. If it’s not accepted for a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, why should we accept it for the Presidency?

    There was an argument that John McCain wasn’t legible, because the Panama Canal Zone is “not within the US”. I don’t buy that either, but it’s a stronger argument than the one that claims a man born in Hawaii is not a citizen.

    McCain was not born in the Panama Canal Zone. He was born in Colón Hospital, in Colón, Panama.

    And Róger Calero, Socialist Workers Party candidate for President of the United States on the ballot in several states, was born in Nicaragua.

    There were THREE ineligible candidates on the ballot for President.

    As an academic exercise, it’s interesting but to someone like me, you people look like you will jump through whatever hoop you can, and twist yourself into a logical pretzel in order to rationalize what can only be rationally explained as bigotry.

    Sure. That’s the only rational explanation. I’m a bigot. Why don’t you just call me a racist? Who’s racist?

    Pay no attention to the fact that the Kenyan Parliament calls Obama “Son of This Soil”. Are they bigots, too?

    The fact that you have to resort to biblical scholarship, as if that has any bearing on the question, shows a peculiar desperation on your part.

    Perhaps you took the blue pill?

    The fact that you have to resort to bogus scholarship, as if the U.S. didn’t exist prior to the Constitution, and the fact that you feel the need to attack Biblical scholarship, shows a peculiar desperation on your part.

    Perhaps you didn’t do too well in public school, where they taught you to attack Biblical scholarship?

  15. One more note on “Bibilical scholarship”…

    They probably didn’t teach you in school the truth about the Pilgrims…

    They probably didn’t teach you in school that the Pilgrims came to this country “for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith“.

    But that is the truth.

    Jesus loves you, Spanish Inquisitor, even though you spit in His face and call yourself an athiest. He loves you, whether you love Him or not.

    You may not believe Jesus Christ is the son of God, but a majority of our Founders believed it.

    Now, before you try to tell me that the Founders were predominently diests, I challenge you to tell me how many men signed the Declaration of Independence, how may signed the Constitution, and then list, by name, those who you think were deists.

    I also recommend that you read: God, Moses, Crosses and the Bible in Our Capitol Building and The First Amendment Turned Upside-Down.

    Seek the truth, Spanish Inquisitor, seek the truth.

  16. I’m a bigot. Why don’t you just call me a racist?

    Oooo.. Touchy, aren’t we?

    YOU wrote the post claiming that Geo. Washington’s library book theft was somehow relevant to Obama’s legitimacy as the President. I’m just trying to understand what your claim is. Your evidence is thin at best, contrived at worst. Given that, and your clear refusal to acknowledge the obvious, that the man was born in the US and is a citizen under any scenario, including those put forth by you, what other conclusion can I reach other than perhaps you object to the color of his skin? He’s clearly qualified (he appears to know a lot more about Constitutional Law than you do), and he was elected by a very clear majority, so why keep on harping about his citizenship, calling him a “fraud”, unless it’s personal for you? If it’s personal, and you don’t give me any reason to believe you have even met the man, then what else is there other than his race?

    Now, let’s remove religion from the equation. I don’t give a flying fuck (feel free to modify that word with little stars in the middle if it offends you, even though anyone with a brain will sound it out anyway) whether you are a Christian and whether Yeshua (his name, BTW) loves me, you and your grandmother. Our different religious points of view are irrelevant to Obama’s citizenship.

    You lose all credibility right there.

    I’m not going to quibble with you about 11 years. You’ve missed my point, and this being a blog comment, written in relative haste, I take some of the blame for not being clear. As a person with a strong interest in history, not to mention a degree in it (lo, these many years ago) all I can say is mea culpa, mea maxima culpa However, you didn’t address my point, instead chastising me for my historical inaccuracy.

    Here’s my point, hopefully better elucidated, which I think you agreed with.

    The clause in the Constitution is broken up into three parts.

    1. No person… shall be eligible to the Office of President;
    2. except a natural born Citizen,…, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,
    3. or a Citizen of the United States

    The commas break it up that way. Without the second comma, it would read like this:

    1. No person… shall be eligible to the Office of President;
    2. except a natural born Citizen,
    3. or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.

    Your interpretation, unless I’m misunderstanding you, uses the second reading without the second comma, leaving the third clause attached to the second clause, rather than attached to the first clause. That means, for the two exceptions, the one “except a natural born Citizen” is unmodified, and you’re claiming that Obama has to meet that exception by proving he’s “natural born”, when in fact the proper reading of the clause doesn’t require that. It only requires a natural born citizen “at the time of the adoption of the Constitution”, which 221 years later, is inapplicable to anyone, including Obama.. It only applies to those who were born before the existence of the US (whenever that was). Which, I think you agree with when you said:

    …if you were not a citizen when the Constitution was adopted, then you have to be a “natural born citizen”.

    So, reading the clause with the first interpretation, including the two commas, Obama need only be a Citizen of the US.

    § 1401 (a) of the USC says that one need only be “(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; “

    I did not cite the rest of the statute, because § 1401 (a) is sufficient. Obama was born in the US, he did release his birth certificate (your lack of belief notwithstanding) and I provided a link to it. Here’s another from snopes.snopes.

    And your contention that

    A newspaper birth announcement is not acceptable documentation for an I-9 form to prove employment eligibility. If it’s not accepted for an I-9, why should we accept it for the Presidency?

    is pointless. Who cares? It is not the primary evidence for him being born here, but it is damn good supporting evidence. To say that someone else planted it there 47 years earlier means that they had to know this issue would come up 47 years later. Can you tell the future? Can anyone?
    Do you know how ridiculous birthers (i.e.you) sound when they claim this? And you question MY credibility?

    A few more points. You say

    there is dispute over whether someone who is born on U.S. soil, but subject to the jurisdiction of another country (as Obama was, having been born a subject of the British crown),

    You have to assume that he was not born in the US. But to do so, you are bootstrapping the argument that he is subject to Kenyan/British jurisdiction exclusively. It’s a circular argument. Either he’s born in the US and therefor subject to US jurisdiction or he’s not. You can’t have him born in the US, and subject to his father country’s jurisdiction, without assuming he has no other country that has jurisdiction over him, like the US. This is a very thin. Actually, it’s just plain dumb.

    I’ll give you a hint about when the U.S. was founded…. Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation

    Aren’t you clever? And a math whiz too? I was quite aware of what Lincoln said and the date he was alluding to in his famous Address. However, that was a speech, given for effect. It’s not a statute or a clause of the Constitution. The point is, the US we know and operate under today did not exist until the Constitution was adopted. Yes, they considered themselves separate and apart from Great Britain in 1776, but the formal country did not exist legally until 1787, and it’s the legalities of Presidential legitimacy were talking about here. That’s why they inserted a grandfather clause, to clarify that. If it was obvious, it wouldn’t have been needed. But, your history lecture is noted.

    Thank you also for noting that McCain was not born in the Canal Zone. I didn’t know that. I suspect, without concluding however, that he’d be considered a citizen under a separate clause of § 1401. Let me know if you disagree.

    Pay no attention to the fact that the Kenyan Parliament calls Obama “Son of This Soil”.

    Again, who cares what the Kenyan Parliament says? They are understandably proud of Obama’s heritage. Was Kennedy’s Presidency illegitimate because the Catholics in Ireland hung his picture on their walls?

    ____________

    Now that we’re done with that, you really should analyze your evidence without wearing those Christian colored glasses. They tend to distort one’s view.

  17. John Evo says:

    Damn, SI… You pwned him!

    That doesn’t mean he won’t have arguments… You know you’re going to have to answer a flock of logical fallacies. It’s all they have, and they use it well.

  18. No John, SI didn’t “pwn” me, and the logical fallacies on are on his end.

  19. No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    No person except

    1a) a natural born Citizen, or
    1b) a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,

    shall be eligible to the Office of President;
    neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have

    2) attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and
    3) been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    Your interpretation requires literally rearranging words

    No person except

    1a) a natural born Citizen, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, or
    1b) a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,

    shall be eligible to the Office of President;

    That is ludicrous, and I doubt that you would find even a single recognized Constitutional scholar who would agree with your interpretation.

    The age and citizenship requirements increase from Representative (25 years old, 7 years a citizen of the U.S.) to Senator (30 years old, 9 years a citizen of the U.S.) and increase again from Senator to President/VP (35 years old, natural born citizen).

    For you to suggest it’s just “citizen” is to imply that the citizenship requirements for President/VP are less than that for Senator or Representative.

    Again, ludicrous.

    Yes, they considered themselves separate and apart from Great Britain in 1776, but the formal country did not exist legally until 1787

    The United States of America was founded, and legally existed, on July 4, 1776. That is why we celebrate that date as the birthday of our country. The first central government of the this nation was organized under the Articles of Confederation, but that central government was too limited and too weak, so the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution, “in order to form a more perfect union”. Not a new union, a more perfect union of the existing union… the union of states known as the United States of America.

    For you to argue otherwise really is ludicrous once again, and I doubt that it’s really worth my time to continue debating you.

  20. Your interpretation requires literally rearranging words

    Yea. The English language is funny like that. However the way you interpret the clause, you make the comma after “a Citizen of the United States” superfluous. The clause makes the sense you want it to make only without the comma, yet there it is. Like a turd in a punch bowl, you just can’t ignore it. I’ll admit that it is confusing, though.

    But it really doesn’t matter, even though you think it’s important. Prior to the 14th Amendment, Article 2, Section 1 was interpreted on a state by state basis. But after 1868, the 14th Amendment clarified it as

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside

    As I mentioned up above, § 1401 (a) of the USC makes it even clearer. Multiple lawsuits have been thrown out, so anyone claiming he’s not a citizen is just a loonie. You do know that even if an illegal immigrant has a baby on US soil, that child is deemed a US citizen? Yet you think Obama is not?

    The United States of America was founded, and legally existed, on July 4, 1776.

    Whatever spins your propeller. Not worth arguing about. Either way, it has no bearing whatsoever on your initial post, which, while an interesting historical anachronism, doesn’t support your theses concerning Obama.

  21. If Obama was born outside of U.S. soil, then he was born a British subject, but he was not born a U.S. citizen, because his mother was too young to confer U.S. citizenship to him.

    If he was born on U.S. soil, then he was born both a British subject and a U.S. citizen (but not a “natural born citizen”). You can doubt me all you want, but a Democrat, who served in the U.S. State Department under FDR, addressed this very issue almost 100 years ago, and I agree with his analysis and conclusion. Do you think his conclusion “can only be rationally explained as bigotry”? Bigotry has nothing to do with this, and you are the one being a bigot by injecting bigotry into a discussion where it doesn’t belong.

    I believe Obama’s birth was not in Hawaii, but was reported in Hawaii by his grandparents. I believe this is why the COLB said “Date Filed by Registrar” instead of the normal “Date Accepted by Registrar”. I believe there is no hospital record of Obama being born in Hawaii, but the grandparent’s report of the birth was enough to trigger the newspaper announcements. I believe that both the COLB and the supposed Obama letter (constructed from HTML instead of a scan of an actual letter), are highly suspicious and suggest forgery. I’ve provided links before in other comments and posts, and don’t feel like looking them all up right now, but may come back and add some links later.

    I believe that Hawaii did not have “confirmation” of Obama’s Hawaiian birth claim until the U.S. House of Representatives voted in favor of a resolution saying, “Obama was born in Hawaii”. Miraculously, within hours, Dr. Fukino proudly proclaimed “Obama was born in Hawaii”. Why didn’t she say that for months on end, but suddenly did once she had “cover”?

    And how do you explain this:

    …two private investigators – working independently – are asking why Obama is using a Social Security number set aside for applicants in Connecticut while there is no record he ever had a mailing address in the state.

    The report on Obama’s number revealed records indicate it was issued between 1977 and 1979, yet Obama’s earliest employment reportedly was in 1975 at a Baskin-Robbins ice-cream shop in Oahu, Hawaii.

    WND obtained copies of affidavits filed separately in a presidential eligibility lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia by Ohio licensed private investigator Susan Daniels and Colorado private investigator John N. Sampson.

    The investigators believe Obama needs to explain why he is using a Social Security number reserved for Connecticut applicants that was issued at a date later than he is known to have held employment.

    There is obviously a case of fraud going on here,” Daniels maintained. “In 15 years of having a private investigator’s license in Ohio, I’ve never seen the Social Security Administration make a mistake of issuing a Connecticut Social Security number to a person who lived in Hawaii. There is no family connection that would appear to explain the anomaly.”

  22. Lots of “ifs” and “I believes” up there. Not a lot of facts though. And citing the World Nut Daily doesn’t lend much credibility to what you “believe”. Did UFOs spirit Elvis away too?

    C’mon. All that loony bin stuff about Obama has been circulating around since before he was elected. None of it has ever amounted to anything, except in the mind or Orly Taitz, who seems to be a publicity hound, and not much more.

    Even if his SS# is from Connecticut, there is probably a simple explanation for that. Occam’s Razor and a little common sense will tell you that. For instance, after he was born, he moved to Indonesia with his mom and step-father. Back then, people didn’t apply for SS # for their kids at birth, like we do now. (My ss# and my sister’s are contiguous numbers, one digit off, meaning they were applied for at the same time, and she’s 2 years younger than me. Are you aware that his mother’s SS# was issued in Hawaii, even though she was born in Kansas?). There was no law that you had to apply at birth, or even where you had to apply. His mother probably applied for the number by mail from Indonesia, it was processed in Connecticut, and hence has a Connecticut prefix. Now, doesn’t that make more sense than there was a massive conspiracy at the time of his infancy to ensure that he would be eligible to President when he grew up?

    But you believe all this nonsense for one reason only – because you want to believe it. Not because there’s any evidence.

    ——————

    Having said that, and having previously taken your religion out of the discussion, allow me to put it back in.

    It seems to me that people who are willing to shed their natural skepticism, and believe in invisible friends who were born of virgins and rose from the dead, all without any evidence whatsoever, are capable of believing anything. Even the most patent, blithering nonsense. The reason is that your brain has been trained to take things on faith. Do you know what the definition of faith is? It’s the belief in something without the necessity of evidence, indeed, often in the face of evidence to the contrary.

    Anybody that can say

    Jesus loves you, Spanish Inquisitor, even though you spit in His face and call yourself an athiest. He loves you, whether you love Him or not.

    and actually believe it, will believe anything. Are you one of those, Mr. Red Pill?

  23. Occam’s Razor would be for Obama to authorize the release of his documents directly from the State of Hawaii.

    The UPI first reported that Obama claimed to have been born at the Queens’s Medical Center, but later changed it to a different hospital. Obama has never released any document to prove that he was born at a U.S. hospital.

    As to the SS#, by law, Obama had to have a SS# to work at his Baskin-Robbins job in Oahu, Hawaii in 1975. Yet the SS# he now uses was issued between 1977 and 1979 in Connecticut. Occam’s Razor says that Obama could not have used a SS# issued between 1977-1979 for his job in 1975, so Obama broke the law… either he didn’t have a SS# when he was working in 1975 (against the law), or he was using a different SS# and has used more than one SS# in his life (also against the law).

    Occam’s Razor says that the SS# Obama currently uses should have been issued in Hawaii in or prior to 1975, not issued in Connecticut 2 to 4 years later.

    As to my faith, read my “About” page. I was once an agnostic. For you, as an athiest, it takes just as much faith to say, “There is no God.” Don’t Be A Fool. If you choose to continue being a scoffer, it is unwise for me to correct you, so don’t be surprised if I choose to ignore you and your scoffing moving forward.

  24. OK. Whatever you say. Everybody needs a hobby, and apparently you’ve got one that provides hours of scintillating preoccupation. Even a lifetime’s worth.

    Have fun. Adios.

  25. Ryan says:

    Just some info for you Mr. Pill. Atheists need not have proof that there is no god. We just say we don’t think there is one. Agnostics believe it is impossible to know either way for sure. I consider myself to be both.

    So Obama might have broken the law to work at a Baskin Robbins in the 70s. Wow. You are really stretching to find something wrong with him aren’t you? You would probably have him serve time for that offence, or at least be impeached.

    Guess what, Obama doesn’t need to release any more documents. He doesn’t need to prove what hospital he was born in, or what doctor delivered him. There is no constitutional provision that requires him to be born in a hospital, or be delivered by a doctor. The requirements have been met. All you have is doubt – you have no evidence that contradicts his birthplace.

    You also don’t understand Occam’s razor if you think it “requires” Obama to release a document that is already released.

    No documents matter anyways. You would find something else to whine about, or you would say they are fake.

  26. I know I said Adios, ,but I wanted to correct something I said above. Obama’s mother received her SS# from the State of Washington when she was 16 years old. She lived in Washington at the time, not Hawaii. But she was born in Kansas. The prefix on her SS# was 535, a Washington prefix.

  27. SI,

    So, you came back to report on Obama’s mother. Sure, it’s logical that she receieved her SS# from the state where she lived when she became old enough to work. That only serves to make my point… why doesn’t Obama have a SS# from Hawaii when he became old enough to work?

    Why is his SS# from a state where he didn’t live, and never lived, over 5,000 miles away, and two to four years after he started working?

    You came back to report on Obama’s mother, but totally dodged the questions about Obama himself.

  28. Aaron says:

    Even with very liberal application of Occam’s Razor, it doesn’t change the fact that Obama has to prove he is eligible for the office, unless you want me piloting your next airline flight because you didn’t prove me unqualified.

    I must break and take a different stance with Mr Red on the Occam’s Razor part, though. It’s use in explanation only applies to when things do not fall in compliance with the base-line. The simplest ACTION would be for Obama to release the Birth Cert, as you explained above. However, that is not the same as the razor, which defers to the simplest explanation to situations as they currently stand and not to the simplest resolution. Perhaps a minor point, but still relevant.

  29. …it doesn’t change the fact that Obama has to prove he is eligible for the office…

    Right. Exactly. Except for the fact that he’s already done this. AFTER he’s been elected, after his opponent and his party had a chance to object to his qualifications, after the State of Hawaii has certified that he was born there, after copies of the birth certificate have been released, NOW he’s got some obligation to prove to a bunch of right wing wackaloons that he’s eligible for the office he’s been in for over a year?

    What planet do you live on? Here on Earth it’s a moot point.

  30. Ryan says:

    Aaron, the birth certificate is released. That’s all he needed to do to be qualified. In addition to this, Hawaii is in charge of the records of his birth, and has stated publicly and officially the contents of the records match what has been released. He has no other obligation as far as his eligibility.

    The records are released – you just think they are fake. But if they are fake, then the state of Hawaii is already lying. If they are lying, why would you believe any other records they release?

  31. I believe Obama’s birth was reported to the State of Hawaii by one of his grandparents, not by a hospital. I believe that birth was “filed” by the Registrar, not the usual “accepted” by the Registrar, because the initial report was unsubstantiated. That is, unsubstantiated until the U.S. House of Representatives voted unanimously in favor of H. RES. 593, a resolution intended to recognize Hawaii’s 50th birthday… a resolution that included the words “Obama was born in Hawaii”. I believe members of the House of Representatives unwittingly became “witnesses” of the birth, and once that “verification” of the birth was filed and accepted in Hawaii, Dr. Fukino was finally able to legally say, “Obama was born in Hawaii”.

    You cannot honestly say, “The records are released.” Hawaii has specificly stated that Obama has NOT authorized the release of the records. To all but 2 employees of politically-friendly and fact-challenged FactCheck.org, Obama has not released anything except a URL with a .JPG… again, something that would not even satisfy the legally-required I-9 form.

    There were 1,075 people involved in the election, certification, and swearing-in of Barack Hussein Obama II:

    538 Electoral College Electors,
    435 Representatives,
    100 Senators,
    1 Vice-President, and
    1 Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

    Not a single one of the 1,075 has claimed to have inspected a hard copy Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama II, to verify that he was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center in Hawaii as he has claimed. But remember that Obama first claimed to have been born at the Queen’s Medical Center, then later claimed to have been born at Kapi’olani Medical Center …

    On June 7th, this website reported that the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu posted on its website a letter on White House stationery dated January 24th (since scrubbed), in which Obama wrote, “As a beneficiary of the excellence of Kapi’olani Medical Center — the place of my birth — I am pleased to add my voice to your chorus of supporters” — even though Obama himself has previously claimed to have been born at Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, a claim backed up by his sister Maya.

    Until June 7th, even United Press International (UPI) and Snopes.com contained statements that Obama was born at the Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu. Here is a screen capture from Snopes.com that says, “Barack Hussein Obama was born at the Queen’s Medical Center.” Today, Snopes.com claims that “Barack Hussein Obama, was born on 4 August 1961 at the Kapiolani Medical Center.” Snopes claims they made the change because Wikipedia made the change.

    Here is the UPI screen capture that claims Obama was born at Queens — but now the UPI claims Kapiolani. Remember, Obama, himself, told UPI that he was born at Queens.

    Not a single one of the 1,075 explained why they thought someone who admits that they were born a British subject (because their father was a British subject, not a U.S. citizen) should, in their opinion, be considered a “natural born citizen” of the United States.

    All 1,075 of them, representing all three branches of our federal government, had sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution, but all 1,075 of them failed to do so.

    Not a one of them did their due diligence to ensure that “a President shall have qualified”.

    And Dick Cheney broke the law in the process of certifying the Electoral College vote.

  32. Spanish Inquisitor,

    Róger Calero is not a natural born citizen, I opposed his ineligible candidacy for the Presidency, and I would have opposed his usurpation of the Presidency if he had won the election.

    John McCain is not a natural born citizen, I opposed his ineligible candidacy for the Presidency, and I would have opposed his usurpation of the Presidency if he had won the election.

    Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen, I opposed his ineligible candidacy for the Presidency, and I oppose his usurpation of the Presidency.

    Why is it that you accuse me of “Hating Obama” for not being a natural born citizen? Why don’t you accuse me of “Hating Calero” and “Hating McCain”? Why do you turn this into a racial issue (with the racist cartoon in your post), when this has nothing to do with the race of any of those three ineligible candidates?

    You do realize, don’t you, that there are people from a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds who understand the natural law definition of “natural born citizen”, and oppose any ineligible person from holding the office of President? It’s a matter of law, not of “hatred”.

  33. Róger Calero is not a natural born citizen, …John McCain is not a natural born citizen, I opposed his ineligible candidacy for the Presidency,

    Of course you do. To not do so would subject you to the charge of hypocrisy, further making your motives suspect. Do I seem that stupid?

    Look, I don’t know you personally, and if you read my post carefully, you never see anywhere that I say you personally “Hate Obama”. What I say is that there is a hobby that people like you are all wrapped up in, for whatever reason we all have hobbies, that I call the “Hate Obama” hobby. The reason I say that is because as a movement, it has at its roots a hatred for the man, his family, his skin color, his heritage, whatever, that doesn’t appear to be objectively rational. We used to call it xenophobia. Whether you personally are xenophobic I have no clue, but you have a public blog that gives voice to xenophobia, so what conclusion would you expect an outsider reading it to arrive at?

    It’s a matter of law, not of “hatred”.

    Yes. And as in intelligent American you also know that in the law we base charges on evidence and proof, not belief. If you or anyone else has evidence that Obama was ineligible for the office he holds, by all means present it. Orly Taitz and a few others have already tried that in courts of law, and the courts (some appointed by Bush) have thrown the cases out as completely meritless. Do you understand what that means? That means that as a matter of law there is not a shred of evidence to support the claim. Believe me, as a lawyer, if there was even a possibility that some of the claims were true, they would proceed through the court system to a trial. They are not thrown out at an early stage unless there is nothing to them.

    We don’t base lawsuits on beliefs. If we did, the country would shut down. I once wrote a post about whether one could prove the existence of god in a court of law and concluded you could not. Why? Because his existence is based solely on the personal belief of individuals, not on any evidence that would ever see the light of day in a courtroom. That should tell you a lot about beliefs and evidence and proof, if you can look at them objectively.

    If you’re upset because I attack your hobby, then come up with evidence, not beliefs, or get another hobby.

    (with the racist cartoon in your post)

    Some of the best points are made with humor. That cartoon is not racist by any definition of the word. To the contrary, it is a cartoon that lampoons racism.

    Use your brain. Don’t keeping ingesting the blue pills while claiming they’re red.

  34. One more thing. (Sorry to be a pest here, but this stuff kinda boils my blood).

    The man is now the President of the United States. The only way he’s going to leave office is either by resigning, impeachment or his term ending.

    I don’t understand this drive to discredit and get him out of office once he’s been elected. Why can’t you people, as good patriotic Americans, get behind the man, rather than constantly trying to snipe at him from the sidelines?

    I’m pushing 56, so maybe this is a function of my age (I am starting to sound like my grandfather) but it seems to me that as a matter of patriotism, given the Democratic process that put him in office, once the election is over the country should get behind him, regardless of whether you voted for him.

    I know when I was younger, I didn’t care for LBJ because of what he was doing in Vietnam, and I thought Nixon was no good, even before Watergate (I voted for McGovern). But once they were elected by a majority of Americans, I considered them my President, and between us and the rest of the World, they spoke for me. Even Reagan, who I did not vote for, was my President for 8 years. Same with Bush II, even though his election was a bit wifty. Once the Supreme Court ruled and he was in office, he was my President. I didn’t always like what my president did, (and there are things Obama does that drives me crazy) but I don’t get involved in a hobby that professes as a goal of driving the President from office in the middle of his term. You don’t like him? Don’t vote for him in 2012. That’s how our democratic political system works.

    There are a lot of things that need to be done in this country. We’ve got international wars, global economies failing, our own economy is not so good, the climate is warming, millions of unemployed, etc. etc. etc. And you people worry about whether his SS# is from Connecticut or Hawaii? Obama’s got a full plate and you want to add more to it? [vulgar, blasphemous cursing redacted], get some perspective.

    And in the meantime, get a life.

  35. it has at its roots a hatred for the man, his family, his skin color, his heritage, whatever,

    Wrong. It has at its roots a love and respect for our Constitution and the Rule of Law.

    that doesn’t appear to be objectively rational.

    It was objectively rational to lifelong Democrat and former Secretary of State Breckenridge Long.

    lifelong Democrat Breckenridge Long – an attorney and graduate of Washington University Law School who later served as Secretary of State as well as U.S. ambassador to Italy under FDR – who, in an article written for the Chicago Legal News, argued that a “native born citizen” of the US who is also born to a British father is not a “natural born citizen” by stating – in 1916 – about Presidential candidate Charles Evans Hughes:

    “It is not disputed that Mr. Hughes is not a citizen of the United States, but if he had the right to elect, he must have had something to choose between. He was native born because he was born in this country, and he is now a native born citizen because he is now a citizen of this country; but, had he been a “natural born” citizen, he would not have had the right to choose between this country and England; he would have had nothing to choose between; he would have owed his sole allegiance to the government of the United States, and there would have been no possible question, whether he found himself in the United States or in any other country in the world, that he would be called upon to show allegiance to any Government but that of the United States.”

    There you have a lifelong Democrat politician – who served at a high level of Government service – making the argument that President Obama would not be eligible to the office of President despite his place of birth. Is the former Democrat Secretary of State now to be retroactively attacked as a wing nut birther?

    Again, you said

    it has at its roots a hatred for the man, his family, his skin color, his heritage, whatever,

    And again, I say you are wrong. You are the one who wants to take an issue of Constitutional Law and make it about hatred, skin color, etc.

    You are the one being irrational, racist, and full of hate. And in typical liberal fashion, you project those wrongs upon other people. I’ve seen it time and time again… that of which the left accuses the right, is far more often than not the very thing of which the left themselves is guilty. Their best defence is a good offence.

    Whether you personally are xenophobic I have no clue, but you have a public blog that gives voice to xenophobia,

    It’s quite possible that I have spent more time living in foreign countries, speaking multiple foreign languages, than you have. I’ve even been called racist nicknames in places where I was the only white person and only person over 6 feet tall. I know what it’s like to be on the receiving end of xenophobia. Have you?

    I am not xenophobic and my blog does not “give voice to xenophobia”, unless you mean I give voice to people like you in the comments.

    Yes. And as in intelligent American you also know that in the law we base charges on evidence and proof, not belief. If you or anyone else has evidence that Obama was ineligible for the office he holds, by all means present it.

    You confuse two distinct topics:

    1) Innocent until proven guilty.

    2) Ineligible until proven eligible.

    In the first instance, the burden of proof is on the accuser.

    In the second instance, the burden of proof is on the candidate/employee.

    Up to this point, not a single one of the 1,075 people involved in the election, certification, and swearing-in of Barack Hussein Obama II have upheld the requirements of both the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and the 20th Amendment, which require that the candidate/employee prove their employment eligibility and that they “qualify” for that employment/office.

    The burden of proof is on Obama to prove he is eligible, not on me to prove he is ineligible. But the fact remains that from Vattel to Supreme Court decisions to lifelong Democrat and former U.S. Secretary of State Breckenridge Long, there is a long history of recongizing the natural law definition of “natural born citizen”: one born in the country to two parents who are both citizens.

    Obama has already provided the evidence that he does meet this definition.

    Obama has already provided the evidence that he is not qualified to hold the office of President and Commander in Chief.

    Now, some people reject the natural law definintion, and insist that a “native born citizen” is eligible, regardless of any foreign citizenship or subjecthood obtained at birth via one or both of the parents. And becuase of that, those people would only see Obama as ineligible if he were born somewhere other than on U.S. soil.

    I’m not going to rehash all of this again, but Obama has never released to the 1,075 people anything other than a URL with a .JPG. That is not acceptable documentation for a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, and never should have been accepted as acceptable documentation by the 1,075.

  36. Flangegpp says:

    Spanish less than Inquizitive says…The point is, the US we know and operate under today did not exist until the Constitution was adopted. Yes, they considered themselves separate and apart from Great Britain in 1776, but the formal country did not exist legally until 1787, and it’s the legalities of Presidential legitimacy were talking about here.
    but…The Northwest Ordinance was one of the most important acts passed by Congress under the Articles of Confederation. It laid out the process through which a territory could move to statehood, it guaranteed that new states would be on an equal footing with the old, and it protected civil liberties in the new territories. This ordinance was also the first national legislation that set limits on the expansion of slavery. So your history degree says what about this? But being a democrat you probably don’t like the limits on slavery. The Army and Navy were also c reated under the articles of confederecy, as was the Treasury. And John Hansen was the first President of the country, not George Washington.

  37. Flangegpp,
    Thank you for your comment. You taught me something. You are correct that the federal government created by the Articles of Confederation had a President. Article IX includes the following:

    The United States in Congress assembled shall have authority to appoint a committee, to sit in the recess of Congress, to be denominated ‘A Committee of the States’, and to consist of one delegate from each State; and to appoint such other committees and civil officers as may be necessary for managing the general affairs of the United States under their direction — to appoint one of their members to preside, provided that no person be allowed to serve in the office of president more than one year in any term of three years;

    I did a quick search on John Hansen, and found the following:

    The Articles of Confederation only allowed a President to serve a one-year term during any three-year period, so Hanson actually accomplished quite a bit in such little time. He served in that office from November 5, 1781 until November 3, 1782. He was the first President to serve a full term after the full ratification of the Articles of Confederation – and like so many of the Southern and New England Founders, he was strongly opposed to the Constitution when it was first discussed. He remained a confirmed anti-federalist until his untimely death.

    Six other presidents were elected after him – Elias Boudinot (1783), Thomas Mifflin (1784), Richard Henry Lee (1785), Nathan Gorman (1786), Arthur St. Clair (1787), and Cyrus Griffin (1788) – all prior to Washington taking office. Why don’t we ever hear about the first seven Presidents of the United States? It’s quite simple – The Articles of Confederation didn’t work well. The individual states had too much power and nothing could be agreed upon. A new doctrine needed to be written – something we know as the Constitution.

    George Washington was definitely not the first President of the United States. He was the first President of the United States under the Constitution we follow today. And the first seven Presidents are forgotten in history.

    There are several significant paintings in the U.S. Capitol building that honor Washington, but I’m not sure about the others.

    So, Flangegpp, why do you think the first seven Presidents are so often overlooked, and Washington is so honored?

  38. An interesting find…

    George Washington to John Hanson, November 30, 1781

    …I Congratulate your Excellency on your Appointment to fill the most important Seat in the United States…

  39. Flangegpp said in The Never-ending thread

    The Northwest Ordinance was one of the most important acts passed by Congress under the Articles of Confederation.

    Even if that’s true, so what? Does anyone still live in the Northwest Territories? No. They don’t exist anymore. They’ve been subsumed into the various states.

    This ordinance was also the first national legislation that set limits on the expansion of slavery. So your history degree says what about this?

    My “history degree” doesn’t have an opinion on that. However, I’ll take your word that it is an historical fact, without looking it up. In any event, so what? What’s your point as it relates to the question of whether Obama is a a citizen and legally our President?

    And John Hansen was the first President of the country, not George Washington.

    This is an interesting footnote to history, I’ll admit, but entirely irrelevant to the point of this post, as is your entire comment. I’m really a bit perplexed as to your point, if you have one. Or are you just interested in showing everyone that you know something about history that I don’t? Because if that’s your point, I’ll concede it, as I would to anyone.

    RedPill said

    So, Flangegpp, why do you think the first seven Presidents are so often overlooked, and Washington is so honored?

    If I may be so bold, perhaps it’s because we don’t live in the US of A as formed by the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union? Under the Articles the President of Congress was not the chief executive of a different branch of government, as he is today under the Constitution. He was merely the head of Congress, an almost administrative function. We also don’t honor all of the Presidents of the Continental Congresses that administered to the country before the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were ratified. There were 16 of them. John Hancock, who was the President when the Declaration of Independence was enacted, is well known because of his bold signature, but I’ll bet you’d be hard pressed, (as I was) to name the rest, without a Google search.

    We honor George Washington because he was the first elected President under the Constitution we still operate under. It’s that simple.

  40. Snopes also has a good discussion of it here. A quote:

    John Hanson was far from an insignificant figure in American history, but if few Americans know that he was the first person chosen to preside over Congress under the Articles of Confederation, the primary reason is that the office wasn’t one of much importance. Claiming that John Hanson was the first President of the United States doesn’t help to preserve the memory of his real accomplishments — it merely perpetuates historical misinformation for trivia’s sake.

  41. Spanish Inquisitor,

    We also don’t honor all of the Presidents of the Continental Congresses that administered to the country before the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were ratified. There were 16 of them. John Hancock, who was the President when the Declaration of Independence was enacted, is well known because of his bold signature

    It’s interesting that you bring up John Hancock and the fact that he was President of the Continental Congress when the Declaration of Independence was enacted. If I remember correctly, you are an atheist, and you believe that the 1st Amendment creates a “separation of church and state”. If you truly believe that was the Founders’ intent, then how do you explain this:

    In Congress, March 16, 1776

  42. You need to read history, not look for every little thing that confirms your worldview, while ignoring everything else. That’s confirmation bias at it’s worst.

    Don’t forget, the 1st Amendment was not even enacted until long after 1776. Enacted in 1789, ratified in 1791 to be exact. There is no doubt that most of the people in the country were Christians, many devoutly so. (But not the primary Founding Fathers, the ones we always hold out as founding fathers – Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Adams – all deists, and today I suspect they’d all be atheists. Even Thomas Paine was a Deist in name only) You’ll often get Christian sentiment in official documents. We still do to this day. It’s innocuous, and has no bearing on whether our form of government is founded on any particular religion, or on religion in general.

    The Founders made great pains to insure that it was NOT, and the 1st Amendment is one of the ways they did that. Basing the Constitution on the idea that the rights of government derived from the people, (“We the People”) and not god, was another. You make the usual fallacious error of confusing a population of Christians with a Christian government. It’s not the same thing.

    So whether a resolution was passed in 1776 doesn’t support your great leap of logic that

    That day of unified fasting and prayer on May 17, 1776 likely had a significant impact on our independence being declared 48 days later.

    C’mon, can you spell “wishful thinking”? Our independence had nothing to do with a day of prayer and fasting. It had a lot to do with the way the mother country treated its colonies, and how the colonies reacted to that treatment. It was long in the works before that day.

    But again, what has this got to do with Obama and his right to be President? You people need to focus.

  43. Spanish Inquisitor,

    You need to read history… this is far from the only historical document that confirms my worldview. You’ll find plenty more links to historical documents in my posts and at Wall Builders.

    I am well aware of when the 1st Amendment was passed in Congress and when it was ratified. See my post God, the Bible, and Our Founders.

    You claim:

    There is no doubt that most of the people in the country were Christians, many devoutly so. (But not the primary Founding Fathers, the ones we always hold out as founding fathers – Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Adams – all deists, and today I suspect they’d all be atheists. Even Thomas Paine was a Deist in name only)

    First, I recommend that you read this.

    Only revisionist history paints Washington as a deist.

    You claim “Adams” was a deist. Which “Adams”? Samuel Adams? John Adams? John Quincy Adams? The historical evidence reveals all of them to be Christians, not deists.

    John Adams called Thomas Paine a “blackguard” who wrote out of the depths of “a malignant heart.” George Washington, previously one of Paine’s fiercest advocates, attacked Paine’s principles in his Farewell Address (without referring to his name) as unpatriotic and subversive. Elias Boudinot, who served as President of the Congress of the United States in 1783(*), wrote a book in response to Paine:

    The Age of Revelation
    The Age of Reason shewen to be an Age of Infidelity

    (*) Thank you again, Flangegpp, for your earlier comment about Presidents who served under the Articles of Confederation.

    You claim:

    Basing the Constitution on the idea that the rights of government derived from the people, (“We the People”) and not god…

    Our country was founded with the signing of the Declaration of Independence, not the signing of the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence makes it clear that the Founders believed that the inalienable rights of man come from God. Governments are instituted to protect those unalienable God-given (Creator-endowed) rights.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men

    Our founders did not create a “Christian government”, per se, but they did create a government to protect the unalienable rights which were endowed to us by God. And if you have any doubt which God they meant, see how the treaty that ended the American Revolution began with these words:

    In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity. It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the Grace of God King of Great Britain.

    Only Christianity teaches a Trinitarian view of God.

    Our founders did not want a government that would establish religion, but they most certainly wanted a government that would recommend and endorse the following of Jesus Christ.

    Establishment and endorsement are not the same thing. See The First Amendment Turned Upside-Down.

    You finish:

    But again, what has this got to do with Obama and his right to be President? You people need to focus.

    You think everything is about Obama? Do you see everything through “O logo” glasses?

    With this blog, I discuss two things that people tell you not to discuss… religion and politics. Even before I blogged here, I commented about religion and politics over at HotAir.com, long before Obama was even a Presidential candidate. Take off your “O” glasses and realize that our country and heritage are a lot bigger than him. It’s not all about him.

    Now, do I expect that you will give a fair reading of everything I’ve linked to here?

    I’d like to give you the benefit of that doubt.

    I hope you will read it all before commenting again.

  44. Look, if you want to convince yourself that our form of government is based on some form of Christianity, have at it. As Jefferson said, it neither picks my pocket or breaks my leg. You can believe whatever you want. The fact that our government is decidedly secular, and was intentionally created that way, will still remain. It doesn’t matter whether Washington, or even Jefferson was a Christian or not. How they set up the government, to be purposely areligious, is not disputable, your particular beliefs notwithstanding. It is what it is, a secular government, and your attempts to believe otherwise are mere self delusion. But I really don’t care what you believe, I only care that you and others like you do not change it.

    A couple of points:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men

    You highlighted the word “Creator” assuming that I would agree that that means your version of a Christian god. It neither says that, nor can you even imply that. MY creator was my mother and father. As a human being created in the usual way, I was born with the rights enumerated in this passage. We have those rights because we were created as human beings (as opposed to every other species on the planet). Stop emphasizing the word “creator”. That’s not the important concept in that document. Our unalienable human rights are what is important.

    Your attempt to infuse religion in that clause is simply a leap of logic without support. Now if you want to believe that your Creator is Yahweh, or Allah, or Vishnu, or whoever, you are free to believe that, (you used this phrase – “our God-given (Creator-endowed)” – in one of your posts. See? I read it. YOU transform Creator into God.) which is the beauty of a secular, areligious form of government. It’s all inclusive the way I interpret it. It’s an exclusive little club the way you interpret. it. Sorry, my country does not exclude anyone. By claiming we are a Christian nation, you’ve just excluded me, and about 45 million other Americans from our country.

    That makes you a sanctimonious prick. No offense.

    Our country was founded with the signing of the Declaration of Independence, not the signing of the Constitution.

    With your logic I could just as easily say that our country was founded when we dumped tea in the Boston Harbor, or when the first shot was fired at Lexington and Concord. As a lawyer, if I tried to make your argument in court, where the validity of a law was at issue, I’d be laughed out or court. Laws are not declared “UnDeclarationable” they are declared “Unconstitutional” or Constitutional”, because that is the document that our country is founded on. The Declaration got the ball rolling, is a nice little piece of sentiment, but holds no legal weight in this country. And the only reason you make this argument is because the word Creator (not god) is used in the document, which you think supports your delusion, when nothing even remotely resembling god is in the Constitution.

    You’re still sucking on the wrong pill.

    You think everything is about Obama? Do you see everything through “O logo” glasses?

    With this blog, I discuss two things that people tell you not to discuss… religion and politics. Even before I blogged here, I commented about religion and politics over at HotAir.com, long before Obama was even a Presidential candidate. Take off your “O” glasses and realize that our country and heritage are a lot bigger than him. It’s not all about him.

    Another irony meter needs to be replaced.

    I’m not the one arguing that Obama is not a natural born citizen. What other purpose than to discredit Obama is the point of this post? You’re not just blogging about this issue to enlighten the public about a minor historical nuance are you? Most of the comments before I even showed up here are about Obama, including yours.

    And I have “O” colored glasses?

  45. 1st, in managing my WordPress comments, I got mixed up regarding to which post this comment chain belongs. I was thinking it was a post focused on just the founders, but you are correct that this post does indeed discuss Obama. I officially take back what I said about you seeing everything through “O logo” glasses.

    By the way, several people have brought up the idea of Bobby Jindal running for President, and I have spoken up saying that while I like Bobby Jindal, he is not eligible to run because he, too, is not a “natural born citizen”. He was born in the U.S., but his parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth.

    Now, back to the founders…

    We celebrate the birthday (founding) of our country as July 4, 1776. Not the date the Constitution was signed (nor the date the Constitution was ratified), but the date our country’s founding document, the Declaration of Independence, was signed.

    Note that the Declaration includes the following words:

    God
    Creator
    the Supreme Judge of the world
    divine Providence
    sacred

    You want to pretend that they were Deists who desired a completely secular government that forbid any endorsement of religion.

    Quite to the contary, they said they were:

    appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions… with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

    Leftists claim that the first amendment prohibits an “endorsement” of religion, and use that to restrict religious speech in government . That is completely backwards. The first amendment was specifically written to protect religious speech and religious expression everywhere, and specifically prohibits Congress from restricting religious speech, religious press, etc. which historically came happened when governments were allowed to “establish” a state-run religion.

    Also, the Constitution makes clear reference both to “our Lord” and to the founding of our country via the Declaration of Indendence…

    Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.

    See: No Mention of God in the U.S. Constitution?
    And: References to God in Federal and State Constitutions

    And see if you can tell me who said the following:

    The fundamental basis of this Nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don’t think we emphasize that enough these days.

    If we don’t have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.

    Hint: It wasn’t a “right-wing extremist”. It was a twentieth-century Democrat President.

    That twentieth-century Democrat President obviously agreed with a nineteenth-century Supreme Court decision which said, “this is a Christian nation.”

    Now, does a “Christian nation” mean that only Christians are welcome here? Absolutely not. Everyone is welcome as long as they obey our laws (including immigration laws). But don’t go trying to destroy the moral foundation upon which our government rests. That is called demoralization, and it is step 1 of 4 on the way from freedom to a totalitarian, godless government.

    You won’t find the words “separation”, “church”, or “state” in the 1st Amendment to our United States Constitution.

    But you will find them in Article 124 of the 1936 Constitution of the U.S.S.R. (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics):

    the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state

    And George Washington said:

    Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men & citizens.

    George Washington would question your patriotism.

  46. But don’t go trying to destroy the moral foundation upon which our government rests.

    Morality is an individual thing. Government doesn’t set morality, nor is it in the business of doing so. Government enforces the rule of law. Your morality, you say, is derived from your religion. I would disagree, I think your morality , if you drill down deeply enough, comes from something other than your religion, but that’s a debate for another day, another post. Suffice it to say that YOU choose your morality, you don’t let the government tell you what is moral. For instance, you probably wouldn’t approve of your daughter getting an abortion, but I doubt you’d feel it was the governments right to force her to get one, would you?

    (Here’s another argument for another day, another post: Roe v. Wade didn’t imposegovernmental morality. It allows all American’s to choose what they believe is moral. That’s called freedom. Think about it.)

    So when people like you, with your attitude about this “Christian nation”, start telling me that the founders were Christians and had Christian backgrounds and Christian sensibilities and Christian morality, I don’t disagree with you. All I’m saying is that who they were is irrelevant. It’s what they did that is important, and what they did is set up the first modern secular government. AND, they did it by specifically keeping religion out of government, because they recognized that by having religion in government leads to a lot of problems. If you remember, America was colonized by people who ran away from a government with a state religion. They recognized that only if people are free to practice whatever religion they want, including none at all, they should be able to do so without interference from the government, or they really can’t say they are free. Remember? “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

    Why am I telling you this? This is basic American history. You should have understood this before you were 13.

    You won’t find the words “separation”, “church”, or “state” in the 1st Amendment to our United States Constitution.

    But you will find it in every single First Amendment case that’s been decided by the courts since the First Amendment, because that’s what it means. I would suggest a course on Constitutional Law if you disagree with that one. Look up the terms “precedent” and “stare decisis”.

    But you will find them in Article 124 of the 1936 Constitution of the U.S.S.R. (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics):

    OOOooo. Is that supposed to be some killer argument? “Those damned commies believed in separation of state and church, so it must be a bad thing.” Fallacious argument. Did you actually read the Russian declaration of fundamental rights? Tell me you disagree with everything in there, and I’ll accept your argument as a killer and swear that I love Jesus.

    George Washington would question your patriotism.

    Another killer argument. I’ll counter with a quote:

    “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.” – Sinclair Lewis

  47. Your morality, you say, is derived from your religion.

    Correct.

    I would disagree, I think your morality , if you drill down deeply enough, comes from something other than your religion, but that’s a debate for another day, another post.

    Fine.

    Suffice it to say that YOU choose your morality, you don’t let the government tell you what is moral.

    Correct. Good government is built on a moral society, not vice versa.

    Roe v. Wade didn’t impose governmental morality. It allows all American’s to choose what they believe is moral. That’s called freedom. Think about it.

    Roe v. Wade allowed mothers to legally choose murder. Think about it.

    When was your unique DNA established?

    At conception.

    The mother’s body has the mother’s DNA. The child’s body has the child’s DNA. The mother has a choice of what she does to her own body, but she doesn’t have a “choice” to take the life of another human being.

    The mother has a choice: raise the baby herself or put it up for adoption.

    In that sense, I am pro-choice. But I am not pro-abortion, which stops a beating heart of a developing human being, a being that is completely unique from the mother.

    This is a matter of life and death, a matter of good vs. evil:

    The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.

    John 10:10

    See: Abortion, the Declaration of Independence, the Bible, and the First Amendment

    …the founders were Christians and had Christian backgrounds and Christian sensibilities and Christian morality, I don’t disagree with you.

    Good. Because that’s the truth. From the pilgrims who came here “For the Glory of God and Advancement of the Christian Faith” onward.

    Deists are not Christians. Earlier you were trying to claim that the founders were predominantly Deists. At least now you admit the truth that “the founders were Christians”. But just in case you waver back to your earlier claim, remember that these supposedly non-Christian, supposedly “Deist” founders chose to put a Bible verse on the Liberty Bell… “Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof Lev. XXV:X

    All I’m saying is that who they were is irrelevant. It’s what they did that is important, and what they did is set up the first modern secular government. AND, they did it by specifically keeping religion out of government

    Wrong! The first amendment does not “specifically keep religion out of government”. Rather it “specifically keeps government out of establishing a religion”. There is a difference. A very big difference. And I have shown time and again that our government, which you call “the first modern secular government”, has from it’s very beginning consistently endorsed Christianity.

    You would do well to read Benjamin Franklin Morris’ 1060-page book, first published in 1864,
    Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States.

  48. As I said, the issue of abortion could go on forever, and not in this thread (I hope), but suffice it to say you’ve made my point, which is that the morality surrounding the issue is personal to you, and is not directed by the government. You are free to make the choices you make based on your beliefs, and everyone else is free to make their own choices based on their beliefs, which reinforces the fact that this is a free country. If we had the government imposing a limited version of one group’s morality on all of this, that that choice, and that freedom to exercise conflicting ideas of morality would be non-existent.

    Wrong! The first amendment does not “specifically keep religion out of government”. Rather it “specifically keeps government out of establishing a religion”. There is a difference.

    Not according to 200 years of American jurisprudence. But you’re free to believe otherwise.

    You would do well to read Benjamin Franklin Morris’ 1060-page book, first published in 1864,
    Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States.

    I think I’ll pass.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s