Questions for Speaker Boehner:
1) Do you honor your oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States?
2) Do you honor the rule of law?
3) Do you support the enforcement of current Immigration law?
4) Do you know that the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 requires that:
All employees, citizens and noncitizens, hired after November 6, 1986 and working in the United States must complete a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.
5) Is there any exception made in that law for any occupation, including President?
6) Is Obama an employee, hired after November 6, 1986 and working in the United States?
7) Do you know whether or not Obama is in compliance with current Immigration law? Do you know whether or not Obama has completed a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, and if so, what documents he used as proof of his employment eligibility?
8) Do you realize that the Form I-9 is very specific about what documents are acceptable?
9) Do you realize that when you said:
“The state of Hawaii has said that President Obama was born there,” Boehner said. “That’s good enough for me.”
… you are accepting as evidence something that is not accepted as evidence for a Form I-9?
10) Do you agree that the President is not above the law, and that Obama should publicly release original, initial documentation, certified by the appropriate government agency, to meet the requirements of not only the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 but also the United States Constitution? I.E., that Obama himself must prove that he is not only a citizen, but a natural born citizen?
11) Do you know that even if the “Obama birth narrative” is 100% true, Obama does not meet the Natural Law definition of “natural born citizen”?
12) To what legal authority do you look for the definition of “natural born citizen”? Why do you believe that being a “native born citizen” is sufficient to be considered a “natural born citizen” under the requirements of the United States Constitution?
13) Even if you have a demonstrably legal reason to believe that “native born citizen” is sufficient to be considered a “natural born citizen”, what evidence do you have that Obama is a “native born citizen”?
14) You said:
“The state of Hawaii has said that President Obama was born there,” Boehner said. “That’s good enough for me.”
The State of Hawaii (specifically, Dr. Fukino) did not say “Obama was born in Hawaii” until AFTER you, John Boehner, voted in favor of House of Representatives Resolution 593 which contained the words “Obama was born in Hawaii”.
The irony is that you did not rely on a document from Hawaii, but rather Hawaii relied on a document that you voted for in Washington, D.C.!
15) Which Government Organization Was The First To Say, “Obama was born in Hawaii”?
If Speaker Boehner thinks the answer to that question is “the State of Hawaii”, he is sadly mistaken. The answer to that question is “the U.S. House of Representatives”. And they did so without any documentary proof of the claim.
Then, Hawaii could use H.Res. 593 as prima facie evidence…
Federal Rules of Evidence
Rule 902. Self-authentication(10) Presumptions under Acts of Congress. Any signature, document, or other matter declared by Act of Congress to be presumptively or prima facie genuine or authentic.
————————–
Speaker Boehner, combine the legal requirements of:
1) Article II Section 1 of the United States Constitution
2) Section 3 of the 20th Amendment to the United States Constitution
3) The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986:
All employees, citizens and noncitizens, hired after November 6, 1986 and working in the United States must complete a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.
… and you see that Obama and Biden are legally required to produce hard copy documentation of not only their eligibility to work in the United states but also their eligibility to hold the office of President.
And Congress has the legal responsibility to ensure that the President and Vice President have qualified.
I Took The Red Pill 
“Observer Says:
January 26, 2011 at 5:23 pm
Radio guy said Governor told him there was no birth record?
Never happened.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/26/celebrity-journalist-says-he-never-talked-hawaii-governor-obama-birth/#ixzz1CBNO3Qsq ”
If you listen to the ORIGINAL radio “segment”, Evans clearly stated that he talked to the Governor’s OFFICE and was told……………….
THAT’s why you can’t believe everything that is reported.
It’s fairly easy to find the ORIGINAL “segment”.
I write “segment”, because it seems from the audio, that Evans has a regular segment on this radio program, and he was relating an update on where Abercrombie was as far as locating the long form birth certificate.
Why doesn’t Abercrombie simply call Obama and ask him to authorize it’s release? I suppose he has, and was told in no uncertain terms NO.
And another thing, why is it being reported wrong? In my opinion, it’s not a “mistake”.
Asked: “Another thing that gets me is that Observer posted a response that clearly contradicts the point he was making.
“First he says there are two types of citizens, “natural born” and “naturalized”, but then his response goes on about how there are 6 catagories of “citizens by birth”. ”
Sorry. let’s try again.
There are two ways to become a US citizen. Be born as a citizen. Be naturalized as a citizen.
OK, so far?
There are various categories of persons who can be born as citizens.
There are various categories of persons who can be naturalized as citizens.
But there are only two sources of citizenship, birth or naturalization.
If a person is a citizen, but was not naturalized, then the person is a natural born citizen
Again, ok so far?
Fine.
Now the only, repeat only, difference between the two types, natural born and naturalized, is that a naturalized citizen may not serve as Pres or VP.
Extra comment, there is no evidence that Obama spent millions. The birthers say that over and over again, without any suppport. Over 70 cases have been brought, and all but one (Ankeny) were dismissed routinely by courts who accepted arguments by government lawyers because the people had no standing or no legal claim.
Why won’t he release his records?
He did.
Obama was asked for legal proof of his birth.
He released it, but the birthers refused to believe it.
Why should the birthers believe anything he releases?
They will refuse to believe anything.
They are wasting our time.
One final time.
Obama has released proof of his birth in the United States, which proves he is a natural born citizen.
I’m extremely busy right now, with very limited time to spend blogging.
Many of the questions in the previous comments have already been asked and answered over the last nearly three years. You’re welcome to read anything and everything I have written in the Presidential Eligibility category:
https://itooktheredpill.wordpress.com/category/presidential-eligibility/
Interested Bystander, I agree that Obama “talks the talk” about transparency, but he doesn’t “walk the walk”.
https://itooktheredpill.wordpress.com/?s=transparency
Mr. Anderson,
I, too, am under time constraints (for the next month or so), so you probably wont see me posting for a while after this response to you and one to IB but I just had to rebut your comments on transparency – I think that President Obama has lived up to his campaign promises of transparency and I will give you some specific examples as to how he has done so. First, as I mentioned above, he is the only candidate or president to have released images of his birth certificate to the public. Regardless of whether or not the available McCain BCs are real or fake (and they are fake), none of them were released by the McCain campaign nor has any other presidential campaign or administration released a BC. Then, on his very first day in office, President Obama signed an executive order which repealed an executive order by President Bush and replaced it with a more transparent standard that was nearly identical to the standard under President Reagan. I gave a link in my comments above to a page that has links to the text of all three executive orders, so you can see that I have represented this accurately. Another example of transparency is the Stimulus bill – an accounting of where all of the stimulus funds were being spent was available online, which is the kind of transparency I want to see (by the way, according to the CBO, the stimulus increased the number of jobs by 2 to 4.8 million over what we would have had without the Stimulus even though it was too small to hasten the recovery). An example of how the president is continuing his efforts in transparency was in his State of the Union address – he pledged to put THE ENTIRE BUDGET online so people know where their money is being spent – do you think that this is bad or in any way opaque? I’ve given you specific examples of how President Obama is and has been more transparent than his predecessors and I can provide or have provided supporting links for everything I’ve said – if you would like to convince me (or anyone else, I would think) that President Obama has not lived up to his pledge of transparency, please find an example of him being less transparent than his predecessors. Credible sources for your examples would be appreciated, too – my sources are the text of 3 Executive orders, the website stimulus.org, the congressional budget office, the President’s State of the Union Address, and what the custodian of Hawai’ian birth records has described in sworn testimony (and official statements) as the president’s birth certificate – surely if his lack of transparency is so blatant you can do better…
The video you posted had the following quote from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:
From his speech on race in the Democratic primary to his words at the memorial after the Tucson shooting, I believe that President Obama has stood tall by this standard.
IB,
You ask, ‘why wont he?’ – I ask, ‘why should he?’. To try help you to understand my point of view (which I believe is similar to that of any US court), here is how I see events as having unfolded:
Questions were raised about then candidate Obama’s eligibility for office.[This was a perfectly reasonable thing to do.] As there was no question that he was 35 years of age and had resided in the US for 14 years, the only point that needed verifying was his birth on US soil – [there might be other circumstances which make a child a natural born citizen, but all Constitutional authorities agree that birth in the US is sufficient for natural born citizenship (excepting children of diplomats or invading armies – neither of which applies in this case)]. The natural choice to verify birth on US soil would be the document one received in response to a request to the state of Hawai’i for a ‘birth certificate’ – a COLB. The Obama campaign posted an image of this document on their website and invited media outlets to examine it. [This document was most likely obtained by the campaign from Hawai’i in 2007 for purposes of demonstrating US birth as necessary.] The authenticity of this document has been verified by the official statements of Dr. Fukino as well as her testimony to the Hawai’ian legislature where she confirmed the images posted on the web to be of President Obama’s birth certificate [a document, by the way, which would be accepted as proof of natural born citizenship in any court in the land]. The response to this was that within days there were people claiming to have ‘evidence’ that these images were forged and making false accusations regarding the circumstances of his birth based on their faked ‘evidence’ of fraud. Since we now know the images to be legitimate, we must conclude that people such as ‘Dr. Polarik’ and ‘techdude’ were telling lies about COLB in an effort to delegitimize a presidential candidate. Since these lies assumed that Dr. Dunham had somehow acted fraudulently (presumably by registering the birth under false pretenses [This doesn’t quite make sense, however, because had this been the case there is no reason that President Obama would have known about it or would have had any reason to alter any of the information on the COLB]), Dr. Polarik and techdude both told lies about the president’s dead mother in an effort to further a coup against the government of the United States and illegally oust the lawfully elected president from power (during wartime, no less). Is this appropriate behavior for American citizens? I don’t think so – and yet many eligibility advocates believe their lies even today and no one in the eligibility movement has shown the integrity to denounce them. In addition, some people questioning eligibility have spewed (and continue to spew) some of the most vile, bigoted, hate-filled seditious speech you could imagine all the while talking about what patriots they are. Why should the president give these people any additional information? Prior experience suggests that these people will just use it to make up more lies to use against him and that they will ignore any part of it which does not conform to their biases. You may be honest in saying that a long form birth certificate (at least one that conformed to your expectations) would satisfy you, but most of the people in the eligibility movement have made it clear that it would not satisfy them as to the president’s eligibility, so, I ask you:
Why should he?
Ultimately, eligibility wont play a role in the 2012 elections [This is all my opinion, but please remember it when it turns out to be true (I will admit it if it turns out that I’m incorrect, but I highly doubt that I’ll have to).] – the 2008 election was about who President Obama was and he answered that question to the satisfaction of a majority of voters – he has proved his eligibility and can confirm it with a document known to be in his possession. The 2012 election will be about the job President Obama has done – [the eligibility issue may be raised but the President will have no trouble getting on the ballot of all 50 states and the higher the profile of the eligibility issue, the better it will be for the president] – and judging from CNN’s latest poll, most Americans feel like President Obama is doing a pretty good job (55% approval/44% disapproval) [No modern president has failed to win re-election with an approval rating above 50%, by the way.] I’m sorry to be the one to tell you this, but the eligibility movement has foundered since its inception (in my opinion) because it turned away from the clarion call of the facts and thus has no good compass to determine which theories regarding eligibility have a shred of validity and which are based merely on lies. This has resulted in the widespread (throughout the eligibility movement, in any case) repetition of falsehoods to support the consensus [FALSE] assumption that President Obama is ineligible. You talk about judging people by their associations – fine. I’m not troubled by President Obama’s casual association with Bill Ayres years ago but I AM troubled by the eligibility movement’s association with people like ‘Dr. Polarik’ (liar), ‘techdude’ (liar), Tim Adams (a liar and an associate of racists), Dr. Orly Taitz (liar, incompetent lawyer, and bigot), Lucas Smith (forger, liar, and convicted felon), convicted felon Lakin (a cowardly ‘blue falcon’ who disobeyed the [LEGITIMATE*] orders of a Medal of Honor winner and in doing so put the heroic men and women fighting for us in Afghanistan at greater risk), Walter Fitzpatrick (former court-martialed Navy officer and current convict), and ‘Dr.’ Manning (felon, racist, and bigot) just to name a few… not to mention media outlets like World Net Daily and The Post and Email who see fit to routinely publish (but never retract) falsehoods regarding the president. Do you agree with all of the views of these people and organizations that the eligibility movement has associated itself with?
*CF Lakin’s orders were legitimate even if President Obama was born on Krypton like he once said…
By the way, I thought our president gave a great speech the other night (and so did about 80% of the people who watched it), how about you?
Ok, I came across this, and thought it was worth adding to the conversation… I’m not fan of Aaron Burr, (he shot and killed Alexander Hamilton in their famous 1804 duel), but I find this fascinating:
More here.
To meet the combined legal requirements of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and the United States Constitution.
Mr. Anderson,
Where in the IRCA of 1986 does it say that it applies to the POTUS or any other elected official?
Where in the IRCA of 1986 does it say that it DOESN’T apply to the POTUS or any other elected official?
“All” means “all”. There are no exceptions. The Presidency is a job, with job responsibilities and a salary. Being elected is a detail of how a person is selected from among many candidates to fill the job. It doesn’t change the fact that all government employees are exactly that… employees. Regardless of whether they were elected or not.
The law requires that everyone who starts a new job after November 6, 1986 must prove, with hard copy documents, that they are eligible to work in the United States.
Combine that with the requirements of the U.S. Constitution, and:
A U.S. Representative must further prove that they have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and are an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
A U.S. Senator must further prove that they have attained to the Age of thirty Years, been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and are an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
A President or Vice-President must further prove that they are a natural born Citizen, have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Mike Evans told 3 radio stations that Neil Abercrombie had told him their is no hospital-generated Obama Birth Certificate in Hawaii.
All three segments and his backtrack compiled in one video…
If Barack Hussein Obama II was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center in Hawai‘i, then a long-form Birth Certificate saying so (including delivering doctor’s signature) is on file in Hawaii.
Now, let’s look at the contrapositive…
If a long-form birth certificate saying so is NOT on file in Hawaii, then Barack Hussein Obama II was NOT born at Kapi’olani Medical Center in Hawai‘i.
Slartibartfast
I won’t bore you with a point by point rebuttal, but I will give you my perspective on the whole of the issue of eligibility:
First and foremost we DO NOT know where Obama was born. We know that as of a couple years ago, there were at lest 4 articles written about Obama that stated he was born in Queens Hospital, with one of those articles having an interview with Maya in it.
Now you argued that Quees could have been mistakenly named when Kapiolani was really what was meant. To me, that’s simply hogwash.
Obama sent a letter to Kapiolani Hospital that stated that Kapiolani was the hospital he was born in. The long form birth certificate would verify that information.
Obama tells school kids that his parents were together for 2 years before his father left for Harvard, but yet we KNOW that Stanley was in Washington State for about a year right after Barry was born. That’s kind of strange in itself, because there is no record of Stanley and Sr living together after they were married. (I understand that this has nothing to do with eligibility, but it’s another “brick in the wall”) Not only that, but Stanley basically held Sr to NO responsibility as far as their son in their divorce papers. (again, nothing to do with eligibility, but yet there’s another brick)
The point being, that Obama’s “story” doesn’t coinicide with the evidence. So if the evidence is that his “story” isn’t what we KNOW, then maybe his birth story isn’t as published.
Look the bottom line is that Obama has no legitimate reason for keeping his documents sealed. None.
All your lawyer gobbly goop doesn’t “play” out here in the real world. To folks out here living the day to day life, we don’t really know about I 9’s and the like, hadn’t heard of “standing” until some Judge slapped us upside the head with it (for simply asking the Candidate to prove his eligibiltiy), and are baffled as to why the President won’t release the documents.
His COLB is “suspect” at best. It lists his father’s race as “African”, and it just doesn’t give us enough information.
It is well known that you could get a birth registered in Hawaii by simply having someone sign the registration form stating he or she was a witness to the birth.
The long form birth certificate would verify Obama was born in Kapiolani as he says he was.
I’m guessing that’s not what it states. (go ahead and suggest I prove that, and my answer would be that I can’t, but on the other hand, we know that Obama’s “story” doesn’t coincide with the evidence for two years after his birth, so maybe his birth “story” is embellished also)
Geesh Slartibartfast, doesn’t it get kind of old defending Obama?
Just release the documents for goodness sake, it’s the MORAL thing to do.
Mr. Anderson,
Are you in possession of evidence that President Obama was asked to comply with the IRCA of 1986 and refused? Considering that we know for certain that he has a document that would satisfy its requirements it seems reasonable to assume that he was either never asked to complete an I-9 (nor were Presidents Bush, Clinton, and Bush) or he supplied the necessary documentation upon request. If you have evidence that President Obama didn’t complete this form AND the forms for the 3 other presidents who have taken office since 1986, I’ll consider the possibility that this issue is significant, but until then I’ll just assume that although the president wasn’t asked to complete a form that didn’t apply to his office (it couldn’t apply to his office as that would take the weight of a Constitutional Amendment to accomplish – why do you keep contradicting the Constitution?) he would have had no problem complying with such a request since he is known to posses a document which proves his eligibility in any US court.
IB posted:
Here’s what I think is going to happen in the next couple of years: any eligibility bills passed will fall into one of two categories (1) those that accept the COLB as proof of natural born citizenship and (2) those that do not. The laws in (1) will be upheld (or more likely go unchallenged) and the states will be provided with a certified copy of the COLB by the Obama campaign after which they will put him on the ballot. The laws in (2) will be taken to court and quickly struck down and any that are appealed that far will be granted review by the 3rd justice to be given the case and denied cert without comment by the SCOTUS. This will waste taxpayer money and will result in President Obama being put on the ballot in the state. Some candidate may sue over ballot access, be granted standing and lose on the OTHER merits of the case (standing is one of the merits of a case) – a ruling which will be upheld. You and Mr. Anderson and others will try to convince people that questions remain about the president’s eligibility and 99.9% of them wont care or wont believe that there are significant unanswered questions. As long as the economy is still improving, the president will be re-elected and even if it isn’t he will still have a chance because the tea party will force the Republicans to nominate someone who is much farther to the right than independents are comfortable with (like Sarah Palin – Palin/Bachmann would be a dream ticket – Caribou Barbie and Ms. Josephine McCarthy Jr. would get to feel what it’s like to be on the receiving end of a ‘Mondale’…). In the end the only effect of the eligibility movement will be to drive independents towards the President by making the right appear too extreme. So keep up the good work – you’re helping to re-elect President Obama and we’ll all be better off if you are successful.
D’oh! The last post should have been from Slartibartfast.
Slartibartfast starts:
“You ask, ‘why wont he?’ – I ask, ‘why should he?’.”
I answer with “because it’s the RIGHT thing to do”.
Obama keeping the documents sealed only keeps the questions unanswered.
Slartibartfast comments:
“To try help you to understand my point of view (which I believe is similar to that of any US court), here is how I see events as having unfolded:”
There’s that “court” answer again.
I’d really like for this issue to get in to court, so that a jury can hear the evidence and make up their own minds about who has legitimate questions, and who is willfully keeping records sealed to avoid answering the questions.
Slartibartfast next comments:
“Questions were raised about then candidate Obama’s eligibility for office. [This was a perfectly reasonable thing to do.]”
Now if we could get the answers to those questions that you suggest were “perfectly reasonable”.
Slartibartfast goes on:
“As there was no question that he was 35 years of age and had resided in the US for 14 years, the only point that needed verifying was his birth on US soil – [there might be other circumstances which make a child a natural born citizen, but all Constitutional authorities agree that birth in the US is sufficient for natural born citizenship (excepting children of diplomats or invading armies – neither of which applies in this case)].”
No, you just don’t get it, there are other questions like was he adopted by Lolo, what financial help did he get while attending Occidental, Columbia and Harvard, what passport he used to travel to Pakistan in 1981, and whether he signed up for the selective service during the allowed time?
THOSE questions don’t even have any answers to them, they go ignored, but yet they go to the eligibility issue also.
Slartibartfast continues:
“The natural choice to verify birth on US soil would be the document one received in response to a request to the state of Hawai’i for a ‘birth certificate’ – a COLB. The Obama campaign posted an image of this document on their website and invited media outlets to examine it.”
Let me put it this way:
When a prosecutor gives evidence against someone to a grand jury so that formal charges can be brought against that person, they do what you suggest, they give the LEAST amount of evidence possible to get the indictment, but they don’t give ALL of their evidence.
If someone is charged with murder, they might give evidence that the defendent’s fingerprints are on the gun that was used in the crime, and that may be enough for the grand jury to indict the suspect.
However during the trial, the Prosecutor COULD only use the “fingerprint” evidence and rest his case and take his chances with the jury.
OR
The Prosecutor could put on eyewitnesses to the shooting, show video of the suspect at the venue the crime took place, show evidence that he drove his car to the venue where the crime took place, show evidence that the suspect bought ammo for his weapon, show evidence of gun powder residue on the suspect’s clothes, and on and on.
Obama has simply shown the “fingerprint” evidence with NO real evidence other than the “fingerprint” evidence.
You simply don’t “get it”.
Slartibartfast comments:
“[This document was most likely obtained by the campaign from Hawai’i in 2007 for purposes of demonstrating US birth as necessary.]”
This is the LEAST amount of evidence necessary to answer the questions, it’s not ALL of the evidence at his disposal to answer the questions.
Besides the COLB doesn’t address ANY of the other questions that are raised about Obama’s eligibility.
Slartibartfast next comments:
“The authenticity of this document has been verified by the official statements of Dr. Fukino as well as her testimony to the Hawai’ian legislature where she confirmed the images posted on the web to be of President Obama’s birth certificate [a document, by the way, which would be accepted as proof of natural born citizenship in any court in the land].”
Fukino has said the document is a Hawaiian COLB, but she doesn’t state that the document is an AUTHENTIC Hawaiian COLB. Just like she stated that the COLB proves he IS a natural born citizen, which it does not. It proves Obama was born in Hawaii. That’s it. I would suggest that Fukino hasn’t actually held and inspected the COLB she refers too in her statements. How does a “reasonable” person conclude something without inspecting the document other than looking at some pictures on line?
Slartibartfast continues:
“The response to this was that within days there were people claiming to have ‘evidence’ that these images were forged and making false accusations regarding the circumstances of his birth based on their faked ‘evidence’ of fraud.”
Please give me SOMETHING that proves the image posted on line is not a fake.
I mean without claiming that Fukino has authenticated a picture she saw on the internet.
Slartibartfast goes on:
“Since we now know the images to be legitimate, we must conclude that people such as ‘Dr. Polarik’ and ‘techdude’ were telling lies about COLB in an effort to delegitimize a presidential candidate.”
We know nothing of the sort. If these “lies” are verified by ANYONE, please give evidence that Polarik and techdude’s “studies” of the COLB are flawed.
Slartibartfast comments:
“Since these lies assumed that Dr. Dunham had somehow acted fraudulently (presumably by registering the birth under false pretenses [This doesn’t quite make sense, however, because had this been the case there is no reason that President Obama would have known about it or would have had any reason to alter any of the information on the COLB]), Dr. Polarik and techdude both told lies about the president’s dead mother in an effort to further a coup against the government of the United States and illegally oust the lawfully elected president from power (during wartime, no less).”
Again, you ASSUME quite a bit in this comment. What lies did they tell?
Besides, given that you love this “legal” speak, we are not “at war” LEGALLY. Why would you suggest this was done during “wartime, no less”, when no “war” has been declared by the only LEGITIMATE entity that can declare “war”?
Does the law only apply where you want it to apply?
Slartibartfast next comments:
“Is this appropriate behavior for American citizens? I don’t think so – and yet many eligibility advocates believe their lies even today and no one in the eligibility movement has shown the integrity to denounce them.”
YES it is appropriate behavior. IF there are questions about the President’s eligibility, they should be ADDRESSED by as much evidence available, and not the least amount of evidence available.
Please list lies by the eligibility movement and I’ll “denounce” them.
Slartibartfast continues:
“In addition, some people questioning eligibility have spewed (and continue to spew) some of the most vile, bigoted, hate-filled seditious speech you could imagine all the while talking about what patriots they are.”
It happens on BOTH sides, but I hope you aren’t lumping me in with those folks. I have tried to be respectful to both the President and Stanley.
Slartibartfast goes on:
“Why should the president give these people any additional information?”
Because the information wouldn’t just be going out to “these people”, it would be going out to people who have tried to objectively look at the issue, and see that indeed answers still remain. Like me.
Although I’m highly unlikely to vote for Obama, why shouldn’t I have the “peace of mind” of knowing that our President is eligible to hold the Office he now sits in?
Why is it that you suggest that the ONLY reason Obama should release the documents would be if it would ensure that more people vote for him? Doesn’t he as President represent ALL US citizens? Or do you believe he only represents those who voted for him?
Slartibartfast next comments:
“Prior experience suggests that these people will just use it to make up more lies to use against him and that they will ignore any part of it which does not conform to their biases.”
But there are those of us out here who would be persuaded by the release of the documents.
Why are you suggesting that those who make up lies are more important than those of us simply asking for answers to reasonable questions?
Slartibartfast comments:
“You may be honest in saying that a long form birth certificate (at least one that conformed to your expectations) would satisfy you, but most of the people in the eligibility movement have made it clear that it would not satisfy them as to the president’s eligibility, so, I ask you:
Why should he?”
Because he should ignore the “lies” from those folks, and concentrate on those of us who have looked at the circumstances and see that there are still questions that DESERVE answers.
Slartibartfast continues:
“Ultimately, eligibility wont play a role in the 2012 elections [This is all my opinion, but please remember it when it turns out to be true (I will admit it if it turns out that I’m incorrect, but I highly doubt that I’ll have to).]”
Time will tell. I would suggest that you are probably correct, because the media doesn’t seem responsible enough to report the story in a fair manner. (kind of like the TEA Party movement which they report as being “racist” and “violent” and report that “hate speech” is rampant at TEA Party rallies)
Slartibartfast goes on:
“the 2008 election was about who President Obama was and he answered that question to the satisfaction of a majority of voters – he has proved his eligibility and can confirm it with a document known to be in his possession.”
PLease, don’t even suggest that the election was about what you state above. The eligibility story wasn’t even raised until a couple months BEFORE the election, and when it was reported, the news simply quoted one or two articles, and didn’t do their own “footwork”.
Bill O’Reilly (certainly NOT a “darling” of the left) is a good example of what I comment.
I heard O’Reilly tell Megan Kelly during one of their “segments” something to the effect of, “Do you know what sealed the deal for me on Obama’s eligibility? The newspaper announcements, because the family of Obama would have had to place the announcements in BOTH papers assuming one day he would run for President.”
Those who actually are INFORMED on the newspaper announcements KNOW that the announcements in the papers were information provided by HDoH, and NOT the family. Larger announcments that were paid for by families could have been placed in the papers, but the announcements cited in reports came from information provided to the papers by HDoH.
So O’Reilly’s conclusion is wrong on it’s face, and because he states it as what he used to form his conclusion, then we are to believe he is correct?
To use a phrase from “Homey the Clown” “In Living Color”
“I don’t think so, Homey don’t play dat”
The news networks OUGHT to report the story FAIRLY, and not in a biased manner. I believe that they do it to INDOCTRINATE us in to what to believe.
Slartibartfast next comments:
“The 2012 election will be about the job President Obama has done – [the eligibility issue may be raised but the President will have no trouble getting on the ballot of all 50 states and the higher the profile of the eligibility issue, the better it will be for the president] – and judging from CNN’s latest poll, most Americans feel like President Obama is doing a pretty good job (55% approval/44% disapproval) [No modern president has failed to win re-election with an approval rating above 50%, by the way.]”
CNN is your choice on who you use to get information? The network who fired Dobbs for simply raising the eligibility issue with LEGITIMATE questions?
Interesting you would use this source.
But in the “big picture” you are correct, the election will be about the President’s performance as President, which in my opinion has been a major FAILURE, but we can debate that at another time.
Slartibartfast comments:
“I’m sorry to be the one to tell you this, but the eligibility movement has foundered since its inception (in my opinion) because it turned away from the clarion call of the facts and thus has no good compass to determine which theories regarding eligibility have a shred of validity and which are based merely on lies.”
As long as the President keeps his documents sealed, sure there are going to be those who go further and further “off the deep end”. It’s what happens when questions are asked and ignored.
Just look at the Kennedy assasination stories, or the 9-11 stories and you can see that there are “fringe” elements associated with any issue.
Slartibartfast continues:
“This has resulted in the widespread (throughout the eligibility movement, in any case) repetition of falsehoods to support the consensus [FALSE] assumption that President Obama is ineligible.”
Let me comment this:
I have NEVER ONCE suggested that Obama isn’t eligible. NOT ONCE.
What I have done is look at the issue in what I believe is an UNbiased way, and have concluded that there are still legitimate and reasonable unanswered questions pertaining to Obama’s eligibility.
YOU may believe Obama has produced everything he needed too proving his eligibility, but he hasn’t produced EVERYTHING proving his eligibility.
Your continuing argument about how “the courts” this and that, as I have commented before, doesn’t resonate with those of us simply seeking answers to legitimate and reasonable questions.
Your side keeps commenting, “prove this or that”, but yet won’t give us the ability to get the information that would answer the questions. And defend that non ability with your thumbs in your ears fingers waving back and forth above your heads, and your tongue sticking out.
Kind of like holding a “treat” just out of reach of your dog, and every time the dog jumps up to get the “treat” you raise it far enough that the dog can’t get to it.
Or Lucy continually moving the ball out of the way of Charlie Brown just before he makes contact with it, after swearing she won’t do it again.
There is simply no other conclusion one could come to other than the reason he keeps the documents sealed is because there is something there.
Slartibartfast
“You talk about judging people by their associations – fine. I’m not troubled by President Obama’s casual association with Bill Ayres years ago but I AM troubled by the eligibility movement’s association with people like ‘Dr. Polarik’ (liar), ‘techdude’ (liar), Tim Adams (a liar and an associate of racists), Dr. Orly Taitz (liar, incompetent lawyer, and bigot), Lucas Smith (forger, liar, and convicted felon), convicted felon Lakin (a cowardly ‘blue falcon’ who disobeyed the [LEGITIMATE*] orders of a Medal of Honor winner and in doing so put the heroic men and women fighting for us in Afghanistan at greater risk), Walter Fitzpatrick (former court-martialed Navy officer and current convict), and ‘Dr.’ Manning (felon, racist, and bigot) just to name a few… not to mention media outlets like World Net Daily and The Post and Email who see fit to routinely publish (but never retract) falsehoods regarding the president.”
The President is a known and proven LIAR also, I just don’t get your point with this comment.
With that commented, I’ll take them one by one:
Slartibartfast is almost done with this:
“Do you agree with all of the views of these people and organizations that the eligibility movement has associated itself with?”
‘Dr. Polarik’ (liar),
Don’t really know who he is, I have seen a couple of his videos, but other than that, I never really followed up on what he was stating, because I didn’t put much “weight” on what he was saying.
‘techdude’ (liar),
See comment above
“Tim Adams (a liar and an associate of racists),”
You mean like our President?
Adams signed a notorized statement under the penalty of perjury, that his comments were true. Has our President done that?
“Dr. Orly Taitz (liar, incompetent lawyer, and bigot)”
I think Orly is “out there”, she has legitimate questions, and raises SOME good points, however her “presentation” isn’t the best.
I haven’t followed her very much, but what is reported on her is pretty biased, in my opinion, and her “reputation” is more reported than her arguments.
I have been to her site maybe a dozen times.
“Lucas Smith (forger, liar, and convicted felon)”
Ahhhhhhhhhh good old Lucas Smith. I don’t put much “weight” on his arguments, and have followed him very little.
I know who he is, and know what his “story” is, but I’m not buying what he’s selling.
“convicted felon Lakin (a cowardly ‘blue falcon’ who disobeyed the [LEGITIMATE*] orders of a Medal of Honor winner and in doing so put the heroic men and women fighting for us in Afghanistan at greater risk)”
Lakin I HAVE followed, and believe he is a PATRIOT for doing what he did. The man asked LEGITIMATE questions, and didn’t get answers to those questions, and followed set procedure for asking those ignored questions, and was simply asking for more information on whether his CiC was eligible to be CiC.
I believe Lakin did what I would do in the same circumstances.
Again, no one out here in the “real” world, knows anything about some “officers doctrine” or whatever it’s called.
The President is the Commander in Chief of the military, and is in the Chain of Command of EVERY soldier in the military.
The CiC ORDERED more troops to Afghanistan (of course after thinking about it for over 4 months after the increase was asked for), and Lakin’s forces was part of that “surge”, so the President ORDERED Lakin’s unit to Afghanistan.
Those of us out here in the “real” world believe that Obama issued those orders, and Lakin had a SWORN DUTY to disobey those orders.
Again, the media didn’t report this story FAIRLY. Those of us who actually have looked at BOTH SIDES do not understand why the President didn’t simply satisfy the questions with answers instead of hiding behind the law.
To those of us out here in the “real” world, the only REASONABLE conclusion is the reason Obama is hiding behind the law is because he is hiding something.
Lakin didn’t ” put the heroic men and women fighting for us in Afghanistan at greater risk” by not deploying, a replacement was inserted in to his slot.
Are you suggesting that someone who is incompetent was put in Lakin’s slot? Would you be willing to make that claim to the replacement’s face?
“Walter Fitzpatrick (former court-martialed Navy officer and current convict”
I haven’t followed him much except that a couple of times his case has been denied by the SC?
“and ‘Dr.’ Manning (felon, racist, and bigot)”
I like Dr Manning, he makes me laugh. Kind of the same response as Orly above. I like his message, his “presentation” lacks “professionalism”.
I’ve seen maybe 20 of his videos.
“World Net Daily”
I think they do the best job of REPORTING on the net. There stories are written like I believe stories should be written. Facts from both sides are presented, and the reader is allowed to weigh those facts and come to their own conclusion.
There is very little “opinion” offered in WND articles unless it is an “opinion” piece.
“The Post and Email”
Too much “opinion” offered in their articles. The information is there, but it is reported in a biased manner.
Just my opinion.
There I addressed all of the folks and organizations, and I did it in an honest manner.
I don’t take things “on it’s face”. I read stuff from BOTH sides and then try to verify something before I make a comment.
As you can probably tell by my comments, my opinions are derived from my own independent collection of information, verified whenever possible from the SOURCE of the information.
I believe that there are legitimate and reasonable questions the President is by choice not addressing.
Slartibartfast comments:
“*CF Lakin’s orders were legitimate even if President Obama was born on Krypton like he once said…”
Like I commented above, those of us out here in the “real” world hadn’t even heard of the “de facto officers doctrine”, just like we hadn’t heard about “standing” beofre it was pulled out of the hat.
I am retired military (are you?), and I believe Lakin did what EVERY soldier should do, until the legitimate and reasonable questions are answered, not in some “court”, but by someone who is willing and able to answer those question.
Obama is willing and able, but he has BY CHOICE decided NOT to answer those questions.
I admire Lakin, he put his whole career on the line to get those questions answered. He knew the consequences, and chose to do the RIGHT thing.
I would salute Lakin if I ever seen him face to face, with my shoulders back and my head up.
He is one man who took his oath seriously.
Slartibartfast concludes:
“By the way, I thought our president gave a great speech the other night (and so did about 80% of the people who watched it), how about you?”
Didn’t see it, and only heard about 10 minutes of it while on a smoke break (because of your sides continued taking away of my liberties, I am FORCED to leave my companies property and drive around to enjoy my liberty now), and the part I heard was about education and immigration and they made me want to puke with what he was saying.
But as you can probably conclude from my perspective of how our Country should be run, I don’t agree with the President very often at all.
Although I don’t agree with the President on policy, I still should have the peace of mind in knowing that our President is eligible to hold the Office.
What he is doing to our Country, along with his cohorts in Congress (BOTH Repblicans and Democrats), is nothing less than using our Constitution as toilet paper. It is interpretted to mean whatever they want it to mean, instead of what it ACTUALLY means.
I believe that Republicans and Democrats sitting togther during the speech was nothing more than them admitting that BOTH parties are involved in the dismanteling of what the Founders wanted for our Country.
There, I responded point by point to your comment.
Pingback: Constitutional Options for Removing Obama « drkatesview
IB,
Here’s the first installment of my response:
IB posted:
Again, I don’t believe that many people share your view that there are significant unanswered questions.
Juries don’t decide Constitutional issues, judges do – this is for roughly the same reason that operations on people’s brains are performed by neurosurgeons rather than randomly chosen passersby. I would note that in my opinion, you raise no legitimate questions regarding President Obama’s eligibility and that you have provided no evidence (nor has anyone else) that President Obama is ‘willfully’ concealing anything – his records are protected by the same laws and Constitution that apply to yours and there has been no evidence that he has spent any money whatsoever to conceal them further (what, exactly, do you allege that he has ‘willfully’ done?).
The answer is that President Obama has been judged to be eligible for his office according to the US Constitution by the same process that vetted his predecessors – a judgement which has been confirmed by the release of more information than any of his predecessors had provided. You just don’t like that answer…
No, they don’t. Eligibility is a legal and Constitutional issue – if you want to make assertions in court regarding the president’s eligibility, you must meet the legal burden of proof of the accuser. The eligibility movement has utterly failed to do this.
You don’t get it – President Obama hasn’t shown fingerprint-type evidence, he has shown DNA-type evidence. It is so likely as to be nearly certain that President Obama is eligible, far above any standard required by the court. Such a high standard necessitates (in my opinion) that the bona fides of any seemingly contradictory evidence be established before that evidence is taken as credible.
On the contrary, the COLB answers ALL of the questions as far as eligibility (or at least natural born citizenship) goes…
She said the president posted a copy of his birth certificate online – she’s in a position to know whether or not the information on the image of the COLB was correct and she implied it was in sworn testimony. What is your evidence that she perjured herself? You like to talk about what reasonable people believe – reasonable people cannot read Dr. Fukino’s statements and testimony without concluding that she is confirming all of the information on the image of the COLB is correct or that she is perjuring herself, in my opinion.
Better than authenticating the picture shown on the internet, she has authenticated the INFORMATION that it contains – we know that Hawai’i has original vital records in its possession that list President Obama’s place of birth as Hawai’i. That is the only piece of information in their records which is relevant to eligibility (although the rest is interesting from a historical perspective – people are going to be talking about President Obama for hundreds of years and I doubt that the eligibility movement will merit much more than a footnote, but confirming that he was delivered by Dr. West – and hence his niece’s story – would be nice).
That’s all I had time for right now, I’ll continue later…
Slartibartfast comments:
“I don’t think that many people would agree with you that there is a moral imperative for President Obama to release further records regarding his past.”
Think what you want, I believe a man who pledges to bring change and hope should allow us the opportunity to understand where his change and hope is derived.
Don’t forget, it is OBAMA who said the more information the better.
Obama should release EVERYTHING, so that we can better understand him.
Slartibartfast next comments:
“Again, I don’t believe that many people share your view that there are significant unanswered questions.”
And so what you “believe” is good enough to keep the documents sealed? What does it matter about HOW MANY people are asking the questions, as long as they are legitimate and reasonable questions?
Slartibartfast continues:
“It is important to know what standards any evidence will meet and the standard of the courts is a good one because:
1. It is well-defined
2. The courts will ultimately decide this issue (by dismissing all of the cases, if nothing else)
3. It is a relatively high standard (lower standards of evidence lower the credibility of your conclusions)
4. The large body of past court rulings provides an extensive basis for making accurate predictions about how the court will behave in the future
5. Future court rulings allow for empirical testing of predictions regarding judicial behavior
6. It the standard by which compliance with the Constitution is judged – this is the only standard by which President Obama may be judged to be Constitutionally ineligible.”
When you use this form of answer, all you are doing is legitimizing hiding behind the law. To those of us out here who hadn’t heard of “standing” or the “de facto officer doctrine” before all of this mess started, it’s kind of like hiding behind your mother when someone comes to confront you.
The answer is simple, release the documents, and quit hiding behind a loophole for the elite in the law.
Slartibartfast goes on:
“It is just a convenient coincidence that:
7. It completely and unambiguously says that President Obama is a natural born citizen.”
Maybe the way YOU interpret the Constitution, and SC decisions, but when you can NOT state ONE case in which the SC defines “natural born citizen”, I again will comment that you are simply hiding behind the law.
Show me ONE SC decision that defines “natural born citizen”.
Slartibartfast comments:
“Juries don’t decide Constitutional issues, judges do – this is for roughly the same reason that operations on people’s brains are performed by neurosurgeons rather than randomly chosen passersby. I would note that in my opinion, you raise no legitimate questions regarding President Obama’s eligibility and that you have provided no evidence (nor has anyone else) that President Obama is ‘willfully’ concealing anything – his records are protected by the same laws and Constitution that apply to yours and there has been no evidence that he has spent any money whatsoever to conceal them further (what, exactly, do you allege that he has ‘willfully’ done?).”
Sure he has, the FACT is he could authorize their release and he by choice won’t do it. What other legitimate reason would he have for not voluntarily releasing the documents?
If they would be further evidence of his side of the story, a reasonable person would conclude that he would voluntarily release the documents.
Slartibartfast next comments:
“The answer is that President Obama has been judged to be eligible for his office according to the US Constitution by the same process that vetted his predecessors – a judgement which has been confirmed by the release of more information than any of his predecessors had provided. You just don’t like that answer…”
The FACT is that Obama hasn’t shown ALL of the evidence about his eligibility.
Slartibartfast continues:
“The evidence suggests he was not, but if he was it is unlikely that his name would have been changed (according to the Koran), extremely unlikely that he could have obtained Indonesian citizenship (since there is no evidence that he was physically present in Indonesia before his 5th birthday), and, in any case, it is impossible under US law for any Indonesian citizenship to have impacted his US citizenship in any way.”
The ONLY evidence we have is the school registration form which suggests Obama was “Soetoro” at the time of registration, and the Soetoro divorce papers, that name Obama as dependent on financial help from Lolo. Both is evidence that Soetoro adopted Obama. Is it CONCLUSIVE evidence? Absolutely not, but it’s the ONLY evidence we have to go on.
Slartibartfast goes on:
“It’s none of your business, but I’m guessing that if he took financial aid for foreigners it would have leaked out long ago – much to his detriment (or don’t you think that Chicago politicians do opposition research? I know the Clintons do…).”
IF Obama recieved US grants or scholorships for his education IT IS MY business. I have paid taxes since 1976, and if ONE PENNY of my money went to Obama’s education, then I have a RIGHT to know that it did, and from what “pot” it was taken from.
I love this “it’s none of your business” argument, because it shows your desperation.
Slartibartfast comments:
“Almost certainly US, as there is no indication that President Obama ever held another country’s passport, it is nearly certain that he has held a US passport (for travel to Indonesia – he was not on his mother’s passport and could not have legally obtained an Indonesian passport), there is evidence that there was tourist travel to Pakistan by US citizens in 1981 (NY Times travel article), and there is no evidence that he ever obtained at British/Kenyan passport or that he was entitled to obtain a passport from any other country after the age of 23. On what basis do you doubt that he used a US passport?”
Again, an assumption, or guess or the evidence suggests he was not answer to questions that could have CONCRETE answers which the President has CHOSEN to keep sealed.
Slartibartfast next comments:
“What is supposed to be wrong with his selective service form?”
Maybe you should read this:
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/4428/exclusive-did-next-commander-in-chief-falsify-selective-service-registration-never-actually-register-obamas-draft-registration-raises-serious-questions/comment-page-5/#comment-62105
Slartibartfast continues:
“No, they don’t. Eligibility is a legal and Constitutional issue – if you want to make assertions in court regarding the president’s eligibility, you must meet the legal burden of proof of the accuser. The eligibility movement has utterly failed to do this.”
You should actually read that response again.
What you are suggesting is that reasonable people are not allowed to ask the President legitimate and reasonable questions without dragging those questions in to a Court of Law.
It’s just amazing.
Slartibartfast goes on:
“You don’t get it – President Obama hasn’t shown fingerprint-type evidence, he has shown DNA-type evidence. It is so likely as to be nearly certain that President Obama is eligible, far above any standard required by the court. Such a high standard necessitates (in my opinion) that the bona fides of any seemingly contradictory evidence be established before that evidence is taken as credible.”
I would respectfully disagree with you. The COLB is like the a blood test was BEFORE DNA was discovered. The long form BC would be the DNA type evidence because there is so much more information there.
Slartibartfast comments:
“It is likely all of the evidence he has on hand (it is not the policy of the Hawai’i DOH to issue anything but a COLB in response to a request for a birth certificate) and certain that the additional evidence does not disagree with the information on the COLB (specifically, the long form will list Honolulu as his place of birth).”
But didn’t Obama write about finding his BC in some boxes or something? I’m positive that wasn’t a COLB, because they hadn’t issued COLB’s until 2001, and his book came out before then.
Good try though.
Slartibartfast next comments:
“On the contrary, the COLB answers ALL of the questions as far as eligibility (or at least natural born citizenship) goes.”
Maybe to you, but to me and the SC (which has NEVER ONCE defined what a “natural born citizen” is) there are still unanswered questions.
Slartibartfast continues:
“She said the president posted a copy of his birth certificate online – she’s in a position to know whether or not the information on the image of the COLB was correct and she implied it was in sworn testimony. What is your evidence that she perjured herself? You like to talk about what reasonable people believe – reasonable people cannot read Dr. Fukino’s statements and testimony without concluding that she is confirming all of the information on the image of the COLB is correct or that she is perjuring herself, in my opinion.”
And yet the director of HDoH’s boss can’t find his long form BC. Imagine that.
Slartibartfast goes on:
“The sworn testimony and public statements of the Hawai’i DOH official that had custody of the original.”
So are you suggesting that the HDoH director has authority to snoop through whomever’s birht certificate they want too, and release information as they choose?
Reading the statutes of Hawaii, I would think they applied to the HDoH director also.
Slartibartfast concludes:
“Better than authenticating the picture shown on the internet, she has authenticated the INFORMATION that it contains – we know that Hawai’i has original vital records in its possession that list President Obama’s place of birth as Hawai’i. That is the only piece of information in their records which is relevant to eligibility (although the rest is interesting from a historical perspective – people are going to be talking about President Obama for hundreds of years and I doubt that the eligibility movement will merit much more than a footnote, but confirming that he was delivered by Dr. West – and hence his niece’s story – would be nice).”
You see, here’s where you are absolutely wrong.
Dr Fukino simply “authenticated” the place of birth, not the parents listed and not the date or time given on the COLB.
Of course the place of birth is all that concerns you.
The President should willfully release the documents and save all of us folks asking the questions from having to drag this in to Court.
It is the RIGHT thing to do. It is the MORAL thing to do.
Him voluntarily keeping them sealed is strong evidence that he is hiding something.
He is “pleading the fifth” by doing so. He has a Constitutional right to do so, but “we the people” can take that in to account when forming our opinions.
Continuing on…
IB posted:
As I said upthread, I’ll provide references for anything you request – you can find information on the shoddy nature of their analyses here:
Techdude:
hackerfactor(dot)com/blog/index.php?/archives/210-Bad-Science-How-Not-To-Do-Image-Analysis.html
Ron Polland aka Dr. Polarik:
hackerfactor(dot)com/blog/index.php?/archives/235-Bad-Science-How-Not-To-Do-Image-Analysis-Part-II.html
Note: ‘Dr. Polarik’ is now known to be Ronald Polland. He has a Ph.D. but it is in Instructional Systems and he does not have the image analysis or forensic background he claimed. As for ‘TechDude’, here is his bio entry at the website badFiction:
I’ve never suggested that any law be applied inconsistently, I am merely trying to apply the same standard under this president as I was told to apply under the previous president. What’s wrong with that? Why do you think different standards should apply to President Obama? Why can’t you even bring yourself to show respect to the office and refer to him as ‘President Obama’? Even if he were found to have been ineligible and resigned (or was impeached and convicted) tomorrow, he is the president now and has been since Jan. 20th, 2009. The fantasies of some eligibility questioners that all of his acts as president would be invalidated if he were proven ineligible are just that – a fantasy. Anyone with any common sense at all understands that the government cannot work that way…
I’ll give you 10 lies (plus a bonus):
1. Dr. Polarik and Techdude both said that they were presenting forensic evidence that the COLB images were fraudulent – the only things that were fraudulent were their their analyses (and their credentials…).
2. The belief that Executive Order #13489 did anything to ‘seal’ President Obama’s records – as I have shown, it was a more transparent order than the one signed by President Bush and nearly identical to the standard under President Reagan.
3. The belief that there was a ban on travel to Pakistan in 1981 – a New York Times article from 1981 cautions tourists that visa are only good for 30 days – hardly a travel ban (nor were there any bans on travel to Pakistan during 1981 from the State Department).
4. The belief that Dr. Dunham gave up her US citizenship in either of her marriages – The response to Christopher Strunk’s FOIA request showed that Dr. Dunham maintained a US passport until the time of her death (with one lapse for under a year).
5. The myth of ‘Lt. Quarles Harris’ – This is a particularly good example of why the eligibility movement lacks credibility, in my opinion. I’m curious what you knew about Mr. Harris prior to now (I’m guessing that you didn’t know the truth…).
This is typical of how this incident was reported by the eligibility movement:
www(dot)oilforimmigration(dot)org/facts/?p=1492
and this is a more accurate and factually correct article:
barackryphal(dot)blogspot(dot)com/2010/09/birther-mythbusting-leiutenant-quarles.html
Since the person in question was named ‘Leiutenant[sic] Quarles Harris Jr.’ (apparently the descendant of two generations of people who had trouble with spelling…) and was not an officer in the military nor anywhere else, any mention of ‘Lt. Quarles Harris’ is itself a lie but, more importantly, there is absolutely no connection between the murder of this criminal (who was apparently giving the police information about his co-conspirators) and President Obama.
6. The belief that John McCain released his birth certificate.
7. The belief that the founders got the term ‘natural born citizen’ from the writings of de Vattel (in particular a translation of de Vattel that wasn’t available until AFTER the ratification of the Constitution or the original French which used the term ‘indigines’ NOT ‘natural born’) rather than American common law (which descended from English common law).
8. Several fake Kenyan (or Mombassan) birth certificates (meaning ALL that have come to light thus far) – If President Obama was born in Kenya why hasn’t anyone purchased an official copy of his BC as allowed by Kenyan law?
9. Everything Orly Taitz has said about President Obama’s Social Security number. (The most likely explanation for a Connecticut SS# is that President Obama’s zip code was 0xxxx and 9xxxx was a Connecticut zip code, but even the website where Orly’s investigator got the data on which she bases her claim says that it should be used with caution and verified – I could say ‘everything Orly Taitz has ever said regarding President Obama is a lie’ and be fairly close to 100% accurate…).
10. The belief that convicted felon Lakin’s trial had anything to do with President Obama’s eligibility (or should have). This is a particularly bad one – the military could not function under the logical conclusions of the assumptions used by the eligibility movement in this case.
And a bonus: The belief that the health care bill contained ‘death panels’ – the provision that was billed as ‘death panels’ (which was stripped out – to the detriment of the American people) was one that required that the government pay for consultations with your doctor about end of life care – if you (or your parents or grandparents) haven’t done this, you really should – families should know their loved ones wishes in case a situation arises where they can’t make decisions for themselves – but the government wont be paying for it thanks to right wing lies. (I know this isn’t related to eligibility, but I thought that I would throw it in anyway…)
As an example of how these lies keep being resurrected over and over again, this was posted yesterday at Dr. Kate’s View (in response to someone suggesting making a list of people the president has supposedly murdered):
All of these lies have been repeated over and over again on websites questioning President Obama’s eligibility. If you want to know why people wont take the questions that you consider reasonable seriously, you can ask those in the eligibility movement who have not only wasted every bit of credibility they personally had but have blown any credibility that the movement might have had as well.
I am certainly not putting you in that category and the fact that I am even allowed to post here speaks eloquently to the fact that Mr. Anderson does not belong in that category either, but that sort of speech is not evenly split (in particular – for obvious reasons – the seditious speech is all on your side). While there are certainly people on the Obot side who ridicule your side without making any substantive argument there are also people like me and Observer who patiently and politely explain our arguments and our evidence – what I have not seen on my side is anyone that can hold a candle to the filth the person known as ‘Lame Cherry’ puts on their blog.
Finally, I would note that the respectful way to refer to the POTUS is by title or name and title, not by name alone (just sayin’) and that referring to his mother by an unflattering first name rather than by her last name and title (Dr. Dunham) or at least the name she went by (Ann) could be considered somewhat less than fully respectful.
Slartibartfast starts:
“As I said upthread, I’ll provide references for anything you request – you can find information on the shoddy nature of their analyses here:”
I read the analyses, and as I stated above, I have not ever put much “weight” in what they found.
Honestly, we need to see the long form birth certificate to know whether Obama was born in Kapiolani, as he claims, or if the “story” is made up, you know like techdude’s or Polarik’s “story” of why the COLB is forged.
Slartibartfast comments:
“I wasn’t assuming – I was making a factual statement. Both Polarik and Techdude claimed to have forensic evidence that the online COLB image was fraudulent – they did not, in fact, have such evidence (and we have the sworn testimony of the custodian of these records saying that the image is a copy of the president’s birth certificate – implying that the image isn’t fraudulent). In short, they told lies. The implications of these lies were that the information on the image of the COLB was incorrect which would (presumably) indicate some sort of fraud on the part of Dr. Dunham, in other words these lies were about the president’s mother. I guess since Techdude disappeared before the election, he was ‘only’ trying to use lies to change the outcome of a democratic election, but ‘Dr. Polarik’ has continued his efforts since the election, so he has clearly been attempting to foment a coup (trying to overthrow the government by unlawful means).”
Give me a break about trying to “overthrow the Government” stuff. This is a desperate attempt on your part, it’s that simple.
You know when you go to Court over 70 times simply asking the President to release a few pieces of paper to answer legitimate questions, and the Court tells you that you have no “right” to see the answers, then you make people mad, and sometimes they comment things that they shouldn’t.
I’m kind of surprised that YOU have stooped to that level.
Slartibartfast continues:
“For most of the Bush administration I was told that patriotic Americans support their president in a time of war. And I did – even though I believed at the time that the war in Iraq was a horrible mistake and in retrospect it is clear that President Bush is a war criminal (I highly doubt that he will ever be prosecuted, but the precedents are clear – the US has executed people for the crime of waterboarding) and I believe that he will go down in history as the worst US president ever. It is clear that our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are both consistent with the word ‘war’ and that is what is used colloquially – I was never told that I only had to support my president if a war was declared by Congress. It’s not my fault that most of the people saying these sorts of things were blatant hypocrites and have admitted themselves to be unpatriotic by their own definition (Sean Hannity would be the poster child for this group, in my opinion). All I’m asking for is consistent standards.”
YOU are the one who wants to stick to the “letter” of the law, not me. All I’m asking for is consistency on YOUR part. Don’t claim we can’t see the documents because of something called “standing” or the “de facto officer doctrine” and then claim we are “at war”, when no war has been declared by Congress.
And the “Bush is a war criminal” argument is just as desperate as your “overthrow the Government” crap above.
I have got to respond to this:
“the US has executed people for the crime of waterboarding”
This is an out and out lie. NOT ONE person has been executed because they waterboarded anyone. I researched this accusation when it was spouted a long time ago, and found that evidence was presented about waterboarding in a couple of trials, but the evidence of other “torture” was offered also.
What you suggest in your comment is wrong. What you suggest is the ONLY reason these people were executed was because of waterboarding, and that’s simply NOT the case. It was a FACTOR in the cases, but it wasn’t the only evidence given about torture in the cases.
You must think you are debating with someone who hasn’t researched accusations.
Show me ONE case where ANYONE was executed solely on evidence the defendent waterboarded.
I’ll give you some help here, you won’t find that case. Or maybe I should comment that I haven’t found ANY case where waterboarding was the ONLY evidence presented at a trial where a man or woman was executed.
Slartibartfast next comments:
“I’ve never suggested that any law be applied inconsistently, I am merely trying to apply the same standard under this president as I was told to apply under the previous president. What’s wrong with that? Why do you think different standards should apply to President Obama?”
Because the circumstances surrounding Obama is different, that’s why.
Slartibartfast goes on:
“Why can’t you even bring yourself to show respect to the office and refer to him as ‘President Obama’?”
I believe I am VERY respectful to our President. I ALWAYS refer to him a Mr President, or President, or Obama, and I see nothing wrong with that.
Sorry if I hurt your “feelings” by not referring to him in the way you want, but THAT’s what makes us individuals. I don’t call our President names or “slangs” as I see on a whole lot of other blogs, I don’t bring “race” in to the argument, and I don’t believe I am in any way being disrespectful to our President when I refer to him by Obama.
Slartibartfast comments:
“Even if he were found to have been ineligible and resigned (or was impeached and convicted) tomorrow, he is the president now and has been since Jan. 20th, 2009.”
And IF the documents show he was NOT eligible to hold the office he now holds, then he would have been a USURPER, and NOT the legal President.
Slartibartfast continues:
“The fantasies of some eligibility questioners that all of his acts as president would be invalidated if he were proven ineligible are just that – a fantasy. Anyone with any common sense at all understands that the government cannot work that way…”
You know this is just a bunch of crap.
IF it is found Obama is ineligible be President, there would be a whole bunch of crap hitting the fan.
ALL of his appointments, and the decisions of those appointees would be called in to question, to include BOTH Supreme Court Justices that Obama nominated.
There is NO WAY the American people would allow ANYTHING this Administration proposed and got passed to be deemed valid.
My belief is that ALL of the legislation signed in to law, that was NOT passed by 2/3 majority of the Congress would be found to be invalid.
Slartibartfast next comments:
“Lying in an effort to overthrow the Constitution and oust the lawful president is appropriate?”
It is a possibility that what you comment here is exactly what you call a “lawful President” may have done.
I mean by that, that Obama may have “overthrown the Constitution” to be the “lawful President”.
Of course we don’t know, because he has CHOSEN to keep the questions unanswered by keeping the documents sealed.
As I commented above, what Obama has done is plead the “5th”, which he has a Constitutional right to do, but we can take that in to account when coming to our conclusions about the President also.
Slartibartfast goes on:
“I disagree. And there is no evidence of the President’s natural born status which you have not seen – he’s natural born according to US law if he was born in the US and we already know that the long form says this.”
Again, we don’t know if “natural born” refers to ANYONE born in the United States. What you suggest is that an “anchor baby” could one day grow up to become President. I don’t believe that the Founders would agree with that.
THAT’s why I have always asked for the SC to define “natural born” once and for all.
Slartibartfast comments:
“1. Dr. Polarik and Techdude both said that they were presenting forensic evidence that the COLB images were fraudulent – the only things that were fraudulent were their their analyses (and their credentials…).”
I denounce the findings of both men.
Slartibartfast continues:
“2. The belief that Executive Order #13489 did anything to ‘seal’ President Obama’s records – as I have shown, it was a more transparent order than the one signed by President Bush and nearly identical to the standard under President Reagan.”
“Nearly identical” is one of those “catch phrases” which means that it is NOT identical.
I believe that the EO Obama signed allows for him and him alone to decide what is released, even IF the former Presdient asks that they remain sealed. THAT’s how I read the EO.
So, I would respectfully disagree with you, and believe that this EO allows Obama to keep the documents sealed until a Judge orders them released.
Slartibartfast next comments:
“3. The belief that there was a ban on travel to Pakistan in 1981 – a New York Times article from 1981 cautions tourists that visa are only good for 30 days – hardly a travel ban (nor were there any bans on travel to Pakistan during 1981 from the State Department).”
The belief that US citizens were banned from traveling to Pakistan in 1981 is not true, and I have not used that argument.
Slartibartfast goes on:
“4. The belief that Dr. Dunham gave up her US citizenship in either of her marriages – The response to Christopher Strunk’s FOIA request showed that Dr. Dunham maintained a US passport until the time of her death (with one lapse for under a year).”
We simply do not KNOW if Stanley became an Indonesian citizen. The response to Strunk’s request was incomplete, and we honestly do not know if ALL of the documents pertaining to Stanley were released. We know that the passport information for around the time Obama was born has been “destroyed”. (and I’m more than willing to debate those “circumstances” also, because I have read the requested documents over and over, and I find it hard to believe that if the passport information was destroyed by order of a directive which stated that the documents should have been destroyed each YEAR, and not just once back in 1985 or whenever it was). So really if you want to get “technical”, we shouldn’t have had ANY passport information on Stanley before 1987 or so, because of the 15/20 year requirement from the directive that ordered the documents destroyed. IF that were the case, then I could see where they would be destroyed, because of the directive, but because we have documents from 40 years ago, then I have to question whether this “memo” that is used to justify the documents being destroyed is legitimate or not.
You do NOT fight for 20 years to get permission to destory documents, and then when you get permission to do so, you only purge the documents ONCE?
Seems kind of fishy to me.
Slartibartfast comments:
“5. The myth of ‘Lt. Quarles Harris’ – This is a particularly good example of why the eligibility movement lacks credibility, in my opinion. I’m curious what you knew about Mr. Harris prior to now (I’m guessing that you didn’t know the truth…).”
All I know is that someone was found dead in DC that was involved in the accessing of passport records issue back in 2008 or 2007.
Not sure what this has to do with eligibility?
I guess I haven’t followed this issue very closely. I try to stick to FACTS, which is why it’s hard for you to legitimize Obama keeping his documents sealed.
Ok, I read BOTH articles, and although I can not come to a conclusion as far as this issue, I will again comment that I do not put much “weight” on this issue, although I’d like to see some follow up on what happened with the accessing of Clinton’s, McCain’s and Obama’s passport files.
Unless these documents were altered when they were accessed (which I am NOT suggesting happened), then I don’t see this being an eligibility issue.
Slartibartfast continues:
“6. The belief that John McCain released his birth certificate.”
I may be wrong, but I remember reading an article where McCain met with reporters and put his BC on the table for them to look at.
I may be wrong, but it has no connection to whether Obama is eligible or not.
This is a ploy by your side to change subjects. IF McCain were President, we could have this debate.
This has NOTHING to do with Obama’s eligibility.
Slartibartfast next comments:
“7. The belief that the founders got the term ‘natural born citizen’ from the writings of de Vattel (in particular a translation of de Vattel that wasn’t available until AFTER the ratification of the Constitution or the original French which used the term ‘indigines’ NOT ‘natural born’) rather than American common law (which descended from English common law).”
To me, it matters not where the term came from, but the MEANING of the term “natural born citizen”.
It is THE reason the Founders created the Supreme Court. Why they won’t take up the case, and define the term once and for all, simply baffles me.
Slartibartfast goes on:
“8. Several fake Kenyan (or Mombassan) birth certificates (meaning ALL that have come to light thus far) – If President Obama was born in Kenya why hasn’t anyone purchased an official copy of his BC as allowed by Kenyan law?”
I denounce any references to Kenyan birth certificates.
My theory is that IF Obama was born out of Country, he was more than likely born in the city just over the border of Seatle Washington, because we know Stanley was in Washington State when Obama was weeks old.
I have no evidence to back up my theory, but that’s why it’s a THEORY, and I state it as such, and please don’t EVER try to claim that I stated Obama was born in Canada, because I haven’t.
Slartibartfast comments:
“9. Everything Orly Taitz has said about President Obama’s Social Security number. (The most likely explanation for a Connecticut SS# is that President Obama’s zip code was 0xxxx and 9xxxx was a Connecticut zip code, but even the website where Orly’s investigator got the data on which she bases her claim says that it should be used with caution and verified – I could say ‘everything Orly Taitz has ever said regarding President Obama is a lie’ and be fairly close to 100% accurate…).”
All I know about Obama’s social security number is that is was supposedly reserved for folks from Connecticut, and I’d like to hear how Obama came to have that social security number, but again, this has NOTHING to do with Obama’s eligibility, at least in my opinion, and I put no “weight” on this issue when coming to conclusions about why Obama won’t release the documents.
I denounce ANYONE who uses this as part of evidence Obama isn’t a “natural born citizen”.
Slartibartfast continues:
“10. The belief that convicted felon Lakin’s trial had anything to do with President Obama’s eligibility (or should have). This is a particularly bad one – the military could not function under the logical conclusions of the assumptions used by the eligibility movement in this case.”
Lakin’s case was ONLY about Obama’s eligibility. After exhausing EVERY means given under the regulations of the Military, Lakin had no choice but to seek answers in a Court.
The COURT didn’t allow Lakin to put on a defense (unlike of course those detained in GITMO, where EVERYHTING was allowed to be presented, and the jury convicted on only ONE count).
So a detainee, who is not even an American citizen receives more “help” from our Courts than a decorated serviceman who simply asked questions, and was told to “mind your own business”.
As I commented above, Lakin is a man of character and morals. He stood up for what he believed was right, even though it cost him his career.
I believe that IF the documents are realeased, and Obama is found NOT to be eligible to hold the office, Lakin ought to be the one who gets to slap the cuffs on Obama, and parade him out of the White House.
IF the documents are released an show Obama IS eligible, all we can do is ask “Why wasn’t they released BEFORE it cost us all of this money and some people their careers?’
Slartibartfast next comments:
“And a bonus: The belief that the health care bill contained ‘death panels’ – the provision that was billed as ‘death panels’ (which was stripped out – to the detriment of the American people) was one that required that the government pay for consultations with your doctor about end of life care – if you (or your parents or grandparents) haven’t done this, you really should – families should know their loved ones wishes in case a situation arises where they can’t make decisions for themselves – but the government wont be paying for it thanks to right wing lies. (I know this isn’t related to eligibility, but I thought that I would throw it in anyway…)”
Let me comment this:
DEATH PANELS are in the Health Care bill.
But I will also comment that this is a debate we can have at another time.
Be glad to debate you on this, but not here, this is about Obama’s eligibility.
Slartibartfast goes on:
“All of these lies have been repeated over and over again on websites questioning President Obama’s eligibility. If you want to know why people wont take the questions that you consider reasonable seriously, you can ask those in the eligibility movement who have not only wasted every bit of credibility they personally had but have blown any credibility that the movement might have had as well.”
I hope I have shown you that I do NOT spout most of the “lies” you contend are lies, but a couple of what you claim are “lies” simply aren’t “lies”. (like the Lakin issue which was ALWAYS about Obama’s eligibility, until of course the COURTS didn’t allow Lakin to put on his defense)
Slartibartfast comments:
“I am certainly not putting you in that category and the fact that I am even allowed to post here speaks eloquently to the fact that Mr. Anderson does not belong in that category either, but that sort of speech is not evenly split (in particular – for obvious reasons – the seditious speech is all on your side). While there are certainly people on the Obot side who ridicule your side without making any substantive argument there are also people like me and Observer who patiently and politely explain our arguments and our evidence – what I have not seen on my side is anyone that can hold a candle to the filth the person known as ‘Lame Cherry’ puts on their blog.”
I would claim that IF Obama would release the documents, and they show him to be INeligible, then the “sedition” would have been from YOUR side, and all our side was doing was asking questions, and when those questions went ignored by the person who could answer the questions, or the Courts who refuse to allow us access to the documents, then some people get “fed up” when all we are doing is asking questions, and being ignored.
Sure some folks are going to become upset, and comment things that shouldn’t be commented, but as long as no ACTION is taken, then we still have freedom of speech, and we can debate as to how far that “freedom” is given, but again, this isn’t the place for that debate.
I will comment that I find it hard to believe that hurting someone’s feelings now by words, is now illegal.
Same as I believe that a crime committed by someone is a crime, no matter what is spouted by the criminal, and ALL crimes should be determined on the CRIME, and not what was said during the crime.
I don’t understand why it is MORE of a crime when something is “said” during the crime.
But again, we can debate that further at another time, if you wish.
I will state that I HAVE commented on other blogs (Lame Cherry beng one, Obambi being another one), that I DO NOT agree with everything posted there, although you can’t judge the whole site on what SOME people comment.
I commented under the name of Interested Bystander, and have NOT used any other names when commenting.
Slartibartfast concludes:
“Finally, I would note that the respectful way to refer to the POTUS is by title or name and title, not by name alone (just sayin’) and that referring to his mother by an unflattering first name rather than by her last name and title (Dr. Dunham) or at least the name she went by (Ann) could be considered somewhat less than fully respectful.”
Let me comment this, you can refer to Obama any way you want, and I can do the same. I don’t use ANY derogatory terms when referring to the President OR his mother. Her name is STANLEY, and there’s nothing wrong with calling her STANLEY.
I don’t refer to Obama as Soetoro, even though THAT may be his LEGAL name (of course we don’t know, because he won’t release his long form birth certificate, which if “altered” would have a notation on the document stating as such). But IF I chose to use that name for him, I don’t think you could comment that I was being disrespectful either, because it COULD be his legal name.
YOU and no one else can tell me what to call the President.
I believe I am being MORE than respectful to our President.
IF I was standing in front of President Obama, I would probably refer to him as “Sir”, or if I was referring to his mother, I WOULD call her Stanley, and I would be RIGHT in doing so.
Please do NOT try to “teach” me how to be respectful.
Mr. Anderson,
Some new information has come to light that totally annihilates your argument that a natural born citizen can’t have dual allegiances or be created by law.
It turns out that there are a bunch of natural born citizens of France (and likely other) nations who are unquestionably eligible to be POTUS (assuming they are 35 years old and have resided in the US for 14 years).
As I have pointed out in the past, we have already had one French citizen as president (Thomas Jefferson), but he wasn’t a natural born Frenchman. His buddy, The Marquis de La Fayette, however, was. In addition, on 28 December 1784, the Maryland General Assembly passed a resolution stating that Lafayette and his male heirs “forever shall be… natural born Citizens” of the state. This made him a natural born citizen of the United States under the Articles of Confederation and as defined in Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution (President Jefferson offered him the Governorship of Louisiana in 1803 and 1804, by the way – those damn Frenchies conspiring to take over the country!). Would Lafayette have been eligible to run for the presidency? Unquestionably (via the grandfather clause). Would his son, Georges Washington Lafayette, (born on French soil with full French citizenship) have been eligible for the presidency? Assuming that he was over 35 years of age and had resided in the US for 14 years, the answer is again unquestionably yes. In 1932 René de Chambrun established his natural born American citizenship based on his descent from Lafayette. Mr. Chambrun would have been eligible to run for the presidency against FDR during World War II and he could have run against President Bush and Vice-President Gore in 2000 – and every election in between (assuming he met the residency requirement). You might reflect on the name of the park just across Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House, or the reason that Lafayette was awarded the same funerary honors as George Washington and John Adams and a US flag has flown over his Parisian grave continuously since 1917. I wonder how many male descendants of Lafayette are around today?
Will you now admit that your ‘dual allegiance’ requirement has no basis in fact or will you dishonor the gratitude of our founders to one of the greatest heroes of the American Revolution?
Kevin Kesseler (aka Slartibartfast, aka Agent Smith),
You are being more than intellectually dishonest! Have you no shame?
Jefferson, like La Fayette, had honorary citizenship. Of course you knew that, and it can easily be pointed out where you discussed it in detail.
Honorary citizenship has nothing to do with allegiance or duty.
And I bet you still wonder why people don’t trust the scientific community. Lying by ommission is still lying. Should you ever acquire a position where the honesty of your research would be significantly important, I would be happy to share you attempts at obfuscation with your employer.
Mr. Anderson,
Do you feel that AcroBat’s threat is appropriate for your blog?
AcroBat,
In 1932 the court said that René de Chambrun’s citizenship (based on Lafayette’s) was real. I stand by everything I’ve said – that’s why I have never made a secret of my real name on this blog or any other. People can judge my arguments on their merits and I’m sure any potential employers will judge me based upon my abilities and performance rather than the anonymous ravings of a conspiracy theorist. Thank you for illustrating the point I was making to IB about the despicable tactics that some members of the eligibility movement are willing to sink to.
IB,
What do you think of AcroBat’s threat?
Kevin Kesseler (aka Slartibartfast, aka Agent Smith),
Not only will you stoop to lying by omission, but you will demonstrate your lack of legal knowledge by insisting that a act of state legislature can remove or completely eliminate birth alienage.
If you want to pretend that a Court of Appeals determined René de Chambrun’s citizenship you’re gonna have to cite a case and provide an opinion. A New York Times article is insufficient.
You don’t seem to understand the difference between a threat and a promise. We already have enough “scientists” who will sell their souls for a grant. Notification of a reputable employer concerning the demonstrated integrity of their employee is THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
I’ll be happy to provide that employer with my real name.
Acrobat you mentioned that Jefferson’s honorary citizenship had little to do with his allegiance or duty. The problem with that is the reason why Jefferson stepped down as Secretary of State. Not only did Jefferson have honorary French Citizenship but he also showed a divided allegiance and duty with the French. At the time he was Secretary of State Jefferson immersed himself pretty heavily in the French revolutionary movement and helped to write their constitution. So I posit that not only did he have a dual citizenship (honorary or not) but as an adult he also had dual loyalties to America and the French.
Now here’s the problem with most birthers. Where can they show that Obama had any kind of divided allegiance at birth? He had dual citizenship based only on another country’s laws but at birth there was no dual allegiance. Nowhere did Obama show a dual allegiance to Kenya and America but rather a singular Allegiance to America. If Dual Citizenship were any kind of hindrance to the Presidency or Vice Presidency Chester A Arthur would have never been president and Spiro Agnew, as corrupt as he was, never would have been Vice President.
Many countries deem children of nationals to be citizens at birth and decedents of such as well. By birther logic we should never have a President with Polish, Greek, Jewish, or Italian heritage. That’s a rather large block of the population you are excluding by no fault of their own.
Noisewater,
1.) Jefferson was among those who were an exception to the natural-born citizen clause. He already had divided allegiance (British/U.S.). That is why the framers decided that the preferred President should have only one allegiance from birth.
2.) Birther don’t need to prove anything about Obama’s allegiance. A constitutional mandate is just that…a mandate. Why do you want to make it about ‘Well, he doesn’t seem divided?’
3.) Chester Authur hid the details of his birth. For over two years now the information has been available. You should educate yourself.
“Many countries deem children of nationals to be citizens at birth and decedents of such as well. By birther logic we should never have a President with Polish, Greek, Jewish, or Italian heritage. That’s a rather large block of the population you are excluding by no fault of their own.”
No. That’s stupid Obot logic that they try to attribute to birthers. Birthers consider a child born on this soil, or parents who are citizens, to be sufficient. Barack Obama is the first to hold that office when the citizenship of his parents was public knowledge.
Your claim about Agnew is a repeated lie. Go find Agnew’s father’s court record where he took the oath of citizenship. If you can demonstrate that it was after 1918 we have something to discuss. The recording of a census taker is not a document of citizenship. You can pass that along to Loren.
To the owner of this blog:
I would appreciate it if you would make clear your policy regarding threats on your site such as the one that AcroBat made. Thank you.
An anonymous and spiteful person of great ignorance and very little wit posted:
As this tactic of identifying and threatening people who consider President Obama to be legitimate seems to have something to do with the Fogbow, I’d like to make the following clear: I have an account at Politijab which I have never used – this resulted in my having an account at the Fogbow, from which I made several comments before being distracted by something shiny and wandering away. I don’t know who in the eligibility movement was outed on the Fogbow or for what reason, but I think that the tactic of involuntarily outing anyone is inappropriate no matter who is using it. However, I haven’t seen any evidence of threats being made on the Fogbow while I have personally been the object of your threats – to me, this is a much more serious matter. I don’t know if you are who I suspect you to be (the individual who posted under the name ‘KenyanBornObamAcorn’ and was banned over at Doc Conspiracy’s blog for posting people’s alleged identities), but both the posts of that individual and yours have both shown independently that whoever posted them is a petty, vindictive person who is desperate to defend their false beliefs (which cannot compete on their non-existent merits) by any means necessary. If you can defend your point of view by rational debate, please do so, but don’t believe that you will intimidate me with incorrect facts and anonymous threats.
Acrobat posts:
You packed quite a bit of misinformation into a short comment – a tour de force of intellectual dishonesty…
Kevin,
1) You voluntarily revealed your identity in this comment.
2) AcroBat’s “threat” to you consisted of the following:
3) I thought the following portion of your response was appropriate:
4) I thought other portions of your response were inappropriate. Please refrain from ad hominem attacks. You may feel that AcroBat’s comment was a threat/ad hominem attack, but I don’t see it that way. You should be able to defend any comment that you make, and you should be able to do so without resorting to name-calling.
5) Although I generally block people who try to post under multiple personas, I was OK with you playfully going by “Agent Smith” (to go along with the Matrix theme) when you were up front about it and made it clear that you were both “Slartibartfast” and “Agent Smith”. I am not OK with you also going by “John Doe”. Please stick to one persona.
6) For family reasons, I have been “offline” the last few weekends, and expect that to continue into the near future. I can’t moderate every quarrel that comes up between commenters. AcroBat was challenging your integrity, but not threatening your person.
7) As to the Presidential eligibility debate, I have debated this issue for over 2 and a half years. The issue will not be resolved on this blog. It will be resolved in the Legislative and Judicial branches of our government. What I seek now are the same two things I have sought for over 2 and a half years:
Kevin Kesseler (aka Slartibartfast, aka Agent Smith, aka John Doe),
You would do well to remain in a forum where the support of your “friends” will provide you with benefit that “facts” do not. Displays of ignorance and bias from someone who attempts to use their credentials for support are always going to backfire when that person’s beliefs are not backed up by facts. The omission of pertinent information (that would change the outcome of research) is something that cannot be tolerated in the scientific community. Your repeated use of such tactics indicates that you should not be considered a reliable person to perform scientific research.
Let me provide you with a recent example:
On Feb 6th at 3:54 PM, you (posting as Agent Smith) stated;
“In addition, on 28 December 1784, the Maryland General Assembly passed a resolution stating that Lafayette and his male heirs “forever shall be… natural born Citizens” of the state”.
I didn’t insert the … YOU DID
The important part of your comment is not in what you quoted, but in what you chose to omit. Yes, the “…” portion of the quote you selected. It betrays your ignorance. It is what permits you to arrive at conclusions like “I believe that Lafayette was a natural born citizen”, that you posted over at Dr. Conspiracy’s site. Here’s a link; http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/02/the-outing-of-dr-conspiracy/#comment-90544
Why is that a typical demonstration of ignorance? Because the portion of the quote that you left out is the IMPORTANT PART. Here’s the full quote:
“Whereas, the General Assembly of the State of Maryland is desirous of perpetuating a name so dear to all, and to recognize the Marquis La Fayette for one of its own citizens; one who, at the age of eighteen, left his country, risked his life in the vicissitudes of the revolution. Therefore it is declared by the General Assembly of Maryland, that the Marquis La Fayette, and his male descendants forever, shall be, and each is hereby acknowledged, and held as citizens born in this State, and henceforth shall enjoy the rights, privileges and immunities of natural born citizens; provided that he conform himself to the constitution, and laws of this State.”
As you can plainly see, Maryland (prior to ratifying the Constitution, in which the power of “naturalization” was turned over to the federal government) had created a perpetual act of naturalization wherein, like other naturalized citizens, La Fayette and his male descendents were to be considered citizens (not natural born citizens as you attempt to claim by omission of the pertinent portion). And like all other citizens, they would enjoy the rights, liberties and privileges that are enjoyed by natural born citizens. This is no different that the naturalization of others in other states who would enjoy the same.
Further, if merely being born in the state would make one a natural born citizen, there would have been no need for the General Assembly to go any further than saying “each is hereby acknowledged, and held as citizens born in this State”. But they didn’t stop there. They knew that just being born in the state didn’t make you a natural born citizen. That’s why they had to go further and say that it would make him virtually the same as a natural born citizen.
Don’t believe me? Here’s Massachusetts from 1786
http://books.google.com/books?id=_X8QAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA508&dq=%22natural+born+citizen%22&hl=en&ei=WVRQTZqWB8Gs8AaQ3uzzDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22natural%20born%20citizen%22&f=false
In your same comment from obamaconspiracy.org (linked above), you again try to play the game that there was a Court of Appeals decision determining Chambrun’s citizenship. Though you again failed to provide the case or opinion of the court to support it. You rely solely on the statement of “Paraphonia” whose letter to the editor was published by the Times.
I suggest you get your facts straight before you decide to return. If you don’t I’ll chew you up again. You words never could stand on their own merit.
You don’t know who I am because I never told you. Unlike you, I only need my words (and the links to historical records) to support my position.
Now run off and so some research. Until you do, I’ll continue to point out the flaws in your claims.
BTW: I am not KenyanBornObamAcorn; nor have I ever posted anything anywhere as KenyanBornObamAcorn.
For any of the readers who have finished laughing long enough to seriously consider the above statements made by Kevin Kesseler
“Would Lafayette have been eligible to run for the presidency? Unquestionably (via the grandfather clause). Would his son, Georges Washington Lafayette, (born on French soil with full French citizenship) have been eligible for the presidency? Assuming that he was over 35 years of age and had resided in the US for 14 years, the answer is again unquestionably yes. In 1932 René de Chambrun established his natural born American citizenship based on his descent from Lafayette. Mr. Chambrun would have been eligible to run for the presidency against FDR during World War II and he could have run against President Bush and Vice-President Gore in 2000 – and every election in between (assuming he met the residency requirement). You might reflect on the name of the park just across Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House, or the reason that Lafayette was awarded the same funerary honors as George Washington and John Adams and a US flag has flown over his Parisian grave continuously since 1917. I wonder how many male descendants of Lafayette are around today?”
Here’s what the State Department has to say:
“Honorary citizenship [what LaFayette and his descendent would have allegedly had] DOES NOT carry with it the rights and privileges of
ordinary citizenship, and such status does not confer any special entry,
travel or immigration benefits upon the honoree or the honoree’s
relatives and dependants. It also does not impose additional duties or
responsibilities, in the United States or internationally, on the honoree. It
is a strictly symbolic act. No oath is required.”
“Honorary U.S. citizens are not eligible for U.S. regular, official, or
diplomatic passports or passport cards.”
Click to access 86761.pdf
So the people who Kesseler believes to be eligible to the Office of President (according to the State Department) could not even get a U.S. passport. Why is it that I don’t find that to be surprising?
Acrobate said: Noisewater,
1.) Jefferson was among those who were an exception to the natural-born citizen clause. He already had divided allegiance (British/U.S.). That is why the framers decided that the preferred President should have only one allegiance from birth.
———————————————
And how exactly would a child who never set foot in the country of his father, never swore an oath to Kenya and when it came time he let his citizenship lapse somehow have allegiance? Allegiance is based on where you’re born and where you choose to reside. The founding fathers said nothing about not being able to have dual citizenship and Chester A. Arthur and Spiro Agnew both prove that wasn’t the case.
——
Acrobat said: 2.) Birther don’t need to prove anything about Obama’s allegiance. A constitutional mandate is just that…a mandate. Why do you want to make it about ‘Well, he doesn’t seem divided?’
——————–
If you’re making a claim that somehow Obama had dual allegiances and that the laws of another country somehow excluded him from the president it is inherent upon you to prove it. History and him being president kind of destroys your point. It’s not that he “doesn’t seem divided” its that he wasn’t divided. He made a clear choice to allow his kenyan citizenship to lapse.
—
Acrobat said: 3.) Chester Authur hid the details of his birth. For over two years now the information has been available. You should educate yourself.
—————————–
Educate myself how? By going to birther blogs with totally incorrect information? The book that failure lawyer dinofrio refers to “Gentleman Boss” by Thomas Reeves does not have a page 2365 as its only a 500 page book. There is no reference in the book to Arthur supposedly burning all his papers. Dinofrio made up the claim.
If you read that biography as Dinofrio claimed he did you would have read about how the Democrats hired a lawyer to go about trying to prove Arthur ineligible. New York lawyer Arthur P. Hinman went about trying to prove rumors about Arthur being born in Ireland or outside the US. You’d think for a guy so intent to prove that Arthur was ineligible would have checked the immigration status of the father if he actually thought it mattered. The fact is they knew about Arthur’s father, congress knew about it and if it really mattered a bigger stink would have been made.
—-
Acrobat said: No. That’s stupid Obot logic that they try to attribute to birthers. Birthers consider a child born on this soil, or parents who are citizens, to be sufficient. Barack Obama is the first to hold that office when the citizenship of his parents was public knowledge.
—————
Really that’s stupid “obot” logic? So you guys have never said anything about “dual allegiances” or dual citizenship disqualifying people? You said it in your previous reply. The fact is that if we followed your arguments to their end that would be what would happen. Greece gives citizenship at birth to anyone born of Greek Parents. Same thing with Poland. So by your logic anyone born of Greek or Polish immigrants regardless of their citizenship status would automatically be disqualified because of the “dual allegiances” at birth. The fact is that there is no requirement for birth on us soil to two citizen parents. The constitution doesn’t say such and no court has determined that is the sole way to be NBC.
—
Acrobat said: Your claim about Agnew is a repeated lie. Go find Agnew’s father’s court record where he took the oath of citizenship. If you can demonstrate that it was after 1918 we have something to discuss. The recording of a census taker is not a document of citizenship. You can pass that along to Loren.
——————–
Its not a “repeated lie” I was talking about Agnew being a dual citizen at birth. He held both Greek and American citizenship at birth because of his father.
So using what you’ve already said, Agnew would have dual allegiances at birth and would have been disqualified from serving. He wasn’t.
Acrobat said: So the people who Kesseler believes to be eligible to the Office of President (according to the State Department) could not even get a U.S. passport. Why is it that I don’t find that to be surprising?
—————-
Actually if you knew any bit of history you would know that Lafayette would have been grandfathered in. When the state assembly made Lafayette a citizen they did so under their sovereign power. You have to remember the Articles of Confederation that the country was under at the time was different than the Constitution we lived under today. So a state legislative body giving citizenship would be binding as the state had sovereign power of who to make citizens. When the Constitution was ratified those citizens of the state automatically became citizens of the United States. Lafayette would have been eligible to run for President if he decided to back then.
AcroBat Says:
“Don’t believe me? Here’s Massachusetts from 1786”
Thanks for the link, tell me what do you think of the following,
In 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ALEXANDER MOORE, AND OTHERS Herein Named”. in which it was declared that Alexander Moore and others “…shall be deemed, adjudged, & taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and immunities of natural born subjects.” This act was passed on November 16, 1787.
So here are some questions, assume for a moment that Mr. Moore and others were not born in the United States, but immigrated here after 1783.
Would they be grandfathered in by the Constitution, even though they are foreign born?
Why did the Massachesutts legislature use the term “natural born subjects” in 1787?
ITOOKTHEREDPILL,
I hope your family matters are getting resolved in a positive way.
I had some questions for you. On January 26, 2011 at 1:00 pm, you linked to a December, 2008 article that you wrote,
“Natural Born Citizen vs. Native Born Citizen”, in which you say “There is a difference between being a ”natural” born citizen versus just a “native” born citizen.”
My question is when did the definitions change?
When the Constitution was written, the understanding was that “natural born’ equaled “native born”. For example,
James Iredell, “No man but a native, or who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen President.” North Carolina Debate on the Constitution, July, 1788
James Iredell was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Washington.
James Kent, “As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States” (Commentaries on American Law, 1826).
James Kent was appointed by New York Governor John Jay to the New York Chancery.
St. George Tucker, “That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague.” (View of the Constitution, 1803).
St. George Tucker was a Revolutionary War hero, wounded at the battle of Yorktown. He was appointed by President Madison to be a United States District Court judge.
Even as late as 1856 the definitions were still the same, “The framers of the Constitution incorporated into that instrument the principle of nativism. They laid down the landmarks by which future generations were to be guided. They declared by that solemn compact, that the President of the United States should be a native born citizen, and, as consequent truths, which necessarily follow from this principle, they established…” IMMIGRATION: ITS EVILS AND CONSEQUENCES.
And in 1888, the school children were being taught,
“In this clause “natural born” is usually construed to mean native born, or born within the jurisdiction of the United States. Following this construction, a person born in territory not a part of the United States would not be eligible as a candidate for the office of President if that territory should at any time subsequent to his birth be admitted into the Union as a State. The candidate must have been born a citizen. Thus, a person made a citizen because of any act of Congress is not a “natural-born citizen of the United States.” Observe that two restrictions are placed upon a native-born citizen; namely, he must have reached the age of thirtyfive years, and have resided within the United States for fourteen years next preceding his election.”
So when were the two terms separated?
Also, if you have the time could you read the questions I asked AcroBat and tell me what you think.
Bob Ross,
You have a point. The Marquis de La Fayette may have been considered to be eligible. The determination would probably have relied upon whether or not Maryland had intended him to have honorary citizenship or naturalized citizenship. It could be that the act that bestowed citizenship upon La Fayette was considered to be nothing more than honorary. Did the Maryland Constitution require naturalized citizens to swear an oath of allegiance?
gorefan
“In 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ALEXANDER MOORE, AND OTHERS Herein Named”. in which it was declared that Alexander Moore and others “…shall be deemed, adjudged, & taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and immunities of natural born subjects.” This act was passed on November 16, 1787.”
Did you just make that up or have you tried it somewhere else before? Did you really expect me to be baited by bull****?
Provide a link to a reputable source. Without a reputable source you leave me no choice but to consider that you made it up to see if you could get a reaction. Are you a troll?
gorefan,
Re: your native-born vs. natural-born.
If natural-born citizens are required to be the native-born children of parents who are themselves citizens, how does that affect what was said in the quotes you provided above?
To the best of our knowledge, with the exception of those who were grandfathered, haven’t all of our previous Presidents been native-born citizens?
Acro bat
Sorry, I assumed since you are familar with the Massachusett acts of naturalization that you would have seen this.
The link is:
http://books.google.com/books?id=n4AQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA579&dq=ACT+FOR+NATURALIZING+ALEXANDER+MOORE&hl=en&ei=mcJQTf33KZKosQOx_NWfBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ACT%20FOR%20NATURALIZING%20ALEXANDER%20MOORE&f=false
If the link doesn’t work or there are other issues then go to google books and in the search box enter “ACT FOR NATURALIZING ALEXANDER MOORE”
By the way I have other examples of the term “natural born’ subject being used after July 4th 1776.
For example, in 1777, Vermont adopted a state Constitution. In the Constitution it says
“SECTION XXXVIII. Every foreigner of good character, who comes to settle in this State, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or by other just means acquire, hold, and transfer, land or other real estate; and after one years residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and intitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this State; except that he shall not be capable of being elected a representative, until after two years residence.”
But then in 1786, they revised the Constitution, Section XXXVIII was changed to read’
“XXXVI. Every person of good character, who comes to settle in this State, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or. by other just means, acquire, hold and transfer land, or other real estate; and, after one year’s residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this State, except that he shall not be capable of being elected Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Treasurer, Counsellor, or Representative in Assembly, until after two years’ residence.”
They changed “foreigner” to “person”, why didn’t they change “subject” to ‘citizen”?
These are available at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/18th.asp
And as I said I have more examples, I would like to discuss with you.
AcroBat,
I figured I could speed up our discussion if I just provide you with some more examples of the use of the term “natural born subject”.
First, let’s look at the Massachusett State Constitution of 1780. It was drafted by John Adams, so I guess we can assume that he would know the difference between a “subject” or a “citizen”. Except that he used both terms in the constitution.
For example, Article II “And in order to provide for a representation of the citizens of this commonwealth ,” while in Article XI “Every subject of the commonwealth ought to find a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws”
Then there are those Massachusett’s Acts of Naturalization. What is striking about them is that in the middle 1780’s, they used the term “natural born citizen”, but in the late 1780’s they used the term “natural born subject”. Wouldn’t you expect it to be the other way around?
Here are some examples:
In 1785, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.” in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
In 1786, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JONATHAN CURSON AND WILLIAM OLIVER” in which it was declared that Jonathan Curson and William Oliver “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born citizens.”
In 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, priviledges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In 1788, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MENZIES, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Menzies and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born subjects.“
In 1790, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS & OTHERS THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
But it wasn’t just Massachusetts. In 1788, the Delaware state legislature passed, “A SUPPLEMENTARY ACT TO THE ACT, INTITULED AN ACT FOR NATURALIZATION” in which they declared “That any alien or foreigner already settled, or inhabiting within this state, or who shall hereafter come to settle or reside therein….shall thereupon and thereafter be deemed, adjudged and taken, to be a natural born subject of this state and shall be thenceforth entitled to all the immunities, rights and privileges of a natural born subject of this state“.
And then there is the writings of Zephaniah Swift. Swift was born in Connecticut. He was in the US House of Representatives from 1793 to 1797. After that he returned to Connecticut where in 1801 he became a Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court. He was the Chief Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court from 1806 to 1819. But in 1795, he authored, “A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Books”. In the first book, Chapter Nine, he starts out by describing the types of people,
“THE people are considered as aliens, born in some foreign country, as inhabitants of some neighbouring state in the union, or natural born subjects, born within the state.”
And then he goes on to describe how allegiance is formed,
“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born…When man comes into existence, he is incapable of defending himself, and wholly dependent on government for protection; he is therefore bound by the strongest principles, to be faithfull to that government to which he is indebted for such benefits.”
And he goes on to write,
“The children of aliens, born in this state, are considerded as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
I assume you can find the links to the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 and to the individual Acts of Naturalization. Here is the link for Delaware’s law
http://books.google.com/books?id=H3VKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA922&dq=delaware+%22natural+born+subject%22&hl=en&ei=uORQTfGxLIb4swPAj_TlBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=natural%20born&f=false
And here is the link to Swift’s book:
http://books.google.com/books?printsec=frontcover&dq=Zephaniah+Swift&ei=rOZQTeWAEou6sQOZldXpBg&ct=result&pg=PA167&id=dBE4AAAAIAAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false
So why do you think these state legislatures and learned men keep using the term “natural born subjects” after 1776 and even after the US Constitution was adopted?
gorefan,
I have commented before, and I’ll comment this again:
The arguments on BOTH sides are very good.
For as many quotes you have to defend your side, there are that many that can be linked that states that a “natural born citizen” is a person born on the soil to TWO citizen parents.
This is exactly why the Supreme Court needs to take this issue and render a decision as to what constitutes a “natural born citizen”.
Please do NOT point to the Ark case because it was NOT a “natural born citizen” case.
The issue needs to be resolved once and for all.
Interested Bystander
“there are that many that can be linked that states that a “natural born citizen” is a person born on the soil to TWO citizen parents.”
Can you provide me some of those quotes, and please limit them to members of the founding generation.
gorefan,
Every citizen is a subject, but not every subject is a citizen. I think this is leading to confusion on your part. Citizens all share the same rights. Children, for example, are clearly not citizens, but are definitely subjects.
“Subject” is a term left over from the common law of England. While many of the colonies adopted the common law of England to serve as their initial law as an independent state, the common law of England was never adopted as the law of the United States.
This issue has become even more confused over the years due to two things. (1) U.S. Appellate Court opinions on state laws where a U.S. constitutional question has been presented (thereby introducing the common law of England into the federal judiciary). (2) Because law schools prep puppy sharks to pass the state bar exam (Many lawyers today don’t know the history and application of the common law of England as it applied to the states vs how it applied to the federal government. Many couldn’t even tell you if the common law of England was made part of their state law. For them, it just all runs together.). You will find no place in the Constitution or federal statutes where the common law of England was incorporated into the law of the United States.
You chose to omit (by …) a portion of the section from Swift that was quoted above. The omitted portion is “-Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection. This principle is founded in the fitness of things, and nature of government.”
Maybe that will help you. You see, allegiance (be it temporary, perpetual, or whatever) is applicable to all subjects. It is the fact that every citizen is a subject that requires such allegiance. The citizen has rights above and beyond that of the subject.
If you would, kindly point out to Kevin Kesseler that according to Swift (in “A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut”) the naturalization power held by Maryland (re: La Fayette) was considered VOID after the power of naturalization was turned over to the federal government.
“The congress of the United States, by the constitution, have the exclusive power, to pass laws for the naturalization of foreigners. All citizens of any of the individual states at the time of the adoption of the constitution, became citizens of the United States; but the states then gave up the power of naturalization to congress for the purpose that it might be exercised upon the uniform and general principles, which the relative situation of the states required. Of course, all the laws of the several states respecting naturalization are repealed, and all proceedings under them are void; and foreigners must conform to the acts of congress, to become naturalized.
And tell him to stop relying on an alleged decision of a Court of Appeals without being able to identify the case or quote the opinion. That may just be the kind of scientist he is. To him; as long as Wikipedia says it is so, it must be so.
Kesseler probably thinks that permission to enter one’s home remains in effect even after ownership of the home is transferred to someone who never granted or acknowledged that permission. (re: descendents of La Fayette)
IB and gorefan,
The “two citizen parents” thing is a bit of a misnomer.
During the era of our Founders/Framers, the wife ALWAYS had the citizenship of the husband. When they married, she became a citizen of whatever country was that of her husband. Only a bastard child could have parents who were of two different characters. In those cases, the child, by jus sanguinis, was considered to follow his mother. In all other cases (involving free persons) the wife and child followed that of the husband/father.
For more information, look into partus sequitur patrum (patrem) and partus sequitur ventrum (ventrem). See the difference between the child of one who is free, and that of one who is a slave. This was the law in the colonies.
As I said earlier, this needs to be resolved in the Legislative and Judicial branches of our government. People are free to discuss it as much as they want here on my blog, but no resolution will come of it here. It is, however, obviously a topic worthy of discussion, as this debate has been going on for well over two and a half years.
I really don’t have a lot of time to spend on this right now, but I will repeat something I said in an earlier comment and add something to it.
I contend that in the phrase “natural born Citizen”, the word “natural” refers to “Natural Law”.
And by Natural Law, a “natural born citizen” is “born in the country, of parents who are citizens”.
To AcroBat’s point that
That is true. And while the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote, it changed nothing else about the constitution.
We return to Natural Law, and find
AcroBat,
“Children, for example, are clearly not citizens, but are definitely subjects.”
Can you cite any authorities on this or is that just your opinion.
“You will find no place in the Constitution or federal statutes where the common law of England was incorporated into the law of the United States.”
This is something of a distraction, yes “English” Common Law was not taken word for word and incorporated into the Constitution or Federal law or even State Constitutions. Obviously, there were parts of the common law which no longer applied to the United States. But the principles and the the legal terms used in the Constitution were taken from the English legal system and their definitions can be found in that system.
Consider, James Madison’s draft of the Bill of Rights. His original proposal to Congress for what became the 7th Amendment reads as follows:
“Sixthly, that in article 3d, section 2, be annexed to the end of clause 2d, these words, to wit:
But no appeal to such court shall be allowed where the value in controversy shall not amount to — dollars: nor shall any fact triable by jury, according to the course of common law, be otherwise re-examinable than may consist with the principles of common law.”
The final version became:
“In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”
What common law was he talking about?
gorefan,
“Sec. 3. The word citizen has a popular, and a technical or legal meaning. In popular language it is synonymous with inhabitant. In its strict legal sense, it means a man invested with certain franchises—to wit, the elective franchise, and the office franchise, or the right to vote and the right to hold office. These franchises are confined to adult males, and are inherent in those who are native-born, and are conferred on aliens by naturalization. In this sense women and children are not citizens, and, therefore, it is not necessary for alien women and children to be naturalized, as it would confer on them no additional privileges. An alien-born minor, then, becomes a citizen on arriving at full age, without the forms of naturalization; but quere, would he be eligible to congress at the age of twenty five? Must he not have been seven years a citizen and was he a citizen before twenty one?”
-The elements of constitutional law By Daniel Raymond (1845)
We have played many games with the word “citizen”. However, we all know that a citizen can vote, while a subject cannot. Claiming one to be a citizen while not permitting them to participate in the body politic is a mere sham. A child gains no benefit by being refered to as a citizen over that of subject. The protections afforded are the same, but as we all know, the benefits of citizenship thus bestowed upon a child are the same as a subject. They are merely afforded protection.
Re: “What common law was he talking about?”
Common law refers to tradition and precedent. American common law.
“The common law of England is not in all respects to be taken as that of the United States, or of the several States; its general principles are adopted only so far as they are applicable to our situation. In general, too, the statutes of England are not understood to be included, except so far as they have been recognized by colonial legislation, but the course pursued has been rather to re-enact such English statutes as were deemed applicable to our case. By reason of the modifications arising out of our different condition, and those established by American statutes and by the course of American adjudication, the common law of America differs widely in many details from the common law of England; but the fact that this difierence has not been introduced by violent changes, but has grown up from the native vigor of the system, identifies the whole as one jurisprudence”.
-Hugh Mortimer Spalding (1903)
“The common law of England is not in all respects to be taken as that of the United States, or of the several states; its general principles are adopted only so far as they an; applicable to our situation.”
Joseph Story 2 Pet. 144 ; 8 Pet. 659; 9 Cranch, 333
Madison was a pretty smart guy. When he wanted to refer to the common law of England, he did so. If he had wanted to refer to the common law of England when drafting the Bill of Rights, he would have done so.
“We can establish what government we please. But by that paper we are consolidating the United States into one great government, and trusting to constructive security. You will find no such thing in the English government. The common law of England is not the common law of these states.”
-George Mason (at the Virginia Convention). Madison patterned our Bill of Rights from the Virginia Bill of Rights. George Mason authored the Virginia Bill of Rights.
AcroBat
Thank you for confirming what I said earlier.
What I said, “But the principles and the legal terms used in the Constitution were taken from the English legal system and their definitions can be found in that system.”
What Justice Story said, “its [English Common Law]general principles are adopted only so far as they an; applicable to our situation.”
See, the terms in the Constitution can be defined by looking to the English legal system. For example, when we want to know what the framers meant by “high Crimes and Misdemeanors”, we look to the English legal system.
In fact, George Mason told us as much during the Constitutional Convention,
“The clause referring to the Senate, the trial of impeachments agst. the President, for Treason & bribery, was taken up. Col. MASON. Why is the provision restrained to Treason & bribery only? Treason as defined in the Constitution will not reach many great and dangerous offences. Hastings is not guilty of Treason. Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be Treason as above defined. As bills of attainder which have saved the British Constitution are forbidden, it is the more necessary to extend: the power of impeachments. He movd. to add after “bribery” “or maladministration.”
James Madison objected to the term “maladministration.
And Col. Mason, “withdrew “maladministration” & substitutes “other high crimes & misdemesnors agst. the State””
So, who is the Hastings that Mason refers. In 1787, Warren Hastings was on trial in the British House of Commons for corruption and “other high Crimes and Misdemenanors”. The term can be found in English legal proceedings going back into the 1600’s.
There are many more terms in the Constitution that are taken from English law. Too many to include here but this is a good example:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States”
Alexander Hamilton in discussing the meaning of direct tax and excise tax first laments the fact that they are not well defined in the Constitution,
“What is the distinction between direct and indirect taxes? It is a matter of regret that terms so uncertain and vague in so important a point are to be found in the Constitution. We shall seek in vain for any antecedent settled legal meaning to the respective terms—there is none.”
After a length discussion of the meanings of direct, indirect taxes and excises, he ends his brief by saying,
“If the meaning of the word excise is to be sought in the British statutes, it will be found to include the duty on carriages, which is there considered as an excise, and then must necessarily be uniform and liable to apportionment; consequently, not a direct tax.”
“Some argument results from this, though not perhaps a conclusive one: yet where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived.”
And since you bring up Mason’s “The common law of England is not the common law of these states”, I am sure you are aware that George Mason left the Constitutional Convention and refused to sign it. In fact, he was one of the Constitutions biggest detractors. In one pamphlet he said,
“Nor are the people secured even in the enjoyment of the benefit of the common law” George Mason, 1787
This drew a response from James Iredell,
“As to the common law, it is difficult to know what is meant by that part of the objection. So far as the people are now entitled to the benefit of the common law, they certainly will have a right to enjoy it under the new Constitution until altered by the general legislature”
And in a letter to Washington, James Madison wrote,
“What can he mean by saying that the Common law is not secured by the new Constitution, though it has been adopted by the State Constitutions. The Common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the Constitutions equally liable to legislative alterations.”
What is the American Common Law? It is the English Common Law adjusted to met the requirements of the new country. And to determine the meanings of terms in the Constitution, we can look to the English Common Law.
I think Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and former President of the United States William Howar Taft said it best,
“The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Conventions of the thirteen States were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.” in Ex Parte Grossman 1925
While Chief Justice Taft is the most concise, other justices have expressed similar sentiment,
“At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, American statesmen were conversant with the laws of England, and familiar with the prerogatives exercised by the Crown. Hence, when the words to grant pardons were used in the Constitution, they conveyed to the mind the authority as exercised by the English Crown or by its representatives in the colonies. At that time, both Englishmen and Americans attached the same meaning to the word “pardon.” In the convention which framed the Constitution, no effort was made to define or change its meaning, although it was limited in cases of impeachment.
“We must then give the word the same meaning as prevailed here and in England at the time it found a place in the Constitution. This is in conformity with the principles laid down by this Court in 30 U. S. 280, and in Flavell’s Case,@ 8 Watts & Sargent 197; Attorney General’s brief.” Justice Wayne, in ex parte Wells 1855
Justice Wayne is talking about the term “pardon”, but he could just as easily be talking about the term “natural born”. Since in the Constitutional convention “no effort was made to define or change its meaning”.
And there is also this,
“The constitution gives to the president, in general terms, “the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States.
“As this power had been exercised from time immemorial by the executive of that nation whose language is our language, and to whose judicial institutions ours bear a close resemblance; we adopt their principles respecting the operation and effect of a pardon, and look into their books for the rules prescribing the manner in which it is to be used by the person who would avail himself of it.” Chief Justice Marshall, in United States v. Wilson 1833.
While the English Common Law is not the American Common Law, when the founding generation need to know the definition of a term in the Constitution, they looked to English law for the definition. And everytime, they changed the way one of these terms worked, they told us.
gorefan,
I’m not arguing that the terms used in our Constitution were not of English origin. Our Constitution was written in English, after all.
My argument is that the common law of England has never been our federal law. It has, however, been the law adopted by almost all of the states.
When SCOTUS was deciding cases involving parties from different states they often had to rely on the law of the state. That law included the common law of England. This has led to much confusion because people reviewing a SCOTUS opinion automatically think the decision must have to do with federal law. Our reliance on the doctrine of stare decisis has served to continue a melding of English common law into federal jurisprudence when the intent of the framers was clearly against such adoption.