Truck Month Textbook Trade In Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc $5 Albums Tile Wearable Technology Fire TV with 4k Ultra HD Luxury Beauty Mother's Day Gifts Shop now Amazon Gift Card Offer seeso seeso seeso  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Fire, Only $39.99 Kindle Paperwhite AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl ReadyRide Bikes from Diamondback SnS

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 67 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Feb 3, 2012 9:44:09 PM PST
Jimmy E. says:
With the latest "Obama is eligible" judicial victories in Georgia, Illinois and Virginia, "Obama is eligible" has now prevailed 164 times in judicial rulings and "Obama is ineligible" has prevailed 0 times.
That's 95 original jurisdiction rulings, 53 appellate rulings in state and federal courts and 16 rulings at the Supreme Court of the United States.

Posted on Feb 3, 2012 9:58:39 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Feb 3, 2012 10:49:54 PM PST
Jimmy E. says:
You are correct that plaintiffs' attorneys have been unable almost uniformly to present a plaintiff with standing to Courts.

It has always been interesting to me that when John McCain was sued for being ineligible due to his non-American birth in Panama, both McCain's lawyers and the Republican National Committee's attorneys had the lawsuit dismissed during pre-trial motions for lack of standing. The lawsuit was Hollander v McCain in New Hampshire.

Fred Hollander was a conservative Republican who didn't want a moderate/RINO like McCain being the Republican nominee.
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Hollander-Order-7-24-08.pdf

It's a long, involved process tracking down the rulings for each case. Click on the links in each lawsuit. Some are old and no longer active links.
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/BIRTHER%20CASE%20LIST.pdf

Posted on Feb 3, 2012 11:11:33 PM PST
Is it also not true that Congress passed a sense of the Senate that McCain was a natural born citizen as he had two american citizens parents and was born in the canal zone, a protectorate of the USA at the time.
And used the criteria born of two american citizens

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 4, 2012 3:07:17 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 4, 2012 3:07:40 AM PST
J. Potter says:
Jack from your postings you strike as either being new to this, and excited by the ideas you have recently adopted, or playing dumb. Go ahead and play into this error, here's the relevant material

Here's resolution 511 and its status:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=sr110-511

EXCERPT OF SECRETARY CHERTOFF TESTIMONY
FROM APRIL 2, 2008

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I join Senator CLAIRE MCCASKILL in introducing a resolution to express the common sense of everyone here that Senator MCCAIN is a ``natural born Citizen,'' as the term is used in the Constitution of the United States. Our Constitution contains three requirements for a person to be eligible to be President-the person must have reached the age of 35; must have resided in America for 14 years; and must be a "natural born Citizen'' of the United States. Certainly there is no doubt that Senator MCCAIN is of sufficient years on this earth and in this country given that he has been serving in Washington for over 25 years. However, some pundits have raised the question of whether he is a ``natural born Citizen'' because he was born outside of the official borders of the United States.

JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN, III, was born to American citizens on an American Naval base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936. Numerous legal scholars have looked into the purpose and intent of the ``natural born Citizen'' requirement. As far as I am aware, no one has unearthed any reason to think that the Framers would have wanted to limit the rights of children born to military families stationed abroad or that such a limited view would serve any noble purpose enshrined in our founding document. Based on the understanding of the pertinent sources of constitutional meaning, it is widely believed that if someone is born to American citizens anywhere in the world they are natural born citizens.

It is interesting to note that another previous presidential candidate, George Romney, was also born outside of the United States. He was widely understood to be eligible to be President. Senator Barry Goldwater was born in a U.S. territory that later became the State of Arizona so some even questioned his eligibility. Certainly the millions of Americans who voted for these two Republican candidates believed that they were eligible to assume the office of the President. The same is true today. Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator MCCAIN is a natural born citizen. I recently asked Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, a former Federal judge, if he had any doubts in his mind. He did not.

I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate and I thank the Senator from Missouri for working with me on this. I ask unanimous consent that the relevant excerpt from the Judiciary Committee hearing where Secretary Chertoff testified be made a part of the RECORD.

Chairman LEAHY. We will come back to that. I would mention one other thing, if I might, Senator Specter. Let me just ask this: I believe-and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President. I fully believe he does. I have never had any question in my mind that he meets our constitutional requirement. You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind-I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?

Secretary CHERTOFF. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.

Chairman LEAHY. That is mine, too. Thank you.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 4, 2012 10:45:02 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 4, 2012 10:46:40 AM PST
Jimmy E. says:
Is it also not true that Congress passed a sense of the Senate that McCain was a natural born citizen as he had two american citizens parents and was born in the canal zone, a protectorate of the USA at the time.
And used the criteria born of two american citizens
---
It is also true that Congress passed a House Resolution declaring that President Obama was born in Hawaii.
( HR Res. 593, 111th Congress, 2009) "...whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama was born in Hawaii." The vote on that resolution was 378-0.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:1:./temp/~c111aVEuk6::

If President Obama had not been born within the United States, having two American citizen parents might matter to his being a natural born citizen. But since he was born at 7:24 pm on August 4, 1961 at Kapi'olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii and Hawaii was the 50th state of the union, his mother having been born in Kansas was all that mattered to his status under Article II, Section 1.
"Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes..." Indiana Court of Appeals, Ankeny, et. al. v Mitch Daniels, the Governor of Indiana, November 12, 2009.
----
"A spurious claim questioning the President's constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court's placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest."--US District Court Judge Clay D. Land, US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, "Rhodes v MacDonald," September 16, 2009
----
"Distinctions between NATIVE-born and naturalized citizens in connection with foreign residence are drawn in the Constitution itself. Only a NATIVE-born may become President, Art II, S1." --Schneider v Rusk, 377 US 163, Supreme Court of the United States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schneider_v._Rusk

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 4, 2012 11:30:58 AM PST
j,potter, at 89 I am not very excited about anything!
But, please note this from the last part of your posting

"Secretary CHERTOFF. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.

Chairman LEAHY. That is mine, too. Thank you"

Whoa, nelly, hold your horses. Note the use of the plural! "born of American parents"

Does that mean what it says? Constitutionally eligible if you are born of American parents."

Ok, that seems pretty definate, doesn't it?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 4, 2012 11:34:41 AM PST
I try not to use Wikipedia as a source of true facts as they allow most people to put their thoughts into the subject.

Just as I try not to use Anti-obama sites as sources for truth, or Obama sites for sources of truth.

Most people should realize that those site present their point of view, true or false, as required.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 4, 2012 11:49:17 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 4, 2012 11:58:38 AM PST
"Whoa, nelly, hold your horses. Note the use of the plural! "born of American parents"

Does that mean what it says? Constitutionally eligible if you are born of American parents.""

Saying that you're a natural-born citizen if both your parents are US citizens does not mean that you can't be a natural-born citizen if one or none of your parents are U.S. citizens.

That's like if someone says that a New Yorker is an American and you turn around and assume that means that Californians aren't American. It's not true.

And you're also ignoring the fact that they were talking about someone born OUTSIDE the United States (in John McCain). Context helps, too. They were not passing a resolution on the meaning of the natural-born citizenship clause generally, only whether McCain counts. And even then, it's a non-binding resolution and has no legal effect. And, of course, it doesn't trump the Supreme Court, which in Wong Kim Ark concluded that an American-born son of two Chinese nationals was a natural-born citizen.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 4, 2012 12:03:18 PM PST
J. Potter says:
"Constitutionally eligible if you are born of American parents."

"Ok, that seems pretty definate, doesn't it?"

Sure does, and is, but what you're reading is:
"To be Constitutionally eligible, you must be born of American parents."

Not at all what Leahy said, is it?
Note the context as well, a discussion limited to those born *outside* of the United States.

I further note that a US Senator cannot spontaneously generate constitutional precedent simply by testifying, nor can he revise the Constitution or SCOTUS rulings. If Leahy had spoke in error, and taken the Vattelist position you're about to take, it would have no effect.

Really Jack? Vattelism? You're going for the full Corsi, Pan-Birther Circuit Badge?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 4, 2012 1:32:23 PM PST
J. Potter, No, I am not a anti-birther, as I don't really know if he was born here or not!

I am prepared to accept that he could well be an American Citizen, and have been born in the USA, but, and is there always not a but, I hesitate to accept things when so many pertinent things are missing from the picture.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 4, 2012 1:34:45 PM PST
SO, I realize that , but I had to jump at the fact that the people testifying before congress stated in the record that they believe in the two parents position.
Not many people know that was said by those people in congress, do they?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 4, 2012 1:40:03 PM PST
SO."Saying that you're a natural-born citizen if both your parents are US citizens does not mean that you can't be a natural-born citizen if one or none of your parents are U.S. citizens.""

How so?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 4, 2012 1:42:22 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 4, 2012 1:46:03 PM PST
"SO, I realize that , but I had to jump at the fact that the people testifying before congress stated in the record that they believe in the two parents position."

No, your jumping on something that isn't there. NO ONE denies that the American-born child of two American citizens is a natural-born citizen. That does -not- mean that the Senators quoted were saying that that is the -only- way to be a natural-born citizen or that two citizen parents is required to be a natural-born citizen.

Basically, you're either grossly misinterpreting or simply lying about what the Senators said in order to prove your point. Either way, it's pretty dishonest. You should be honest about what the Senate said -- if you have two citizen parents, you qualify as a natural-born citizen. That does -not- mean that you HAVE to have two citizen parents.

Your actually making the exact same fallacious argument that birthers make regarding Minor v. Happersett that has been rejected by every court that has addressed the argument. Your argument is basically like this: Senator: My understanding is that if you're born in New York, you were born in America. Jack: A-ha! Thus, if you're born in Texas, you're not born in America! The Senators believe you have to be born in New York to be American.

It's simply a bad argument and your attempt at misrepresenting it (intentionally or not) is shameful.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 4, 2012 1:45:45 PM PST
"SO, I realize that , but I had to jump at the fact that the people testifying before congress stated in the record that they believe in the two parents position."

Because there are multiple ways to be a natural-born citizen, kiddo. If you're born in the U.S., you don't need to have any citizen parents. If you're born overseas, you need either two citizen parents or you need one citizen parent who meets certain residency requirements.

It's kind of like saying that all Texans are American -- it's true, but that doesn't mean that ONLY Texans are American. Likewise, all American-born children of two citizens are natural-born citizens, but that doesn't mean that ONLY the American-born children of two citizens are natural-born citizens. The one does not follow from the other.

You're making this logical fallacy:

Fact: If A, B.
Proper Inverse: If not B, then not A.
Your Inverse: If not A, not B.

Your inverse is logically fallacious. All we can draw from the statement "if you have two citizen parents then you are a natural-born citizen is that "if you're not a natural-born citizen then you didn't have two citizen parents." We can't conclude, from that initial statement that ONLY those who have two citizen parents can be natural-born citizens. To borrow a phrase, that does not compute.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 4, 2012 1:47:42 PM PST
But Justice Gray only held that Wong was a "citizen of the United States" under the Fourteenth Amendment. He never held that he was a "natural born Citizen." So Wong, not addressing the issue, never resolved any doubts concerning what a "natural born Citizen." In fact, the Court cited and quoted Minor v. Happersett's definition of the clause which was a child born in the country to citizen parents.

Do you find the term natural born citizen in that court case in the decision

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 4, 2012 1:53:14 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 4, 2012 1:55:21 PM PST
"But Justice Gray only held that Wong was a "citizen of the United States" under the Fourteenth Amendment. He never held that he was a "natural born Citizen." So Wong, not addressing the issue, never resolved any doubts concerning what a "natural born Citizen." In fact, the Court cited and quoted Minor v. Happersett's definition of the clause which was a child born in the country to citizen parents.

Do you find the term natural born citizen in that court case in the decision"

Actually, yes, the Court did address the definition of "natural-born citizen." Most of the decision was devoted to it, in fact. It helps to actually read the thing. Parts II and III of Wong Kim Ark are devoted to the definition and application of the phrase "natural-born citizen," derived from the common law phrase "natural-born subject." Read the opinion instead of just doing a Control + F search or whatever you did.

Likewise, reading dissenting opinions is very helpful. The dissent read the majority as declaring Wong Kim Ark a natural-born citizen and therefore eligible to serve as President. It's evident from a plain reading of the majority decision that that's what the majority held. Birthers lie rather incessantly about Wong Kim Ark, but most have simply never read the case.

Anyway, here is what the dissent wrote on the majority's decision: "I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not."

Edit:

And Wong Kim Ark's reference to Minor is not problematic if you understand what Minor actually said, rather than what birthers fantasize that it said. All that Minor said was that it is certain that those born in the U.S. to two citizen parents are natural-born citizens. That does not, however, speak to whether those born in the U.S. to less than two citizen parents are natural-born citizens. Minor in no way conflicts with Wong Kim Ark, Ankeny, or Judge Malihi's decision. It only conflicts if you grossly misread Minor.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 4, 2012 1:56:36 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 4, 2012 2:25:00 PM PST
J. Potter says:
So what do you believe, Jack? What is your point? Your refusal to engage in discussion betrays that you have a position in mind. A position you're attempting to propagate. But unwilling to own up to. Stop trolling, and state your position, and its reasoning.

You pretend ignorance, yet demonstrate a great grasp of birther memes. You, sir, and infected through and through. The way you played Henry was pretty funny!

Now, please entertain me with an assertion of when you first learned the neo-Vattelist revision of the definition of natural-born citizen? It was invented in 2008; will you assert you learned it back in school, or again feign complete ignorance? If you can provide a citation predating 2008, please don't hold back.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 4, 2012 2:02:48 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 4, 2012 2:19:45 PM PST
J. Potter says:
Because they were discussing a specific case, being whether or not McCain, born abroad, was a natural-born citizen. Not that they said he was, despite being born abroad. If the location wasn't a consideration, then what *were* they talking about, Jack? They were addressing the concern that he might not be a natural-born citizen *because he wasn't born in the US*. If he *had* been born in US territory, there wouldn't have been a question, because all persons born here (diplomatic considerations aside), are natural-born citizens. If he hadn't been born where he was, parentage would not have been mentioned.

It has also been pointed out to you, Troller Jack, that the Senate passed a similar resolution regarding Obama.

"Not many people know that was said by those people in congress, do they?"
They do if they are paying attention, it's in the Congressional Record.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 4, 2012 2:04:33 PM PST
Jimmy E. says:
"SO, I realize that , but I had to jump at the fact that the people testifying before congress stated in the record that they believe in the two parents position.
Not many people know that was said by those people in congress, do they? "
---
Jack, do you know of any congressional hearing that has ever held concerning Barack Hussein Obama II's eligiblity to be president under the natural born citizen provisions in Article II?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 4, 2012 3:19:17 PM PST
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

Yes, the subject was a citizen just like any other citizens naturalized or otherwise endowed

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 4, 2012 3:21:47 PM PST
I do believe they were discussing whether or not Panama was part of the US for citizenship purposes.

You were aware that there were five bills introduced in Congress to make people like Schwartznegger eligible and they were all defeated.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 4, 2012 3:36:24 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 4, 2012 3:43:13 PM PST
J. Potter says:
No, Jack, that's not what they were discussing. Nor were there further hearings on McCain's status. The Resolution was approved out of committee without further discussion, and passed the Senate by unanimous consent. Further, it's a Resolution. An official statement, confirming the obvious, not creating or altering law.

Many such bills have been submitted over time, and yes, there was a spate from fans of Schwarzeneggar. Relevance? None, as Obama was born in Hawaii, Arnold in Austria. One is a US state, the other is not.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 4, 2012 3:47:44 PM PST
"Yes, the subject was a citizen just like any other citizens naturalized or otherwise endowed"

You still haven't read the rest of the opinion. More than half of it is devoted to an analysis of the natural-born citizen clause. If you're going to pretend to make legal arguments, the least you can do is read the cases your claiming to analyze.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 4, 2012 4:25:40 PM PST
C. Gonzales says:
The way it's written would be like saying children of club members can use the pool. you don't need multiple parents being members and you don't need multiple children to qualify
‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Participants:  10
Total posts:  67
Initial post:  Feb 3, 2012
Latest post:  Feb 25, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions