The usual Birther suspects have surfaced recently to push their nonsense theories about who is and is not a natural born citizen. The latest flurry of articles and comments seems to be related to the beginning of the 2020 presidential election campaign and especially candidate Kamala Harris. (Tulsi Gabbard is targeted by some of the same Birthers as being ineligible to serve but for different reasons.1 ).
Ms. Harris, who was elected in 2016 to represent California as junior Senator, was born in Oakland, California, on 20 October 1964. Her father was a Jamaican and her mother was from India. I have not seen a definitive date for naturalization for either of her parents it is probable they were not yet citizens at the time of Ms. Harris’s birth.
Since Harris was born on American soil and under the jurisdiction of the United States she is a natural born citizen. She meets the other presidential eligibility requirements too since she is over 35 years of age and has been a resident of the US since moving back to the country in 1992 after attending high school in Montreal, Quebec Canada.
Now some of the Birthers would disagree on the first item. Sometime late in 2008 an attorney from New Jersey named Leo Donofrio filed a lawsuit in New Jersey State court against then Secretary of State Nina Wells asking the court to stay the election. He claimed that neither Barack Obama nor John McCain were eligible, Obama because even though he was born in Hawaii his father was a British subject and McCain because he was born on a military base in Panama and not US soil. Previous lawsuits filed by Birthers like Phil Berg were based on claims that Obama was born in Kenya and not Hawaii.
Donofrio’s emergency application was denied and his appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court was denied on October 31. He filed an application for stay pending writ for certiorari on November 3 to Justice Souter of the US Supreme Court. It was denied on November 6th and eventually denied by the full court on December 8, 2008.
As far as I can tell Donofrio is the first person to dredge up this definition of natural born citizen. He cited a Supreme Court case on women’s suffrage, Minor v Happesett from 1875 where the court in dicta said:
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that
“No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President, and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. [Emphasis added] It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
The holding in this case was that the rights and privileges guaranteed under the 14th Amendment to all citizens did not include the right to vote. The Court left in place a Missouri law that prevented women from voting. The opinion did not in obiter dicta define the term natural born citizen and as a matter of fact Justice Waite writing for the Court specifically said the Court was avoiding doing that. (See the emphasized portion.)
Other Birthers began adopting this misinterpretation of Minor v Happersett and the two citizen parent theory as it came to be known. Later a majority of the Birthers took up the theory and began citing Minor as defining precedent.
Attorney Mario Apuzzo from New Jersey, who had no experience in this area of the law, started a blog on the subject of natural born citizenship and filed a lawsuit in federal court around the time of President Obama’s first Inaugural on January 20, 2009 on behalf of Charles Kerchner. He was attempting to stay the Inauguration. Even though Apuzzo now mentions Minor v Happersett in almost every comment on his blog and many other places he didn’t even cite Minor in his first big case, Kerchner v Obama.
When I challenged Apuzzo on this fact in an earlier article on this blog he left a comment in which he lied and gave the excuse that attorneys don’t cite precedent cases in complaints. Of course he had cited more than 17 other cases in his complaint in Kerchner. Apuzzo is ubiquitous on comment streams on articles on natural born citizen. He has probably written a million words on the subject. The problem with Apuzzo is that when he gets cornered him on the Kerchner case he lies and claims victory. John Woodman came to the same conclusion: that Apuzzo is not just a fervent supportor of a position but an outright liar.
After Donofrio’s failed case was filed other Birther’s filed hundreds of challenges against President Obama in 2009 and during the 2012 election cycle trying to either remove him from office or keep him off ballots based on the flawed theory that he was not a natural born citizen.
All of these cases were dismissed on lack of standing, lack of jurisdiction, or failure to state a claim. In decisions where judges bothered to opine on whether Obama was a natural born citizen they said he was, that Minor did not define the meaning of the term, and that the USA v Wong Kim Ark (1898) case was the deciding case on who was a natural born citizen. (In that case the court by a majority decided that a California resident born on US soil to two Chinese parents was a citizen at birth and could not be deported. The court reasoned that the 14th Amendment had merely affirmed what had been in place under common law before its adoption, that the definition of natural born citizen had been inherited from the English term “natural born subject” and that anyone born on US soil and under its jurisdiction was a citizen at birth.)
Rather than repeat the points made in many, many articles that have been written on this subject I will briefly state the false claims made on Birther blogs, specifically Mario Apuzzo’s blog and the Post & Email blog and provide links to several good resources on the subject of who is a natural born citizen.
Here are some of the false claims that Birthers make on the subject of definition of the term natural born citizen:
Birther False Claims About the Meaning of NBC
- Claim: Minor v Happersett defined that natural born citizens must be born of two US citizen parents. No, the Court said these people were natives or natural born citizens but did not limit the term to mean only those people. The court said specifically that those born in the US to alien parents might also be natural born citizens but that it was not an issue in that case.
- Claim: The founders read Emer de Vattel and he defined a natural born citizen as the child of two citizen parents. No, de Vattel was a Swiss philosopher who wrote treatises on law in French. His most famous work was Le droit des gens (The Law of Nations). It was published in French in 1757 and first translated into English in 1760. His comments on citizenship were from the European perspective and those nations operated under the doctrine of jus sanguinis (Latin: “right of blood”). (See the expanded discussion on de Vattel below.)
- Claim: “Fourteenth Amendment Citizens” are citizens of the USA but are not natural born citizens. Wrong. This is an argument that Birthers like Apuzzo put forth frequently. The Supreme Court has always recognized only two types of citizens2, natural born and naturalized. When the Constitution was adopted it assumed that there were natural born citizens but did not provide any definition as to who these were. In Article I it gave Congress the the power to pass laws regulating who could become a naturalized citizen. The rules for who were natural born citizens of the states and the USA were inherited from English common law since all the original 13 colonies operated under English common law and their residents were natural born subjects unless they had become subjects through immigration and naturalization. This lack of a Constitutional definition caused some issues. Children of white Europeans born in the US were considered to be citizens. However, in 1857 a Supreme Court dominated by justices from pro-slavery states ruled that a black slave, Dred Scott was not and could never be a citizen even though he was born on US soil. The racist Court went even further and overturned the Missouri Compromise of 1821 by ruling that no state could abolish slavery. Many historians believe this case led directly to the Civil War, split the Democratic Party, and led to the election of the anti-slavery Republican Abraham Lincoln in 1860.
- Claim: The term “Law of Nations” used in Article I of the Constitution comes from de Vattel’s treatise, The Law of Nations, and meant that the founders adopted Vattel’s views on citizenship. This is not only wrong but preposterous. In Article I, Section 8 the Constitution lists the powers reserved for Congress including the power “To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations”. The “law of nations” was a concept of orderly conduct among nations that dated back to Roman times. Had the founders had any individual writer on the subject it mind it would have certainly have been William Blackstone whose Commentaries contained the principles of the law of nations. Every found would have read and been familiar with Blackstone’s work. Regardless, the law of nations has nothing to do with how the nation determined who were its citizens.
- Claim: By the time of the writing of the Constitution the US had developed a common law definition of “natural born citizen” that was different than the English definition for “natural born subject”. Again wrong. For there to have been a change in the common law definition of “natural born” would have required at least one case or piece of legislation to have changed the definition between the time of independence in 1776 and 1787. However, none have been found. John Woodman challenged attorney Mario Apuzzo to provide such evidence and he could not. Further evidence that the common law meaning of the term did not change was that the term “natural born subject” continued to appear years after the adoption of the Constitution in naturalization acts in Massachusetts, as in “all the rights and privileges as a natural born subject” being granted to a naturalized citizen. And finally if Birthers like Mario Apuzzo are correct there should be lots of records prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment of children born to alien parents on US soil naturalizing later in life. However, such records do not exist.
- Claim: Dual citizenship at birth implies divided loyalty. Wrong. Citizenship at birth does not equate with allegiance. Birthers like to use this fallacy when they bring up John Jay’s letter to George Washington written on July 25, 1787. Jay said ” Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen. ” Birthers use this letter to assert that Jay meant that the president could not have divided loyalty and could not therefore have ever been a citizen of another country. There are several things wrong with this. First Jay was referring to “Command in chief of the American army”. The concept of a president who was also a civilian commander in chief had not even been finalized and was not until weeks later in September 1787. Jay and Washington both would have recognized the equivalence of “natural born subject” with “natural born citizen”. Yes, Jay through Washington may have had some influence on the Convention’s adoption of the natural born citizen requirement but there is simply no evidence Jay would have precluded the child of aliens born on US soil. There is no evidence that just because anyone is born with dual citizenship that they have divided loyalties.
de Vattel’s The Law of Nations
Leo Donofrio may have been the first Birther to discover the writings of Emer de Vattel. He wrote about de Vattel on his blog as early as late 2008. As I mentioned earlier Vattel published Le droit des gens (The Law of Nations) in French in 1758. de Vattel’s treatise was about natural law. The first English translation appeared in 1760. This is the English edition that would have been available to the authors of the US Constitution. On citizenship de Vattel wrote:
[§212] The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist,and perpetuate itself, but by the children of citizens; those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights….The country of the fathers is then that of the children; and these become true citizens,merely by their tacit consent….I say, that in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a stranger, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
Another English translation was published in London in 1797. That edition replaced indigenes with “natural born citizen: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”. This is the translation that Birthers always quote even though it was published 10 years after the Constitution was written. When challenged on this fact Birthers claim that the 1797 London translation was influenced by the American use of natural born citizen in the Constitution. While this makes for a fine story there is exactly no evidence that it is true and there are tons of evidence that the term natural born citizen was the equivalent of the English natural born subject.
There are at least a couple of other issues with the Birther interpretation of Vattel. First Vattel himself admitted that other countries like England had different laws on citizenship. Vattel added that in England “being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.”
Then there is the question of whether Vattel meant that parents had to be citizens for their child to be a natural born citizen. Vattel wrote ” of parents who are citizens”. Unfortunately this phrase is imprecise in English. It is pretty clear Vattel was referring to the father(s) here. He wrote that “It is asked, whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country, are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and it is necessary to follow their regulations. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot of itself furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him . . . .” (again from the 1760 translation).
A French attorney posting under the name Lupin at a number of blogs wrote this about de Vattels Law of Nations”
I have frequently posted under the name of “Lupin” on Dr. Conspiracy’s blog. I am a French attorney with 30+ years’ experience, currently semi-retired and living in the South of France; amongst other things, I have edited translations of Vattel into English.
First, when tackling this issue, one has to decide (a) whether the term “natural-born citizen” is a correct translation of Vattel’s term “indigene” and “naturel”; and (b) whether Vattel has any relevance at all to the issue at hand.
Both of these propositions seem highly debatable to me, but not being an expert on U.S. law, this is not my place to comment.
When reading Vattel’s article on citizenship, often quoted by Mr Apuzzo, one must keep in mind the following:
(a) the terms “parents” actually means blood relatives, not just parents; this is easily verifiable: ask any Frenchman if the sentence “j’ai des parents en Amerique” means “my parents are in America” or “I have family in America” — he will answer the latter.
(b) the term “parents” is used by Vattel as a group plural, ie: either parent, not both; as in “only children whose parents are club members may use the pool”; there is no ambiguity here.
(c) further on, Vattel mentions the father, but only as an illustration of his “jus sanguinis” approach to citizenship as stated above; he does not exclude the mother or indeed any relatives on either side; as a matter of fact, the mother is specifically included/added in a footnote the second edition;
(d) finally, Vattel mentions that other countries like England favor a “jus soli” method, and claims no universality.
So, if one were were to apply Vattel’s theory to the hypothetical case of a young Obama born in Switzerland at the time of Vattel’s writings from a visiting English student and a Swiss woman, it would be unambiguously clear that the child would be considered by the Swiss authorities to be a Swiss “indigene” from his mother’s side of the family.
Had his father hypothetically taken the child back to England to be raised there, he might ALSO be eligible to become a British citizen because of his father, but that would in no way impact his “quality” as a Swiss “indigene” in Switzerland.Lupin’s comment on John Woodman’s blog.
As I have often pointed out, there is nothing in Vattel (even if he were deemed relevant) that bolsters the birthers’ agenda — quite the contrary.
Michael Ramsey analyzed the influence of de Vattel on the meaning of natural born citizen as used in the US Constitution in his paper that I cite in the Resources section below:
“The weight of the evidence, however, points strongly in the other direction. First, any connection between Vattel and the Eligibility Clause is pure speculation. Apparently no one at the time made the connection, or at least there is no surviving record if they did. To be sure, some individuals might have done so. But it seems clear—as clear as we can be about these matters—that no widespread public connection was drawn.
Second, there is evidence that the founding generation, at least in some instances, used “natural born citizen” and “natural born subject” inter-changeably. For example, Massachusetts continued the English practice of legislative acts naturalizing particular named individuals. These acts recited that the naturalized individuals would have all the rights of (in some cases) “natural born subjects” of the state97and (in others) “natural born citizens.”98As far as the historical record reflects, no difference was intended; the phrases appear to be used interchangeably to convey the same meaning. In particular, the state Acts referred to “natural born subjects” during the Confederation period immediately before and during the drafting and ratifying process, suggesting that revolutionary Americans did not change their terminology from citizen to subject in the wake of the Revolution
Similarly, Zephaniah Swift’s treatise on Connecticut law, published in 1795, repeatedly used the phrase “natural born subject” in connection with post-independence inhabitants of Connecticut. Swift began his discussion by saying that “[t]he people are considered as aliens, born in some foreign country, as inhabitants of some neighboring state of the union, or natural born subjects, born within the state.”99Later he added that the children of aliens, “born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”100As a result, there is little reason, on this ground, to think Vattel is a better source of the clause’s meaning than English law: Americans did not broadly reject the word “subject” and instead used it interchangeably with “citizen.”Third, post-ratification evidence indicates that the Framers were using an English-law influenced definition of citizenship, not a Vattel-influenced definition. As described above, an early post-ratification discussion of citizenship was Madison’s comment in the Smith controversy (in which there was some question whether Representative Smith was a citizen and thus eligible to Congress). Madison wrote, “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States….”
Birthers have elevated de Vattel to the status of sainthood but the reality is that there is just no evidence that authors of the Constitution used anything other than the English term “natural born subject” as a synonym for “natural born citizen”. There is certainly no evidence that they ditched the meaning they had known for the term natural born for all their lives and embraced a meaning that Birthers wrongly ascribe to de Vattel.
Resources:
The following is a list of resources I have found useful on the definition of “natural born citizen” as used in the US Constitution:
Jack Maskell, an attorney for the Congressional Research Service, wrote three reports on presidential eligibility. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a non=partisan division of the Library of Congress that provides legal and policy research on various subjects for members of the House and Senate of both parties. These reports are normally confidential but can be made public by the Congressional members who requested the research.
The first of these reports was dated April 3, 2009:
In his first report Maskell explains why Barack Obama was not obligated under federal law to produce his “long form” birth certificate or any birth certificate for that matter and that the presidential election is conducted by the states who have no such requirement either. He also covers the history of the inclusion of the natural born citizen requirement for the office of president in the Constitution and what the likely understanding of the meaning was by the authors of that section.
In November 2011 Maskell updated his report to provide a more rigorous and documented explanation of the meaning of the term “natural born citizen”.
Maskell meticulously lays out the case that the Supreme Court had ruled that terms not defined in the Constitution were to be interpreted in light of English common law and that under English common a person born to alien parents on US soil was a natural born citizen.
A third report was written in January 2016:
In this third and final update on presidential eligibility Maskell reviews all the court cases that had been filed against Barack Obama and John McCain and the outcomes. He also discusses the eligibility of persons born abroad to one or two United States citizens and whether they are eligible. This had become an issue in the 2016 election cycle with the candidacy of Texas Senator Ted Cruz. By this time some lawsuits had already been filed.
Unlike the status of person born to one or two alien parents on US soil the status of persons born US soil abroad has generated disagreement among legitimate Constitutional scholars at least as far back as 1968 when George Romney, who was born to Mormon US citizen parents in Mexico, was running for the Republican nomination for president.
Other resources:
A blogger posted the results of a Google Book search of books that define the term “natural born citizen. BOOKS ON GOOGLE BOOKS THAT DEFINE “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN Notably, not a single one of these hundreds of books defines a natural born citizen as only one who was born of two citizen parents. Birthers have claimed in blog posts that they recall reading such a statement in their Civics books but to date not a single book has been produced.
An attorney named “Tes” on her “What’s Your Evidence” blog posted a compendium of Supreme Court cases that mentioned the term “natural born”. The results can be found here. She also compiled a list of all cases at both the state and federal level that addressed the meaning of the term “natural born citizen”. Finally, she assembled a list of cases filed against Barack Obama and others concerning presidential eligibility and release of documents in a “Birther Scorecard” that documents the outcomes of the so called Birther cases beginning with the Phil Berg cases in 2008 through August 2015. Over 200 cases are listed and none succeeded.
A number of these cases claimed that Obama was not eligible based on the fact his father was a British subject and therefore not a natural born citizen. While none of the cases ruled directly on this claim several judges who commented on this claim noted that precedents like the Wong Kim Ark case made the Supreme Courts position clear that anyone born on US soil and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States was a natural born citizen.
From December 2008 and continuing for 8 years the go to blog for following all the Birther claims and activities was the Obama Conspiracy blog. A good place to start reading is Dr. Conspiracies article The Debunker’s Guide to Obama Conspiracy Theories, which contains a section debunking claims that President Obama was not a natural born citizen.
Another blog that I recommend is John Woodman’s Investigating the Obama Birth Mysteries. Mr. Woodman is a conservative and the author of the book Is Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate a Fraud? in which he debunked the conspiracy theories that erupted that the Obama Hawaiian long form birther certificate that was published in April 2011 was a forgery. Mr. Woodman later did some excellent research into the meaning of the term natural born citizen and the Birth claims that Obama was ineligible. A good place to start reading is this series of articles.
Finally, several excellent papers have been written on the meaning of natural born citizenship over the years:
- The Original Meaning of ‘Natural Born’ by Michael D. Ramsey, University of Pennsylvania, 2016
- On the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” by Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, Harvard Law Review, 2015
- The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty J. A. Pryor, Yale Law Journal, 1988
- Who can be President of the United States, the Unresolved Enigma, Charles Gordon, Maryland Law Review, 1968
Readers are invited to leave comments as long as they abide by this blogs comment policy. If you have suggestions for additional resources I would be happy to add them to the article if they are from legitimate sources.
1Tulsi Gabbard was born in American Samoa to parents who were US citizens. American Samoa is considered an unincorporated US territory and children born there are not citizens at birth under the 14th amendment. They are citizens at birth only if at least one of their parents is a citizen at the time of birth (like Gabbard). Others are considered US nationals instead. US nationals from American Samoa may apply for US citizenship after 3 months residency in the United States. This means Gabbard is probably not a natural born citizen by jus soli but would fall into the category of a citizen born “abroad” to US citizen parents, e. g., Ted Cruz. Since Gabbard is a long shot for either position on the Democratic ticket I doubt that her status will become an issue.
2Some attorneys believe that a Supreme Court decision in Rogers v Bellei in 1971 created a third class of US citizens, namely those who are citizens by virtue of being born abroad to at least one US parent. From Wikipedia:
The appellee, Aldo Mario Bellei, was born in Italy to an Italian father and an American mother. He acquired U.S. citizenship by virtue of section 1993 of the Revised Statutes of 1874, which conferred citizenship upon any child born outside the United States of only one American parent (known as jus sanguinis). Bellei received several warnings from government officials that failure to fulfill the five-year residency requirement before age 28 could result in loss of his U.S. citizenship. In 1964, he received a letter informing him that his citizenship had been revoked under § 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.
Bellei challenged the constitutionality of this act. The three-judge District Court held the section unconstitutional, citing Afroyim v. Rusk, and Schneider v. Rusk.
The Supreme Court reversed the decision, ruling against Bellei.
This ruling seemed to separate that class of citizens from those born on US soil and those naturalized while living in the US. The law that was upheld in the case was repealed a few years later. Note that many scholars still consider those who are citizens at birth while born abroad to be natural born citizens. No court ruling has been issued to the contrary. Judges who dismissed cases filed against Ted Cruz in 2016 seemed to be leaning towards the conclusion that those of Cruz’s circumstances are eligible.
RC Radio Blog 
A timely and well assembled summary, RC!! You haven’t lost a step.
Thank you. That means a lot to me by coming from you. You have commented so eloquently and learnedly on this subject.
I’ll second Frank’s compliments: as a layman, that looks to me like a law review article.
I think I spotted a mistake, though: you wrote about Gabbard that “are only automatically citizens unless one of their parents is a citizen”. I think that should be either “only … if” or “not … unless”.
Where are the birfoons spewing these day? I thought even WorldNutDaily would be afraid to be associated with them by now.
Thank you for the kind words. I wanted to write a well documented article.
Maybe I could have worded that more clearly but I think that what I wrote is correct. As I understand the current law persons born in American Samoa are not automatically US citizens but are instead considered US nationals. However, Samoans are citizens at birth if either parent is a US citizen at the time of their birth. Tulsi Gabbard fails into the latter category.
A group of American Samoan citizens residing in Utah have filed a case challenging the current law and claiming that they are citizens via birth in the US under the 14th Amendment. A previous lawsuit filed in 2012 ultimately failed.
Oh and the Birfoons like Mario Apuzzo, Robert Laity, and the ususal suspects like Kerchner at the Post & Email are still sticking to the two parent citizen nonsense.
I rewrote the section on Gabbart and American Samoa to hopefully be clearer.
[Insult removed]
[Insult removed] has spotted a false standpoint in your claim for Tulsi Gabbard.
From 2 well-known Leftist sites [Insult removed]
Buzz Feed:
“In Gabbard’s case, the debate is rooted in the fact that most people born in American Samoa would be disqualified from being president of the United States, since the US does not grant birthright citizenship to those born in the territory — instead they are given the unique status of “non-citizen US nationals.” American Samoans can become US citizens by moving to the states and going through an expedited version of the naturalization process that foreign-born nationals go through to gain US citizenship.
Gabbard’s office did not respond to multiple requests for comment for this story.
Because American Samoans are not granted birthright citizenship, they can’t vote for president, serve on a jury, or run for office, and they’re not eligible for certain federal jobs. This is not true for the other US territories — people born in Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, Guam, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands are all citizens at birth.”
Wikipedia:
“As of April 2019 the population of American Samoa is approximately 55,689 people.[1][6][7] Most of them are “nationals but not citizens of the United States at birth”; as well as birthright citizenship not applying on the islands, American Samoans cannot vote in the American Presidential elections.[8][7][6]”
I’m sure you [Insult removed] know that anyone naturalized is automatically disqualified from the presidency.
[I removed the frivolous insults that violated the comment policy. I approved the rest for discussion purposes. Cut it out or I will not be so generous next time. RC]
As I mentioned in the article that you apparently failed to read Gabbard was a US citizen at birth because her parents were citizens when she was born. She was never an American national. I equated her situation (worst case) to Ted Cruz. Cruz was sued in several lawsuits filed in 2016 but was not ruled to be ineligible in any of them. Experts disagree on whether people born citizens abroad are natural born. Jack Maskell provides are good case that they are eligible in his report issued in 2016. My personal opinion was that by 1776 the English common law definition of natural born subject included children born abroad to British subjects. This is the definition that the authors of the US Constitution would have been familiar in 1787.
The problem is with the Buzz Feed wording, if they have it right. It states “the US does not grant birthright citizenship to those born in the territory” and “Because American Samoans are not granted birthright citizenship”. Tulsi states she is American Somoan.
The American founders were familiar with Vattel’s Law of Nations, since the circumstances according to Franklin, made it necessary to frequently consult it at the time of the Declaration. Franklin also said that Vattel’s book, “has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting”.
It means the American founders read ‘CHAP. XIX. § 212. Citizens and natives’ many times.
Clearing up that middle part. i don’t know why it did that:
Now for the real reason I posted: Where did you find that footnote by Vattel?:
“(c)…(Vattel) does not exclude the mother or indeed any relatives on either side; as a matter of fact, the mother is specifically included/added in a footnote the second edition;”
I don’t believe you have any footnote by Vattel stating that.
You didn’t provide a link to the Buzzfeed article, something you seem to be wont to do. However I found it and you left out this part:
If you note that is almost exactly what I wrote.
You need to ask Lupin about the footnote from de Vattel’s second edition. I was quoting a comment Lupin left at John Woodman’s blog and please note I provided a link to his comment and made it clear what I was quoting.
Saying that the authors of the Constitution read de Vattel is an interesting historical piece of trivia but just saying that they the read his work has nothing to do with the meaning of natural born from English common law. That means they would have also read the part where de Vattel said that countries like England followed different laws on citizenship. The authors read and quoted Blackstone much more frequently than de Vattel. Until you can find that the authors of the Constitution documented where they ditched English common law and adopted some other definition of “natural born” you have nothing. The Supreme Court in US v Wong Kim Ark (1898) provided the path to understanding the definition of natural born citizen. All you have to do is read the majority opinion.
Also, the discussion on Gabbard is academic only since she is nothing more than a fringe candidate at this point.
Commenter Ike took the same leap of faith without a basis in fact that Mario Apuzzo does. They both inferred that just because some of the authors of the Constitution were familiar with the works of de Vattel they changed the meaning of the term “natural born” to something other than what it had been for hundreds of years in English common law.
As John Woodman pointed out in his series of articles for common law to have changed there has to be either a record in case law or legislation to change it. This does not exist in colonial or US records before 1787. Apuzzo insists that de Vattel magically became common law when the Constitution was written.
Of course his and the other Birthers’ interpretation of de Vattel’s Law of Nations is arguably wrong too. The two citizen parent theory was crafted by Donofrio to make then candidate Obama appear to be ineligible. No judge or real legal scholar has ever taken it seriously and for good reasons.
Apparently Ike is away cataloging all those sources showing that the authors of the Constitution had modified the English common law definition of natural born in favor of something he ascribes to de Vattel. I hope he is also finding all those Civics books that said both your parents have to be citizens before you can be natural born too.
I haven’t seen trader jack in a while. Has he given up or passed on?
Nothing for me to research. I’ve been over this with you obots in the past. When you can’t hang in debate you throw tantrums and do your typical banning. You can’t stand facts getting in your way.
I found a good number of errors in your article but it would be useless to try and debate you on them. It’d be a trip into futility.
I was interested in maybe by some quirk you did find something showing Vattel stated something separate for mother or relatives. I dubunked Lupin on that 3 years ago. I think he found something added in a mid-19th century French edition that had it in a footnote, which of course had nothing to do with Vattel. You also have the term ‘parens’ wrong. It was define at the time as father & mother in French. It’s an exclusive proper subset for the French term ‘parent’.
You want to be useful? Go to that Canadian website where your buddy Dr Conspiracy left a false claim and correct it: “Free Republic is the same forum where the original Born in Kenya rumor started way back in 2008.”
The rumor started in 1991 and continued on to 2007 when Obama’s literary agents sent out thousands of promotional brochures to people in the publishing industry claiming he was born in Kenya, and it appeared in 2004 when newspapers affiliated with AP made the claim.
Here’s the addy:
https://www.coastmountainnews.com/news/obama-was-born-at-b-c-hospital-conspiracy-theorists-say/
Sorry your research efforts for sources that confirmed the authors of the Constitution changed the common law definition of natural born came up empty. I knew they would and I knew you would change the subject to something else.
I’m not changing anything other than correcting your errors. First off, show some sincerity by correcting what I’ve already pointed out, then we can move on to correcting some of the others in your article.
I think you have enough cognition to realize Dr Conspiracy made a false claim on that Canadian website.
Then correct Lupin’s misleading claims in your article. If you need physical proof I’ll provide it. I’m guessing on this your mind is having problem retrieving the correct info that was provided to both you & Lupin in the past.
On Gabbard I’m not sure. What Buzz Feed presented is open to more than 1 interpretation.
About a year ago I sent you a message on 1 of your errors, got sidetracked and didn’t follow up on it. Did you correct that one?
There is no need for me to correct anything. What Kevin Davidson posted is correct. The “Obama was born in Kenya” rumor did start at Free Republic in the spring of 2008 as Loren Collins has documented. See Loren Collins’ http://birthofanotion.com/home/the-secret-origin-of-the-birthers
The publisher’s brochure that incorrectly listed author Barack Obama’s birthplace as Kenya didn’t inspire any rumors at all much less the Birther movement. It lay undiscovered for over 20 years until well after the Birther movement was underway. The author admitted to making the mistake herself. It is a complete non-sequitur. If you can provide direct evidence that a mistake in a bio in a brochure printed in the early 1990’s led to the Birther movement then I will be happy to publish it. Like your claim on the meaning of natural born citizen the facts don’t support your claims.
As I’ve previously stated, for me this is a trip into futility. You’re too closed-minded. You view everything connected to Obama through partisan lenses instead of looking at it objectively. Remember, we been over this before.
How do you explain Collins contradicting himself at least twice in his article? The Yahoo Answers.com was a long unfriendly heated discussions in 2007 on the ‘Obama born in Kenya’ claim. Though Yahoo was my home page, was heavy into Yahoo gaming, and had my DSL through them at the time, I don’t remember seeing that then.
What I do remember, as I’ve previously stated, is seeing some blog sites in late January 2008 discussing Kenyan-born or foreign-born but I don’t remember the sites. It’s possible it was that Yahoo site but I can’t say that for fact.
Here’s another interesting bit of info from a Time Mag article:
“In 2008, TIME explained how that happened:
For more than a year, Obama relied on conventional means to confront the blogosphere’s superheated rumor mill—to little effect. The “fact-check” feature on his website, for instance, only seemed to spawn more, and wilder, rumors. A mention there of Obama‘s birth certificate spurred National Review Online to demand that he produce it to dispel groundless reports that Obama was actually born in Kenya and therefore would be constitutionally ineligible to be President;”
For more than a year would put it back into 2007.
Another question is how many people in the publishing industry, book retailers, & those buying Obama’s books seen the bio in that promotional brochure over the 17 years that he was listed as Kenyan-born? Normally the author of the book submits the Bio to their agent/publicist. Obama had to know what the brochure stated.
Unless it changed I believe I was the last commenter asking a question on the The Volokh Conspiracy article Collins references. What influenced the commenter on Volokh Conspiracy to come up with that hypothetical? Was it rumors that they had heard/seen online? I also posted up the Lamb article in a forum after it came out. I was following it at the time – didn’t know anything about Obama.
The claim on natural born citizen is easy. That was influenced by Vattel. Born a citizen was rejected by the American founders for the office of president.
Recall that when Obama released a copy of his birth certificate in June 2018 it was to combat rumors that his middle name was “Mohammed” and not “Hussein”. It was not to establish he was not born in Kenya. You didn’t provide a single link for anything so that is really all I have to say. I trust a researcher like Loren Collins over your rambling memories not supported by a single link any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Here’s a good example about what I mean when I call you “closed-minded”.
Right, Obama released a copy of his birth certificate in June 2018. And when does Collins claim the Born in Kenya rumor started? Think, McFly, think!
Links aren’t needed if you’ll open your mind & think. It explains itself.
What prompted/triggered the Blue State blog & Yahoo Answers site to state & ask about the Born in Kenya? That wasn’t something they both magically pulled out of the air.
If you go back and look at the news articles from the time the reason that the Obama campaign published his birth certificate in 2008 (not 2018) it was to debunk rumors that his middle name was Mohamed. Without links your assertions about Yahoo Answers and Blue State are nothing.
I will give you one small thing Ike. You may be wrong about just about everything but at least you have the courage to comment here unlike cowards like Robert Laity, Charles Kerchner, Cody Robert Judy and others who have to hide behind Sharon Rondeau’s iron fisted moderation of any fact based comment.
Lmao at you. Talking smack while blocking my comments.
If you done to the people you’ve named what you’ve been doing to me, it’s understandable why they’d want nothing to do with you.
You’re a lowlife.
I am not intentionally blocking your comments. For some reason 3 comments went to trash. I can’t find any reason that they did. Certain words will trigger a filter to do that but I didn’t see anything in your comments that would cause it to trigger. I will keep an eye out for that. Since you have posted previous comments your comments should not be moderated. I apologize that you had difficulty getting some comments posted.
Quoth Ike:
Clickest thou here for the actual Time Magazine article in question. The part before the part you quoted out-of-context says that this was about a variety of rumors, of which the “born-in-Kenya” thing was just one:
… and continues with your little out-of-context excerpt.
Context matters, or else King David was an atheist. He said “… there is no God.” in Psalm 14:1 (and 53:1).
Oh no! Don’t tell me Ike was quoting the Time Magazine article deceptively and out of context. Please don’t tell me that.
The Buzzfeed article could have been better written but I don’t think it can be interpreted in any other way than to say that Gabbard was a citizen at birth. Her eligibility then rests on the notion that citizens at birth born abroad are eligible. While some bona fide legal scholars believe those persons are not eligible the lack of success of lawsuits against Ted Cruz in 2016 established some precedents on the side of the broader interpretation.
Your disagreement with Lupin is no concern of mine and what de Vattel wrote on citizenship has nothing to do with the interpretation of the term natural born citizen in the US.
I’m going to withold by opinion on Gabbard for now until I see more discussion on it. I’m not convinced either way. As for Harris & Cruz, neither are natural born.
Now it gets laughable. My disagreements with Lupin? Better check your Intense Debate log at 139/140 weeks. You, along with many others of your ilk, were swallowing everything he said as absolute irrefutable fact. That’s what got me following him in the beginning. He was claiming to be an expert on Vattel so I followed along to see what I could learn from it. Eventually I began to see he was changing up from what he had previously claimed. Then it turned into some of his claims being completely absurd. At some point I started calling him out for it.
Here’s a good one, and it’s ironic Woodman’s here – he might remember it. I was reading Lupin’s comments along some others (including Woodman’s) on Dr Conspiracy’s site at the time. Posted at Birther Report, “Woodman’s a super-spinner”, it was meant for Lupin. I’ve done that before being in a hurry reading too many issues & comments at one time and got them confused.
In the strongest terms I totally disagree with you on “what de Vattel wrote on citizenship has nothing to do with the interpretation of the term natural born citizen in the US”.
You do know that the phrase “natural born citizen” does not appear in any version or translation of de Vattel’s works that were available to the Framers before or during the Constitutional Convention in 1787? The phrase first appears in a faulty mistranslation that wasn’t published until 1797, a decade later. So how, pray tell, could the Framers have based their definition on a translation of de Vattel that was a bare minimum of a decade in the future? Did Obama send his time machine back to them?
And even with Vattel, or Minor v. Happersett, it’s a basic principle of both French (which de Vattel wrote in) and English grammar that the plural is properly used for nouns whenever the quantity isn’t specified to be exactly one and only one. The singular is only to be used for a specified quantity that is exactly one and only one. The plural is used in nearly all other cases, including an unspecified quantity that could be more than one, but could also be one.
Example: If you attend a town or county hall meeting and the subject of public education comes up, the politician may rightly try to determine who in the room has a horse in that particular race by asking something like, “Who in this room has children who are in our county public schools? Please raise your hand if you do.” If you had only one child attending a county public school, would you raise your hand?
Or try this: you know how many courthouses and government buildings and schools (sadly) these days have metal detectors at every entrance? Many of them have a sign that says, “Firearms Prohibited Past this Point” or some such. Try this: bring one firearm with you and try to walk on past with it. When they go to arrest you, point out that the sign says “Firearms” plural, and you only brought one firearm in. See how far that gets you.
No, the rules of grammar are clear on this: unless it specifies “two” or “both” parents, only one parent needs to be a citizen for the progeny to qualify as a natural born citizen, even though the plural form “parents” was used. I challenge you to show me even one line from de Vattel, or any law or Supreme Court decision, that actually states that “two” or “both” parents, or “mother and father” or “father and mother,” have to be citizens before the offspring can be considered natural born citizens, then without that you got nothing.
Excellent comment COMALiteJ. I like your analogies on the correct grammatical use of plurals. This just shows the dishonest contortions the Birthers have to go through to try to make President Obama “ineligible” in their own tiny little minds.
Ooops! The second “1787” referring to the publishiong date of the mistranslation of de Vattel’s The Law of Nations should be “1797.”
The last line of my comment should’ve read: “I challenge you to show me …. . Without that, then you got nothing.”
Fixed.
I’m going to with hold by opinion on Gabbard for now until I see more discussion on it. I’m not convinced either way. As for Harris & Cruz, neither are natural born.
Now it gets laughable. My disagreements with Lupin? Better check your Intense Debate log at 139/140 weeks. You, along with many others of your ilk, were swallowing everything he said as absolute irrefutable fact. That’s what got me following him in the beginning. He was claiming to be an expert on Vattel so I followed along to see what I could learn from it. Eventually I began to see he was changing up from what he had previously claimed. Then it turned into some of his claims being completely absurd. At some point I started calling him out for it.
Here’s a good one, and it’s ironic Woodman’s here – he might remember it. I was reading Lupin’s comments along some others (including Woodman’s) on Dr Conspiracy’s site at the time. Posted at Birther Report, “Woodman’s a super-spinner”, it was meant for Lupin. I’ve done that before being in a hurry reading too many issues & comments at one time and got them confused.
In the strongest terms I totally disagree with you on “what de Vattel wrote on citizenship has nothing to do with the interpretation of the term natural born citizen in the US”.
Reposting it again. Will the 3rd time be a charm?
I’m going to withhold by opinion on Gabbard for now until I see more discussion on it. I’m not convinced either way. As for Harris & Cruz, neither are natural born.
Now it gets laughable. My disagreements with Lupin? Better check your Intense Debate log at 139/140 weeks. You, along with many others of your ilk, were swallowing everything he said as absolute irrefutable fact. That’s what got me following him in the beginning. He was claiming to be an expert on Vattel so I followed along to see what I could learn from it. Eventually I began to see he was changing up from what he had previously claimed. Then it turned into some of his claims being completely absurd. At some point I started calling him out for it.
Here’s a good one, and it’s ironic Woodman’s here – he might remember it. I was reading Lupin’s comments along some others (including Woodman’s) on Dr Conspiracy’s site at the time. Posted at Birther Report, “Woodman’s a super-spinner”, it was meant for Lupin. I’ve done that before being in a hurry reading too many issues & comments at one time and got them confused.
In the strongest terms I totally disagree with you on “what de Vattel wrote on citizenship has nothing to do with the interpretation of the term natural born citizen in the US”.
Hi RC,
Thanks for your kind words regarding my writing. However, I have a small correction for you, or at least an update.
It’s completely accurate to say, “During the period when he wrote regarding Obama’s birth certificate and presidential eligibility (April 2011 through late 2012) John Woodman was a staunch conservative of more than 30 years.”
However, it wouldn’t be accurate to say, in 2019, “Mr. Woodman is a conservative.”
Since writing about the technical aspects of Obama’s birth certificate and the legal, Constitutional and historical meaning of the term “natural born citizen” I’ve spent years researching and studying public policy, economics, and related issues. I’m not sure precisely when I stopped being a conservative, but I can tell you when I officially left the Republican Party. That was in 2016, around the time Donald Trump became that party’s nominee for President.
Leaving the Republican Party was a difficult change for me after (at that time) more than 35 years. In retrospect, I wish I had done so far earlier.
I didn’t do so because, like most of us, I hadn’t chosen my political affiliation by making a deep, detailed, independent study of the policies of each party and their effects in the real world. Instead, I had relied on voices I trusted (including a very intelligent and principled PhD physicist uncle during my young adulthood) to orient my political understanding, and I generally accepted what they had to say. I am sorry to say that I never deeply considered things from multiple points of view.
If my uncle were still alive today (he died well over 30 years ago) I would not be surprised to find him making the same shift I have.
It’s important to note that I didn’t leave the Republican Party just because of Donald Trump, although a detailed study of his history, character, and actions was the trigger that officially pushed me out the door. I was working on understanding what our greatest political problems were, and I concluded that at the very top, there were three:
The political system is badly rigged, to the point that our political and governmental system no longer remotely serves the best interest of ordinary Americans. Instead, it serves the elites.
Our economy is badly rigged, to the point that the middle class has barely advanced over the past 40 years, and roughly half of Americans haven’t received a raise during that period of time. This is closely related to the first problem. Instead, the economy has been largely reengineered to serve the elites.
Our politics is gridlocked by automatic, bitter, partisan deadlock.
There is far too much misinformation and propaganda out there, swaying and leading far too many of us astray. This is much the same problem that we both worked on in regard back in 2011 and 2012.
These are issues that affect both major parties, and probably even the minor parties as well. After significant reflection, I realized that the Republican Party in particular is too far gone. There would appear to be reason to hope regarding the Democratic Party. I can see no such reason to hope for the GOP.
For this reason, I am no longer a Republican. After a short stint as an independent, I decided to switch to the Democratic Party.
As for the label “conservatism,” first of all, I don’t like labels very much, because it seems to me that too often, they serve only as a prompt for who to embrace and who to hate.
However, to the degree that conservatism is embracing pre-existing values, it no longer seems to be supporting the values that gave rise to and nourished the American Dream in the 1940s, 50s, 60s, and 70s. It is instead embracing more recent values — ones that are far too supportive, or at least accepting, of some of the major problems listed above.
For these reasons, I can no longer accept the label of “conservative.”
At this point if I have to have a lable, I would more readily call myself a “solutionist” — because it seems to me that what we desperately at this point in our history is some actual solutions, particularly to the problems named above.
Thank you John. That was a great comment. I appreciate you stopping by. I like the term “solutionist”. We surely need more of them.
Hi John…It’s great to “see” you again. Wonderfully written comment.
It’s good to “see” both of you as well.
I should’ve said “four problems” — I started with three, but then realized that widespread misinformation / disinformation should also be included in the list. But I failed to update the number.
Of course, you know there are only three kinds of people in the world —
Those who can count, and those who can’t.
Incidentally, where are the birthers when there is real evidence of massive and corrupting foreign influence on our nation and our democratic republic at the most fundamental level?
They want to put the whistle-blower and the Democrats like Adam Schiff in prison for 40 years for being mean to poor widdle Donnie. Just read what people like Robert Laity have to say at the Post & Email. It’s like they live in an alternate universe.
Of course if Donald had consensual oral sex in the White House they would be all over it wouldn’t they? Right?
The thing I find remarkably hypocritical is the absolute lack of concern regarding foreign influence, when that was supposedly the entire foundation of their years-long rants regarding President Obama’s supposed eligibility.
No foreign influence? Well. Where are they now?
The past 8 years — yes, our acquaintance dates back 8 years now — has massively reinformed my perspective on a lot of things.
And yes, that includes my perspective on the impeachment of President Clinton. Yes, he committed a crime (lying under oath about his sex life). But anything Clinton might have done doesn’t pale in comparison, it outright vanishes in comparison to the words and deeds of the current occupant of the White House.
I think we can see what is wrong in our country when Trump supporters like Ike can overlook a president trying to bribe a foreign country to chase down a conspiracy theory on his political opponent, pull our troops from Syria to give Russia a foot hold in the Middle East, is a complete moron, is profiting from the office, and shits all over the Constitution and what is Ike concerned about? Why it’s that someone incorrectly reported that Obama was born in Indonesia in 2006.
Ike: Obama released a copy of his birth certificate in June 2008. And when does Collins claim the Born in Kenya rumor started?
Links aren’t needed if you’ll open your mind & think. It explains itself.
What prompted/triggered the Blue State blog & Yahoo Answers site to state & ask about the Born in Kenya? That wasn’t something they both magically pulled out of the air.
RC: If you go back and look at the news articles from the time the reason that the Obama campaign published his birth certificate in 2008 (not 2018) it was to debunk rumors that his middle name was Mohamed (Muhammad). Without links your assertions about Yahoo Answers and Blue State are nothing.
Ike: Have you actually read Collins’ article? Those aren’t my assertions. Collins makes the claim for ‘Born in Kenya’ for Blue State & Yahoo Answers in 2007. I’ll repeat what I’ve already stated: Something prompted/triggered both sites to address the ‘Born in Kenya’ rumor. Same can be said about Volokh Conspiracy commenter with the hypothetical.
Obama published that short-form substitute birth document to counter not only the claims on his middle name but also the claims on his foreign birth for both Kenya & Indonesia. Isn’t it strange how a document that states in print at the bottom it is evidence in any court of law was never used by Obama as proof in all those court cases over a 34 month period?
Why do you even care? Not that anyone on the birther side has ever made one single claim that would stand up under scrutiny — I personally examined 108 different birther claims and every single one fell apart when placed under the microscope — but, really. It’s 2019. Don’t you have better things to do than keep pushing various discredited ideas?
Let’s talk about foreign influence. The current presidency is eaten up with it. The current president has been actively soliciting foreign interference in the most fundamental and important democratic process in the American republic — our presidential election. What are you prepared to do about that?
Yep, if you ever wanted proof that being a natural born citizen alone has anything to do with the ability to be president or loyalty to the country one needn’t look past the current resident of the White House.
Ike can never get over a black man being president. It rocked his world and continues to do so. And Kamala Harris is just rubbing salt into his racist wounds.
Midterms looking gloomy for the DemoKKKraps
Ol Creepy Joe* is near the end. People in DC political circles have been quietly trying to get him to step down. This past Monday (11/29) former White House physician for Obama and Trump, Dr. Ronnie Jackson, urged him to resign due to his cognitive decline. It looks like it’s dementia and the Leftist lamestream media have been trying to cover it up.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/11/cognitive-decline-much-not-capable-president-needs-resign-former-presidential-physician-calls-biden-step/
We’re now in a ‘Catch 22’. Ol Creepy’s approval with the American people is down to 38%, and 2/3 of the American people definitely don’t want him running for a 2nd term. Butttt, it gets worse. His Veep Kamala, aka Kackles, and Heels Up (Willie Brown: I know dats rights) has a lower approval rating than Ol Creepy. So if Ol Creepy is removed the American people will have someone in the Oval Office they have even a greater disgust for. Data per USA Today:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/11/07/biden-approval-falls-38-midterms-loom-usa-today-suffolk-poll/6320098001/
~~~~~~~~~~
* Ol Creepy Joe & his operatives have the FBI raiding Conservative locations trying to recover his daughter Ashley’s diary. If you remember back a couple years it came out that she wrote in the diary about her dad (Ol Creepy) having her take inappropriate showers with him when she was a teenager.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/11/fbi-raids-project-veritas-ashley-bidens-diary/
FBI confirms the legitimacy of Ashley Biden Diary:
https://nationalfile.com/bombshell-new-york-times-fbi-confirm-legitimacy-of-ashley-biden-diary/
https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/Biden-s-daughter-s-diary-reveals-he-showered-with-her/5-2502239/
Rapper threatens to shoot Joe Biden if he touches another kid.
I can understand the rapper’s anger but he can’t be threatening to kill people.
Someone with authority (law enforcement) needs to step up and tell Ol Creepy if there’s any more inappropriate touching of children by him as seen on some videos he will be arrested, and let the public know he has been warned.
Truthfully, Ol Creepy should of been arrested a long time ago.
https://neonnettle.com/news/17229-rapper-threatens-to-shoot-joe-biden-if-he-touch-another-kid-
A loser changes the subject when he is losing. It is what losers do. Gateway Pundit? AR15.com? Really? We are still waiting for you to provide specific historical references where at any time between 1776 and 1787 the US changed the common law meaning of natural born. Such a simple question Ike. You should be able to provide those references, right?
How about that! I was thinking the same thing about you: “Oh no! RC is changing the subject, he feels he is losing. He’s playing his infamous Race Card.” You always do it when you feel like you’re losing. This is normally where I mock you and add to my Badge of Honor collection.
It’s unhealthy to be so racially obsessed. We’re seeing signs that it might be what’s adding to your cognitive decline. Just look what it’s done to your new puppet leader Creepy Joe. He was proud his state supported slavery. Just ask Kackles.
You’ve been given references for natural born. For whatever reason you’re not catching on. Maybe it’s that ‘decline’ causing the problem. I used the statements of John Adams and his Vattelian mindset that starts before the Stamp Act (1765) and continues on pass the Constitutional Convention. See my comments in your article: ‘For the thousandth time: Anyone born on US soil under the jurisdiction of the United States is a natural born citizen, period.’
What happened to Vicklund? I hope he didn’t cut & run on me. I have a couple more lessons from my Conservative Curriculum I wanted to give him on Vattel’s famous §212 Citizenship Article. In about a week I have to shutdown for Christmas.
What Collins proposes is the the born in Kenya rumor didn’t begin with the obscure posts on Blue State and Yahoo Answers. It began with the FARS post on Free Republic. I quote from the earliest Politifact article from May 2, 2008. There is no mention then of rumors that Obama was born in Kenya.
There is no mention then of the born in Kenya rumors. None of this matters anyway because it was all false. Every birther claim was and is completely false garbage. I have to question the sanity of any person who continues to bring them up.
But back to the main issue. Did the Birther movement start with the erroneous publisher’s brochure in the early 90’s? Absolutely not.
Hard to believe anyone has to say this in 2019:
“Every birther claim was and is complete false garbage.”
I corrected my grammar. Every Birther claim was and is completely false garbage.
You’ve provided a red herring that has nothing to do with the chronological timeline for the rumor/claim/assertion of Obama being Born in Kenya. If we’re to believe Collins, he shows 4 that predates your Politifact article from May 2, 2008.
I don’t know anything about Blue State other than Collins stating it was a pro-Hillary blog. Yahoo Answers was hugh back then and would guess its following in the hundreds of thousands. Both were in 2007. The question is what prompted both sites to address Obama being Born in Kenya? I have my theory. -Grin
I question the sanity of someone who only a couple months ago was thouroughly spanked on a birther attorney’s blog later posting up an article with previously debunked facts.
I see you still haven’t removed the Lupin lunacy. You listing of (a) (b) (c) for Lupin are all incorrect.
I have to correct 1 for myself I had wrong. Took awhile for my memory to kick in: I wasn’t on that 1st Volokh Conspiracy where the hypothetical was presented. I was on a follow up where Obama’s eligibility was debated, I was the last commenter and asked a question.
John Woodman wants to know why you even care, and, “don’t you have better things to do than keep pushing various discredited ideas?”
I also need to commend you on how you handled my 1st comment by removing the smears before releasing it. I shouldn’t have done it. That’s a result of my turbulent history on the pro-Obama sites. I never expected you to post it.
For Woodman: John, it would futile to engage you on current politics. Based on our histories after about a couple rounds of me bring the facts on your new party and the American Left you’d lose control, revert back to your true self and go ballistic. There’s an old adage that fits: “We’ve been to well one too many times.” I can now predict the outcome. You’re already antsy and going ad hominem.
Lol.
Have you seen the new Trump campaign cap?
MAKE DEMOCRATS CRY AGAIN! TRUMP – 2020
Pretty cool, eh?
How did that work out for yah Ike? It has been Trump and the Magidiots who have been whining since the election has it not?
That comment certainly aged differently than you may have intended. They did a bit more than whine about it, about five weeks after you posted that.
Yes, I think attempting to stage a coup does go somewhat beyond whining doesn’t it?
Ike said, “You’ve provided a red herring…”
Now there’s irony meter shrapnel everywhere. The horror. The horror.
LOL Indeed. This is the guy who says [apparently while being serious] that I should correct Doc C. because the Birther movement really started in the early 90’s.
You seem to have a penchant for misleading & making stuff up.
What I stated in the past was, without proof, I believe there was a good possibility or even a probability the the Birther Movement and the Born in Kenya rumor/claim got its initial start around the time Obama released his book ‘Dreams…’ & started his political career. That puts it in the middle of the 1990s. And, that promotional brochure from his book agency helped start it. Call it speculation; an opinion lacking evidence.
At least I shoot straight and not habitually sending out crooked arrows like you. Case in point:
From above: RC: “What Collins proposes is the the born in Kenya rumor didn’t begin with the obscure posts on Blue State and Yahoo Answers. It began with the FARS post on Free Republic. I quote from the earliest Politifact article from May 2, 2008. There is no mention then of rumors that Obama was born in Kenya…There is no mention then of the born in Kenya rumors.”
You don’t how see you continue to show you have a cognition problem? You’re agreeing with the Collins claim that the Born in Kenya rumor started on March 1st/2nd, 2008 at Free Republic by commenter FARS. Then you quote from a Politifact article 2 months later (May 2, 2008) that there was no rumor at that time.
Then there’s your article loaded with misleading & false info. At this point I have to give it ‘4 Pinocchio’. As I’ve already stated I’m willing to help you correct them. I’m nice like that.
You were there about 4 years ago at Dr Conspiracy’s Gerbil Report where I explained at the time how Lupin had it wrong on his claim that Vattel meant father only, or mother only, or any relative, and not just 1 citizen father & 1 citizen mother. The problem is in the French wording; Parents vs Parens. In the original Vattel, the edition that he supervised the printing of 1200 copies of at Neuchâtel, Switzerland & dated 1758 Londres (London) has Parens Citoyens. Parens an exclusive proper subset of the French term Parent to only mean 1 father & 1 mother (pere & mere in French).
That was used for the whole 18th century by the French, in their dictionaries, and the translating dictionaries the English were using. The American founders had them in their libraries, and Franklin had numerous editions of them that dated from 1694 to the time of his library inventory in 1781. It covered all of Vattel’s life and the whole American founding period. If you need links for proof I have them.
Lets get that corrected in your article then we can move on to some of the others.
I expect your rebuttle to be along the lines ‘it’s immaterial since the American founders didn’t use Vattel’. That would be another false statement from you.
Vattel had no influence over the English Common Law definition of natural born. He admitted that England and other countries followed different laws. The Supreme Court ruled that for the definition of terms not explicitly defined in the Constitution we must refer to English Common Law. Go read the majority opinion in US v Wong Kim Ark again.
I’ve studied Vattel to a certain degree, as well as a whole boatload of these cases.
That would be correct.
Lots of opinions, everybody has one, even the Black Robes.
It’s claimed because Justice Gray was beholden to Chester Arthur it influenced the opinion.
Yale Law Journal (1898): “Although hopelessly in the minority, Chief Justice Fuller, with whom Mr. Justice Harlan agrees, dissents from this opinion, and, upon what appears to be the better view, holds that the common law of England does not control the question under discussion.”
Vattel was incorporated into American Common Law which grew from American Colonial Common Law.
The influenced opinion stated “Wong was a U.S. citizen from birth”. Gray didn’t claim Wong was a natural born citizen.
Born a citizen was passed over by the American founders for the office of president in favor of natural born citizen.
Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England
Section the Fourth: Of the Countries Subject to the Laws of England
Page 105
“And therefore the common law of England, as such, has no allowance or authority there (American colonies); they being no part of the mother country, but distinct (though dependent) dominions.”
Samuel Adams
[Boston Gazette, October 28, 1771]
“…according to the usual sayings of the learned in the law, the laws of England were bounded within the four seas, and did not reach America.”
Replying to Ike…
Except theirs count.
Who claimed this? Anyone besides Birthers? Arthur had died over a decade earlier. Five other justices agreed with Gray.
In that same dissent Fuller said the ruling made WKA a natural born citizen. There were many who were against the decision based on Xenophobia.
Of course you cannot cite a single historical reference for that claim. The Supreme Court has recognized English Common Law as the place to go to define legal terms used in the Constitution such as bill of attainder, habeas corpus and natural born.
The issue in the case was whether Wong was a citizen. The entire discussion preceding the conclusion was about who were natural born citizens both before and after the 14th Amendment. The court has never recognized a separate category of “citizen at birth” in any decision including WKA.
They passed over it because they never used that term. They knew what natural born meant from English Common Law.
The idea the Birther movement started in the 90’s just nonsense. It started because lying conservatives who didn’t give a shit about the truth wanted to paint presidential candidate Obama as a foreigner during the 2008 election cycle.
That would be correct.
Not that you need my help.
So we’re moving away from the Born in Kenya rumor/claim only to the Birther Movement. That opens it up to all foreign born rumors & claims.
Do you know for a fact that his 2 book agencies were conservative? The ones that listed Obama as being born in Kenya in their promotional brochures from 1991 to at least April 3rd, 2007.
2006: We know Tammy Duckworth, who claimed both her & Obama were foreign born, is not a conservative.
2006: I doubt Will Hoover from the Hawaiian Newspaper who interviewed Duckworth was a conservative. He claimed Obama was born in Indonesia.
2007: Blue State, a pro-Hillary blog, says Obama born in Kenya, definitely not conservative.
2007: Yahoo Answers argues over Obama being born in Kenya. Most all seem to be liberal Obama supporters.
Dec. 18th, 2007: Chris Matthews (definitely not conservative) plays a clip of former Dem Senator Bob Kerrey claim he had been watching the blogs say you can’t trust Obama because he spent time in Indonesia (possibly the same ones I was seeing more that 6 weeks later). Then Matthews connects Hillary (definitely not conservative) to the born in Indonesia claim.
Duckworth never said Obama was foreign born. Try checking your facts. So in 2006 a reporter for the Honolulu Advertiser made a mistake in an article about where Obama was born? It happens.
Why didn’t you tell us what Will Hoover said about his own misreporting?
This is from an email exchange with Phil from The Right Side of Life Blog. His blog is gone but it is quoted on this Birther site: Will Hoover explanation: he found an anti-Obama site in January 2006 (magical memory!)
For every one of these bits of sloppy reporting there are dozens of sources including Barack Obama himself who reported his birth place as Honolulu. Then of course there are authentic copies of his birth certificate and verifications issued by the state of Hawaii. This is classic Birther use of red herrings on your part. Quit wasting our time.
There is a good discussion whether de Vattel could have had any influence on meaning of “natural born citizen” as used in the eligibility clause in Michael Ramsey’s article on the meaning that I cited above. While Ramsey to me gives an overblown version of de Vattel’s influence he comes to the following conclusion:
I have added this quote to the original article in the de Vattel section because it clearly indicates the lack of evidence that the authors of the Constitution used de Vattel’s civil law view on citizenship.
When it comes to red herrings, RC is an amateur compared to you. You’re still the King.
Reality Check: “I have added this quote to the original article in the de Vattel section because it clearly indicates the lack of evidence that the authors of the Constitution used de Vattel’s civil law view on citizenship.”
I recall various birthers trying to use an explanation that we had just kicked out the English so we would naturally not want to continue to use English Common law but look to the continent for our law. One needs only to look at the negotiations running up to the Treaty of Paris to realize that assumption is flawed.
During the war, we used France for our own benefit, as France was similarily doing with us. After our dislike of their treaty recommendation, we decided to cut them and Spain out and negotiate directly with England. England, tired of war, decided that if we were not to be their colony, we should be a strong trading partner. Therefore, we got a pretty good deal out of it as England recognized we would need sufficient resources to grow our trade. If we were kicking them completely to the curb, we would have stayed working with France.
Most remarks I have found regarding Vattel were regarding the relationship between states and nations, which given our recent independence, necessitated getting up to speed quickly.
It’s just amazing. For once you’re right.
Scroll to the 2 paragraphs that start with the following:
1- Duckworth is happy to point out …
2- Both were born outside the country …
How ironic! I had forgotten I was the one 3 yrs ago that pointed out it was the reporter and not Duckworth that made the claim. You, Pogue, Dr Conspiracy and many others of the Left were there. Check the comment section:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/22/fact-checking-media-yes-clinton-machine-did-start-/
As I stated to the leftist Obot commenter Roald, “if it had been Duckworth it would of been in quotes.”
Then there was the commenter E, who was claiming the rumors followed Obama when he was campaigning for the Illinois US Senate seat and followed him as he went to Washington as a US Senator. I never found any proof of that.
Unwittingly you have confirmed through Will Hoover & Google what I’ve always claimed: There were rumors/claims for Obama being foreign born long before 2008.
Of course Will Hoover changed his story when he started getting calls, emails, and confronted by his editor. The Heat was on. Sounds like an early version of Mike Evans.
I still don’t see any proof conservatives started the Birther Movement. If you want to claim factions on the political Right picked-up the ‘Obama being foreign born’ mantle and ran with it late in the primaries after it was a given Obama would be the Nominee, then I’ll agree with you. Butttt, don’t forget there were Hillary supporters that continued on with the claim long after the 2008 general election.
Not on the left Ike. But if you pointed it out 3 years ago why did you decide to repeat the lie that Duckworth had said it? It’s almost as if you can’t help yourself when it comes to lying.
Good question! Also notice his first reaction to reporter Will Hoover correcting a mistake is “they got to him”. Spoken like a true conspiracy nut.
Well Yumpin’ Yiminy, it’s Pogue, RC’s yes-man. After all these years still struggling with comprehension. Some things never change.
The questions for Pogue: Did I state that RC was right, and I forgot that I was the one 3 yrs ago that pointed out it was the reporter and not Duckworth that made the claim?
I wasn’t the one directly contradicting themselves. You first came in here saying Duckworth said it. Then when corrected claimed you were the one who first noted that the reporter made the mistake 3 years ago. So again why make the claim Duckworth said it if you knew she didn’t? It’s like you just can’t help but lie.
I didn’t find any of my comments on that article but it was difficult to sift through them the way it collapses comments. I see that Ike was there pushing the lie that Hillary started the Birther movement.
But how can that be when Ike is pushing the claim that Obama birtherism started in the 90s?
Again, poor ol Pogue struggles.
What I stated was I believe the rumors/claims are rooted (got its start) in the mid-’90s around the time Obama’s book ‘Dreams…’ was released and he started his political career.
Again I’m not the one directly contradicting themselves. It’s not my struggle when you make claims that are at odds with themselves. So if the rumors started in the 90s how could Clinton have started it? You can’t have it both ways. I know logic and honesty are difficult concepts for you Ike.
I don’t know why the whole article appeared. It was only supposed to be a link to the article.
I had trouble with Washington Times comment section too. What work for me: at the beginning of the comments there’s a place for clicking on ‘oldest comments’, click that. Where the comments are condensed click on it and wait a couple seconds, then click again, repeat that till you have them all. Give them time to load, they’ll all come out in groups of 15.
I believe Hillary & her campaign is most responible for it going national, and I give credit to the Matthews Hardball show in Dec. 18, 2007 also.
Yes you believe hillary and her campaign being most “responible” for it despite there being no evidence to support it. So you and your birther ilk don’t take any responsibility for pushing it for all these years despite it being long debunked? Your buddies at free republic and stormfront don’t take any responsibility?
I see I left exactly one comment on that article. It was about Trump claiming that he would pay $5 million if Obama would release his college records. Of course Obama never responded to or acknowledged such a ridiculous offer.
5 million smackaroos for just a signature is now a ridiculus offer. I wish I’d been the one getting the offer for my signature.
You had more than 1 comment, plus You & I exchanged our normal pleasantries.
Since you’re having problems navigating the comment section, here it is:
My reply to roald – 31 Aug 2016
“I can’t say for sure it was an error. I’m not claiming Occam’s Razor but I’m doing about the same thing; most logical explanation.
I could be wrong about Duckworth but her other statements are in quotes, so it makes more sense to apply it to the reporter.”
roald replying back – 1 sep 2016
“I agree that the original misstatement came from the reporter, not Duckworth.”
RC, no need to thank me.
There would be no reason for a sitting President to take up a ridiculous offer from a lying, carnival side show attraction like Trump. Trump would have either found a way to weasel out of it or just claim he never made the offer in the first place. After all he is at 13,000 lies and counting since taking office. .
So why did you bring up the same lie about Duckworth again if you were so fastidious about it before?
Its been said that if you have to keep explaining the same thing over & over to someone and they’re not catching on you should quit because there’s a high probability they are retarded.
There went the irony meters off scale again.
Again why did you bring up the Duckworth lie again here after you said you figured out she didn’t say it 3 years ago?
Ike: “Of course Will Hoover changed his story when he started getting calls, emails, and confronted by his editor. The Heat was on. Sounds like an early version of Mike Evans.”
A Google search for the headline to the Duckworth article has this correction:
“CORRECTION: A correction on this story was published on Sunday, Jan. 15, 2006: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961. A Page One story last Sunday contained incorrect information about his birthplace.”
So it was originally published on January 8th, 2006 and corrected a week later. This was a year before he announced his run for the Presidency. I’m guessing they did not get a lot of e-mails about it.
You’d have to guess because you don’t know. What it did do is add more to the increasing pile of rumors/claims prior to 2008.
The real problem and still unanswered question is what prompted those publicly addressing Obama as being foreign born prior to 2008? It wasn’t no ‘magical memory’ as Phil from The Right Side of Life tried to claim, and they didn’t just pull it out of the air. There was a source that triggered it.
Notice the Advertiser article originally said Obama was born in Indonesia, not Kenya
My guess would be Andy Martin who started the Obama is a secret Muslim rumor in 2004 and Ted Sampley who wrote about Obama attending “Jakarta’s Muslim Wahhabi schools” in 2006.
Martin called Obama a crypto-muslim, same as secret, and Beckwith called him a manchurian-muslim meaning he was a puppet for an enemy foreign power.
Somewhat of a stretch to get foreign born (Kenya or Indonesia) from that.
And Sampley specifically mentioned schools in Indonesia.
There aren’t unanswered questions. They’ve been answered thousands of times over. You just don’t like the answers.
Since you say it’ has been answered thousands of times you shouldn’t have any problem revealing the source one more time.
And when I resolve it another time you’ll come back 3 months later and ask the same question and claim it hasn’t been resolved. This is your typical tactic.
Ike in all your “research” have you ever come across any proof that the founders between the Declaration of Independence and the ratification of the constitution moved away from the idea of the definition of Natural Born Subject to some mistranslation of Vattel? It should be pretty simple if there was a change claiming that one had to be born of citizen parents there would be some history during the period of the end of the war, during the Articles of Confederation and prior to the constitution which changed the idea of Natural born to mean something other than it did while we were under British authority.
And the fact that George Washington had an overdue copy of de Vattel’s The Law of Nations squirreled away doesn’t count. 🙂
That question stumps even the great Bloviator himself: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
That’s a good question and one that I don’t have a definitive answer for.
What I can add is SOME facts & questions that relates to your question and given time I’ll remember more:
The American colonists were using ‘citizenship oaths’ aside from them also claiming they were subjects of the King as early as the 1600s in many of their communities.
Jefferson in one of his letters to who I think was Pinckney stated that ultimately America’s founding was based on their colonial experience.
The Birthers have the correct translation of Vattel. The 1797 English translation of Vattel is the correct one for that now famous 2nd sentence in Vattel’s original 1758 Law of Nations BK1, Chapt XIX, §212 Des Citoyens & Naturels:
(1758) Les Naturels, ou Indigènes ſont ceux qui ſont nés dans le pay, de Parens Citoyens.
(1797) The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
You, and others of your ilk in resistance to that were sorely misled by Lupin into believing otherwise.
It’s immaterial whether it was translated 1 day or 20 years after the Constitutional Convention. It’s only important that the 1797 translation got it right from the 1758 original.
From a number of sources there were claims that the colonists didn’t have English Common Law. Dr Conspiracy was one of them.
Why did Blackstone write his Commentaries? What did he hope to accomplish?
Even the Obot resistance admitted that Vattel was an important influence during the period the American founders crafted the Declaration.
I’ll have more later.
Blackstone (and Samual Adams) would have been commenting on the current law, pre-revolution. The issue was not that the colonists rejected English law, but that they were denied the protections and privileges of English law. They did not object to English law, they were not entitled to English law. This was a huge reason for the revolution.
Oh, and if we rejected English common law, why do all of the various early state constitutions mention incorporating English common law. Even the Constitution of the Republic of Texas included the following.
When quoting historical writings, context matters.
So you’re debunking RC;s claim that all the original 13 colonies had English Common Law?
Ike: “The Birthers have the correct translation of Vattel.”
Actually they don’t. There were at least two earlier English versions of The Law of Nations. Both (IIRC, 1760 and 1785) of those editions translated “Les Naturels, ou Indigènes” as the “natives, or indigenes.” Notice that “Naturels” is not translated as natural born citizen.
Now look at the 1797 edition. The word “Naturels” is still translated as “natives” and the word “Indigènes” is translated as “natural-born citizen”. The word “citizen” appears twice in sentence for the English version but the word “Citoyens” appears only once in the French version.
The Birther argument would make more sense if English translations were “The natural-born, or natives” or the “natural-born, or indigenes”. But as it is the 1797 edition is not a clean translation.
I can’t agree with you based on my research on it. I’ve had this since early 2012 reading their statements and watching them argue over it. I knew both sides couldn’t be right so I started researching it. Turned out the Birthers were right.
I found in the French dictionaries that the words Naturel & Indigène were synonymous. In other words they could be reversed in the sentence and still mean the same.
One of those links should work:
http://www.synonymo.fr/syno/indig%C3%A8ne
http://www.synonymo.fr/syno/indigène
Indigene in the English dictionaries shows it’s synonymous with both native & citizen.
The only real problem I had was pondering over why did Vattel need to use words that were synonymous twice almost together in the same sentence. The only thing that I came up with is one covered for the land & the other for the country or society (?).
Do you have any problem with the word ‘Parens’ in the sentence to be an exclusive term meant for ‘1 father & 1 mother only’ joined together, and no other blood relatives?
You’re bending over every which way you can to explain away that Vattel didn’t use the french equivalent of natural born citizen. You still have the burden to show that the founders even looked to Vattel when it came to natural born citizenship or the presidential requirements in the constitution. Anything else from you is just more misdirection.
“Do you have any problem with the word ‘Parens’ in the sentence to be an exclusive term meant for ‘1 father & 1 mother only’ joined together, and no other blood relatives?”
You would have to ask a native french speaker how “parens” could applies. For example, “blood relative” translates into “parents par le sang”
Ike thinks he can translate 18 century French better than a native French speaking attorney who also is fluent in English and has previously translated works of de Vattel. Can you say Dunnning-Kruger?
I have an awful feeling that you don’t appreciate my help. Didn’t change or translate anything, only correcting that grievous error on parents you, Woodman and Dr Conspiracy have made on Vattel’s text in BK1, Chapt XIX, §212.
Sheesh! Where’s the attitude of gratitude? I figured y’all would be thankin’ me.
There was no grievous error on parens. I notice you still haven’t fixed your error that there still isn’t proof the founders ever looked to Vattel on natural born citizenship since he never actually used that phrase.
You know what else George Washington had that was overdue? The debates in the british house of commons: https://cityreaders.nysoclib.org/Detail/objects/1551
So the answer to my question is, no. You haven’t found anything at all that the founders changed the meaning of natural born away from that of the english common law’s Natural Born Subject to your made up two citizen parent theory in the 12 years between the declaration and the ratification of the constitution. The birthers don’t have the correct translation. The 1797 version was done completely anonymously. The translator apparently didn’t believe in it enough to attach his name to it. Vattel never used the term natural born citizen in the original french and no translation before he died even came close to making your argument. I believe in common sense which you are completely lacking. Further you still have never shown any proof that the founders looked to Vattel when it came to the presidential requirements in the constitution. So all your nonsense about Vattel has zero relevance. Who here claimed he was the most important influence on the founders? I’ve seen it said he was one influence but he was low on the list. And nowhere has there been any proof the founders looked to him on citizenship law let alone the natural born citizenship requirement for presidential eligibility. Lord William Blackstone was cited more often. https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/founding-father-s-library
Pogue, you need to stop the spinning. Every reply to me has been nothing but spin. I know you have a problem but you’re not that stupid. You’re doing it deliberately.
Definitive means clear-cut. There’s a boatload of sources for Vattel that I’ve come across that go back to the founding period for being a strong influence for the American founders during the crafting of the Constitution, but nothing directly stating he was the source for the natural born citizen clause. Check that controversial ‘Lutz chart for citations’ you posted up. Click on Vattel. That’s been there since at least 2012.
The birthers have the correct translation. Where’d you get the idea the 1797 version was done anonymously? Here’s a copy of it with a couple names on the cover. Could they be the translators?:
https://books.google.com/books?id=z8b8rrzRc7AC&printsec=frontcover&dq=G.G.+%26+J.+Robinson+1797+edition+of+the+law+of+nations&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj7naPdhqTlAhVPJKwKHadZCIEQ6AEwAHoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q=G.G.%20%26%20J.%20Robinson%201797%20edition%20of%20the%20law%20of%20nations&f=false
“Vattel never used the term natural born citizen in the original French”
That’s how the English speaking world translated it during America’s founding period.
With respect to the citations on Lutz’s research, the number for each author has little to no value unless you know how they were being cited. Hitler was most likely the most cited for the cause of WWII. Would you say the citations were in the approval?
I’m not the one who has to spin here. You are. There has never been anything definitive to back the claim that the founders would have looked to vattel on natural born citizenship since he never actually used it. 1797 isn’t 1789. No one knows who wrote the anonymous translation. Strong influence? Vattel is near the bottom of the list in the founders writing. Birthers have consistently overstated Vattel’s influence on them. They may have looked to Vattel for international law but he was just one of many writers they looked to. The 1797 translation was done anonymously. You really don’t know that? Notice nowhere is there a byline saying who did the translation? That’s not how they translated it during the founding period. That’s a translation from after the ratification of the constitution. It’s also why you see in early court cases when they referred to that section of vattel they didn’t translate naturel. We’ve all grown accustomed to your gaslighting Ike.
Gaslighting?????? The only gaslighting is what you’re doing to yourself. You keep repeating the spin and end up believing it’s the only truth. Ditch that crack pipe and eventually your paranoia will fade away.
You’re running against the general agreement that the 1797 English edition is the correct translation of Vattel.
“1797 isn’t 1789″
Impressive. You got it right.
I didn’t know 1797 was done anonymously that’s why I asked. Have you the proof? I have seen that claimed before. What difference does it make?
Here’s the problem: In the later forward to the ’97 edition it states, ” Vattel’s Law of Nations was translated anonymously into English several times in the eighteenth century.” Then the 1916 International edition lists all the English translated editions for the 18th century. All have names attached to them. Does “several times” mean all?
“translation from after the ratification of the constitution.”
So what. Maybe that helped convince the translator/s they had it right.
“Vattel is near the bottom of the list in the founders writing.”
You need to know how they were being cited to have any value. As an example, there’s a boatload of criticism for Blackstone from both the American founders & the European philosophers. I was never able to find any criticism of Vattel – only praise.
And yet they used Blackstone during the Convention to review legal questions about ex post facto laws. And that the concept of impeachmetns and pardons came from English law.
You’re the gaslighter here. I’m not the one doing spin here Ike, you are.How is it the running agreement? Is this from the voices in your head?
You can tell from your own link that there is no editor listed. The edition you mention only has the publisher’s name not the actual translator. So again like I said it was done anonymously.
So What? That’s what matters. No english translation said natural born citizen at the time of ratification and the sole source for what you believe is some anonymous translation from after the ratification and Vattel’s death.
We know how they were cited. Vattel took less precedence than 24 other writers. You didn’t find any criticism of Vattel? Yeah you don’t do much research. Maybe because Blackstone was cited more often was why he had some criticism? The fact remains you still have no proof the founders looked to Vattel for natural born citizenship.
G. G. and J. Robinson were publishers in London during that period. The Editor did not give his name.
Not only was Blackstone cited more often he was third on the list only trailing only St. Paul and Montesquieu. de Vattel was 29th.
Sir Edmund Burke on Blackstone’s Commentaries, the law and the colonies,
“In no country perhaps in the world is the law so general a study. The profession itself is numerous and powerful; and in most provinces it takes the lead. The greater number of the deputies sent to the congress were lawyers. But all who read, and most do read, endeavour to obtain some smattering in that science. I have been told by an eminent bookseller, that in no branch of his business, after tracts of popular devotion, were so many books as those on the law exported to the plantations. The colonists have now fallen into the way of printing them for their own use. I hear that they have sold nearly as many of Blackstone’s Commentaries in America as in England.” March 22nd, 1775.
Burke was a fawner that showed great affections for Blackstone, while at the same time Blackstone’s other English brethren were calling him the King’s toady and ignorance on stilts.
There’s been a number of articles, some from university law reviews, that state Blackstone’s influence on America’s founding period was/is completely overblown. Though they do give credit to Blackstone after the founding period for helping, with some modifications, Americans develope their own common law. Eventually law scholars towards the end of the 19th century labeled him as a complete failure.
Surely you could provide some law reviews claiming his influence was completely overblown considering blackstone is quoted more often by the courts than Vattel ever was.
Over at Rondeau’s blog of misinformation, there is an interesting comment thread on Chester Arthur. One commenter posted a link to an old Donofrio blog posting about how Arthur’s British nationality was a secret until 2008. Someone else posted a link to a 1916 article on dual nationality by President Theodore Roosevelt where he specifically mentions Arthur as having dual nationality. So it wasn’t a big secret.
But then Roosevelt goes on to talk about a specific example of a US citizen (P. A. Lelong) who was born in Louisiana to a US citizen mother and an alien father and who Roosevelt says is eligible to be President of the United States.
I guess that was just the understanding at least until 2008.
Teddy Bear was a good president that often shot from the hip. He got it wrong on P. A. Lelong as well as on some others. One was Tom Paine. He called him a dirty atheist, Paine was a deist.
Somebody who doesn’t know how to read or do research going by the handle of “IKE” above asked about the footnote which I had clearly mentioned was present in the 2nd edition of Vattel’s treatise.
In France (which, under Napoleon, adopted the Vattelist principles), the 1758 text was expanded to specify that a child born out of wedlock, would inherit his mother’s citizenship.
What you need to do is look for the 1863 edition of Emer de Vattel’s DROIT DES GENS edited by Pierre-Paul Royer-Collard . Don’t confuse it with the 1830-35 edition which offers relatively little new insights.
You will find a pdf copy here: http://books.google.fr/books?id=2iie98wAuX0C&…
Article 212 and the footnote(s) in question are on pages 500-501. In fact the footnote in question starts at the very bottom of page 500 and continues on page 501.
A perfect illustration was the case of writer Emile Zola who was born of an Italian father and a French mother, and therefore only acquired French citizenship, automatically upon demand, at age 21.
Since France had no exclusionary clause, that did not prevent him from entering politics and seeking office.
Ultimately, in the 20th century, father and mother were made equal before the law, which presumably would be the same in the US if, like France, they had initially followed Vattel’s principle in the 18th century.
I think Ike’s handle is more akin to Ike Turner in that he’s lashing and out constantly trying to beat long term understandings of the law.
He reminds me of those vacant-eyed Christians that sometimes ring my doorbell to discuss Jesus with me. Unfortunately, I can’t get my dogs to pee on him.
Dogs have higher standards on where they pee and they certainly wouldn’t want to mark a door-to-door Jesus salesman as their territory.
It isn’t that their standards are higher, it’s because a Lefty’s atheist-socialist dog is a non-believer
Put your Hammers & Sickles on the outside of your door then you won’t have to worry about it.
The birthers are like those who idea of knowing the Bible is the ability to proof text. They have little understanding what the phrase means (especially when in a foreign language that does not exactly translate to simple English words) and have no idea the context in which the writer wrote the statement. Meaning and context have no use for them if they believe a phrase backs up their pre-determined result.
I’ll have to add that “Ike” (presumably the old “RamboIke from Dr. Conspiracy’s blog?) is absurdly mistaken and factually wrong in every statement he makes above, and in fact he has never debunked anything I ever wrote, just further humiliated himself. Only in his delusional brain has he ever contributed anything of any value. To use but one example his assertion that the word “parens” or “parents” as it is spelled today is strictly limited to father & mother and exclude any other blood relative is laughable, both in terms of word definition :
https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/parent/58139?q=%27parent#57797
As well as jurisprudence; after the Napoleonic wars where many men died (to quote but one example), many children inherited citizenship through uncles or aunts.
I can understand pushing a political agenda, when when you hit the brick wall of history and facts, reason would dictate to find another path; Ramboike is sad because he keeps pounding the same wall like Sisyphus pushing his boulder.
OMG! It’s the one & only, the internationally famous French attorney, Lupin. I feel so honored to be in your presence, even if it’s only online.
I have a major disagreement with your claim regarding Vattel’s now famous 2nd sentence in his original 1758 Law of Nations BK1, Chapt XIX, §212:
(1758) Les Naturels, ou Indigènes ſont ceux qui ſont nés dans le pay, de Parens Citoyens.
(1797) The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
1st- I think you would agree that any changes in the French language after Vattel died (December 28, 1767) would have no bearing on how he understood French, right? And, any changes made post-Napoleon (1821) definitey wouldn’t have been a part of the French Vattel understood, right?
2nd- So why do you continue to define French words that changed in meaning after Vattel died as ‘how Vattel would have understood them’?
3rd- Directing you to RC’s article above he records for you under “A French attorney posting under the name Lupin…” using the French term “parents” in (a) & (b) instead of the correct term “parens” that Vattel used.
4th- Then in the same paragraph you note in (c): “(Vattel) he does not exclude the mother or indeed any relatives on either side; as a matter of fact, the mother is specifically included/added in a footnote the second edition…”. You claim a mid-19th century date for the 2nd edition. So how can that be from Vattel if he died in 1767?
5th- What Vattel understood in French during his lifetime (1714 to 1767) per the French dictionaries:
The French Parents was defined as relatives/relations. Parens as a subset of parents was defined as pere & mere only (father & mother) excluding all other relatives including Uncle Pepé & Aunt Fifi.
From the 1758 original: “de Parens Citoyens” translated in English to “of citizen parents” (1 citizen father & 1 citizen mother).
Here’s the translating dictionaries to cover Vattel’s lifetime. I set them to open up to the page for the terms in question. To verify publish date click on link on the left marked “view full catalog record”:
1719: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ucm.5325859154&view=1up&seq=412
1729: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ucm.5319428661&view=1up&seq=355
1755: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433070238971&view=1up&seq=335
1768: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ucm.5325859092&view=1up&seq=410
The hubris of a birther thinking he knows French better than Lupin who is actually a native french speaker is hilarious.
Think Dunning-Kruger.
No, you are simply wrong. There is no other way to state it. You are wrong in law and wrong in fact.
There was/is no change in the French language on “parents”– it has always and still means relatives.
Vattel’s text being fundamental in our legal system, it was commented, annotated, updated and in effect explained during his life and after his death. Such notes by our legal authorities of the times carry more weight than your mistaken interpretations (and frankly unprecedented ones, as no one else but you has ever put forth such rubbish).
I’m not disagreeing with you on Parent in French being defined as relatives. The problem is you, you won’t recognize the fact that Parens in the French was being used as a subset of Parent during Vattel’s lifetime to separate pere & mere from all the other relatives.
You are in a way admitting through your claims that the 1863 text of Vattel was changed to conform to the current laws & terms in place at that time. Btw, that’s the 20 edition of Vattel, not his 2nd. His 2nd was published in 1773 and later Dumas make copies of it and sent them to Franklin where he passed one on to the 2nd Congress to use while they were crafting America’s founding documents.
Once again Ike claiming he knows french and the history of french better than a native french speaker. The hubris is astounding.
If one searches the various editions of a single, notably abridged, dictionary that Ike offers as being exclusive authority over the French language during de Vattel’s life, one will find that parens is used in multiple locations for “relative” – for example, “parens paternal” or father’s relatives. But that dictionary, written by an Englishman, is not the sole authority. I found a treatise exploring the development of French-English dictionaries, which includes very handy appendices with comprehensive listings of the various editions of all the major dictionaries. Appendix II covers the 17th and 18th centuries. After perusing 4 or 5 of these dictionaries, it is quite clear that parens included relatives (often stated as kinsmen), before, during and after de Vattel’s life. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3103&context=gradschool_disstheses
I expect Ike to withdraw his clearly erroneous assertion about the historical definition of parens forthwith.
You proved me wrong. I had Pogue as the dumbest amongst us, then you showed up.
What you expect and what I’m going to do are polar opposites.
What you’re claiming could be called a red herring.
It’s not unusual to see words being used throughout dictionaries multiple ways as part of definitions of other words. It goes on today in the English dictionaries. Good example is the word “indigenes”. It’s listed as having 48 words synonymous with it. I’m hard pressed to see how some of them connect, and there are many other words treated the same way.
I don’t know where you got that on Boyer, but he was French and his 1st language was French. He worked with the English in London and the French in Lyons, France to produce those translating dictionaries – it was a joint venture.
What you’re proposing is the French translators in Lyons didn’t know at the time how the words were being used in their own society.
Parens was put as a subset of Parent to separate father & mother from all the other relatives. Hence that’s why Vattel used it.
Parens eventually loses favor with the French. It disappears from their dictionaries somewhere around 1820. It had a short stay around late 1790s as no longer a subset of parent, was on it own being defined as father & mother.
Actually the dumbest among us continues to be you Ike. Claiming to know the french language better than Lupin a native french speaker. You can’t admit being wrong about anything despite you being consistently proven wrong over the years. Every previous time you’ve come here you had your clock cleaned only to run from articles and come back months later on a new article and repeating the same stupid debunked claims. As usual you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Hey good to hear from the old gang again!
I just have a question for Ike: Why is it OK for Trump to be President when…
1) His mother was Scottish ‘natural born subject’ of the King (and later the Queen) and her native tongue was Scots-Gaelic, English was at least her second language.
2) His mother entered the US on a short term visa and overstayed? (Illegal Immigrant?)
3) His mother LIED on the US Census form for 1940, claiming she was a US Citizen (She was NOT).
4) So Trump had 1 citizen father, just like Obama had 1 citizen mother.
WHY AREN’T YOU BLEATING ABOUT FOREIGN INFLUENCE AND WHATEVER ELSE YOU THINK OBAMA’S BIRTH SITUATION CAUSED, BUT AGAINST TRUMP?
(FYI there is exactly one conspiratorial hand waving misdirection in my post)
I am waiting for birthers to come to grips with the fact that Don Jr., Eric, and Ivanka are not natural-born by their 2 citizen parent theory.
Congrats, you’re right. All 3 not natural-born citizens.
Of course the two parent citizen theory has been completely discredited and has failed in every court case where it was trotted out. All three are natural born citizens due to birth on US soil.
You base that on opinions by the Black Robes not on conclusive documented proof.
Have the Black Robes made some terrible decisions in the past that held?
Here’s my quess, if we each made a short list of the worst decisions, lets say 10, we’d have some the same & some different. We’d probably have Dred Scott 1st and followed most likely by Plessy v. Ferguson. You wouldn’t have Roe v Wade or Wong Kim Ark, I would. It comes down to what you believe in (ideology) and influence.
There is no conclusive documented proof to support your thesis though.
Congrats on your troll word playing again. I did not say they were not NBC (they are) but only that the birther incorrect 2 parent BS would make them not NBC.
Of course, you troll and are not interested in facts so, I’m not surprised.
I’m not trolling. I’ve given you facts on a number of issues. No one is forcing you and your fellow Obots to accept them, however it’s the truth.
You have your beliefs and I have mine.
No you’ve given us claims which you fail to substantiate. You’ve repeatedly been proven wrong but then continue to push the same nonsense. Yes your beliefs aren’t based on anything in reality but based on wanting things to be a certain way.
I bet if I stopped 100 people on the street and asked them if the rules at a club required that “only children of members could use the pool” if that meant that both the father and the mother had to be members not one of them would answer in the affirmative.
It’s amazing the illogical contortions Birthers have to go through to try to imagine Obama was not eligible.
Testing
Such a lame analogy
3rd try:
RC: “I have spoken with Lupin off line and on my show. He is a polite and sincere gentleman so knock off your bullshit. Your half assed internet research is worthless.”
Your anger and frustration over facing the Truth has been duly noted.
RC: “The Framers knew the English common law definition of natural born”
RC: “…there is just no evidence that authors of the Constitution used anything other than the English term “natural born subject” as a synonym for “natural born citizen”.”
That’s why the founders rejected it.
Difference between a citizen and a subject:
Subject means one who is under the power of another; but a citizen is an unit of a mass of free people, who, collectively, possess sovereignty. Subjects look up to a master, but citizens are so far equal, that none have hereditary rights superior to others.
A citizen of the United States, means a member of the nation. The principle of government being radically changed by the revolution, the political character of the people was also changed from subjects to citizens.
The difference is immense. Subject is derived from the Latin words, sub and jacio, and means one who is under the power of another; but a citizen is an unit of a mass of free people, who, collectively, possess sovereignty.
Vattel wrote about the people being the sovereigns.
The reason for the change from “subject” to “citizen” in the new United States was obvious: there was no monarch. The new country was over a decade old by the time the Constitution was written so the term citizen was pretty well in use. The term “subject” was still around and was used in some legal documents like citizenship declarations even in the decade after the Constitution was ratified.
However just flatly stating that the definition of natural born was changed without a single shred of proof is just nonsense. If the authors wanted such a change it would have been debated and documented. No such documentation exists.
Founders used the terms citizen and subject interchangeably.
One example from the 1780 Massachusetts’ Constitutio drafted by John Adams:
“And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law;”
“And, that the citizens of this commonwealth may be assured, from time to time”
Another from a 1790 letter from President Washington to Catholic citizens:
“And may the members of your Society in America, animated alone by the pure spirit of Christianity, and still conducting themselves as the faithful subjects of our free Government,”
From the Delaware General Assembly in June, 1788:
“BE it therefore enacted by the General Assembly of Delaware, That any alien or foreigner already settled, or inhabiting within this state, or who shall hereafter come to settle …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 the title of this 1798 act from the Massachusetts Legislature:
“Resolve Requesting the Senators and Representatives in Congress to Propose an Amendment to the Constitution Providing, that None but Natural Born Subjects be Eligible to Certain Offices”
Hi Keith, and let me be the first to welcome you to RC & his fellow travelers’ circle jerk.
As I understand it from my research:
Donald’s grandfather Frederick became a naturalized citizen during the 1890s. He later married a German woman who, due to the laws at the time, inherited his American citizenship, thus making Fred (Donald’s father) a natural-born citizen at birth. Mary Trump (Donald’s mother) was naturalized on March 10, 1942 by the U.S. District Court in Brooklyn. Donald was born in 1946, thus making him a natural-born citizen.
But have you seen the long form naturalization certificate? How do we know it wasn’t forged? I think we should put an amateur has been detective and used car salesman on it.
Keith, I forgot to add this from Wikipedia to my 1st reply:
Though the 1940 census form filed by Mary Anne and her husband Fred Trump stated that she was a naturalized citizen, she did not actually become one until March 10, 1942.[3][8][9] However, there is no evidence that she violated any immigration laws prior to her naturalization, as she frequently traveled internationally and was afterwards able to re-enter the U.S.
At a time when anyone connected with an intelligence service here in Europe is aware that your president is an unwitting Russian asset, discussing someone’s — anyone’s — birth certificate as a potential liability strikes me as humorous. Just saying.
You should direct that to RC. He put that article up on Sept 17th, and has you as a major part of it, although yours is mostly absurdity.
Speaking of absurdities, Ike, any comment on your absurd claim that parens exclusively means mother and father, now that I’ve pointed out that even your own source provides examples otherwise?
He’s still sticking to his stupid theory despite you proving him wrong. That’s what Ike has done all along.
That’s what all the birthers did all along.
You’re a Hoot. I’m giving you facts, not theory.
Notice my reply times to both Lupin & Vickland were after theirs. Lupin cut & run. He knows I have it right. I had some questions for him.
Notice Vicklund claims my source, but he doesn’t give any examples from my source. He can’t because there is nothing under the letter P that defines Parens any other way except for Father & Mother. Parens was used to single out “Father & Mother” from all the other relatives. That’s why it was set in under the French term Parents (relatives). What he might have is something from the preface or a forward in some edition that expands the use of the word to its breaking point, but nothing from the text under the letter P. You can cross check it from the English side (usually listed as Volumn II) under the English term Parents. It’ll be defined as Father & Mother, and Parens in the French.
As I first stated the dictionaries cover both Vattel’s lifetime and America’s founding period. I have the dictionaries from 1719 to 1819, a hundred years. From 1719 to 1793 Parens was a subset term under the French term Parents. From 1793 to 1819 it was removed as a subset and became a general term for Father & Mother. After that it takes on a whole new definition.
The main tool for translators are the translating dictionaries. It very well could be that the translator of the 1797 English edition of Vattel you call anonymous got the translation for Parens from one of the 1790s translating dictionaries.
Here’s some of the later editions of the translating dictionaries, 1793 to 1819:
1793– https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433070238948&view=1up&seq=308
1797– https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015014117934&view=1up&seq=308
1802– https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101067889822&view=1up&seq=336
1819– https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=chi.38430510&view=1up&seq=319
No you’re giving us your theories which aren’t based on anything factual. You continue to misinterpret things you read. Lupin cut and run? Funny how he’s still here and how every time you lose in these threads you run for months on end only to come back and act like everyone forgot that your theories were debunked. You do know that all this talk about what you think dictionaries said about vattel doesn’t actually mean anything since you still haven’t shown any proof that the founders looked to vattel for natural born citizenship or the presidential requirements. Every other reply that doesn’t address that hole in your theory is just more misdirection on your part.
The only obvious hole is in your head. You lack the tool necessary to figure it out.
Lupin’s laughing at how easy it was to hose y’all for almost 10 years. I’m lmao too. Now good ol Ike is here trying to help yas get it right and look how you do me. Sheesh!
1st, to the problem with Lupin. The material we’re dealing with is all from the 18th century. That includes Vattel’s writings, America’s founding period, 1797 English speaking world’s translation of Vattel, and both English & French words/terms. Lupin is in the 19th century – after the Napoleonic Code made changes to the laws & terms – applying it to the material we’re dealing with in the 18th century. Lupin states very plainly the 1758 text of Vattel was expanded under Napoleon. He even points out that Vattel was updated after the Code went into effect, and “mother” was added as a footnote in the 1863 French edition of Vattel’s text (how can that be original?). The 1863 was the 20th French edition of Vattel, not his 2nd edition.
2nd, to the problem with Vicklund. He claims Parens is used for relatives. That’s true, Father & Mother are blood relatives. He gives an example of “parens paternal” which is one word modifying the other word, thus changing the meaning/definition. He has yet to provide an example of his claim.
Now it’s possible there’s something that defines Parens standing alone differeently that I’m not aware of. Butttt, it stands to reason, based on the dictionaries, that Vattel would of used the french term Parents if he meant all relatives or any relative instead of Parens.
3rd, to the text: (1758) Les Naturels, ou Indigènes ſont ceux qui ſont nés dans le pay, de Parens Citoyens. As I’ve already shown Indigène & Naturel are listed as being synonymous in the French dictionaries. Naturel was translated by the American Congress (1780?) as ‘Natural Born’. English dictionaries have Indigene being synonymous with Citizen as the most relevant term, and also Native. And Native as person born in the country in which he/she dwells as synonymous with Citizen. There’s no stretch there, they all blend very agreeably for the English speaking translation: (1797) The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
I expect all Obots to turn into a flock of vultures and start tearing that apart.
Lastly, to your idiotic false claim, “…every time you lose in these threads you run for months on end only to come back and act like everyone forgot that your theories were debunked.” Walk your talk and provide the proof. Here’s a hint: You can’t.
It’s hilarious how every time you’re given proof you run for a few months only to come back and spout the same thing. I notice you still can’t back your thesis that the founders looked to your interpretation of vattel for the natural born citizen requirement in the presidential eligibility section of the constitution. You’ve done nothing but say a lot of words none of which actually back your theory. Shakespeare had people like you in mind when he wrote “It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
I have spoken with Lupin off line and on my show. He is a polite and sincere gentleman so knock off your bullshit. Your half assed internet research is worthless. The Framers knew the English common law definition of natural born and as SCOTUS has said that’s the guide for interpreting terms used Constitution. Until you can find in the historical record that they said they were deviating from that definition your are just making a clown of yourself in public.
If Obama was a foreign President we could sure use a lot more like him.
(This chart is over a year old. I am sure Trump’s numbers have gone up.)
Charlie Hughes: “Founders used the terms citizen and subject interchangeably.”
It’s only natural there would be some examples where the adjustment had yet to be made to the new political character of the American people from subjects to citizens.
The word Citizens not Subjects was used in the Declaration of Independence where it became the official political character of the American people when the delegates from the original 13 colonies united together as 13 states signed the document in the summer of 1776.
Citizen was confirmed as the official political character of the American people by the Preliminary Peace Treaty between the United States and Great Britain on Nov. 30th, 1782:
Article 5.
It is agreed that the Congress Shall earnestly recommend it, to the Legislatures of the respective States to provide for the Restitution of all Estates, Rights and Properties, which have been confiscated, belonging to real British Subjects
Article 7.
There Shall be a firm and perpetual Peace, between his Britannic Majesty and the Said States, and between the Subjects of the one, and the Citizens of the other
Article 8.
The Navigation of the River Missisippi from its Source to the Ocean, Shall forever remain free and open to the Subjects of Great Britain, and the Citizens of the United States.
Signed:
Richard Oswald L.S.
John Adams L.S.
B. Franklin L.S.
John Jay L.S.
Henry Laurens. L.S.
Historian David Armitage has argued that the Declaration was strongly influenced by de Vattel’s The Law of Nations, the dominant international law treatise of the period, and a book that Benjamin Franklin said was “continually in the hands of the members of our Congress”. Armitage writes, “Vattel made independence fundamental to his definition of statehood”; therefore, the primary purpose of the Declaration was “to express the international legal sovereignty of the United States”. If the United States were to have any hope of being recognized by the European powers, the American revolutionaries first had to make it clear that they were no longer dependent on Great Britain. That’s the same as what Tom Paine called for with his Common Sense writings.
Massachusetts naturalization acts used both “natural born” terms interchangeably:
February, 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.”
February, 1786, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING MICHAEL WALSH.” in which it was declared that Michael Walsh “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be a citizen of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of a natural born citizen.”
July, 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.”
March, 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, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
May, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING EDWARD WYER AND OTHERS THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Edward Wyer 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.”
October, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children, “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
November, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ALEXANDER MOORE, AND OTHERS, HEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Alexander Moore and others, “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and immunities of natural born subjects.”
June, 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.”
November, 1788, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”
February, 1789, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JAMES HUYMAN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that James Huyman 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.”
June, 1789, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NATHANIEL SKINNER, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Nathaniel Skinner 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.”
March, 1790, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND 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.”
March, 1791, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN WHITE & OTHERS” in which it was declared that John White and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken, to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges, and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In each of these cases, they say the naturalized person is has become a citizen of the Commonwealth and is entitled to all the rights of the natural born. And they use the term citizen or subject interchangeably to describe the natural born.
Zephaniah Swift does exactly the same thing in his 1795 work on the laws of Connecticut.
“The children of aliens born in this state are considered as natural born subjects and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Harvard PhD has this take on terms in the Constitution:
“What is worth examining here is the presence of common law in the Constitution itself. It is universally acknowledged that this appears, in the first place, in the language of the document. Whether at issue is “the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus” or “ex post facto Law” or “natural born” or “good behavior,” the common law must be consulted for definition.” James Reist Stoner Jr. 2003 Common-law Liberty: Rethinking American Constitutionalism
Ike again failed to post proof the founders changed the definition of natural born. Another reason the young United States would have not adopted a more restrictive definition of natural born is that they needed to grow the citizen population. They would have been unlikely to deny the children of immigrants citizenship.
The only times in history the US has tried to deny natural born citizenship to the native born children of non-citizens it has been based on racial bias. In the first part of the 19th century it was the children of slaves who were denied. We fought a war and adopted the 14th Amendment to settle that. In the later half of the same century it was the children of Asian people. That question was settled in 1898.
In the present day we still have racists like Birthers and Trump supporters who want to deny birthright citizenship based on skin color. I suppose the racist scum in our society will always be around trying to “purify” our country.
Obviously errors were being made since the national political character of Citizen was established for the American people with the signing of the Declaration of Independence. It’s also obvious that at some future point the error was corrected.
Even Jefferson who was tasked by the Committee of Five to write the 1st draft of the Declaration erred & wiped out the wet ink of Subjects and wrote Citizens over the smudge.
You don’t provide enough details for your list. Were these people that were naturalized immigrants, or were they born in America to parents who were subjects of another country?
You’ve made a major error that really stands out: A naturalized does not have all the rights that a natural born has. A naturalized can’t be President or Vice-President.
It’s ironic that these naturalizations took place in Massachusetts, the Bay colony where John Adams, America’s 2nd president, was the leading delegate, a member of the Committee of Five who worked with Jefferson on the original drafts of the Declaration, and a signer of that Document.
As a delegate chosen to represent America at the 1783 Treaty of Paris, John Adams sketched out several preliminary drafts in preparation. One draft dated 27 April 1783 where he makes a distinction between Britian’s natural born subjects & America’s natural born citizens reads:
“The Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, Shall enjoy in all the (Territories is crossed out) and every of the Said United States, all the Rights Liberties Priviledges and Immunities and be Subject to the Duties and Allegiance of natural born Citizens of the Said States—and on the other Hand, all the Citizens of the Said United States shall enjoy in all and every of the Dominions of the Crown of Great Britain, all the Rights, Liberties Priviledges and Immunities and be subject to the Duties and Allegiance of natural born Subjects of that Crown, excepting Such Individuals of either Nation as the Legislature of the other shall judge fit to except.”
In another preliminary draft dated 26 November 1782 Adams writes about the problems with the British loyalists remaining in the states. He divides them into 3 categories, with 2 he references Vattel’s Law of Nations (grin), and the 3rd he shows contempt for breaking the Laws of War:
Draft Article on Loyalists:
“Congress will recommend to the Legislature of each of the thirteen States to appoint Commissioners to be under Oath to appraise at a just Value, at this Time the Estates that have been confiscated, and to make Provision, in a reasonable Time, not exceeding two Years for , Start deletion,the, End, a Compensation, to those of the Refugees who have not taken an active Part in the War against the United states, and of those who having taken an active Part have conducted themselves like civilized Ennemies, and have governed themselves by the Law of Nations.
And to extend Amnesty to all excepting Such as were the most culpable & Instrumental in bringing on the War, and Such as shall appear, to have been guilty of Cruelties, Devasations Depredations and other (crimes is crossed out) Excesses, in the Prosecution of the War, not warrantable nor excuseable by the Laws of War.”
Well that is all interesting but it doesn’t have a flip to do with the definition of “natural born citizen”.
“Obviously errors were being made”
You’re an idiot. Couldn’t possible be that you are in error? You honestly think that you understand the laws and terminology of the 1780s better than the people, lawyers, legislators, and judges alive at the time. Amazing
“You don’t provide enough details for your list.”
There is no mention of the parents of the adults being naturalized. In some cases there is no mention of the person’s previous location and in others it says where they are from e.g. Great Britain, Denmark, Germany, France. In one case the person was from Persia.
“You’ve made a major error that really stands out: A naturalized does not have all the rights that a natural born has. A naturalized can’t be President or Vice-President.”
You are mistaken. Most of these naturalization acts occurred before 1788, so yes these naturalized persons would have been eligible to be President or Vice-President.
These were also Massachusetts state acts so the people naturalized became state citizens.
What the acts and laws of the time show us is that the Founders weren’t as concerned with the conceptual differences between citizen and subject as you are.
“The Declaration of Independence of 4 July 1776 contained Nothing but the Boston Declaration of 1772 and the Congress Declaration of 1774. Such are the Caprices of Fortune.” Handwritten note by John Adams
“This Declaration of Rights was drawn by the little John Adams. The mighty Jefferson by the Dec. of Independence 4 July 1776 carried away the glory of both the great and the little.” Handwritten note by John Adams
“The aspect of our politics has wonderfully changed since you left us. In place of that noble love of liberty and republican government which carried us triumphantly thro’ the war, an Anglican, monarchical and aristocratical party has sprung up, whose avowed object is to draw over us the substance as they have already done the forms of the British government.” Thomas Jefferson 1796
I didn’t think it was possible to top the Lupin lunacy, butttt you and RC have succeeded in doing just that. Congrats! Where Lupin’s in the wrong century, you two dummies are at the wrong level of government. This is the most insane claim I’ve ever seen from the Obots.
All the material I’ve submitted on Citizen vs Subject is for the national level for both countries, and everything you’ve posted on it is at the state level. Laws, rules, regulations, and terms vary from state to state – that’s normal. So yes, Taxachusetts has used the terms interchangeably, butttt that doesn’t mean Subject was used at the national level. Only Citizen was and is used for the national political character/identity of the American people.
If the Constitution of Taxachusetts is/was a model for the US Constitution, as you claim, then why isn’t the term Subject used in that founding document? And especially for the presidential eligibility clause. I don’t remember ever seeing that term in any of the founding documents.
If you ask people that live in Taxachusetts if they are a citizen or subject of the United States, what do you think their answer would be?
It’s readily apparent RC is in over his head claiming citizen & subject are synonymous.
I should of been more specific to keep you from doing your little spin dance and said your last 5 examples of naturalization don’t qualify for Pres & Veep.
Another red herring by the troll Ike. I did not say citizen and subject were synonymous. I said that they were often used interchangeably in the early days of the republic. Mr. Hughes provided multiple instances that proved my statement. People obviously knew the difference. However, they had been used to referring to themselves as subjects for the better part of their lives so naturally old habits are hard to break.
Ike needs to stop wasting everyone’s time and post specific historical references where at any time between 1776 and 1787 the US changed the common law meaning of natural born. Remember, we already know that the Supreme Court said for that for determining the meaning of terms used in the Constitution not otherwise defined we must resort to English common law. “Natural born” was one of those terms and the founders clearly knew what it meant. If they changed it then Ike should have no problem at all providing proof yet he continues to dodge that fundamental question. Why?
Because Ike knows there’s no evidence to support his claims. There’s no proof the founders changed the meaning of natural born before the constitution to mean his mistranslation of vattel.
Ok, Curly, what claims? Changed the meaning of natural born? What mistranslation of Vattel?
Paragraph directly above subheading “Resources” in your article.
I quote you: “…there is just no evidence that authors of the Constitution used anything other than the English term “natural born subject” as a synonym for “natural born citizen”.”
When Subject & Citizen are used in the political sense to describe the national character for people of a country the terms are not synonymous, they become polar opposites. If you were to try joining the terms together in the same sense you would be creating an oxymoron.
I’m not dodging anything. Never did understand the hows & whys of using Common Law to determine the national political character for the people of a country. The case laws, as I understand it, are applied to state & local issues. Determining national character of a people would be left to statesmen or a national legislature of law-makers.
The actual change from subject to citizen had started in the minds of the colonists long before the revolutionary period, though it wasn’t official until the Declaration.
The mistranslation of vattel you keep relying on to make your claims. You have yet to show any proof that the founders looked to that mistranslation when it came to the natural born citizenship requirement in the constitution. You have yet to show they changed the meaning of natural born from what it was under british rule. Anything else from you is just misdirection. Yes you’re still dodging. You can’t show any proof they changed the meaning of natural born to what you theorize it means.
I did not say the terms citizen and subject were the synonyms but there is concrete evidence that in those days before and right after the adoption of the Constitution the terms “natural born subject” and “natural born citizen” were both used to describe the same thing. Both were legal members of their respective societies based on the place of their birth.
You still don’t get it. And I doubt if you ever will.
So let’s leave it at this.
Provide us with a quote from the Framers that the term natural born citizen to meant born in the country to two citizen parents.
And if you can’t then the logical and simple explanation is they continued to use the same definition for natural born that they had used for the previous 180 years.
As I said Ike is the poster child for Dunning Kruger syndrome.
That’s your best bet. Get as far away from it as possible. As I’ve previously stated “This is the most insane claim I’ve ever seen from the Obots.” It’s the Lupin Lunacy compounded many times over.
As I stated to Pogue on Oct 19th, for me there is no clear-cut answer as far as I know for what you’re asking. I’ll add that I’m not alone on saying that.
When I look at the total volume of everything I’ve read on the issue which is an accumulation of dozens, and possibly a hundred sources, then apply reason & logic to it it points to Vattel.
Yes there’s no clear-cut answer because there’s zero proof they changed the meaning of natural born during the interim period between the declaration through the constitution. It sure didn’t change under the articles of confederation. The whole “2 citizen parent” premise from birther fails as there’s been zero proof the founders changed the meaning away from what it meant under natural born subject. Except it doesn’t point to “vattel” You can’t show anything from that time period where it points to Vattel. Nothing from the founders saying it points to vattel. No court cases during that time period saying the founders got it from Vattel. It’s just once again your misguided opinion not based on what actually was but what you wanted it to be simply to exclude Obama or Harris or really any other minority you don’t deem worthy enough.
In other words it is your opinion only and that opinion is shared by no serious Constitutional scholar.
Obviously, he can’t, for the simple reason that none of the Framers ever said that.
RC: “In the present day we still have racists like Birthers and Trump supporters who want to deny birthright citizenship based on skin color. I suppose the racist scum in our society will always be around trying to “purify” our country.”
Pogue: “It’s just once again your misguided opinion not based on what actually was but what you wanted it to be simply to exclude Obama or Harris or really any other minority you don’t deem worthy enough.”
Wow! Thanks for cluing me in. I had no idea.
You asked what people of Massachusetts would call themselves if asked. In 1787 they would say either subject or citizen. That is what the naturalization acts tell us.
Two Connecticut Congressmen also told us what natural born meant.
Zephaniah Swift said that children born in the state of alien parents were natural born.
James Hillhouse said that an alien could come to the US, marry and his children would be natural born citizens even though he had not (in fact could not be) naturalized.
William Rawle said that children born in the US to alien parents were natural born citizens.
Those are the kinds of statements that do not exist for your arguments. but you ignore them or wave you arms and say they are in error.
Hey Larry, you should stop digging your hole. You’re going to get down so deep that the bros Moe & Curly won’t be able to pull you out.
The only thing you need to remember is with the signing of the Declaration of Independence, America’s original founding document, by those representing the original 13 colonies now called the thirteen united States of America, Subject was eliminated and replaced with Citizen for the national political character of the American people.
Everything else you’ve put forth is secondary.
Case closed, end of story, thx for playing.
That’s right and they kept the same definition of natural born. How do we know?
Because people alive at the time told us they did. Even with all of your speculating and guessing, you can not dispute that simple fact.
No ifs, ands, or buts.
Larry, keep digging, eventually you’ll reach China.
There’s no speculation or guessing on my part. I gave you the facts on America’s founding. It’s you that’s showing contempt for our Freedom Charters, just like all Lefties (Obots included). You can’t bring yourself to admitting that Citizen not Subject is the official term for the national political character of the American people in those Founding Documents.
It’s not abnormal to find some that mixed or confused the terms Citizen & Subject. That has gone on throughout history. In todays America we see the Left trying to change the term “illegal” into meaning “undocumented”.
“Natural born” is only a modifier when attached to the nouns Subject & Citizen, both still remain as opposite as day is to night.
I read the research by a number of political science professors on the development of law in colonial America. One in particular really summed it up with “Movement from the mentality of a subject to that of a citizen is one major aspect of a diverging political culture that will by 1776 make Americans and Englishmen political strangers.”
One more time for any lurkers who missed it:
With the signing of the Declaration of Independence, America’s original founding document, by those representing the original 13 colonies now called the thirteen united States of America, Subject was eliminated and replaced with Citizen for the national political character of the American people.
Difference between a citizen and a subject:
Subject means one who is under the power of another; but a citizen is an unit of a mass of free people, who, collectively, possess sovereignty. Subjects look up to a master, but citizens are so far equal, that none have hereditary rights superior to others.
A citizen of the United States, means a member of the nation. The principle of government being radically changed by the revolution, the political character of the people was also changed from subjects to citizens.
The difference is immense. Subject is derived from the Latin words, sub and jacio, and means one who is under the power of another; but a citizen is an unit of a mass of free people, who, collectively, possess sovereignty.
And all of that is completely irrelevant to the question at hand:
Did the United States change the rules for deciding who were citizens by virtue of birth in the territory encompassed by the new nation?
The answer is a resounding no. How do we know that? Because they told us so.
Ike said:
“Wow! Thanks for cluing me in. I had no idea.”
And no clue either.
That’s true. I was clueless until you & Curly brought it to my attention. Now I understand why you & your bro Curly are always so enraged.
If I reading this right you 2 are saying there’s a vast cracker conspiracy to get the darkies. That’s horrible.
How long has this been going on? You most likely have more details on it you can provide.
Just know that with good ol Ike you 2 always have a shoulder to cry on.
I found an interesting article from 2015 about the attack on birthright citizenship:
Turning Our Backs on the 14th Amendment
It discusses the history of the 14th Amendment and some of the landmark Supreme Court decisions on the citizenship clause like the Wong Kim Ark case. The opposition to birthright citizenship has always been largely based in racism and xenophobia. The article includes a quote from Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania from the debate on the passage of the 14th Amendment:
Sounds familiar doesn’t it?
[This comment went to the trash for some reason. I approved it when I saw your comment later. I do not have anyone on moderation but if you leave a comment that doesn’t appear for some reason just leave a short comment or send me an email. I will approve it as soon as possible.. RC]
What sounds familiar is the leftist brainwashing that I typically see coming from the minds of Obots, and how easily they swallow propaganda from their leftist media master & political overlords.
The article is from the far-left site Center for American Progress (CAP). CAP is a member of the Shadow Party, a network of activist groups organized by leftist billionaire George Soros.
The question for you: When are you going to correct all the errors in your article now that you know which ones they are? If you don’t that now leaves it to being flagrant & without shame.
and yet Ike the only ones you’ve questioned seem to all be minorities. You have yet to prove they changed the definition between the Declaration and the constitution let alone with the signing of the constitution. Everything else is just misdirection on your part. You can’t prove they changed it and those involved at the time back what we’ve said. There has been no proof they looked to your mistranslation of vattel for the natural born citizenship clause.
I think you’re right. It looks like the only ones I’ve questioned are minorities, or as you Obots like to emphasize “a skin color other than white”. Were there any of the white skin color that I missed? I give McCain an exemption due to his father’s orders and their permanent address being the United States. As Vattel say he hadn’t quit on his country.
On Oct 19th I explained to you I didn’t have anything that showed Vattel as the direct source for the presidential eligibility clause in the Constitution. Also I stated by the hugh volume of sources (including evidence) I had accumulated I took a logic approach and reasoned from that Vattel was a strong influence.
What we do have and I provided it is that John Adams preliminary draft of 1783, 5 years before the ratification of the Constitution. Take notice how Adams states it: “Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain” (the Monarch, the King), and for “Citizens of the Said United States” (no government, no King). Do you know why Adams stated it that way? You most likely haven’t a clue. It’s because We, the American people are the sovereigns and government is our servants. We did have an 8 year scare where it seemed to be going the other way but now it’s straightened out, that is as long as we can prevent the Democrats from taking us into that dysfunctional Socialist World Order.
Correction: Lupin mistranslated Vattel, not Ike.
Correction: Ike mistranslated Vattel and not Lupin. Ike also misinterpreted the constitution and continues to ramble as if he had idea what he was talking about. Again you can’t show any proof the founders looked to vattel on the natural born citizenship requirement. So again all your ramblings are just misdirection. If you can’t prove that the founders looked to vattel for the natural born citizenship requirement you pretty much have no argument. Socialist world order? Come on Ike red baiting went out of style in the 1950s it shows you really don’t have an argument if you want to label the democrats as plainly socialists.
You really do struggle. What you’re suffering from is known as cognitive impairment. It means you have trouble remembering the simplest of things and struggle to learn new things, and when you do comment it looks like a bunch of cockamamie.
No, I didn’t mistranslate Vattel, and Lupin, your so called “expert” went into hiding because he knows what he claimed is wrong. No proof has been provided I have it wrong. Like Lupin, Vicklund & Woodman also went into hiding over it.
Here’s Lupin making some more false claims: “… in fact he has never debunked anything I ever wrote, just further humiliated himself. Only in his delusional brain has he ever contributed anything of any value.”
It’s exactly the opposite of what Lupin is claiming. Almost everything he has claimed I’ve debunked. Some of it is on my Intense Debate log. Anytime he find the courage to go Head to Head with me on them I’m ready.
“Again you can’t show any proof the founders looked to vattel on the natural born citizenship requirement.”
You wouldn’t be claiming that if you understood what I have previously stated to you a number of times. I was only correcting the errors Lupin made when he translated Vattel. I don’t claim to have direct proof that Vattel was the source for the presidential eligiblity clause in the Constitution. I do claim that from the hugh volume of sources (call it circumstantial; not direct) I accumulated and by taking a logical approach to it with reason the conclusion I came to does point to Vattel.
I gave you one example sources I had. Did you click on Vattel on the Library of Liberty link you provided? Here’s what it says: “His writings were widely read in the American colonies and had a profound impact on the thinking of the framers of the American constitution.” How do you explain that away? I had multiple dozens like that from a wide variety of world wide sources.
If you watched the Democrat debates and their comments later one would get the impression they are pushing socialism for America.
And one more that I was saving for last because I know RC will throw a temper tantrum over it. Both him & Woodman are misleading everyone over their jurisdiction claims.
The only one constantly struggling with reality here is you Ike. There has never been any support for your delusional birther theories. The only one trying to mislead readers here is you. The battle you’re trying to fight was lost over a century ago. What specifically in the democratic debates speaks of vesting the entire means of production into the state? Vattel being one source out of hundreds on international law and being read doesn’t translate into the founders looking to vattel on the natural born citizenship requirement. As I’ve shown you previously up above Vattel was low on the list of philosophers that the founders looked to and shows up very little in their writings. Yes you mistranslated it the way birthers have been doing for years now. Lupin went into hiding? He’s been here the whole time. Again the incredible hubris you have Ike claiming to know Vattel better than a french jurist.
Funny how all this time in all your ramblings and claims you still haven’t presented any proof whatsoever that the founders looked to Vattel when it came to the natural born citizenship clause. No proof in their writings, no proof in their speeches. Sorry but the way you want things to be doesn’t translate into actual reality. You continue to be made a fool of every time you respond.
It’s obvious you have no idea about any of the concepts you speak of Ike.
It never ceases to amaze me that people like Ike still show up to argue a completely disproven, false claim, even though it’s been gone over literally hundreds if not thousands of times, and explored in every possible detail.
Just the title of this article sums it up perfectly:
Anyone born on US soil under the jurisdiction of the United States is a natural born citizen, period.
And “under the jurisdiction of the United States” certainly, most definitely, and absolutely includes anyone born here because they had one or more parents legally residing in the United States, whether or not that parent or those parents were or are US citizens.
That question was settled, absolutely, by the US Supreme Court, in 1898.
In other words: No, two citizen parents are not required.
It doesn’t matter that Ike thinks differently.
Yes, the US Supreme Court has made some mistakes throughout history. But Ike’s opinion notwithstanding, there’s no evidence that this is one.
And Ike’s opinion doesn’t count.
Ike may say that the Astros won the 2019 World Series. The facts, and the opinion of the referees, is that they didn’t. The Nationals won. It doesn’t matter if Ike says differently.
Ike, if you don’t like that, then get yourself appointed to the US Supreme Court. I’m sure that if you can find $100 million or so in campaign contributions, the current administration will count you eminently qualified to sit on the nation’s high bench.
Of course, there would have to be a vacancy, and you would still be only one voice out of nine, and a vacancy only opens up, on average, every 2-1/2 years. Oh, and the USSC currently has 6 Justices that are under 70 years of age.
So even if you had an additional $400 million or so to buy more seats, and a bribable administration (and hopefully one is coming that isn’t), you’re still out of luck. You couldn’t change the law even if you had a billion dollars to do it.
Maybe you should look into taking up woodworking instead.
Why should I take up woodworking? I’m not a woodman. – grin.
I didn’t show up to argue anything other than correcting the numerous Lupin Lunacy errors in RC’s article. That I allowed myself to let them distract me from that with other subjects/issues is my fault. Same as I said previously to you that I didn’t want to go current politics mainly because I know how you’ll react when I start bringing the facts on the Democrats & the American Left.
I had just quit on a forum that was predominantly politics that I had been involved with for over 15 years. It went in another direction that I didn’t want to be a part of. Had decided to shut down till the primaries started. Clicked on some of the blogs to see if there was anything new and caught RC’s article.
I just submitted a response earlier today to RC that he is blocking asking him when he’s going to correct the Lupin Lunacy. Have you an opinion you’d like to share on what Lupin is claiming or do you prefer to stay true to your obot roots and keep it hidden?
The 1898 Wong Kim Ark is settled? How is a split decision of opinions settled? It came down to there being 4 more opinions for Gray than there were for Fuller. You know how it goes with opinions – everyone has one.
Can you get any sillier? Using the World Series as an analogy? Everybody knows who won, it’s recorded, no opinion involved.
Except once again Ike, the only one who continues to be in error here is you. How many times more are you going to continue to argue what you know is an untenable position? So you’re saying that Supreme Court decisions only count if they’re unanimous? To this day the Wong Kim Ark case has never been successfully appealed in the over 100 years it’s been in effect. Are you going to claim now that a team doesn’t win if they only won by 1 point? Does a Boxer still lose if it’s a split decision in his favor? Yes everyone knows who won when it came to the natural born citizen clause as well. Clearly it’s not your side.
When the court rules it usually issues both a decision and an opinion supporting that decision. That was the case in WKA.
Either Ike doesn’t understand the basic workings of the court, or he is playing his usual trollish, childish word games again. Or both.
Maybe I don’t understand it.
What I question or maybe should say what perplexes me is how 9 justices on the Supreme Court can wind up with such opposing opinions.
Using the current 9 justices as an example. They all studied law for many years, all at some time during their law schooling studied at what is commonly referred to as Ivy League schools, some of the best schools in America, and then eventually spent years practicing the law before being appointed to the Supreme Court.
As someone who has never had in formal education on law I have to use just plain ol logic. I’m assuming in their law schooling, especially in the Ivy League schools, they all were taught & studied the laws the same way. So how does Justices Thomas & Ginsburg, the 2 most senior members, wind up most often with opposing opinions. Is there an external force outside their long time study & practice of the law that’s influencing them?
In a 5 to 4 decision how do we know that the 4 wasn’t correct?
We know because it is the DECISION of the Court that is what matters, NOT the final score.
Constitutionally, the Court is the FINAL ARBITRATOR of what is legally right or wrong.
Constitutionally, the Supreme Court CANNOT make a LEGAL mistake because the Court is the final legal interpretation.
You seem to think that there is some initial state of the universe where every ‘controversy ‘ has some definitive right or wrong answer. That state can never be reached whether the court had 1 member or a million members who all voted the same way on every issue.
If the Supreme Court was made up of 1 Justice, we would never ‘know’ if he or she was right, in the way you want it to be. If it was 9-0 we wouldn’t ‘know’ if maybe the zero was correct in the way you want it to be. But somebody has to make the final decision, and the Constitution of the United States says that somebody is the Supreme Court.
Of course, the Court is made up of people, and people do make mistakes. The Court has made many WRONG HEADED decisions. Dred Scott was a classic example of a wrong headed decision; never-the-less it was the law of the land until it was overturned by a pair of Constitutional Amendments.
Those Constitutional Amendments, specifically the 14th Amendment, put your WRONG HEADED argument to rest forever. The 14th Amendment says what it says – and it says that you are WRONG. The decision in Wong Kim Ark confirmed what the 14th Amendment says – and it confirmed that you are WRONG.
End of story.
Wrong, it’s the beginning of the real story. Thx for using Dred Scott & the 14th Amendment, it makes my point. I read up on all of it years ago from history and Conservative sites, and even the politically left-leaning Wikipedia points out Justice Taney had an ulterior motive outside a correct interpretation of the law and the Constitution. With his opinion Taney hoped his court would succeed in shutting down the national debate on slavery that had become a hot button issue at that time. He succeeded in doing just the opposite, and helped Lincoln & the abolitionist Republicans get control of government.
Of course Taney has an ulterior motive, but he was only one vote – the final vote was 2-1. and it was the law of the land. It wasn’t “maybe that was the decision because it wasn’t unanimous”, it was the decision, period.
It is widely and rightly called the worst decision ever reached by the Supreme Court. But it was the Supreme Court’s decision and it held as the law of the land until it was overturned by the 14th amendment.
Probably because each justice is human and all have different opinions. Do you really think all decisions should be 9-0? How do we know that the 4 weren’t correct? Because the ruling hasn’t been appealed successfully in over a century since it’s been in place. There has been zero disagreement in the courts. What makes you feel the 4 must be correct? Yes we know you have no formal education not just within the law.
You’re clueless as usual. So is your bud ‘hklrnaa47’ above. Looks like you both just pull it out of the air or that place where the sun doesn’t shine.
I used the 5-4 as an example that didn’t pertain to any particular case. Now Woodman has added a 5-4 with ‘Citizens United’. There’s an example of one wrongly decided.
“Because the ruling hasn’t been appealed successfully in over a century since it’s been in place.”
You mostly likely are referring to Wong Kim Ark that was a 6-2 decision. Where did you get 4? In over a hundred years that case has always had opponents to the decision/majority opinion, and especially so over the last 20+ years. I had a premonition that it’ll be back in the news after Trump slam dunks the 2020 general election.
‘hklrnaa47’ has a 2-1 for the 7-2 Dred Scott decision & 14th Amendment instead of the 1866 Civil Rights act that sent the Dred Scott Case to the ash heap.
I’m almost positive no one here will disagree when I claim the 2 in the Dred Scott was the sane & moral side of that decision. Doesn’t that leave it open to other cases with possibly the same plight, like say a 6-2 decision?
“‘hklrnaa47’ has a 2-1 for the 7-2 Dred Scott decision”
I mistyped it. mea culpa.
“14th Amendment instead of the 1866 Civil Rights act that sent the Dred Scott Case to the ash heap.”
No it didn’t. The 1866 Civil Rights act was MEANT to override the Dred Scott case, but as it was merely a Congressional Act, it was subject to court challenge and/or change or complete disposal by a future Congress. A court challenge would likely have seen it overturned due to the precedent of the Dred Scott decision. Dred Scott was a ruling on the Constitutionality of citizenship, and was not subject to being overturned by mere law.
The 14th Amendment settled the matter once and for all – the 14th Amendment cannot be overturned by Congressional Act nor by the Supreme Court. The only thing that can change it is another Constitutional Amendment.
The 14th Amendment says two things: 1) there are two kinds of citizens – born and naturalized and 2) ALL persons born in the US under jurisdiction of the US legal system are born citizens.
As an aside, what the 14th Amendment does NOT say is that ONLY those born in the US are born citizens. Elsewhere in the Constitution the Congress is given the authority to make naturalization laws, and thus decide who, other than those born in the US, can and need to be naturalized to become citizens, and by implication who does not need to be naturalized due to them already being born citizens.
“‘hklrnaa47’ has a 2-1 for the 7-2 Dred Scott decision”
I mistyped it. mea culpa.
“14th Amendment instead of the 1866 Civil Rights act that sent the Dred Scott Case to the ash heap.”
No it didn’t. The 1866 Civil Rights act was MEANT to override the Dred Scott case, but as it was merely a Congressional Act, it was subject to court challenge and/or change or complete disposal by a future Congress. A court challenge would likely have seen it overturned due to the precedent of the Dred Scott decision. Dred Scott was a ruling on the Constitutionality of citizenship, and was not subject to being overturned by mere law.
The 14th Amendment settled the matter once and for all – the 14th Amendment cannot be overturned by Congressional Act nor by the Supreme Court. The only thing that can change it is another Constitutional Amendment.
The 14th Amendment says two things: 1) there are two kinds of citizens – born and naturalized and 2) ALL persons born in the US under jurisdiction of the US legal system are born citizens.
As an aside, what the 14th Amendment does NOT say is that ONLY those born in the US are born citizens. Elsewhere in the Constitution the Congress is given the authority to make naturalization laws, and thus decide who, other than those born in the US, can and need to be naturalized to become citizens, and by implication who does not need to be naturalized due to them already being born citizens.
[Also, I dunno how my account name got changed to hklrnaa47, I musta mistyped a logon somewhere. I am Keith. I’ll see if I can logout and login properly.
The only one showing they’re clueless here is you. I got the 4 from you. You obviously didn’t know it was a 6-2 decision when you kept talking about a 5-4 ruling until people here pointed it out to you.
Using sports is very poor examples. Sport team competition comes down which team scores the most, no opinion involved. It’s even recorded and can be replayed. In boxing, unless it’s a KO or TKO, it’s left to the judges to decide. Over the years there’s been many decisions by the judges that people in the boxing world didn’t agree with. There was also a time when some of the fights were fixed (predetermined before the fight).
Well there’s your problem once again Ike. The judges have decided here and you’re still constantly wrong. Yes I know you think all the judges were fixed because the law and the courts don’t support your wrongheaded beliefs.
For the record the decision in Wong Kim Ark was 6-2 with one justice abstaining.
Yeah, I was going to bring that up.
Returning to the World Series, if the Nationals win the World Series 4-3, there’s no doubt about who won the World Series, just because they didn’t win it 7-0.
Same with the Supreme Court. The famous “Miranda rights” case was decided 5-4. There’s no doubt about what the law is. Citizens United was decided 5-4. The case legalizing gay marriage nationwide was decided 5-4.
All of that said, Ike can’t even get his basic fact right. As RC noted, Wong was pretty much of a slam dunk at 6-2.
Someone is having a problem understanding the difference between court opinions and runs scored in a ball game.
Actually it is a good analogy. Court decisions and baseball games both have a finality. Wong Kim Ark’s status as a natural born citizen is never going away. Washington has won one two World Series (one with the current team).
Well written as usual John. The article I linked also explains that in subsequent cases to Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court has ruled in unanimous decisions that children of undocumented aliens are born under the jurisdiction of the United States and are therefore natural born citizens.
And 9-0 is even more of a slam dunk than 6-2 is.
Again, not that anything more than 5-4 is needed.
Yes, on my television it was the Washington Nationals who hoisted the World Series trophy, it was President Obama who served two full scandal free terms as President, and it was 225+ Birther lawsuits (many pushing the same nonsense theory on NBC as Ike) that went down in flames.
It’s called reality.
To be completely fair, Obama did not have “two full scandal free terms”. “fast and furious” was a scandal, a small one but a scandal none the less. Of course the really big scandal was the “tan suit”.
I think Trump and his minions have raised the bar for something to be called a scandal to astronomical heights.
I shouldn’t reply to this but it’s obvious serious help is needed. It’s like watching the blind leading the blind, lost in the wilderness with no idea how to get home.
I wish I hadn’t deleted all the material I had.
A quick search on “Obama Scandals” will get yas the results. Here’s a couple short-lists to get started:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-scandal-free-administration-is-a-myth-1484611574
https://www.starsandstripesforeverpac.org/corruption/
Spygate (Operation “Crossfire Hurricane”), the one that is being claimed as the biggest political scandal in American history is still unfolding and being investigated. It’s been tied to Obama as the one behind it all.
How about actual scandals Ike not random opinion pieces from right wingers like John Fund. Notice how all the supposed scandals that the right tries to claim existed never amount to a hill of beans when it’s investigated. Yeah shame you deleted all the syphilitic rantings you had saved up.
I remember the scandal about Obama having gone to a church where the pastor once preached a sermon where he said that God was likely to judge America for certain sins, and said, “Not God bless America! God damn America!”
At the time I was a regular Sean Hannity listener, and actually believed all of his claptrap about being a Catholic Christian, and integrity, and how he was “the only one in the media to properly vet Barack Obama,” and all of this sounded like at least somewhat notable stuff.
When Donald Trump announced his candidacy, I did my own research on Trump’s background and thought, “Wow. Hannity hammered Obama for years about stuff like his pastor’s one sermon. He’s gonna tear Trump to absolute shreds, because the very WORST things Obama ever did never amounted to even one fiftieth of the slime that Trump’s got in HIS closet.”
And then…
Well, today I thank Sean Hannity for turning me on to NPR.
You definitely didn’t learn much watching Hannity back then. Reverand Wright’s sermon was just one of many unAmerican facts that was reported regarding your dear leader Obama. It was his connections to Bill Ayers, the commie domestic terrorist, that was most unsettling for me. Ayers with his wife Dohrn, another commie domestic terrorist, and some other commies that attended, kicked off Obama’s political career at their home back in the ’90s. Those are the 2 that Obama claimed were just folks in his neighborhood that he hardly knew.
NPR? You mean the same NPR that spread the claim Obama was born in Kenya?:
https://web.archive.org/web/20091020224623/http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95550177
As an old Hannity listener, I certainly heard him going on and on about Ayers as well.
Like the pastor thing, to hear Hannity go on and on about it, it sounded like it might have some significance. In retrospect, I’m not quite sure how Obama would’ve known of Ayer’s past from decades before. Nor do I see that Ayers was that close of an associate.
As I said, there are lots of things in Trump’s background that are about 50 times as bad as anything Obama ever did.
Am I supposed to be impressed that you have an 11-year-old link on an NPR page that erroneously refers to Barack Obama as “Kenyan-born?” The actual transcript of the segment, with an African correspondent, makes clear that the link between Obama and Kenya was that his FATHER was from Kenya:
“QUIST-ARCTON: You know, it has absolutely fired the imagination, not only of the American people, but people in Africa. The fact that, for starters, Barack Obama’s father is from Kenya, people were very excited. And because they had had a failed election in Kenya, and the opposition leading Kenya, Raila Odinga, comes from the same tribe as Barack Obama’s father, the Luo, the joke was going around Kenya that America is going to have a Luo president before Kenya does.
Now, there’s huge interest, not just in Kenya, all over the continent. Nobody for a moment, I think, believes that he is anything but a – would be anything but an American president if he is elected. The fact that a black man and one with African blood has managed to get this far, you know, I think it has made young people sit up and listen and watch and follow the campaign. It has made the older generations who lived through the colonialism and independence sit down and say, well, well, well, so it can happen in America, too. Huge interest.”
If I’m supposed to be impressed… Sorry, but I’m not.
Ah this canard again? Obama wasn’t actually at the coffee gathering at the Ayers. It was just one of a handful of such gatherings for supporters to talk about the candidate. But like most birthers you run with lies like him “starting his campaign with bill ayers” The fact is Obama barely knew him he was on a board that met every so often for an education challenge. But then again so were others on the board who were republicans in chicago.
Sorry about the double post.
Keith, I replying here because there’s no reply link to your post above.
Wikipedia shows the Civil Rights Act of 1866 became effective April 9th 1866. That’s before the 14th Amendment. I’ll agree with you the Amendment was better.
Here’s an explanation on it:
https://www.thoughtco.com/civil-rights-act-of-1866-4164345
4th paragraph: The 1866 Act reversed the 1857 Supreme Court ruling in the Dred Scott v. Sanford case,
Last paragraph: Today, as cases of discrimination continue to crop up…the Supreme Court commonly takes legal precedent from the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
Key point: The Republicans hoping to get it passed without Johnson vetoing it left out some important measures, still the Democrat scumbag vetoed it anyway. It took a two-thirds majority by both houses to override the veto to become law.
Once again you said a lot of nothing. Nothing you said is disputed. The act preceded the amendment and was immediately perceived to be inadequate. It did not negate Dred Scott, even though that was its intention. It could be ignored, overturned, or voted out of existence so the 14th was passed to prevent that..
Huh? Is this some kind of Obot doublespeak? 1st you say “Nothing you said is disputed”. Then you say “It did not negate Dred Scott”.
And the truth is I really don’t know. For me it’s better left to those that are schooled in the law. The reason I posted that particular explanation was because it did say, “The 1866 Act reversed the 1857 Supreme Court ruling in the Dred Scott v. Sanford case”. Another source makes the same claim as you, “it was the 14th Amendment”. And a 3rd source claims it wasn’t until the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) that Dred Scott v. Sanford was overturned. Take your pick; eeny, meeny, miny, moe.
After I posted that explanation I realized it skipped over a major provision (was missing), but that’s for another day. I don’t want to get into it now.
Mr Woodman, I’m replying here because there’s no reply link to your post above.
I was hoping you’d be impressed.
QUIST-ARCTON doesn’t debunk the NPR headline “U.S. presidential race of Kenyan-born Sen. Barack Obama.” She just says that if Obama is elected he only be an American president.
Like I said “you definitely didn’t learn much watching Hannity back then”. Obama and Ayers were connected from the late 1980s to about 2002. They were together as board members of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge giving out hugh sums of money for progressive & radical causes.
You need to get back to Hannity. He has been on a roll this week. Lots a dirt coming out on your new party.
This broke late last night. Creepy Joe is toast:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/11/huge-exclusive-bombshell-documents-released-by-ukrainian-general-prosecutors-office-reveal-millions-funneled-to-hunter-biden-and-the-john-kerry-family/
I have been busy the last week. Did miss a comment where Ike posted quotes from the Founding Fathers between 1776 and 1787 where they changed the definition of natural born? How about a court decision or a piece of legislation in the same period?
I find it amusing and entertaining that “Rambo Ike” thinks he is actually doing well here. He is trying to make the argument that hundreds of thousands or even millions of Americans born to immigrant parents are not eligible to be president. No reputable constitutional scholar or historian takes his arguments seriously and never have since the courts decided what the citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment meant.
Every single court case from Allen and Ankeny to Wrotnowski has failed. The issue has been decided and no court is ever going to side with legal nonsense like the two parent citizen theory.
I find it mystifying.
I still can’t quite get my head around the commitment of some people to spend their time and effort investing themselves in fantasies.
There was a woman over at Kevin Davidson’s blog who promoted all kinds of fantastic tales about herself.
Maybe she had the right idea.
“Nobody knew it, but almost-14-year-old crown prince Alexei Romanov had a child born after his death to a young maid that he was in love with. She hid the boy, who many years later became my father. I am the rightful heir to the throne of the Russian Empire, and am currently negotiating a reinstatement of the Empire with the Russian government, and will be named czar by next summer.”
I mean, why not go for the gold? It’s as true as the two-citizen-parent theory.
Pinheads have trouble wrapping their heads around anything. Now, I’m not calling you one, but that is a problem pinheads have.
Over the last 100 years there has been all kinds of wannabees making the claim they are a real descendand of the Romanov family tree. Could it be you’re of the one branch that still hasn’t been disproven?: The Jerknoffs.
I was actually suggesting that perhaps you should come up with such a fantasy, since it’s just as true as the two-citizen parent one, and would be more exciting for you.
But I guess you had a bit of difficulty wrapping your head around that.
Ike is a typical Trumper. He just states crap as if it were fact. I ran in to one on Facebook yesterday. He said the impeachment hearings were only important to liberals and they had nothing but “hearsay”. Then he posted a video of Amb. Sondland quoting Trump saying there was no quid pro quo as exculpatory. Of course it went right over his head that if Sondland’s recollection of the July 26th call is hearsay so is the other call where Trump lied after he knew he had been caught when the whistleblower complaint became public. It also is beyond them that Congressional hearings don’t follow the same rules of evidence as the courts regardless.
Remember what I said back on Sept 28th, “…it would be useless to try and debate you on them. It’d be a trip into futility.” No one here is going to break Obot ranks and admit to the truth, especially on the Lupin lunacy. If they did they’d get blackballed from the farleft collective.
“what the citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment meant.”
Keeping in mind that citizen was the national political character for the American people, it meant the same as the citizenship clause in the 1866 Civil Right Act.
FYI, this blog uses nested comments so there is a limit on how deep comments can be nested to prevent the comments from getting ridiculously narrow. The current setting for nesting is 8 levels. Once that limit is reached the reply link will not appear. In that case go back up one level and reply to the last comment.
S
i
n
g
l
e
l
e
t
t
e
r
r
o
w
s
a
r
e
f
u
n
.
Too bad you missed it.
I posted 2 different ones from the founding fathers.
I can’t miss what isn’t there.
Of course you can’t admit it. That would mean breaking Obot ranks.
After Trump won the election and Birther Report shutdown I deleted everything I had on the issues over the following few months.
I’m having to look up everything again. I’ll never find all I had but I’ll find some on Vattel during the founding period. Then you can do you typical denial.
Since we have settled this topic for the thousandth time…
I am really enjoying watching Amb. Sondland throw everyone under the bus including Trump, Pence, Pompeo, Giuliani, Mulvaney, and Bolton. They cut away as they took a break and Nunes looked like he had just eaten a sour persimmon. Sondland’s testimony alone is enough for impeachment on bribery. It is backed up by the meticulous notes of career professionals too.
I think Bolton will be forced to testify now.
Your mind is trapped in a double delusion:
1- Anyone born on US soil under the jurisdiction of the United States is a natural born citizen, period.
2- I am really enjoying watching Amb. Sondland throw everyone under the bus including Trump, Pence, Pompeo, Giuliani, Mulvaney, and Bolton.
In both cases it’s the exact of what you’re claiming.
It certainly is!
Ha! I left a word out. Should read:
“In both cases it’s the exact opposite of what you’re claiming.”
Why all the resistance to Trump? He ran a campaign on America 1st, and for over 3 years he has been attacked for it. It’s really sad seeing the hatred for America coming from within.
You know what organization used the slogan “America first” don’t you? It’s hard to put America first when your head is firmly up Putin’s ass.
If you don’t believe Sondland threw the people I mentioned under the bus you didn’t watch the hearings.
I couldn’t guess. Do you thinkkk you could just go ahead and tell us?
Darn it, stupid kkkey is stickkking again. Need to get the WD-40.
We should let Ikkke guess. Darn it! Mine is stickkking too.
Good ol Ike don’t mind helping yas out. Butttt y’all should feel embarrassed since yas have yet to get anything right.
It’s such an easy answer & besides its been around for over 100 years. The extremely racist president, Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, campaigned with it during the election of 1912. Wilson along with the Democrats were well-known for helping the KKK return to its former status as the USA’s #1 domestic racist terrorist organazation.
It’s an all-out assault on truth & common sense. Everything you Obama minions have posted over the last 4 days is either revisionist history, false or misleading claims.
I can’t find even 1 comment where any of yas have it right. Get away from those Left/Farleft sites, they’ve filled your heads with a lot of hateful, anti-American and bogus propaganda.
You know if Ike did something other than bring discredited theories with no evidence that no serious legal scholar endorses he might get a little respect here. Somehow I do not see that happening any time soon.
Welcome to Obot insanity! Not even one of yas have provided proof for any of your claims. At best, in some of your comments, some claims were partially correct (to a very limited extent). Grin
Vicklund hasn’t provided proof for anything he is claiming. He claims that his authority on the lexicographers gives a dozen examples of ‘parens’ being defined as relatives and kinfolks, but he didn’t provide any examples. Another problem he has is putting it in the timeline for Vattel’s lifetime & America’s founding period – I did that (1719 to 1819) all under the letter P in both the French & English translating dictionaries. I used Boyers because that is what the English speaking world was most using and was also found in the American founders’ libraries. Here’s one example. 1780/81 inventory of Ben Franklin’s library (Scroll up to catalog #s 406 & 407). Numerous editions between 1694 & 1781:
https://books.google.com/books?id=ibgiSlbMDPUC&pg=PA802&lpg=PA802&dq=1780+list+of+ben+franklin%27s+library&source=bl&ots=pyCq3Vl7m7&sig=ACfU3U1xZjKkrjWRX5DKoLg2y5r9m5wCVQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj-h46y0vTkAhVEOK0KHWntAEQ4FBDoATAFegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=1780%20list%20of%20ben%20franklin's%20library&f=false
Birther [il]logic: Some of the founding fathers read de Vattel or had his book in their libraries. Ergo, they threw away the English common law definition of “natural born” had been followed for hundreds of years yet nowhere did they bother to mention they had changed it. This is the very definition of an absurdity.
Sorry for my month-long absence, I had a cancer scare and just didn’t feel up to dealing with Ike’s absurdity until I found out more (mass in sinus, at one point a 1/8 chance of malignancy, now less than 1%; surgery in late January). When I left, Ike was doubling down on his claim that a single abridged French-English dictionary was the sole authority. In other words, he believes that a dictionary that advertises itself as being incomplete trumps all other French-English dictionaries. But note that what he is relying is abridged; does this mean that there are unabridged editions of this dictionary? Yes. Despite documenting nearly a dozen different abridged editions, he meticulously avoids mention of the complete edition published at the same time. What does the complete edition have to say?
(Note: I left out the accents for ease of transcription)
Source: The Royal Dictionary: A New Edition, by Abel Boyer, 1773
https://books.google.com/books?id=Ex71GdXCLs4C&q=parens#v=snippet&q=parens&f=false
It becomes obvious that parens is the plural of parent (male relative) and parente (female relative). It can mean mother and father, but it does not exclusively mean father and mother. There are nearly two dozen examples elsewhere in the dictionary showing parens being used to mean relatives, rather than exclusively mother and father. It really makes one wonder why Ike so meticulously avoided the complete, unabridged editions.
Or how about a dictionary wherein the author of Ike’s favorite abridged dictionary combined with other dictionary authors to create one great big dictionary? From page 663:
Source: French-English Dictionary: A New Edition, by A. Boyer, L. Chambaud, J. Garner, et al. 1829
https://books.google.com/books?id=5AY2AQAAMAAJ&q=parens#v=snippet&q=parens&f=false
And that’s just looking at dictionaries compiled by Ike’s preferred author. If you go to Appendix II (page 190) of The Development of French-English, English-French Bilingual Dictionary: a Study in
Comparative Lexicography by Jame David Anderson, 1971, you will find dozens of such dictionaries from the 16th-18th Centuries. While I didn’t search for all of them, the first dozen I found had entries for parens that included relatives or kinsfolk as one of the meanings. Please note that I included this earlier; Ike deliberately ignored the existence of this resource. Again, find it here:
https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3103&context=gradschool_disstheses
Here’s a couple of the dictionaries Ike likes to pretend don’t exist:
https://books.google.com/books?id=p_lAyy7nUQ0C&q=parens#v=snippet&q=parens&f=false
http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/cotgrave/search/696l.html
TLDR: ‘Parent[e]’ in 18th century French meant relative, and ‘parens’ is the plural, meaning relatives. ‘Parens’ was sometimes used to mean mother and father, but not exclusively. Even the source that Ike uses agrees. Lupin is correct.
Of course Lupin is correct. As I recall, Lupin is a native French speaker with both legal expertise and a particular and professional familiarity with Vattel.
Ike is a random person on the internet, who somehow imagines that his nonexistent knowledge and expertise is better than Lupin’s, and that his legal, Constitutional, and historical fantasy is reality.
And there you have the entire story of the birthers, in two brief paragraphs. Well, much of it, anyway.
I left out the parts, which admittedly are important, where people have pushed the fantasy narrative for personal monetary, notoriety, or prestige gain.
I think Lupin is an attorney and has professionally translated other works of de Vattel.
Right, Lupin is French, and should know the language, words/terms, laws, and rights of the French citizens pre- & post- Napoleonic Code more than 10 times better than I would.
So now when are you going to admit to what he did? This won’t be the 1st time. This is actually the 6th time Lupin tried to revise/reinvent history that I’ve corrected him on.
Yes we admit he, like others, handed your ass to you Ike. Your mistranslation still has no relevance since you can’t show that the founders used it for article 2.
Glad to hear your diagnosis was not so serious.
Your translations are wrong.
Example: Elle ne vent point se marier sans le consentment de ses parens,/ she will not marry without the consent of her friends.
Should be: Elle ne vent point se marier sans le consentment de ses parens,/ She does not come to marry without the consent of her parents (or) She can not get married without the consent of her parents
Well, you should take that up with Mr. Abel Boyer and his compatriots. Are you saying that the translator you favor is a hack?
Oops! I missed the date on that edition. 1829 is after the Napoleonic Code was in effect and changes were made to words/terms, laws, and Vattel’s work was revised to conform to the Code. 10 years prior (1819) Parens was defined in the Boyer as pére & mére in French and translated to parents (father & mother) in English.
How silly of me! I should have selected Boyer’s 1785 collaboration with Louis Chambaud and J. B. Robinet instead:
Source: Nouveau Dictionnaire franqois-anglois et anglols-franqois de
M.A. Boyer…corrige et considerablement augmente par MM.
Louis Chambaud et J.-B. Robinet. Paris: C. Panckouke, 1785. Page 505
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k96177308/f521.item.r=parens.texteImage
Note that this source is more difficult to navigate.
Again, parens is nothing more than the plural of parent or parente, which is explicitly defined as a relative or kinsfolk. While it can be used to mean mother and father, it is not the exclusive definition.
(For those counting, that’s now five examples I’ve given from my uber source, three of which include Ike’s preferred author and which I’ve transcribed)
For those wondering about the comprehensiveness of my uber source, it lists over 100 editions of Abel Boyer French-English dictionaries alone.
It’s priceless watching all your spin trying to make it fit. Keeps me laughing. I’ve given ya lots of leeway on this. Could of confined it to Vattel’s lifetime.
In French parens was not used as the plural of parent or parente during Vattel’s lifetime. It was used to single out pere & mere as a unit of 1 from the rest of the relatives.
Go to the beginning of the dictionaries. There’s a section for the explanation of the different symbols used. Parens set in under the word parent with a hand and a pointing finger signified a different meaning.
All of the dictionaries of the 18th century show the French parens defined as pere & mere and translated to parents (father & mother) in English. All of them show the English word parents as father & mother and translated to parens (pere & mere) in the French.
As the author of your article comparing the lexicographers points out there were some errors, but not for over 100 years.
This has gotten redundant. You haven’t provided any proof showing parens defined as aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, etc.
Make it easy on yourself. Just admit Lupin scammed yas and the Birthers had it right.
Case Closed
Ike, you’ve won nothing and only managed to make yourself a fool. As Kevin Vicklund demonstrated your own sources undermine your claims about the meaning of “parens”. When you came here you are playing in the big leagues with people who actually check the sources and care about facts. This isn’t the P&E or Birther Report where you can rely on Sharon Rondeau or BR Bob Nelson to moderate out any facts that don’t follow the Birther myths.
Keep commenting away. You are providing at least some small amount of entertainment if nothing else.
I see Ike is using Mario’s method of argument no matter what happens he always claims he won. Yes Case closed Ike thinks he knows French and Vattel better than a french jurist or anyone on this thread. Further he still has yet to show the founders looked to Vattel on natural born citizenship and that they somehow changed the meaning of natural born from what it meant with natural born subject from before the declaration of independence and before the ratification of the constitution and didn’t other to tell anyone. The birthers have never had it right, no legal authority agrees with them, the courts don’t agree, congress doesn’t agree. They’re an island unto themselves when it comes to their cargo cult nonsense.
Yes, Ike is similar to Mario the clown without the law degree. They push a theory that only exists in the murky Birther infested corners of the internet and that has consistently been shot down in the courts. Mario hates it when I trot out his Birther case litigation record. And just in case there are any readers who are not familiar with it here it is:
From the 1755 edition of the Royal Dictionary, Abridged:
Friends, (or Relatives,) Des parens.
Page 692
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433070238971&view=1up&seq=692
During de Vattel’s life, from the abridged version of Boyer’s dictionary, no additional contributing authors, direct translation, no modifying words.
But wait! There’s more!
Kindred, V. Kinred.
…
Kinred, S. (from Kin), Parens, Alliez, Parentage, Parente
Kinsfolks, V. Kindred.
Page 778
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433070238971&view=1up&seq=778
Case dismissed, with prejudice.
Well done WKV!
Thanks. I happened to have it open from earlier, so I did a search on some English terms to see what came up. Amazing what you can find when you actually look. Ike, like all birthers, goes through life with blinders deliberately placed on his head, boldly declaring that only the world directly in front of him exists.
I think Ike gave up. Even he must have a limit to being embarrassed.
Birthers prayed for the impeachment of the President for eight years. Looks like they finally got their prayers answered. 😆 😉
OMG! You bozos are still in here stroking each other, and still don’t have anything right.
COMATose J: “…A mention there of Obama‘s birth certificate spurred National Review Online to demand that he produce it to dispel groundless reports that Obama was actually born in Kenya and therefore would be constitutionally ineligible to be President;”
It’s been 12 years and your boy Obama still hasn’t produced it. We, the American people, instead, have been given substitutes that the Obama loyalists claim are genuine copies.
For the thousandth time: Anyone born on US soil under the complete jurisdiction of the United States is a natural born citizen, period.
What is meant by compete jurisdiction?
Having parents not owing any allegiance to a foreign nation/government. Complete/100% loyalty to the USA.
Oops! Obama’s claimed daddy was a loyal citizen of Kenya.
Why did you add “complete” to jurisdiction? Did you think no one would notice your dishonesty? That’s not what the 14th Amendment says. It says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
For over 120 years the meaning of the term “subject to the jurisdiction” has been settled to include anyone not born to diplomats or members of invading armies and are therefore subject to the laws of the United States. Otherwise the parents’ citizenship at the time of birth is irrelevant.
Barack Obama has produced copies of his Hawaii birth certificate in two different and completely legal formats. The fact that you don’t accept them as legitimate is less significant than a fart in the wind for someone standing upwind.
“What is meant by compete jurisdiction?”
Oversight by an athletic conference, such as the IOC, of course!
Typos aside, complete jurisdiction means that the person is not immune to any laws. See diplomatic immunity as the counter-example. Tell me, Ike, which laws do you think non-citizens should be allowed to flout? Murder? Theft? Kidnapping?
It should be noted that the only group for which partial jurisdiction has existed is Native Americans. It is their disposition that was at issue during the debate of the 14th amendment that Ike is obliquely referencing. It was well accepted several days later that children of non-citizens would be granted citizenship by the ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ clause; the only debate there was whether language should be inserted to prevent their inclusion.
Also, ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ is well-settled common law, and has been for over 500 years. It is, as RC and I have stated above, a very simple concept, and not at all mysterious.
Ike is trying to equate “subject to the jurisdiction” with “under exclusive jurisdiction”, which is absurd of course. If one uses his nonsense reasoning no one born on US soil to a foreign national or even Americans with dual citizenship would be citizens via jus soli.
You can find some crazy arguments out there on conservative websites from people who are trying to narrow the 14th Amendment citizenship clause to exclude, for example, children born to undocumented aliens. I have never seen anyone claim what Ike is claiming.
12 years since Obama showed his birth certificate 12 years since you bigoted asshats started on your failed question to deem him as ineligible. What a waste of 12 years you’ve made Ike. Still yammering on about something you required of no previous president but Obama. Obama was born under the jurisdiction of the United States and thus a natural born citizen.
RC: “Why did you add “complete” to jurisdiction?”
Because that’s the way it should read.
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key player in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.
The amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.
Mexico, working with Obama against the United States, claimed the US does not have sole jurisdiction over their citizens in America unless they have naturalized.
In the Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
Even in Wong Kim Ark, the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen.
It’s always nice when you can pull your own custom wording for the Constitution right out of your ass.
Here is an IQ test for Ike:
How would you rate Trump’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
Again a Birther pulls this quote from Lyman Trumbull out of context. John Woodman debunked this Birther deception years ago:
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/07/the-historical-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen-part-4-the-civil-war-and-beyond-1862-1872/
So this is more dishonesty from Ike and nothing more.
Here’s Woodman putting the spin on it with contradictory statements:
Woodman: (AG Bates) “In my opinion it is a great error, and the fruitful parent of errors, to suppose that citizens belong exclusively to republican forms of government. English subjects are as truly citizens as we are, and we are as truly subjects as they are.”
Woodman: “In this, Bates agreed with Judge Gaston of North Carolina, who earlier had stated, in essence, that the only real difference between a citizen and a subject was that a citizen’s allegiance was to the entire body of people in the nation, while a subject’s allegiance was to a king.”
From my post on 11/7/19. One more time for the cognitive impaired:
With the signing of the Declaration of Independence, America’s original founding document, by those representing the original 13 colonies now called the thirteen united States of America, Subject was eliminated and replaced with Citizen for the national political character of the American people.
Difference between a citizen and a subject:
Subject means one who is under the power of another; but a citizen is an unit of a mass of free people, who, collectively, possess sovereignty. Subjects look up to a master, but citizens are so far equal, that none have hereditary rights superior to others.
A citizen of the United States, means a member of the nation. The principle of government being radically changed by the revolution, the political character of the people was also changed from subjects to citizens.
The difference is immense. Subject is derived from the Latin words, sub and jacio, and means one who is under the power of another; but a citizen is an unit of a mass of free people, who, collectively, possess sovereignty.
Citizens are still subject to the laws of the land in which they live. Even in England by 1776 the royal powers had been curtailed and power was shared with an elected Parliament. It was the lack of representation and a say in taxes that had been imposed on them that formed the main complaint of the American Colonists as they moved to rebellion.
Bates’ quote was entirely accurate. That’s why as several have pointed out here in comments including me, in the early history of the United States people on occasion were still referred to as “subjects” vs “citizens” even in legal documents. No one even objected to this obvious error because it was a triviality.
No one cares about how you think it should read Ike but rather how it does read. Trumbull explained what he meant. Those subject to a foreign power meant those born of a foreign diplomat or dignitary or an invading Army. Obama belonged to none of those. So again you’re wrong as usual Ike.
So Ike, do Donald Trump, Jr. and Eric Trump have 100% loyalty to the United States and are, by your interpretation, eligible to be President?
How did I get all the obots with cognitive impairment? I answered this a few months ago.
Here it is again: if the mothers was naturalized before they were born then they are natural born, if not, then they are not.
Nonsense. Why are you still pushing this Birther crap theory that has lost in the courts hundreds of times? One would have to be a complete moron to do that. Oh wait…
So, you are saying that Eric Trump and his brother, Donald Trump, Jr., are ineligible to be president someday. It’s interesting that your theory states that the children of the President of the United States are not “American” enough to be President themselves.
If you had not realized, Ivanna Trump, their mother was naturalized after they were born.
Of course, I knew what your answer would be, though I notice you never said it. It also shows that that moronic 2 citizen theory is, well, moronic. It was never, ever, followed anywhere.
Lets start this over. I was in a hurry and didn’t catch what you did.
This is not about Eric & Don Jr’s loyalty to America, of course both are. This is about their parents allegiance to America. Donald Sr is ok but as I understand it, Ivana, their mother, was still under allegiance to and a subject/citizen of a foreign country when they were born, and had not taken the Oath of Allegiance to the United States:
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic… so help me God.”
From the 1866 CRA:
That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States
14th Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
The ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ meant besides the laws also the political jurisdiction. Senator Lyman Trumbull cleared it up during the debates on the 14th Amendment: “Subject to the jurisdiction included not owing allegiance to any other country.”
Until the Oath of Allegiance is taken these non-citizens can’t vote, can’t be on a jury, can’t be drafted or join the military, can’t hold public/political office, can be deported, can’t be charged with treason.
Here’s food for thought: i wonder if Ivana qualifies under the Wong Kim Ark ruling? Lol
Ike said: “This is not about Eric & Don Jr’s loyalty to America, of course both are. This is about their parents allegiance to America.”
That’s wrong Ike. The question was exactly and unambiguously about Eric and Don Jr’s loyalty to America. That is EXACTLY the question that was asked – nothing less. So answer THAT question – and justify your answer.
I’m totally serious when I say there is a grave problem among you Obots. This has been going on for a long time. You’re asking the same questions over & over after they’ve been answered numerous times.
The question asked was about Eric & Don Jr’s loyalty to America: Northland: “So Ike, do Donald Trump, Jr. and Eric Trump have 100% loyalty to the United States and are, by your interpretation, eligible to be President?
I’ve answered it more than once. Here, I’ll try it a different way and maybe you Obots will get it this time: I find both Eric & Don Jr completely loyal to America. As for natural born I don’t believe they are.
Actually, you would be wrong on much of that.
Except for those with a current visa, all legal permanent residents, asylum seekers, refugees, and undocumented immigrants must register with the Selective Service and may be drafted if they have lived in the United States for a year.
https://www.sss.gov/register/immigrants/
This would mean non-citizens may, and do serve in our armed forces.
Because a non-citizen is 100% under the jurisdiction of the United States (diplomats and invading armies excluded), they could potentially commit and be charged with treason Unlike citizens, however, their actions outside of the USA would not be considered treason as they would be outside of our jurisdiction. Legal permanent residents might possibly fall into the same area as citizens.
Except for provisions spelled out in the 19th Amendment of the Constitution, voting is a privilege, not a right, and therefore, the government could extend the franchise to non-citizens. There was a case that covered voting right v privilege. It was called Minor v. Happersett. Much of it was made moot by the 19th, but the concept is still there. That case, however, did not define Natural Born Citizenship.
You, either intentionally or unintentionally, refused to ignore the true meaning of jurisdiction. As said in Yick Wo v Hopkins:
Jurisdiction of the United States extends to anybody within our territorial borders (diplomats and invading armies excepted, and we could change the first but not wise) despite their citizenship status. Therefore, anybody born in this country is born under 100% jurisdiction of the United States as their parents, however temporarily, are under 100% jurisdiction of the United States.
We are not a country looks to inheritance to determine our citizenry or our rights and privileges. We left that with back with the nobility of Europe.
And, your 2 parent garbage comes up with the silliness that the Trump children could not be NBC because their mother was not naturalized until some years later. Not even countries who do look toward parentage would look to 2 parents.
It’s too bad you Obots have fallen for the incorrect interpretation of the 14th Amendment. It’s believed the State Department started that in the 1960s.
What I’ve given you is correct:
From the 1866 CRA:
That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States
14th Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
Senator Lyman Trumbull & Rep John Bingham cleared it up during that period:
Trumbull: “Subject to the jurisdiction included not owing allegiance to any other country.”
Bingham: “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
Bingham: “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.”
Ike continues to quote Trumbull out of context despite being shown the full quote.
The principle of jurisdiction of a country over visiting aliens predates the 14th Amendment. For example, in 1812 in the case of The Exchange v. McFaddon Chief Justice John Marshall wrote:
Of course Wong Kim Ark settled the question in 1898 when the court ruled that the son of Chinese immigrants who were ineligible to ever naturalize was a citizen (and by inference a natural born citizen). It has withstood several challenges in SCOTUS since. In a prior comment I quoted John Woodman’s citation of the Plyler v Doe case. From Wikipedia:
Therefore multiple Supreme Court cases have defined the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” to include any visiting, permanent, temporary or undocumented alien unless they carry diplomatic immunity. All Ike can do is cite Congressional debates out of context. Ike’s position is a loser in any arena.
What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to such children.
Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally. But that ignores the text and legislative history of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to extend citizenship to freed slaves and their children.
The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.
Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.
But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.
The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.
This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.
As John Eastman, former dean of the Chapman School of Law, has said, many do not seem to understand “the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the territory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sovereign’s laws, and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.”
In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.
American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.
Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.
Of course, the judges in that case were strongly influenced by the fact that there were discriminatory laws in place at that time that restricted Chinese immigration, a situation that does not exist today.
The court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment as extending to the children of legal, noncitizens was incorrect, according to the text and legislative history of the amendment. But even under that holding, citizenship was not extended to the children of illegal aliens—only permanent, legal residents.
It is just plain wrong to claim that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students or tourists are automatically U.S. citizens: They do not meet the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional allegiance obligations. They are, in fact, subject to the political jurisdiction (and allegiance) of the country of their parents. The same applies to the children of illegal aliens because children born in the United States to foreign citizens are citizens of their parents’ home country.
Federal law offers them no help either. U.S. immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) simply repeats the language of the 14th Amendment, including the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
The State Department has erroneously interpreted that statute to provide passports to anyone born in the United States, regardless of whether their parents are here illegally and regardless of whether the applicant meets the requirement of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. Accordingly, birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.
We are only one of a very small number of countries that provides birthright citizenship, and we do so based not upon the requirements of federal law or the Constitution, but based upon an erroneous executive interpretation. Congress should clarify the law according to the original meaning of the 14th Amendment and reverse this practice.
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/birthright-citizenship-fundamental-misunderstanding-the-14th-amendment
Ike is getting lazy now and just cutting and pasting drek from the Heritage Foundation. This one line tells you all you need to know:
“Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, …”
So just piss on Wong Kim Ark. We don’t like it. It doesn’t fit our racist agenda so let’s throw it out.
As I pointed out earlier the court has upheld Wong Kim Ark and specifically ruled it also applies to undocumented aliens. So Heritage Foundation, you know what you can do with your opinions.
So now the Heritage Foundation is racist? Is there anything that you don’t agree with that you don’t see as racist?
https://www.heritage.org/staff/kay-c-james
https://www.heritage.org/staff/hans-von-spakovsky
Racism doesn’t only apply to hatred of blacks. The broad hatred for immigrants from Latin America and Muslim countries is also racist. I judge the view not the organization.
So you’re the mighty protector for all the people of color against what you deem as racist white America?
Ike sez: “The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens.”
That has got to be the first accurate statement you have said in this entire episode.
Ike sez: “That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.”
That second, critical condition phrase is NOT conveniently ignored or misinterpreted” by anyone but you in this discussion. It says, and means, exactly what it says.
Ike sez: “Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.”
Your premise is completely and utterly false. People do NOT “subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States”. The United States CLAIMS jurisdiction over anyone who is present in the United States (unless explicitly excluded, like those in the Diplomatic Service or Invading Military Service). And that is the inherent right of EVERY governmental jurisdiction on the planet – even your beloved de Vatel would agree with that statement – it is, in other words “The Law Of Nations”.
If you are a resident citizen of Georgia and travel to Florida for the day, while you are in Florida you are 100% subject to the jurisdiction of Florida. As a 30yo try taking your 16yo Georgia girlfriend to Florida to visit Disney World or something and letting everyone know how much a man you are for having such a young girlfriend. Florida law doesn’t give a hoot that you are a Georgian.
Likewise, US Law doesn’t give a hoot whether you are a natural born citizen or an undocumented alien from Peru – you are subject to American law, end of story. That is what is meant by “subject to the jurisdiction”. The word ‘jurisdiction’ means ‘the legal system’ – undocumented aliens are subject to the legal system in exactly the same way as every natural born citizen and to the exact same extent.
Either you are ignorant of the meaning of the word “jurisdiction”, or more cynically you do understand it but refuse to acknowledge that understanding and purposely adhere to an ignorant position because you are a troll.
Since the word (and phrase) has been explained to you over and over and over and over and over and over… during the last 8 or 10 years, we are forced to the conclusion that you are merely a (very poor) troll.
Actually, that conclusion is not new, you understand – it just gets reinforced every time you put finger to keypad.
You made a good point that jurisdiction is not something to be accepted. Try buying drugs in Turkey and if you get caught claiming you do not accept being subject to their jurisdiction because you are loyal to the United States. You will have years to contemplate the difference in a Turkish prison. Loyalty and jurisdiction are entirely different concepts.
Post removed for consisting of a personal attack that added nothing to the conversation. First warning.
What you’ve submitted is pure nonsense. Reminds me of the lunacy Lupin & Vicklund tried to pass off on Vattel. RC still hasn’t corrected any of it in his article.
Let see some sources for these wild claims you’re making.
Your 1st transgression, besides being an obot, is not understanding what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means. It was rigorously debated by the crafters of both the 1866 CRA and the 14th Amendment before it was decided to go with Senator Trumbull’s “not owing allegiance to any other country”.
The reason for the 14th Amendment was to protect the 1866 CRA. The Act was folded into the Amendment, and as one Congressman (forgot his name) said at the time, ‘together they’re the Constitution’s Declaration of Independence’.
hklrnaa47: “Your premise is completely and utterly false. People do NOT “subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States””.
“Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.”
Whose premise?
I’m not the one ignorant on how “jurisdiction” was being used in the 14th Amendment. You need to learn the correct history. Btw, Woodman is misleading.
And yet, no court and no government body has agreed with you. Did you read Yick Wo v Hopkins? Jurisdiction is absolute within the borders of the United States, with the exception of diplomats (or invading armies) and even that exception is by choice of the government. International diplomacy generally expects diplomats to not being under the jurisdiction of the host country but a country could choose to ignore that courtesy.
You’re doing end runs around the Constitution and federal law.
This is not about who, if anyone, agrees with me – this is about what is historically correct.
Why are all you Obots having such a hard time accepting the historical truth about the citizenship clauses in the 1866 CRA & the 14th Amendment?
Would it have anything to do with Obama & his claimed daddy? ~grin~
1866 CRA:
That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States
14th Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
The 1866 CRA was valid Federal Law up into the 1930s.
We are not. You are.
A diplomat is an extension of a foreign government into our territorial borders. Therefore, they are representing that government in this country so we, out of courtesy and good diplomatic relations, treat them as such. The diplomat is fully subject to a foreign jurisdiction and is not subject to ours (we can still send them home but that is an international relations issue).
All other persons, no matter if they are A subject of a king/queen, are 100% percent subject to the jurisdiction of the United States while they are within our borders. Foreign powers cannot enforce their laws and privileges on their subjects or citizens within our borders. They can ask us to send them back, but that is the extent of it. Why would you give foreign nations controls of persons within our borders?
Again, I will mention Yick Wo v Hopkins where the Supreme Court established that the Chinese subjects were subject to our jurisdiction as jurisdiction is absolute within our borders. Therefore, they were entitled to the same privileges and protections afforded by the Constitution.
Barack Obama (not to mention various Trump children) were born in this country, and 100% subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, as were both of their parents at the time, and therefore are citizens, and for that matter, natural-born citizens.
By your silly rule, an active-duty soldier in our army, who fought for us in the Middle East, could have a spouse (let’s call it an American spouse), who goes into labor and gives birth 2 days before the veteran’s naturalization ceremony would have a child that is not NBC but if she had just corked it in for 2 more days, it’s all good.
You’re avoiding the correct interpretation of both the 1866 CRA & the 14th Amendment. Why? You’ve been shown..
I agree with you on diplomats – the rest you have wrong.
Ike Sez: “You’re avoiding the correct interpretation of both the 1866 CRA & the 14th Amendment. Why? You’ve been shown..”
No ‘we’ aren’t and no ‘we’ haven’t.
The CRA doesn’t matter but it says basically the same thing as the 14th. The 14th has the advantage that it is more economical with words, but its main advantage is that it is the Constitution, and the CRA is not.
That the 14th does not enumerate the each specific class of person that is not subject to the jurisdiction is both justifiable and important. If we only had the CRA, and assuming it hadn’t be struck down, and a less inclusive Congress had wanted to exclude, say, perhaps “people on the internet who are too stupid to chew gum and walk at the same time” would just need to add your class to the list. But since its in the Constitution, it stands for all time (or until the difficult process of amending it away happens).
Whether or the CRA was in effect until the 1930’s is irrelevant, first because the 14th Amendment is superior to mere legislation, and second because it is, as you say, out of force for 90 years.
When CRA was in force, if any part of it came into conflict with the 14th (after ratification) it is the 14th that held. The CRA ignores naturalized Citizens, does that mean that under the CRA naturalized Citizens are not Citizens?
You continue to pretend that the phrases “and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed” (CRA) and “United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (14th) are somehow saying different things. In fact they say EXACTLY the same thing.
There is no subtle ‘gotcha’ in either of those two phrases. They say EXACTLY the same thing, one is a negative, EXCLUSIONARY, phrase the other is a positive INCLUSIONARY phrase. The CRA says anybody not under our jurisdiction is out, the 14th says everyone under our jurisdiction is in.
The meaning of both phrases is EXACTLY EQUAL. You are being completely ridiculous trying to argue otherwise.
You say the 1866 CRA doesn’t matter? There’s your main problem and why you’re having such a hard time catching on. God knows I’ve tried to help you.
Immediately after the Civil War there were concerns about the Democrats in the southern states denying civil rights to the newly freed slaves. These concerns end up with Congress passing the CRA of 1866. It became an enforcement tool for the recently ratified 13th Amendment and ensured that states could not take away rights from the newly freed slaves.
This was the 1st effort to overthrow Dred Scott. It defined for the 1st time in American histoy Birthright Citizenship: All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.
Soon Congress became concerned that a future Congress might overturn the 1866 CRA and lose the newly won freedoms for slaves. To strengthen the Act Congress decided to constitutionalize it with the 14th Amendment. The 14th is not a override or correction of the Act as some of your ilk have tried to contend, but instead, a reinforcement for it. Rep George F. Miller (R–PA) called the proposed amendment ingrafting the civil rights bill into the Constitution.
So get it in your head that when you read the citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment it means the same thing as the citizenship clause in the 1866 CRA: All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.
Ike Sez:
“You say the 1866 CRA doesn’t matter? There’s your main problem”
Yes I DO say that. I say that because it is obsolete, no longer in force, and has been superseded (at least the citizenship provisions) by the 14th Amendment. It is the 14th Amendment that counts now, not the CRA of 1866.
The debates are useful to explain context and why the drafters of the CRA and the 14th came to use the words they used and how the two provisions differ. Nothing more. The 14th Amendment is the law of the land – the CRA of 1866 is not.
But you have finally come to say something that is correct: the wording of the citizenship provisions in the CRA of 1866 means exactly the same thing as the wording of the citizenship provisions in the 14th Amendment (except that the CRA is silent on the subject of “Naturalized Citizens”). The wording of the two provisions differ only by their approach to defining the class of born citizens: the CRA EXCLUDES all those who are NOT NBC, the 14th INCLUDES all those who ARE NBC.
Ike Sez “Why are all you Obots having such a hard time accepting the historical truth about the citizenship clauses in the 1866 CRA & the 14th Amendment?”
Who gives a darn about what your ‘historical truth’ of the debate around these two documents is?
The words of the 14th Amendment are what the debates produced. The words of the 14th Amendment are what the authors meant. The words of the 14th Amendment are what matters, and they have been challenged from every angle for over 100 years. The intention of the authors and the States that ratified it has been upheld over and over and over and over.
Why are you, and you alone, trying to invalidate the intent of one of the finest provisions in the entire Constitution? (Don’t bother answering; that’s a rhetorical question, I know you aren’t alone, you are just a shill for the Pioneer Fund and their various fellow travelers like FAIR and the KKK who challenge the legitimacy of the 4th).
In WKA the court explained that even before the post Civil War Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment that under common law children born on US soil were citizens with the exceptions devolved from English common law. This was applied to white European parents from the founding of the country until the Civil War. The issue was that the Supreme Court issued the racist Dred Scott decision just prior to the Civil War that prevented children of slaves born in the US from being citizens. It finally took the 14th Amendment to fix that error.
A large post Civil War influx of Chinese immigrants to work on the Transcontinental Railroad resulted in a rise of Xenophobia to the point the government tried to prevent Chinese children born in the US from having birthright citizenship. The Court in 1898 settled that question.
It seems that a few times a century the forces of racism, xenophobia, and jingoism rise up to question birthright citizenship. Trump and the Heritage Foundation are just the latest manifestations of that rot.
Exactly.
“In WKA the court explained … that under common law children born on US soil were citizens with the exceptions devolved from English common law.” (?) Can you explain that further?
As far as I’m concerned WKA was a bad SCOTUS ruling. This one should eventually be added to the more than 200 Supreme Court decisions that have been overturned
From the opinion in Wong Kim Ark:
The last sentence settles the argument once and for all.
Ike confirms what I have been saying about Birthers like Apuzzo for years. What they are really arguing is that Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided. You can ignore all the shit they throw out about de Vattel and Minor v Happersett. It’s just that, a total crock of shit. It all comes down to Wong Kim Ark. They do not like that it confers birthright citizenship on people that they do not like for various reasons.
They have invented derogatory terms like “anchor babies” to demean people who come to the US from sometimes horrific conditions in other countries seeking a better life and happen to have a child while here. I bet they have never applied such a term to a couple from Canada or Great Britain. I have certainly never heard the term used in that way.
Ike Sez: “You say the 1866 CRA doesn’t matter? There’s your main problem”
Yes I DO say that. I say that because it is obsolete, no longer in force, and has been superseded (at least the citizenship provisions) by the 14th Amendment. It is the 14th Amendment that counts now, not the CRA of 1866.
The debates are useful to explain context and why the drafters of the CRA and the 14th came to use the words they used and how the two provisions differ. Nothing more. The 14th Amendment is the law of the land – the CRA of 1866 is not.
But you have finally come to say something that is correct: the wording of the citizenship provisions in the CRA of 1866 means exactly the same thing as the wording of the citizenship provisions in the 14th Amendment (except that the CRA is silent on the subject of “Naturalized Citizens”). The wording of the two provisions differ only by their approach to defining the class of born citizens: the CRA EXCLUDES all those who are NOT NBC, the 14th INCLUDES all those who ARE NBC.
Ike: I didn’t think you knew what you were addressing on this issue and just making it up as you go on. That’s why I asked you for sources some time ago. This is for Birthright Citizenship in the country and what’s required. Obviously if one has naturalized they are a citizen.
We’re done here wasting time on this – you have nothing of value..
Ike keeps pretending the 14th Amendment reads differently than what it does in plain English. It does not say “not subject to the jurisdiction to another state”. The statement “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” is a positive and unqualified statement. Any alien on US soil who does not have diplomatic immunity is subject to the laws of the United States. It’s that simple.
It reminds me of the absurd intentional misreading of the dicta in Minor v Happersett that the Birthers have been engaged for over 11 years. It only requires about a third grade education level to figure out they are wrong.
It’s too bad RC that you’re one of those less fortunates that no matter how many times it’s explained you’ll never get it.
Quoting Hans von Spakovsky from an article above:
“The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.
Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.
But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.
The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.
This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.
As John Eastman, former dean of the Chapman School of Law, has said, many do not seem to understand “the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the territory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sovereign’s laws, and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.””
After Senator Howard proposed adding the citizenship clause to the 14th Amendment, Senator Conness of California said, “The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States.”
Senator Howard began his introduction to the citizenship clause by saying, “This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.”
So what was the “law of the land already”?
Earlier in the debates Senator Howard said this, “A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws.”
If Joe Biden picks Kamala Harris as his running mate, and I certainly think she would make a fine choice, that should bring the Birthers out of the woodwork like cockroaches.
Senator Duckworth is also in running. Born in Thailand to US citizen father and alien mother.
Senator Duckworth would also be a great choice.
Pingback: Let’s Talk About Nikki Haley | RC Radio Blog