Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

[Puppycow]

I like how they refer to him as "the almighty dictator". Hilarious stuff!

 

[A'isha]

Looks like Taitz may have a valid case this time.

No, she doesn't.

Seems that once upon a time the SCOTUS said that "natural born" means BOTH parents are citizens. Which B.O. admits his father was NOT.

No, they didn't. And if you think otherwise, perhaps you'd like to name the case?

At any rate, the Vattelist argument was part of the case made by the other two lawyers at the hearing in Georgia, not Taitz. Taitz is harping on the stupidity that is the claim that Obama's Hawaii-issued and Hawaii-verified birth certificate is a forgery.

And, Georgia has the rule that to be listed on the ballot, candidates have to meet the requirements of the office.

And if the Georgia court finds that, I'd think a lot of other states just might too.

You also thought that two completely fraudulent emails from three years ago were both valid and recent, so perhaps you might want to recognize that your judgment in these matters is somewhat less than reliable.

Interim President Joe in the wings?

Did you even read the replies in your other thread?

And Hillary just put in her notice that her leaving the State Department in imminent...

She's been talking about leaving her position as Secretary of State at the end of her current term for two years now.

Politics is sure entertaining.

Not half as entertaining as your Epic Fail about it.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Oh, FFS. Are people still on about this crap?

People are still on about FDR's allegedly LIHOPing Pearl Harbor.

 

[SpitfireIX]

If that's what the founders meant, that's what they would have written, e.g. "...must be born of two United States citizens."

Not necessarily.

Given that it would have disqualified several American Presidents who were born of English subjects, I don't think that's what they meant.

Incorrect. They were all grandfathered in.

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

 

[casebro]

This all from an email citing "Graig Andresen" (sp?)

The email, a full page or two, seems to be written as if a reporter was in court, things like "then so-and-so said..." Seems to be pretty verbatim of coverage of a court preceding.

"Testimony regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen is given citing Minor vs Happersett opinion from a Supreme Court written opinion from 1875. " Why that case made it to the SCOTUS makes me wonder, because so far as I know "natural born citizen" is only a requirement for Pres. Not no other post, elected or appointed, or top secret security.

Folks, this point is different than the usual Birther stuff. This is NOT about birthplace. It is about the SCOTUS definition of the qualification for President.

I can cut and paste the whole email, if forum rules permit? It credits an author, but no credentials, E.I., particular journal.

The link above seems similar, though not as blow-by-blow of the whole court proceeding.

 

[Moss]

This bloke?

 

[Upchurch]

Folks, this point is different than the usual Birther stuff. This is NOT about birthplace. It is about the SCOTUS definition of the qualification for President.

That is the usual birther stuff. You're arguing that Obama doesn't meet the qualifications to be President when he does. Old news. Let it go.

 

[Babbylonian]

Not necessarily.

Why not? It would have so easy to write - clear, concise...

Instead they used the words "natural born citizen" which would seem obviously to be in contrast to a "naturalized citizen." The first is someone who obtains citizenship by either being born to a US citizen and the second is someone who becomes a citizen through legal means established by Congress.

From the 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.

There's the distinction.

It's also possible to be a citizen from birth (IOW, "naturalization" would be unnecessary) if born to a US citizen in another country, though those rules are more complicated and vary whether the US citizen parent is the mother or the father. For example, under US law (paragraph c), President Obama would have been considered a US citizen whether he had been born to his mother (a US citizen) in Hawaii or Kenya or the Principality of Monaco.

Man, it's weird being back in the conspiracy theory section. I think I need to get out of here before I need a good brainwashing.

 

[casebro]

Upchurch, so far as I know, all other arguments were regarding birth place.

This is the first case to mention "Minor vs Happersett", requiring both parents to be citizens.

Not a BIG CONSPIRACY, but seems to be a report of a court hearing.

Why don't some of you go read up on "Minor vs Happersett" ? I will.

 

[Pup]

Actually, it looks like the judge specifically said he wasn't going to rule whether children of non-citizen parents, born on U.S. soil, were citizens, because it didn't matter for this particular case (which was about the rights of women to vote).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html

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. 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.

 

[A'isha]

This all from an email citing "Graig Andresen" (sp?)

The email, a full page or two, seems to be written as if a reporter was in court, things like "then so-and-so said..." Seems to be pretty verbatim of coverage of a court preceding.

What court proceeding?

"Testimony regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen is given citing Minor vs Happersett opinion from a Supreme Court written opinion from 1875. " Why that case made it to the SCOTUS makes me wonder, because so far as I know "natural born citizen" is only a requirement for Pres. Not no other post, elected or appointed, or top secret security.

Something which Minor v Happersett explicitly punted on, and therefore cannot be cited as any kind of definitive ruling or decision about what the Supreme Court thought of the citizenship status of someone born in the US to one or more noncitizen parents.

To wit:

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.

(And on edit, I see that Pup beat me to the excerpt)

The entire case was about a woman, Virginia Minor, suing to be allowed the right to vote before women were legally allowed to vote, because she asserted that as a citizen under the 14th Amendment, she had all the "privileges and immunities" of such a citizen, including the right to vote.

The case had absolutely zip to do with who counted as a "natural born citizen" and who didn't, nor did it have anything to do with qualifications for the presidency.

Folks, this point is different than the usual Birther stuff. This is NOT about birthplace.

Actually, it's exactly the usual Birther stuff. Minor has been misread and twisted by Birthers for years...this isn't anything new.

It is about the SCOTUS definition of the qualification for President.

Which, as noted above, Minor doesn't say a damned thing about.

I can cut and paste the whole email, if forum rules permit? It credits an author, but no credentials, E.I., particular journal.

And so instead of realizing that's suspicious and wanting to research some more about it, you instead come here wanting to cut-and-paste the text of it as if it means something dramatic, new, and earthshattering?

 

[NotJesus]

Upchurch, so far as I know, all other arguments were regarding birth place.

Then what you know is wrong.

Not a BIG CONSPIRACY, but seems to be a report of a court hearing.

I got an email that seems to be from a girl who wants to date me. I'm not going to follow up on that either.

Why don't some of you go read up on "Minor vs Happersett" ? I will.

Feel free to join the rest of us in 2012 when you're done.

 

[Pup]

(And on edit, I see that Pup beat me to the excerpt)

If two of us can come up with the ruling, by doing the amazing task of googling Minor v Happersett, and quote the same relevant passage by coincidence, it makes one wonder why the OP couldn't do the same.

 

[casebro]

Link: < http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress...utional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/ >

While it is a discussion blog, he did go back and edit some fallacies out.

"It is incorrect to state that Mrs. Minor lost the case entirely. This is not true. The US Supreme Court did not hold that the Constitution granted voting rights to men while denying such rights to women. The Court in Minor held that the Constitution did not grant anybody a right to vote, man or woman.

But in doing so, the US Supreme Court first had to determine if Mrs. Minor was a US citizen. The Court’s holding states that she was a US citizen because she was born in the US to parents who were citizens."

So, that logic should be pretty easy to follow.

Whether Georgia courts, or any other, decide that it is pertinent is something worthy of discussion. Probably by Constitutional Scholars.

But the reason I posted it initially was that I thought it was news that a court was actually considering a Birther suit.

If the court upholds the argument, then the whole concept of "Birther C T" goes out the window, doesn't it? It's no Theory if it is found to be legal fact.

 

[Dunstan]

Why don't some of you go read up on "Minor vs Happersett" ? I will.

Yes, be sure to read this part:

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

Page 88 U. S. 168

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). Also note that the actual decided in Minor v. Happersett was that women did not have the right to vote under the federal Constitution, a holding that has been superseded by the Nineteenth Amendment.

So you've managed to cite a case that isn't good law on the one issue on which it was actually binding precedent at one point. Even by birther standards, that's impressive incompetence.

 

[leftysergeant]

If the court upholds the argument, then the whole concept of "Birther C T" goes out the window, doesn't it? It's no Theory if it is found to be legal fact.

Since Minor v Happerset did not state specificly which definition applies, we have to assume that the more liberal is stare dicisus and orly and her shrieking monkeys can go throw poo someplace else than in our courts.

 

[A'isha]

Link: < http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress....-born-citizen/ >

While it is a discussion blog, he did go back and edit some fallacies out.

That's Leo Donofrio's blog. All he has are fallacies.

He's been struggling (and repeatedly failing miserably) to pursue the Vattelist argument in the courts for years now.

But in doing so, the US Supreme Court first had to determine if Mrs. Minor was a US citizen. The Court’s holding states that she was a US citizen because she was born in the US to parents who were citizens."

So, that logic should be pretty easy to follow.

Not when the decision, as pointed out above, explicitly says it's not addressing any means of gaining citizenship but the one possessed by Virginia Minor. So it can't be used as a basis for determining anything about those other means of obtaining citizenship.

The logic of that should be pretty easy for you to follow.

But the reason I posted it initially was that I thought it was news that a court was actually considering a Birther suit.

If the court upholds the argument, then the whole concept of "Birther C T" goes out the window, doesn't it? It's no Theory if it is found to be legal fact.

If you're talking about the case in Georgia, it's not a "court". It's an administrative hearing held before an administrative judge. And the only "ruling" that the judge can issue is a completely non-binding recommendation to the Georgia Secretary of State about whether Obama should be on the ballot for the Democratic primary in that state.

 

[leftysergeant]

I googled Donofrio.

Sakrament noch Mal!

 

[tsig]

This all from an email citing "Graig Andresen" (sp?)

The email, a full page or two, seems to be written as if a reporter was in court, things like "then so-and-so said..." Seems to be pretty verbatim of coverage of a court preceding.

"Testimony regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen is given citing Minor vs Happersett opinion from a Supreme Court written opinion from 1875. " Why that case made it to the SCOTUS makes me wonder, because so far as I know "natural born citizen" is only a requirement for Pres. Not no other post, elected or appointed, or top secret security.

Folks, this point is different than the usual Birther stuff. This is NOT about birthplace. It is about the SCOTUS definition of the qualification for President.

I can cut and paste the whole email, if forum rules permit? It credits an author, but no credentials, E.I., particular journal.

The link above seems similar, though not as blow-by-blow of the whole court proceeding.

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), was a United States Supreme Court case appealed from the Supreme Court of Missouri concerning the Missouri law that said, "Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote."
Virginia Minor, a leader of the women's suffrage movement in Missouri, alleged that the refusal of Reese Happersett, a Missouri state registrar, to allow her to register to vote was an infringement of her civil rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Contents [hide]
1 Decision
2 Subsequent history
3 See also
4 References
5 Further reading
6 External links
[edit]Decision

The Supreme Court of the United States, on appeal from The Supreme Court of Missouri, upheld the Missouri voting legislation, saying that the limitation of suffrage to male citizens was not an infringement of Minor's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The opinion first asked whether Minor was a citizen of the United States, and answered that she was, citing both the Fourteenth Amendment and earlier common law. It then asked whether the right to vote was one of the "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" at the time of that Amendment's adoption in 1868. Citing a variety of historical sources, it found that it was not.



ETA: horse, beating, dead.

 

[Upchurch]

Upchurch, so far as I know, all other arguments were regarding birth place.

Nope. The claim that both parents had to be citizens has been floated. The claim that his mother was too young has been floated. The claim that Hawaii hadn't been a state long enough has been floated.

I've seen all of these and I'm not even following the issue all that closely anymore.

At this point, there is nothing new under the sun. It's all been tried and it's all failed. Let it go. The man is legally President. Neither he nor anyone else had done anything improper in putting him on the ballot.